“Religion should not be a political argument.� -Gerard Biard
Ar twork by Leonardo Pamei
From the Editor’s Desk Being appointed as Editor-in-Chief of the DSIR taught me what true responsibility is. This statement may seem hyperbolic; how can one role define responsibility for a person? Given the extensive readership and reputation of the magazine, or rather, the immense shoes I have been asked to fill, I beg to differ. Everything I do, every decision I make, defines the success of the magazine. At times, I compare it to the burden of Atlas, before coming to my senses and getting back to work. The first decision to be made is the theme. I enjoy the distinct pleasure of defining an umbrella, under which a group of literati, movie critics, and music lovers write on whatever seizes their fancy. To me, the theme should be more than just an era, or an arbitrary choice of topic; it must mean something. Today, it is politics. Being politically aware is imperative in a democracy, especially one the size of India. Politics affect every sphere of life. Quoting Gerard Biard, the Editor-in-Chief of Charlie Hebdo, “Religion should not be a political argument.” In an intrinsically religiously linked country such as ours, this statement rings with indisputable truth. The second decision to be made is regarding the contributions. Finding talented writers in Doon is an easy enough task. The difficult part is finding those with enough Time. Time is indeed a fickle fiend, especially when it comes to non-essential co-curricular activities such as writing for a friend’s magazine. As always, last minute scrambling to achieve the 700-word baseline is prevalent. After extensive cajoling, coercion, and crucifixion where necessary, the articles are neatly submitted and subsequently edited. The third decision is perhaps the most influential. The Cover. As I’m sure everyone who has ever been involved in a magazine would know, the first draft of the cover looks nothing like the final draft. What looked like Picasso’s handicraft at 3 AM, after hours of toil, often resembles a remarkably talented chicken’s doodles after adequate sleep. What pleases your ever-supportive roommate may be nothing spectacular to the disinterested layman. These growing pains are usually sorted out by the end of April, which brings us to May. May is the month of distribution. At the end of the month, when the entire school is retreating into hibernation after Trials, the entire Editorial Board comes together to watch the magazine fly from Mr Makhija’s office to the various House tables. A collective bead of sweat is wiped off each member’s brow, for rest is at hand; Atlas can finally shrug off his burden. On this note, we present to you the fruit of 4 months of sporadically intense labour: the Spring Issue of The Doon School Information Review. I wish you happy reading.
LITERATURE
A
9-11 Anvay Grover writes on Noam Chomsky’s collection of essays and speeches.
Dude, where’s my country?
Aryan Chhabra looks at Michael Moore’s satirical analysis of corporate and political events in the United States.
2
Maus
3
Arjun Singh reviews Art Spiegelman’s Holocaust-centric graphic novel.
The Accidental Prime Minister
Pulkit Agarwal (ex 635-H) critiques Sanjaya Baru’s memoir from his days as ex-PM Manmohan Singh’s media advisor.
4
Wolf Hall
5
Mr Shrey Nagalia reviews Hilary Mantel’s Booker winning novel set in the court of Henry VIII.
MOVIES & TV
House of Cards
Pulkit Agarwal (ex 635-H) and Chaitanya Kediyal review one of the few series that provide an honest look at the inner workings of American politics.
The Thick of It
9
Madhav Singhal reviews a satire on the inner workings of modern British government.
7
Haider
Chaitanya Kediyal analyzes a Bollywood adaptation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, set in Kashmir.
10
Blackadder
11
Yash Dhandhania looks at Rowan Atkinson before the world knew him as Mr Bean.
Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro
Mrs Priyanka Bhattacharyya explores the dark side of real estate.
12
Argo
13
Aditya Bhardwaj delves into the world of 1979 during the time of the Iranian Revolution.
Homeland
Exploring the world of the CIA and terrorism in the Middle East, Shlok Jain writes on this winner of 2 Golden Globes.
14
MUSIC
Bruce Springsteen
15 Madhav Singhal writes a tribute to one of the pioneers of modern rock. Stevie Wonder
Showing the world that disability is no obstacle to achieving ones goals, Dhruv Johri sheds light on the life of a member of the 27 club.
Jimi Hendrix
17
Analyzing the foundations of genre of psychedelic rock, Dhruv Johri remembers the life and works of one of the most influential electric guitarists in history.
16
“Everybody is worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way to stop it: stop participating in it.” -Noam Chomsky
The book titled 9-11 is a compilation of interviews of American linguist, philosopher and political scientist, Noam Chomsky. All these interviews were taken in the aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. As most readers will be aware, this terrorist attack caused major repercussions on the global political scene. Chomsky answers media from all across Europe and America, using his in-depth knowledge of political systems to reveal to the readers and to the world press the nuances of the attack. Immediately following the September 11 attacks, the United States was flooded with feelings of vengeance and hatred. People were blinded by what had happened, and understandably so. It is at this time that Chomsky gave this particular set of interviews. Through his answers, he shows how the United States almost brought this attack upon itself. Due to its extremely successful propaganda, the USA has been able to create an image of a beacon of democracy and liberalism the world over. But what Chomsky talks about is how the United States is one of the leading terrorist nations in the world. He gives the prominent example of the USA’s bombing of Nicaragua’s facilities and naval vessels. Following this bombing, Nicaragua had sued the USA in the International Court of Justice. After the ICJ ruled in Nicaragua’s favour, the USA lashed out against the judgement and further intensified its terrorist activities in Nicaragua. Nicaragua then proceeded to take the matter to the Security Council, where the USA vetoed the resolution calling on all nations to ‘observe international law’. Through his knowledge of past political events, such as the one mentioned, Chomsky throws light on the ‘anti-American’ sentiment harboured by many Middle-Eastern nations. Essentially he reveals the hypocrisy of the American government, by showing how the government has endorsed terrorism for decades. Another important matter that Chomsky talks about is the interventionist policy of the US government. The ‘humanitarian interventions’ under the pretence of which the US mobilizes troops is heavily criticized by him. So are the subsequent violations of law by the government. The interviews, hence, become a kind of continuous criticism of US foreign policy. This book is not an oblique political satire by any means; Chomsky delivers his argument with simplicity and then re-enforces it with multiple examples. However, he is also not merely ranting against his own government, but also suggesting what could be done at this stage. Chomsky endorses observance of international law and protocol. Here too he gives the example of the Nicaragua vs. United States case, saying that the US should respond in the manner Nicaragua responded, by going up to the world judiciary and then to the Security Council. What is more important, he argues, is not getting back at whoever was responsible for the attacks, but understanding why that particular person or organization chose to do it. One of the best features of the book is the succinct nature of Chomsky’s responses. Not also does his simplicity allow him access to a wider audience, but it also brings more force into his argument. Everyone should be able to clearly understand his message in the book. A word for future readers: even if Chomsky’s examples are not current (the book was first published in 2001), the book still allows for a deep understanding of one of the most intriguing and horrifying events of the 21st Century. Chomsky touches on multiple issues, like 9-11’s impact on India and Pakistan, with a skill that hardly anyone can emulate, making 9-11 a short and interesting read.
ANVAY GROVER
DSIR ‘15
A
“If you have purchased this book we are required to notify you per Section 29A of the USA Patriot Act that your name has been entered into a database of potential suspects. It’s too late! You don’t have any rights! You no longer exist!” Written with the same satirical and incisive style as the quote above, Michael Moore’s book Dude, where’s my country? not only provides us with a good laugh but also makes the reader drop the book in disbelief to try to reassure himself that the world is not the same as is presented in the plot. Published in 2003, this book is aimed at the citizens of the United States. However, with its uncanny humor, unique plot and astounding facts the book manages to grip anyone who endures to hold it. The author from the beginning touches on the issue of September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington and delivers each surprise, that is each shortcoming of the Bush government to stop the terrorist attacks in the form of a ‘Whopper’(yes, the kind that is served in a Burger King). He writes that these attacks were used by Bush as a ‘convenient cover, justification, for permanently altering our American way of life.’ Moore repeats this theme throughout the book, going on to add that Bush’s ‘band of deceivers,’ as he dubs them, used the attacks as the excuse for every wrongful act the American state has committed over the past two years. The book along with making us familiar to the secret connection between Bush and Osama bin Laden also illustrates the idiosyncrasies of the Bush government. Moore lists the erosion of liberty with enough precision to make objections to his flippancy seem footling (and based on straightforward political hostility). And if he does sound flippant at times - that conversational, angry, talk-show host tone - then, it’s about time this fluency was adopted by people who would guard our rights rather than scoff at them or regard them as expendable. Further, this book displays proof of the statement “If you repeat a lie long enough and often enough, it becomes the truth.” This statement refers to George W. Bush who, during the Iraq war of 1979, tried to keep the hoax alive that Iraq was buying yellow cake uranium by showing documents that carried the signature of the nonexistent Foreign Minister of Niger. This book is also packed with pointed and questions that remain unanswered. Why was Bush protecting the Second Amendment rights of potential terrorists? What was the special relationship between Bush and the Saudi royal family? It is not solely the shocking details presented by the author that catch the reader’s eye. It is also the manner in which it these are presented. Even the most excruciating details are presented with unmatched humor that makes you eagerly flip to the next page, even if you are not a fan of US politics. Moore has also used this book to depict the peculiarity in right wingers. His portrayal of some of the absurd policies and rigid governance is baffling to say the least and makes us question the purpose of right wing politics. The book is a must read not only for the admirers of political satire but for everyone who is concerned about their country and is willing to help cause a change for the better.
ARYAN CHHABRA
DSIR ‘15
2
The Jewish Holocaust is a well-documented topic. When one thinks of a book on the same, a few things come to mind – gas chambers, concentration camps, and in general: suffering. Because of its frequency in our syllabus and the media, we often forget to properly remember the incident for its monstrous impact on the world thereafter. Ironically, Maus is a graphic novel with the same elements described above. Yet, it is one which succinctly captures the complex relationship of human emotion and history, portraying them both a stirring but vivid chronicle. A true story, Maus follows the tale of Vladek Spiegelman, an affluent Polish Jew, who is forced from a comfortable life into the great melting pot of World War II. What follows, is a veritable epic: his tale starting a soldier, to him later alternating between momentary freedom and captivity, evading the SS in between. It ends with him finally being held by the Nazis in the ghettos, and later at Auschwitz, to his liberation. Throughout this saga, his proximity to close family and friends is shown as he traverses a dangerous yet dramatic path. Occasionally, he is united with his wife Anja and other (now-turned-stranger) acquaintances of years prior to the war. His life’s emotions are critically catalogueddepicting the struggles of war parallel with his reaping of temporary spoils. The reader is therefore constantly perplexed in his assessment of Vladek; for Maus portrays him as an individual who’s struggling yet privileged; dehumanized, yet somehow human - the antithesis rousing constant interest and addiction that Maus incites. What makes Maus different from any other clichéd story about the Holocaust is its uniquely apathetic portrayal of the grave psychological forces in play during the war. Through its palettes, it has made subtle the forces of cruelty and anti-Semitism - the gravity of which aren’t fully realized by the reader. Whilst reading the book, one is able to merely contemplate these horrendous aspects of human relationship; always having a partial understanding of the story’s gravity. This ingenious technique is one which is neither rococo, yet never fails to keep the reader on edge. The most admirable aspect of the book however, is its salient use of comparison. This tool, often described as the best tool for imagery in prose, has been taken a step further by Art Spiegelman - to the cartoons! In view of Nazi propaganda associating Jews with mice (hence the title Maus), other ethnic groups in the book have also been drawn as their animal metaphors; the Europeans being pigs, the German SS as cats, and the Americans as dogs. One can then imagine this fable-like Orwellian farm scene, where the cats chase the mice, only to have the dogs come in, chase the cats away and save the day; all this happening while the pigs remain as onlookers. Another key feature of Maus is its narrative style, where the story is told in flashbacks from the present. In between the flashbacks, there is blunt depiction of the character’s lives, where the author has portrayed them in sicut, or as they are. Vladek’s narration of the story has been inscribed verbatim - with his broken, Polish-accented English. Art, his son (and the author), openly illustrates his past mental illnesses and instances of conflict with his father while researching for the book. As an insert, a previously published comic of his mother’s suicide is included in the chronology; giving the reader insight into the psychology of both Vladek and Art. The marital problems of Vladek with his second wife Mala are also illustrated. (Even here, they’re all mice). The tool is crucial, for the war’s effect on Vladek is clearly shown; humanizing him in the process. The unequivocal boldness with which Art has so normally described his family life in relation to Vladek’s story is incredible, and a rarity in graphic novels. In this eclectic mix of human emotion with the period’s volatile socio-political conditions, Maus has successfully visualized the Holocaust; often described by many as being ‘unimaginable’ to those who didn’t experience it. Despite being toned by its cartoons, the severity of Maus has not been abridged in the text, making it understandable to a child equally as an adult. Though, because of its graphic form, Maus leaves no room for imagery and keeps the reader ferociously gripped to the book throughout its varying course – something often absent in historical literature. Nevertheless, Maus is a book suited for all - from the historian to the middle-schooler. It will surely keep you up all day and night, constantly anticipating the next twist or poignancy. What has made it a success though: are its bare metaphors. Art(hur) has, in Maus, redefined the art of character portrayal; for despite their ‘animal’ nature, he has shown them in the end, to all be terrifyingly human.
ARJUN SINGH
DSIR ‘15
3
“You see, you must understand one thing. I have come to terms with this. There cannot be two centres of power.” Upon seeing the name of this book as a part of the reading list for my Scholar’s Blazer interview, the Headmaster asked me if I thought this book should ever have been written to begin with. I replied that although it was disloyal of Sanjaya Baru to disclose the functioning of the PMO, especially its pitfalls at the time that Dr. Singh was in office, there was nothing about the book that qualified it as an act of treason. As the offices of Charlie Hebdo stood at the receiving end of a traumatising terrorist attack recently, the evergreen debate on freedom of speech took centre stage in the mainstream of social and political discourse. If I were to analyse the relevance of The Accidental Prime Minister in that backdrop, I must admit, it, as a concept, stands for everything that our society ought to uphold: for while the Indian National Congress may have desperately wanted this book to have released after the General Elections 2014, if at all, there is nothing they could, or should be able to do, to stop it. Moving on to the content of the book; I felt that anyone with an interest in the working of the public administration in this country would thoroughly enjoy the way in which Baru describes the essence of Raisina Hill. His vivid recounting of the structure of 7, Race Course Road, both physical and political, along with his description of how Dr. Singh, almost tragically admits at the beginning of the UPA-2 regime, “You see, you must understand one thing. I have come to terms with this. There cannot be two centres of power,” excites the reader in a way that no close account of any recent government in India can. In understanding this book, it is also important to consider the place that Baru held in Dr. Singh’s office. He admits that to begin with, he felt like an outsider to the office, where the National Security Advisor and the Principal Secretary seemed to call the shots. But over time, especially after Dr. Singh adroitly employs him to appoint his dear friend Montek Ahluwalia as the Deputy-Chairman of the Planning Commission (a part of the book that I personally relished, for Baru writes “One wily Sardar had secured the support of another wily Sardar to get a third one on board”) he starts to gain a foothold in the office — finding his place in Dr. Singh’s inner circle as it were. What captures the reader’s imagination above all else, is how Baru reinforces that which most political enthusiasts in this country always claimed to know: that Dr. Singh remained disempowered in his own cabinet. 10 Janpath looked over his shoulder in every matter, and that is in fact what led to Baru’s dismissal eventually as well. It is best summed up in the chapter A Victory Denied, wherein Baru expresses disenchantment at the manner in which the Congress refuses to allow Dr. Singh the opportunity to claim credit for his party’s victory in the 2009 elections. The reader’s heart goes out to him, for while he was the face on the ticket, he was forced to recede into the background so as to allow the ‘highcommand’ to take the limelight for the win. Even though the book may have not made any groundbreaking assertions, predictions, or disclosures, the reason it stands out is for it clarifies something that many in our nation have underestimated: Dr. Singh’s political dexterity. While he may not have been a master at standing up to authority openly, his expertise in practicing what Frank Underwood in House of Cards describes as the ‘soft touch’ was nonpareil. Also something I take away from this book, is a quote from Digvijaya Singh that Baru begins one of his chapters with: “I don’t know if he [Dr. Manmohan Singh] is an overrated economist, but I know he is an underrated politician.”
PULKIT AGARWAL
DSIR ‘15
4
“....the Tudor court, a place where fortune of birth held sway over natural talent, and where the rise and fall of fortune was as arbitrary as Henry’s attraction for women.” Like other writers of Historical fiction, Hilary Mantel, in her books Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies shows the intrigues and deceptions that were part and parcel of the Tudor courts. However, unlike them, she does so without any sinister dramatization. She creates no villains, or situations so dark and sinister that they assume an air of the fantastic. Whether it be people or events, Mantel’s genius lies in her ability to keep them coldly real and understandable. It is through this framework of writing that the reader is introduced to Thomas Cromwell, the historical figure on whose life the trilogy is based. While there exist various conjectures and debates as to the role played by Cromwell under Henry VIII, the fact remains that to be Chief Minister to one of England’s most powerful and self-willed monarchs, Cromwell must have been a man of many talents. What Hilary Mantel tries to do, apart from weaving the story of Cromwell’s life is to give the readers a feel of what it took to not just survive, but thrive in the Tudor court, a place where fortune of birth held sway over natural talent, and where the rise and fall of fortune was as arbitrary as Henry’s attraction for women. To a large extent, the novels showcase things as seen and understood by Thomas Cromwell. And because we have an unmitigated access to his perspective, we also get to know what sort of a person he is. The first novel Wolf Hall provides us with his background as he understands it – the son of a brutish blacksmith who survives his father and years abroad and in the process gains a very cold, pragmatic understanding of what it takes to get things done. Through the course of the two novels we see that Cromwell is just as comfortable coaxing as he is intimidating; he can either spare, or condemn in order to achieve the desired result, first for his patron-Cardinal Thomas Wolsey in Wolf Hall, and then Henry VIII in Bring Up The Bodies. Ironically, one of the best explanations of Cromwell’s character comes from his hard-hitting father who says – ‘My boy Thomas, give him a dirty look and he’ll gauge your eye out. Trip him, and he’ll cut off your leg. But if you don’t cut across him, he’s a very gentleman. And he’ll stand anybody a drink.’ In Wolf Hall, which is the history of England from 1527 to 1535, we see Cromwell walking an extremely slippery slope. England is in a state of uncertainty – the King needs a male heir and he has not been able to get one from his wife of more than twenty years – Katherine of Aragon. He not only wants to divorce her and marry Anne Boleyn, but has to do so against the express wishes of the Pope. The Cardinal, Thomas Wolsey has not been able to achieve the desired results and suffers a dramatic fall from grace. And right in the middle of this quagmire we find Thomas Cromwell. He ensures that his fortunes don’t follow those of his patron, the Cardinal, even though he genuinely loves the Cardinal and is fiercely loyal to him. Instead, Cromwell is able to chart a course for himself, navigating through the court and foreign politics to pave the way for the King’s marriage to Anne Boleyn. He uses all his skills to rise under the king, despite the attempts of powerful noble houses who are extremely discomforted by the rise of a blacksmith’s son. They fear Cromwell because they realize that he is not bound by anything – not by notions of blood or any false scruples that the nobility pretended to have. Even religion doesn’t come in the way of Cromwell’s success. If success under Henry VIII means breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church and placing the King as the head of the Church of England, well then that is exactly what Cromwell will do. And so he does. By the time we reach the end of Wolf Hall, Thomas Cromwell has risen from the cobbled streets of Putney to the courts of Henry VIII, as his Master Secretary, second only to the King in terms of power and sway.
MR SHREY NAGALIA
The sequel, Bring Up the Bodies covers a relatively smaller period of time – from 1535 to 1536. Yet, there is absolutely no let off in terms of the intensity of court politics or the precarious situation in which England and Thomas Cromwell find themselves. Cromwell is the Chief Minister, and thus under greater pressures to keep England safe and the King happy. Anne Boleyn, for whom the King had dared to break away from the Roman Catholic Church, has failed to produce a male heir, and the king is fast losing interest. The silent and meek Jane Seymour now captivates him. Cromwell seems to have premonitory understanding of what this new love interest entails- for Anne Boleyn, for members of the court, for some noble houses, for England, and for him. As if Wolf Hall didn’t do so with surgical precision, Bring Up The Bodies goes a step further in showing the true underbelly of events, the sordid complexities that truly characterize an event rather than any false sense of grandeur. Rumours and slanders are shown to be a very dangerous reality, even for Anne Boleyn, and Cromwell uses all his skills to blur the lines between what is true and what is said to be true. As mentioned, Mantel has tried to give a very plausible feel to characters and events. So while we traverse events that were grand and extremely significant, such as Henry breaking away from the Church, marrying Anne Boleyn only to have her executed later, or even the rapid rise of Thomas Cromwell, we are also made to see the sordid realities and complexities of such events, thus divesting them of any grandeur. We see them through the eyes of Cromwell, who himself is shown to be a very real human being. His background that Mantel provides, the loss of his family, Cromwell’s dealings with petty, pompous courtiers as well as with those close to him all serve to humanize him in front of the readers. He is a man whose motives and actions are defined by the realities that surround him, thus making it difficult for us to judge what he does or says. As readers, we simply go along with Cromwell, as if we were observing someone very close to us. We observe his rise in Wolf Hall, we observe his power in Bring Up The Bodies, and now we can only wait for The Mirror and the Light, the last novel in the trilogy, and we can only hope that Mantel gives Cromwell a better end than History.
A still from the BBC adaptation
DSIR ‘15
6
PULKIT AGARWAL Cold. Conniving. Heartless. Frank Underwood. No other show in recent times, none at least that has gathered so much viewership, has ever come close to portraying the dark side of American politics as well as House of Cards. Right from its pithy, powerful dialogues, to its screenplay that engages the audience by its sheer dynamism, HoC stands out as a remarkable depiction of Washington. Francis J. Underwood, or ‘Frank’ as he is known to all, is no hero, and yet he has captured the imagination of millions of followers. His “ruthless pragmatism,” coupled with an unparalleled ability to build consensus, sees him as the man whose job is “to clean the pipes and keep the sludge moving” under the Walker administration. But after being denied the opportunity to take office as the Secretary of State, Frank, along with his wife Claire, embarks upon a long journey to seek revenge. In so doing, the series takes the viewers into the world of the Underwoods, where there is no place for mercy; “There is but one rule: hunt or be hunted.” We have been pondering over this question for a while now, ‘Why is House of Cards so different from other series?’ To begin with, HoC takes us right into the heart of Washington…The Capitol, The White House, The West Wing, and most of all, The Oval. There is simply no beating around the bush. None. This terse visual depiction is complemented well by the Underwoods’ utter brutality, for they seldom hesitate from inflicting harm, something they quite conveniently refer to as ‘relieving the pain.’ Furthermore, the reason for HoC’s following is not that it is similar to reality, but because it is perhaps darker than reality itself. For instance, the almost-impeachment of President Walker, orchestrated by his own secondin-command in the West Wing, is hardly a possibility. In reality, one would expect loyalty within the administration, something to the effect that is depicted in Aaron Sorkin’s political drama The West Wing, but if that were the case, HoC would not be as riveting as it is. Many a time in the series, one even wonders how Frank and Claire can sleep at night. While Claire starts to crack and allows her conscience to take over, especially in the third season wherein she is responsible for single-handedly botching a summit at the Kremlin in order to uphold her ideals, Frank’s resolve is second to none. He is seen as an unwavering, unyielding and dominant force through the series, so much so, that even when he is struggling politically, he seems to be in control of the affairs in the Senate, which he claims to know like the back of his hand. But when the two are together, they form a combine that can destroy any force in their way: right from the photographer Adam Galloway, to the billionaire Raymond Tusk, no one escapes the wrath of the Underwoods. To be fair, the Underwoods are not incapable of humane emotion. Anyone who has followed the series closely would know that they love each other, as Frank ever-so-poetically puts it, “I love that woman. I love her more
CHAITANYA KEDIYAL
than sharks love blood.” A recurring ambiguity, however, remains whether their marriage is actually a bond of true love and affection, or simply a partnership in their quest for power. Boundaries continue to blur with the surfacing of their extra-marital affairs, but the very fact that they can discuss them openly with one another, shows that their mutual trust surpasses lust. It isn’t until Season 3 that their marriage takes centre stage. Clearly, the ticket to the White House comes at a cost; and that cost for the Underwoods is the impeccable arrangement that is their marriage. Another feature of HoC that particularly appeals to the viewer, is how the periphery of the show is so well-covered. Right from the smaller roles of fierce journalists, Zoe Barnes and Ayla Sayyad, the Chiefs of Staff, Doug Stamper and Linda Vasquez, to the ever-hospitable ‘Freddie,’ HoC gives everyone a story. We get to explore the anxieties, the troubles and the fears of all the characters, but even so, just when one feels acquainted well enough with the individual, the show throws something unexpected, and proves that no character in the realm of HoC is ever predictable: no one would have expected Doug’s obsession with Rachel Posner to end the way it finally does; no one would have expected the relentless Marty Spinella to crack under pressure from Frank; and no one would have expected Claire to break down in Moscow. The nexus between the corporates and the politicians, well-supported by lobbyists through the show, is another feature of HoC that enhances its verisimilitude. We are given to understand that the Presidency is not won or lost during a debate on CNN, but rather during discreet ‘backchanneling’ negotiations. Likewise, the Underwoods’ ruthless lack of mercy is not exposed during campaigning, wherein everything is hidden behind the smiles and handshakes, but rather during the closed-door meetings in the West Wing. Ultimately, the show epitomises all that politics stands for. It takes us through the lowest of the human spirit — murder, treachery and deceit — and yet it has something refined about it that underlines the immorality. After all, that is what politics is about, isn’t it? The ability to, as Underwood would say, “Shake with your right hand but hold a rock with your left.” So does House of Cards do justice to arguably the greatest, oldest constitutional democracy in the world? Does its portrayal of the realpolitik give the viewer an actual understanding of the way things work in Washington? Well, the obvious answer, especially coming from two die-hard HoC fans, is a resounding Yes! In fact, the show goes one step further, for it isn’t merely drama, it is a way of life. Cut-throat. Dirty. Disgusting. And yet, you just can’t get enough.
8
A political satire on the British Parliament, The Thick of It captures each and every nuance in a politician’s life and that too, rather too honestly. It shows how leaders do anything and everything maintain their image in the media. The show is quite aptly described by the creator Armando Iannucci: “Yes, Minister meets Larry Sanders”. The political setting and the everstressful atmosphere are reminders of the former while the inescapable shrapnel of comedy (mostly swear-words and spit) in the show make the viewer explode into laughter the same way the latter does. To some extent, even similarities, in terms of screenplay and directory techniques, with The Office are observed. The Thick of It is best known for its striking instances of coincidence with the real world. It has successfully predicted legislative actions in the past and prophesizes decisions and resignations of the future. The plot of cutting the funding for breakfast clubs in schools in Britain, was alarmingly realized when the decision was taken in reality by the British Parliament and the funding for more than 20,000 schools was cut down. Although the characters are not intended to represent people in real life, their actions do remind us of certain individuals in real life. Even Iannucci admits, the character of Malcolm Tucker was based on Alastair Campbell, a political strategist. Malcolm Tucker, played by Peter Capaldi, is the not-so-clean soul of the show. Officially the Director of Communications in name only, he is ‘the spin-doctor’, who, true to his sobriquet sends the whole polity into a spin with unmatched RPM. With bitter-sweet words and an extremely imposing personality, Malcolm manages each and every constitutional crisis (something our Indian Ministers usually fail at). Often these in the course of these processes numerous unparliamentary actions are taken which give a whole new meaning to the term ‘dirty-politics’ The whole series revolves around Malcom’s solutions to various tribulations faced by the members of the British Parliament and his attempts to maintain to control over various MP’s such as Hugh Abbot (Chris Langham) and Nicole Murray (Rebecca Front). This is often (okay, always) accompanied by adding troubles to the ministers’ staff Glenn Cullen (James Smith), Oliver Reeder (Chris Addison), and the ever-honest Terri Coverley (Joanna Scanlan). All of this is accompanied by the fact that Tucker has to save his position as well. The series follows a pseudo documentary style with the pre-conference, conference and post conference drama mainly constituting the screen time. Something which is highly commendable is the on-camera improvisation of dialogues around the written script which adds to the impact of the show by making it seem more real. One not familiar with the British political system and polity as a whole, often gets lost while watching this series, guided only by dry humour, scatological references and homophonic swearing. Therefore, the scope of appreciation is limited. Certain excerpts do make sense individually but fail to create an impression as a whole. However, Iannucci has surely succeeded in honestly depicting a legislator’s life. The show gives us more reasons, and reinforces the ones we already have, to scorn our politicians and loathe them. The trickery put to use by the politicians and irresponsible attitudes increase our distrust towards them. Even then, personally, the series succeeds in invoking a sense of sympathy towards them. The series forces the viewer to acknowledge the various ‘flip-flops’ tackled by these individuals. Making impromptu speeches to justify their actions and then getting turned into mince-meat in various cross examinations is something they go through every day. Throughout the series I can sense the desire for respect in these people and on further thought, have been able to observe it our Indian MP’s as well. They are merely puppets in the hands of higher authorities or circumstances, but still are answerable to everyone. Many a time they have to sacrifice their character and belief just for what is feasible. Over all this, they strive to protect their honour which is perhaps most important to them. Even when Malcolm Tucker fails, squiggling in his seat, all he says is, “I just want my dignity”. Seeing a man like Tucker say this only makes it more believable. The Thick of It is a show worth watching for all interested in the world of offices and paper work and for those just want to have a laugh at flummoxed ministers struggling to understand the fact that ‘should’ means ‘yes’. Even if they don’t we do understand one fact for sure - one angry, clever monster can make most laugh and some cry.
MADHAV SINGHAL
DSIR ‘15
9
It is a rare occasion to come across a movie, especially in India, which captures its audience with its bold themes and splendid acting. Haider is one such film. Set in the Kashmir conflicts of 1995, this movie bears resemblance to the famous Shakespearean play Hamlet. The movie is directed by Vishal Bhardwaj, whose previous movies too have had close links with different Shakespearean plays such as Othello and Macbeth. However, Haider is probably his masterpiece because it portrays the life and culture of Kashmir effortlessly, a task which is not easy to accomplish. Unlike the other movies in which Shahid Kapoor has worked, Haider isn’t about entertaining the masses. It is dark and dramatic, leaving the audience awestruck and at times confused. The film shows the nuances of life in Kashmir, it leaves behind the clichés, and works towards enlightening the people of India, and potentially the world at large. The story revolves around Haider (Shahid Kapoor) a student and poet in Aligarh, whose parents live in Kashmir. When he returns home he finds out that his father (a doctor) has been detained by the army for treating the terrorists. Thus he sets out to find him, visiting various detention facilities and prisons. Haider learns that his father was arrested because of his uncle Khurram, who acted as an informant and turned in his own brother, because he wanted to marry Haider’s mother, Ghazala. Haider goes mad with rage, and seeks revenge for his father. On numerous occasions, he tries murdering Khurram. The movie is thus about Haider’s struggle in Kashmir, his attempts to find his father, and in the end, his struggle against his uncle. The movie is filled with gory scenes and violence, which are a part of life for people living in the valley. A great deal of the story revolves around the insurgency and disappearance of people, which was ubiquitous at the time. The presence of the army, and its authoritarian rule over the people was made clear. At the same time separatist ideologies were depicted, and the struggle which is ever-present in Kashmir was shown. The movie shows the autonomy of the army and the police, the citizenry has been marginalized and lost its voice. The people are subjected to wanton violence, and there is an obvious violation of various human rights. The movie questions the system, its relevance and whether it even serves the people, thus themes of rebellion, separatism and instability reappear. Kashmir, has always been a fragile topic, and during the 1995 this notion was at its peak. Terror was widespread and thousands of Muslims disappeared, even those who were innocent and not involved in the separatist movement. The concept of a ‘half widow’ has been emboldened over the course of the movie, and so has the story of people disappearing, never to be heard of again. The film shows how the people of Kashmir are suffering on a daily basis and how it is necessary for the nation to come together to solve this conflict. The nation has to be awakened about this growing issue, and the movie does exactly that. Another important axis of the story is its ties to the Shakespearean play Hamlet. Many of the characters in the movie such as Haider, Ghazala, Khurram and Arshia are based on Prince Hamlet, Gertrude, Claudius and Ophelia respectively. However most of the roles depicting the army present in Kashmir are fictitious. Some concepts which are common between the two are Ghazala (Gertrude) cheating on her husband with Khurram (Claudius), Haider’s (Hamlet’s) famous monologue on seeing the skull, and the unforgettable ‘To be or not to be’. The makers of the movie have taken great care in ensuring that the storyline of the movie is similar to that of the play. However, new concepts of the story is introduced when it is placed in the Kashmir valley, certain sub-plots develop in the film which are original. This too is necessary because it gives the film a sense of individuality and makes it unique. Ultimately the movie is a combination of the evergreen Shakespeare, the ingenuity of Vishal Bhardwaj, and the classic portrayal of a Kashmir ridden with conflict and struggle. This critique recommends all those who haven’t already seen this movie to do so. Hopefully the movie will move the reader the same way it has moved millions, and movies like this will continue in Bollywood. It is movies like this which impact society, and help in moving people beyond clichés and prejudice to understand realities in different regions and make people understanding and united.
CHAITANYA KEDIYAL
DSIR ‘15
10
If you’ve ever wondered what Rowan Atkinson was before Mr. Bean or what Hugh Laurie was before House MD, you’ll find that the answer to both those questions is the British sitcom, Blackadder. Securing the 16th position in the list of ‘100 Greatest British Television Programmes’, the show definitely deserved all the acclaim it received. Spread over four generations of the Blackadder lineage, played by Rowan Atkinson, each in its own season, the show stretches right from the British Middle Ages to the First World War. The show begins presenting an alternate history to the times, Richard the Third wins the Battle of Bosworth Field only to be mistaken for someone else and killed while walking off the field. Richard IV takes the crown and what ensue are the comic endeavours of his bungling son, Blackadder, to prove himself to his father. The second season, progresses to the great grandson of Price Edmund, Blackadder, Lord Edmund, Blackadder, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I in the second half of the 16th century. Waited on by Baldrick, played by Tony Robinson, the descendant of the attendant to the previous Blackadder, Blackadder’s character takes a turn for the better with the advent of this season and is, contrastingly, witty and prudent. This character is the more familiar version of Blackadder that follows in the subsequent seasons of the show, albeit in the avatar of his descendants. The third and fourth seasons are set in the British Regency era, 18th and 19th centuries, and the early 20th century, during the First World War similarly, however, this article will simply address the first two seasons. Even though the first season of the show did build up a substantial fan base for the show, the humour in the show was primarily slapstick, owing to Blackadder’s sheer stupidity and the king’s character, a barbaric drunk. The knowledge of the times and norms and the historical references which were made, weren’t done justice by the little subtle humour which was a part of the script. It was very ambitious and didn’t do justice to the large cast and constant change in the shooting locations. In fact, Blackadder’s character is very similar to the character Rowan Atkinson will go on to play, Mr. Bean, though some references and scenes qualify the show as unfit for the audience the latter caters to. The other characters, particularly Percy played by Tim McInnerny, is another character added to create a similar effect of a stupid leach always full of nonsensical wisdoms. The acting catered to the script, but the script in itself lacked the humour typical of a British sitcom. However, the show, much like Blackadder’s character, who despite a fall in prestige, takes a turn for the better, also took a turn for the better, despite a fall in the production facilities and financial backing, in the second season. The indoor shooting and fixed sets are more than made up for by the balance of subtle and slapstick humour through the show, neither does it lack in intellectual stimulation nor does it over do it. Blackadder’s character is brimming with wise retorts and witty put-downs while Baldrick’s character is more like that of a cretin. A perfect display of this is seen in one of the scenes when Blackadder shows Baldrick the latest ‘fingers of Jesus’ and ‘shrouds of Turin’ which are on the market and could be sold for a fortune while Baldrick complainingly produces a finger he’d bought earlier that morning and had thought for a steal. Tim McInnery’s character continues in tandem with is previous character, however, the acting is well contrasted with Rowan Atkinson’s character. One extremely admirable character of the script is the way the writers, including Rowan Atkinson, created the new character of Blackadder. The way he is presented, he is the only witty courtier in the show with perhaps the queen’s aid, Melchett, coming close though always succumbing to Blackadder‘s retorts and insults. What this creates is an atmosphere which is dominated by Blackadder’s charisma. As has been mentioned earlier in the article, this article only talks about the first two seasons, primarily because the rest of the show follows in the preceding seasons’ footsteps. All in all, the show is a treat, because it presents a side of Rowan Atkinson’s acting which has not made the spotlight recently. I’d also recommend this show to anyone who enjoys British humour.
YASH DHANDHANIA
DSIR ‘15
11
“Don’t let it be!” If you have not yet seen Kundan Shah’s Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron, then you simply have to: this summer, the moment you go home, before you order the first of your million pizzas. If you have seen it, then I can imagine the warm smile that is right now lighting up your eyes: the very thought of the film is like the comforting memory of a slightly zany aunt or uncle we’ve loved. I remember watching it first at the age of seven with my parents, in a dingy cinema hall in a small town, watching my then youthful parents laughing manically— even my mother, who otherwise is the epitome of control. When it was released in 1983, made on a shoe string budget of about seven lakh rupees, and with a cast of young actors handpicked from the world of what used to be called parallel cinema, it was labelled as being ahead of its time. In mainstream cinema, those were the days of sentimental family dramas or action packed revenge tales, with the blacks and whites very clearly separated. But Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron, with its Orwellian message of pigs walking on two legs like humans, changed the game. It was a rip-roaring comedy, but its message was dark, and even cynical. Looking back, I smile when I think of its star cast, comprising some of most under-rated actors of Hindi cinema: Ravi Vaswani and Naseeruddin Shah playing two bumbling photographers idealistic and foolish enough to imagine that they would change the system, a young and handsome Pankaj Kapoor playing the evil builder Tarneja, the svelte Neena Gupta playing his “secretary”, Om Puri as Ahuja, another corrupt builder and Tarneja’s competitor, and Satish Shah, playing (for most part) the very mobile corpse of the murdered Municipal Commissioner D’Mello, the all-time great dead body of Hindi cinema. If there must be only one reason why you must watch this film, let it be the dead D’Mello: “driving” his coffin, and even playing Draupadi in a saree, complete with big red bindi. The Mahabharata scene that is at the climax of the film (where you have the corpse being propped up to play Draupadi) is absolutely outrageously hilarious: the goodies and baddies are all mixed up, and all the lines and roles of the Mahabharata are so muddled, that the vile Duryodhana ends up pledging to defend Draupadi’s honour! To add to the general madness, a Salim- Anarkali item is added to the Mahabharata episode as well, and I know you have already guessed as to who plays Anarkali: Draupadi, I mean, the dead D’mello, of course! Go, go, go hear the delicious dialogues of this episode: “Draupadi sirf tumhari nahi hai. Hum Sab Shareholder Hain” or “Nalayak, adharmi, durachari, vamachari, bhrashtachari, bol sorry!” My favourite one is: “This is too much. Yeh Akbar kahan se aa gaya?” The plot is comically complicated: two unemployed photographers unwittingly unearth a murder, and try to bring the criminals to book, to disastrous consequences. They discover that everyone is compromised in some or the other way, and the truth has no takers at all. Thus the title of the film: Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron, roughly translates to “Let it be, friends!” It is a socio-political satire, shining a spotlight into a morass where politicians and capitalists and the police and the media have all formed dangerous liaisons. Evil triumphs, turning the motto of the Indian state Satyameva Jayate on its head. You laugh helplessly, and you think. Whatever you do, you cannot miss Kundan Shah’s loud message: he is telling us not to let it be. The young must absolutely watch this film, for it retains its relevance, even 31 years after its release. It tells us of the dangers of idealism: after all, we live in a world where pro-freedom bloggers are killed, or honest officials eliminated when they cross swords with the powerful. Will you too, let it be?
MRS PRIYANKA BHATTACHARYYA
DSIR ‘15
12
“It’s almost impossible to deal with a crazy man, except that he does have religious beliefs, and the world of Islam will be damaged if a fanatic like him should commit murder in the name of religion against 60 innocent people.” -Jimmy Carter, President of the USA, on the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis In the spring of the year 1997, the CIA decided to declassify several documents concerning a particular set of rather extraordinary events that occurred during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In Argo, director-actor Ben Affleck attempts to recreate a more exhilarating testimony of these events on screen, and the result is an educated, taut and humorous postmodernist retelling of what exactly went down during the 1979 hostage crisis in the US Embassy in Tehran. The plot revolves around the escape of six embassy workers from the US embassy during a storming of the building by a pro-Ayatollah mob, angry at the US for having provided refuge to the erstwhile Shah of Iran. Upon being granted refuge by the Canadian Ambassador to Iran, they then contact the CIA for assistance, which then enlists Tony Mendez (on whose testimonial the film is based), played by Ben Affleck, to apply his expertise in carrying out what will be his toughest exfiltration operation yet. The result is Argo – a ridiculous Star Wars rip-off which becomes the trapped Americans’ sole ticket back to the States. The film, incredibly intense at several points, manages to display an unusually high level of self-mockery in subtlely chastising the workings of Hollywood. Perhaps, however, what the film really is mocking is not the showbiz culture of now, but the one that thrived back in the seventies. Be it the roll of the credits or the old Warner Brothers logo, the film feels retro to the point of being actual vintage; it is almost as if, rather than being a pastiche of a 70s piece, it actually wants to incorporate that culture of long-dead Americana into itself. In any case, though, Affleck shouldn’t be criticized for such an honest ambition, because the film feels all the more endearing for this particular yearning for the past. Moreover, another theme that is incredibly well-highlighted in the film is the socio-historical background of the events. Affleck’s relatively mature take on the crisis is evident right from the start, when he begins with an exposition of the events leading up to the hostage crisis. Further, the intense, dark cinematography, which helps elucidate on the visual contrast between America and Iran, lends an air of astonishing authenticity to the film, and makes for even more interested viewing. However, what truly makes the film an amazing watch is the performance given by Ben Affleck himself; never before since Good Will Hunting has he seemed so natural, smooth and comfortable in either role. Be it the direction or the acting, he seems to have got it spot-on, aided by an extremely competent cast including the likes of Bryan Cranston (of Breaking Bad fame) and John Goodman. The only let-down throughout the film is perhaps the final scene following the climax, which seems far too stretched and patronizing to belong in a thriller as gripping and slick as this. Even that, however, cannot take away from the fact that through his desolate portrayal of a story that had previously remained largely unknown to the world, Ben Affleck has done something truly unique – he has succeeded at the incredibly difficult task of accurately reflecting the paradox of a dystopian past. In the words of Robbie Collin of The Telegraph UK, “Talent borrows and genius steals, but Affleck does something in between: he mimics”, and he mimics exceptionally well.
ADITYA BHARDWAJ
DSIR ‘15
13
An insecure, psycho-manic, bipolar CIA Operative working at the highest rungs of the ladder is unhinged upon the rescue of a long-lost Marine in the US-Afghan war of 2001. Carrie Mathison (played by Claire Danes) is the lovable, wacky, independent woman whom we have come to love over the course of the last four years (and her “meds”, of course). Homeland is the anti-terrorist department derived from the CIA which was established by the US Government post 9/11. This obviously forms the basic premise of the show, which for the first three seasons revolves around the arrival of Nicholas Brody, the aforementioned Marine. Carrie Mathison, who was informed earlier of the transformation of an American prisoner-of-war to the “other-side”, goes ballistic upon the rescue of Brody. What ensues over the course of the next three seasons, is sure to keep the viewer engrossed (atleast, for the first two seasons). Showrunners Howard Gordon and Alex Gansa, received much critical applause, positive reviews and multiple, highly vied Emmy nominations, (of which Claire Danes won the Most Outstanding Actress in a Drama series Award for two successive years) for their work in Homeland for seasons 1 and 2. However, a less-than-stellar third season threatened to ruin all their work. The causality and effects of the earlier seasons couldn’t be replicated in the third season which drew implausible plot lines, in what seemed like a desperate attempt to bring the Mathison-Brody sequence to an exalted ending in a convoluted, disoriented manner. This season came under much critical fire from fans and critics alike. Showtime even considered dropping Homeland from circulation because of the large drop in viewership and TRP ratings of the show. When Homeland finally received the go-ahead for the fourth season, the creators capitalized on the opportunity and changed the setting of the show. They took the CIA Department from the defensive in the United States of America, to calling the shots in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region against the Taliban. The acting of Suraj Sharma and Nazanin Bonhadi received critical laurels, and the showrunners got some breathing space after the disastrous third season. The fourth season sees Carrie getting more maniacal after the specific developments towards the end of season three and highlights the psychological instability of her on various occasions as she struggles to maintain her leadership as the CIA Station Chief of Islamabad. However, there was no respite for Showtime, as the fourth season came under much flak from the Muslim community in the Middle East, especially the Pakistan authorities. The Pakistani Ministry of Culture criticized the show runners for portraying an untrue, biased image of Pakistan and Islamabad as a ‘war-zone riddled with death and internal strife’. as opposed to it truly being a peaceful city with scenic mountains. This deterred Showtime from renewing the show for a fifth season, but they finally did so after clearing up the various controversies surround the show. Now, to comment on the structure of the TV show, the premise of the actions and the sequences of the entire season is established and clearly defined within the first few minutes of the first episode itself, but it is played out in such an inconspicuous manner that the viewer dismisses it another ordinary sequence in the TV show. It is soon revealed that the subject matter of the season has already been established and what follows are just the repercussions of the action, usually undertaken by Carrie. As the protagonist of the show is Carrie, the usage of the camera also varies greatly with her mental stability, with a still camera being used for her normal decisions, and a hand-held camera being used for maniacal episodes. A lot of Urdu and Arabic is spoken in the fourth season because of the setting, which makes the show more realistic for international viewers. Throughout the show, there is a tension in the air which simply cannot be diffused. That tension may change in magnitude but always lingers like a foreboding presence in the show. This also creates an atmosphere of uncertainty which surprises the viewer whenever the show starts becoming linear and predictable in nature. Though this show doesn’t delve into the specifics of international politics, it touches upon basic conspiracy theories to explain the plot of the show. All in all, if it fails to entertain you through its unpredictable cause-and-effect line, or through continuous bombing and drone strikes, it will definitely succeed to inform you about neurological medicines and diseases.
SHLOK JAIN
DSIR ‘15
14
“We’d ride out of this valley down to where the fields were green We’d go down to the river And into the river we’d dive Oh down to the river we’d ride” “The River”, Bruce Springsteen
“While I am the President, he is the Boss.” -Barack Obama With a career spanning more than 45 years, Bruce Springsteen has redefined Rock and Roll to what we know it as today. The Boss was the first to give America a musical identity to be identified with. Through his vivid reproductions of American middle class life in his songs, he has given something to his audience which literally strikes a chord with them. It is due to this reason that Springsteen and his band The E Street initially rose to fame and have become one of the pioneers in this genre. Bruce Springsteen was heavily influenced by other artistes and this is evident in his music. In fact, it was due Elvis Presley that he picked up the guitar, only to become a name synonymous with the instrument. He was greatly inspired by the Beatles, Frank Sinatra and other greats of the era. He infused other styles such as Jazz, Blues and Folk into his music to create unique tracks which were well received by audience and critics alike. This is particularly observed in his second album The Wild, the Innocent & the E Street Shuffle. The R&B feeling is distinct with elements of Jazz in a few of the tracks. The album We Shall Overcome encompasses all his contribution to Folk music with tracks like Old Dan Tucker sung in numerous bars across America even till today. One of the greatest reasons for Springsteen’s popularity was effective lyricism. Through his songs, he brought out many nuances of American life. He empathized with the problems faced Americans to an extent unprecedented. From complications and disappointments in love (Fade Away and Drive All Night) to financial problems (Long Walk Home); from conveying the feelings of soldiers (Devil and Dust) to questioning spirituality (Pink Cadillac). He covered them all. After the devastating 9/11, Springsteen wrote The Rising to reinforce the faith of the American people in themselves. More than anything, he was a story-teller: he weaved the most beautiful tales and fantasies in his songs. Personally, it is this aspect of his music that inspires me the most. When I hear the track, The River, I can actually visualize the scenery as the tone-colours paint the canvas of my mind. However, it must be acknowledged that Springsteen’s music lacks relevance outside America. Since it revolves mostly around American culture and way of life, apart from the instrumental elements it fails to connect with people of rest of the world. Another facet of his music which is not appreciated is the constant repetition of chorus lines, which after some time lose their meaning and bore the listener with monotony. An example is the “Raise your hand, raise your hand, raise your hand” line in Heaven’s Wall. When I listen to his music, a feeling of dissatisfaction lingers in my mind. Despite the varied instrumentation, I feel that a lot of musical material, such as new themes and melodies, is often left unexplored. However, this is quenched in his live performances by his backing musicians and the energetic atmosphere.
MADHAV SINGHAL
DSIR ‘15
15
Steve Hardaway Morris first burst onto the musical scene as simply someone who was not going to allow anything to keep him from showcasing his talent to the world. He emerged on the world stage as a child prodigy; his biggest disability however was his blindness. He signed his first deal at the age of eleven with Motown Records it was there where he received his famous nickname, i.e Stevie Wonder. Wonder owes all his success as a child to his mother, since it was her who would help her disabled son move about and practice. A popular but somewhat nasty and nasty story of his mother which circulated the globe for quite a while was that; whenever Wonder would not practice, his mother rearranges all the furniture at their house confusing Wonder. This story shows how his mother was committed to see her son achieve stardom and is of compared to Leopold Mozart, father of classical composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart for her dedication towards her child. He is often compared to the classical composer Beethoven; however I disagree with this comparison simply because Beethoven gradually grew deaf as he aged whereas Wonder was born with his disability, making his perusal of music far more challenging. His music explores various genres such as Pop, Jazz, Soul and Funk. His first album was a tribute to veteran Ray Charles titled Tribute to Uncle Ray; the album contained mainly covers of Charles’ greatest hits. Some of his best albums were Conversation Peace, Music of My Mind, and Songs in the Key of Life. It was with these albums that he gained recognition. His lyrics have remained in the minds of many people; songs like Superstition and I Just Called To Say I Love You are often heard playing in cafes and restaurants around the world, simply because of his wide use of the Clavinet (a type of electronic keyboard). The Clavinet has been popularized by Wonder himself, he lovingly refers to the instrument as his “funky, dirty, stinky and nasty instrument.” The honors and awards under Wonder’s belt are not just remarkable but are also inspiring. He has won 25 Grammy awards which is the most for a solo male. He also won the Academy Award for best song in 1984, for I Just Called To Say I Love You. Wonder is widely acclaimed for his passionate lyrics. He isn’t afraid of using obscenity in his songs, and it this is what allows him to open up his music in an immensely descriptive manner. Disability is something that has been a huge problem in society today and sadly there are not enough facilities in the world to help those in need of such assistance. The reason I mention this is that the United States is one such nation which is equipped to provide such assistance. This is why a story as inspirational as Wonders is possible only in countries like the USA. All of us should encourage those around us to aid those in need; even a small deed may result in the next Stevie Wonder being found in India. Stevie Wonder truly shows us all - even those with no inclination toward music whatsoever - that nothing is impossible, and that nothing stands between you and your dream. I believe that this world requires a few more Stevie Wonders simply because in a world where change is the only constant, there are few like him who have managed to overcome all barriers, and have kept alive the type of music which many members of society dismiss as ‘old school’. He has risen to such a level of fame despite his disability, which leaves us to wonder what would he have been had he not been blind.
DHRUV JOHRI
DSIR ‘15
16
“When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace.” -Jimi Hendrix
James Marshal ‘Jimi’ Hendrix stands today as one of the pioneers of psychedelic and hard rock music. His music was compounded with his use of distortion and feedback with his guitar playing and is still well known for popularizing the ‘wah-wah’ effect through his music. His passion for his art was observed from an awfully young age when he found a Ukulele in the trash and learnt how to play it by ear despite it having just one string! This somewhat obsession with his instrument is what has attracted so many to his music. It also proves once again that restricting talent is impossible, and sooner or later a spark does burst through. Born to an awfully poor family in the music loving city of Seattle, Hendrix’s journey to stardom was one which was long tough and extremely challenging. He has rated as arguably one of the greatest instrumentalists by the Rock and Roll hall of fame. While watching video recordings of songs, something that always sticks out is his brilliant guitar playing style. Millions of children today try and imitate his amusing ways of playing the guitar with his teeth or upside down or even behind his back. It is qualities such as these which made him thoroughly enjoyable to watch. He hit his big break when he was picked up from one of New York’s night clubs The Cheetah Club by the Rolling Stones’ Keith Richards who helped launch The Jimi Hendrix Experience, his launch was again a stroke of luck, something which he identifies to in the entire world. He explored various levels of creativity with his music and it was this creativity which earned him his popularity in the United Kingdom. Songs like Purple Haze, Red House and The Wind Cries Mary put the name Jimi Hendrix on lips all across the globe. His cover of Bob Dylan’s All Along the Watchtower became his highest selling single. He never did reach the number one spot on charts across the world, however he did come quite close to achieving this goal and probably would have, had his career not spanned just four years. Despite his few years of recording, Hendrix produced with an incredibly high output, and his records can be found in probably every country on the planet. His music is one which has its own feeling to it which differs, while playing in an ensemble or solo, and it is this that makes him unique. His unexpected yet brilliant guitar solos never failed to sweep an audience of their feet, however something they also do is make the players life difficult due to the music’s great level of difficulty. As previously mentioned he popularized the ‘wah-wah’ effect and it is because of him that today ‘wah-wah’ pedals can be easily be located in institutions across the globe. Another contribution of his was that he introduced to many the very idea of Psychedelic rock music with his song Purple Haze. This was again something which many people hoped to replicate after him. His memory is preserved by the Jimi Hendrix foundation which specializes in helping and uplifting the many striving musicians, such as Hendrix himself. Hendrix’s story is quite intriguing because he attained such heights in just four years. Like other psychedelic rock artists such as Pink Floyd and the Beatles, Hendrix was in a constant struggle with substance abuse, and like so many other great musical prodigies, he died at the age of 27, adding him to the infamous 27 club alongside names such as Kurt Cobain and Amy Winehouse. All this considered, we mustn’t remember him for all of his fault, but should celebrate his legacy as possibly one of the greatest electric guitarists who ever lived.
DHRUV JOHRI
DSIR ‘15
17
Editorial Board Editor-in-Chief Abhayraj Jain Chief of Production Shlok Jain Editor Anvay Grover Senior Editors Yash Dhandhania Aditya Bhardwaj Associate Editors Chaitanya Kediyal Dhruj Johri Madhav Singhal Senior Correspondants Arjun Singh Aryan Chhabra Sumer Vaidya Faculty Advisor Ms Anamika Ghose
In Memory of: (1921 - 2015)
“Frankly, our politics is so sad that if I had not been a cartoonist, I would have committed suicide.�