u/aprlswr

In the late 90s and early 2000s, Pakistan had a thriving underground rock scene from which bands like Jal, Roxen etc. found their start. This was also a time when Hollywood had a thriving trend of mid-budget VHS and DVD oriented erotic thriller films (films like Fatal Attraction, Disclosure, Basic Instinct).

Mahesh Bhat and co. found an opportunity to bring these types of films to India. They were generally sleazy but heavy on sex appeal and melodrama. They also took inspiration from crime thrillers. Awarapan (2007) is a remake of A Bittersweet Life which is a South Korean film. South Korea has a long tradition of great thriller films.

Pritam, as much of a plagiarist he was, had an ear for hits. His "inspirations" were generally from non-pop or underground scenes of countries such as Qatar, South Korea, Egypt etc. Pritam understood that the audiences need to be introduced to new sounds and his modus operandi was to act more as a curator than a creator. Bhat and co. also understood the appeal of underground and rock driven music and would bring those Pakistani singers to repurpose their own songs for Bollywood.

What the newest Awarapan rendition is missing is this mixture. It is a formula that belongs to the 90s and 00s but it was one that essentially worked on mixing and matching. It wasn't completely original but it was essentially doing what 90s Japanese shibuya kei scene did: make an amalgamation of different influences and the result would be something unique.

The newer music producers aren't in tune with global underground scenes and if they are then they are not interested in bringing those sounds to the mainstream. Awarapan 2 does not feel like it is trying to do something unique within the Bollywood framework. It feels like its sole inspiration is Awarapan (2007) and hence has no soul to it. It's a copy of a copy just that the first copy at least tried something interesting.

Also it feels like we are missing curators who are interested in different styles of music beyond just what will become a hit. (I would not attribute the trend of taking from hip hop to Bollywood actually but rather the Punjabi music scene which Bollywood cannibalizes and ends up making a copy of a copy).

I am not saying that India doesn't have interesting and unique talent, it does but I don't think talent alone is enough. The new music producers need to have taste too which the Pritam and the Bhats did. The music now does not feel tasteful. Perhaps that's just me getting older or perhaps there is truth to it but this is my opinion for now.

It's not new for real life couples to have terrible onscreen chemistry. Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez infamously sucked together in Gigli. Tom and Zendaya are unfortunately one of those couples who I don't find convincing together on screen. Their Hollywood interviews give off better chemistry than any scene in MCU Spiderman films give.

I recently watched the Amazing Spider-Man movies. Mediocre films but the romance was great. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are obviously better and way more accomplished actors than Tom and Zendaya when it comes to pure skill and they know how to sell a scene together. Even Toby Maguire and Kirsten Dunst are better and that upside down kiss scene is iconic. Mind you all of these people dated in real life so Tom and Zendaya not giving anything is honestly down to the skills and the script.

I was thinking of quitting my PhD because I feel like my topic is pretty useless. This year I expect to get a good rank in GATE. I was thinking maybe I should switch to a Mtech and then go into IT sector. I was wondering if people here know if my field has any scope?

Some of my friends recently insisted that we go watch the newest Spider-Man film so this came to my mind. I was quite disappointed. The last time I watched a Marvel movie was when Endgame came out and since then I have pretty much fallen out of love with the superhero genre.

But that doesn't mean I inherently hate the genre. I do enjoy the Raimi trilogy and Nolan's The Dark Knight as well as the first Iron Man as a stand-alone and not as the harbinger of a formula that would eventually become extremely tiring.

My thesis is that the best superhero films generally balance angst, camp, action and some romance/sex appeal pretty well. They are a potpourri of every genre conventions but with a very prominent dramatic core. Nolan's The Dark Knight is humorless but it is campy in the way it takes itself so seriously while not letting go of its dramatic core.

The newest Spider-Man can't be a proper drama film and that's where it loses me. It's especially frustrating because initially it does set up to be so but ultimately ends up being a lazy origin story for... Jean Gray?

Fans might disagree with me (I generally don't agree with fandom opinions on anything be it books, movies, video games and think that fanservice generally ruins storylines) but it's sad that Holland's Spider-Man never gets the opportunity to be a real dramatic character.

Marvel can't be wasting whole character movies on this bullshit. The reason why the build up to Endgame worked so well was because they realized the importance of character driven genre films without the burden of a cinematic universe. Now they are back to regurgitating IP and it seems to be working again somewhat but not completely? Anyways even if it works it's a complete waste and another addition into their never ending collection of forgettable slop.

So I am going to quit the PhD I am 1 year into. Long story short I don't care for research, academia, teaching etc. and simply want to work in a normal corporate job. For that I need a different degree. I am preparing for that. This PhD meanwhile is a distraction and a waste of my time. I don't care for the subject or the topic or the softwares I am supposed to use. Everything.

While I have a good relationship with my advisor I am not interested in having the talk about why I want to leave with him. Long story short he doesn't have a favorable view of the kind of career I want (corporate sector stuff) and thinks the almost bureaucratic life in academia is better. What I am not interested in is a discussion about how private companies are bullshit and what not (he has made such comments before). He also thinks research is noble. I think research is useless and a waste of my time.

So I have drafted a resignation email and am thinking of sending it. I was told that I should at least talk to him first but I am frankly dreading it.

I also just don't like my labmates/colleagues and seniors. Not that I have a bad relationship with them but I just don't enjoy the interactions where once again everyone will ask me why I did what I did. I don't like keeping contact with people once I have left an institution. For example I don't keep up with my school or undergrad friends.

I understand that this sounds silly and immature but I don't like talking to people about my career choices. Is there any way to avoid these conversations? Labmates are avoidable but I don't think the supervisor is unfortunately.

myquals

Franco Piavoli's 1989 Italian adaptation of The Odyssey doesn't have many dialogues. The ones it does are in a fantastical language inspired by a mishmash of Thessaly dialect of Ancient Greek, Sanskrit and Latin. The storytelling is mostly told through surrealistic and dream like images.

The imagery consists of caves illuminated with blue green light, dead bodies floating in water, frozen naked bodies lying across the rocks, movement of trees and leaves to signal wind, pomegranates, sun kissed landscapes, dark and brutal closeups during the Trojan War flashbacks, the moon as a constant symbol for tranquility and calmness etc.

Nature particularly is very important. In that sense this film is almost Tarkovskian. It has everything a movie about a near pagan mythology should have: classic symbolisms, a sense of poetry, heavy focus on nature, sexuality, depiction of masculinity by focusing on male bodies in such a way that it almost turns men gay.

But the film is also deeply psychological instead of being mythological. The gods are within Odysseus. They are the sea and the winds and a manifestation of a deteriorating mind. Calypso is a coping mechanism for losing one's crew to the sea and the idea of nostos is focused on exploring whether the hero even wants to return home.

Some scholars say that Pavioli was more inspired by the pre-Homeric Mediterranean world and hence in that way creates a film that adapts the poem with a somewhat different sensibilities than even Homer but that's not exactly historically wrong since Homer's poem was itself set in a different time than Homer. Pavioli, in the older Mediterranean mythology, searches for the origins of the western civilization.

What I like about this film is that it doesn't try to be didactic or force a Christianized sense of morality onto Odysseus. It lets him be and tries to understand him from a different framework. He thinks about the Trojan War and is haunted by its images but not in order to atone. The film is more focused on the hero's psychology and surrealism.

Love the film. Will watch it again to see what I missed but wow. It's beautiful.

Recently watched the film again. The first time I watched it left barely any impression on me but it was years ago. Recently after watching the Odyssey (and being lukewarm on it) I watched Interstellar again. In a lot of ways Interstellar is Nolan's Space Odyssey.

I have some other problems with it too but that's my subjective opinion and not an indictment on Nolan's technical prowess as a filmmaker. He seems adept at spectacle and practical effects. I think for a blockbuster of this scale that's very interesting but I don't like Nolan's worldview.

**#1 He abandons the Earth pretty quickly**

Nolan doesn't have a lot of faith in this world. He feels almost nihilistic in that manner and not merely anxious. His anxieties seem to be centered around leaving his children alone in a hostile world that he has no belief in. When Matthew McConaughey returns to his daughter humanity has abandoned Earth and have succeeded in finding an alternative.

The trope of a dying Earth and humanity trying to find an alternative is a very common one in science fiction. I have always found it to be unimaginative and banal, reflections of the anxieties of an industrial society, one that knows it is causing irreparable damage but one that is also very arrogant and egotistical and hence believes that if everything fails they can just abandon the Earth that gave them life and be successful as a lifeform somewhere else.

I find Nolan's mindset pretty immature. It's giving Reddit doomerism.

**#2 He just can't commit to his style and themes**

Let's accept Nolan the way he is and contend with his nihilism. In that case his extremely realistic but clinically sterile films shouldn't be so rife with sentimentalism. This is where filmmakers like Kubrick succeed while Nolan fails. Nolan despite everything is also a sentimentalist deep down.

He is entirely focused on the sentimentality of a father daughter relationship but fails to establish a connection with anyone or anything else in his surrounding. It's a myopic vision. How does he contend with the idea of abandoning his home, his life on Earth, his culture, his values and everything while also being so hyperfocused on the relationship with his daughter? Ideally Matthew McConaughey's character should commit suicide. There's a moment where he watches the videos his son sends and starts crying. It's the most emotional aspect of the entire film and the only moment where he feels grounded and human.

**#3 The conceit takes away from the themes**

I think the best science fiction is the one that says something about human condition and the society and not that plays with mumbo jumbo science. Nolan's conceits about black holes and 5 dimensional physics adds to the spectacle sure but it also serves to distract from some obvious underdeveloped themes.

He completely drops the ball at the end when his themes start to interfere with the conceit. The love being the 5th dimension is frankly hilarious and stupid. Even from the perspective of the puzzle it doesn't work because logical breaks down.

I still think Oppenheimer is his best film. The main reason is that it is non-fiction and he can't do a lot of his tricks with it but yeah this is my very subjective opinion about Interstellar.

Edit: Jesus christ this sub has devolved into r/movies with the way some people lose their minds the moment someone doesn't like anything popular.

I have been a longtime critic of modern retellings of Greek mythology and classics, particularly the YA and adjacent books that take a famous female mythological character and try to give her story a feminist spin. The leader of this trend is Madeline Miller. I find them all to be vapid and written very badly. My grievances are that these tales reduce morally ambiguous and complex characters like Medea and Circe to merely hapless victims of patriarchy whose actions are all justified by the oppression they have faced. That any heinous action they commit are all a trauma response to marginalization. There's many reasons why this trend exists. Modern publishing demands aside they are also consolatory escapist stories written by largely middle class men and women to substitute for the historical lack of space and voice given to women and minorities in academic spaces. I don't think it works.

I re-read The Odyssey before watching the film. Knowing Nolan's affliction for dark tones, realistic and grounded themes, lack of suspension of disbelief as well as aversion to any kind of sexuality I went into the movie with measured expectations. My expectations were more or less met. I was neither surprised nor very disappointed. It's a good spectacle to watch in the theaters but not something I expect to make a lasting impact on the culture. The film's biggest talking point would be its commercial success but mostly as a triumph of brand Nolan. It will be snubbed at the Oscars.

Nolan does everything that many modern reinterpretations do: project their own societal anxieties, grievances and consolations, flatten the characters with a modern almost conservative morality about great men and their wrongs and do away with the gods.

Nolan's Circe is a typical victim of patriarchy lashing out at men for some unknown ill they caused her. The actual mythological Circe is more morally ambiguous who has servants and loves dominating men sexually or otherwise even for no reason other than the love of the game (see Picus). Nolan's Calypso feels guilty at having kept Odysseus trapped with her for years. The actual mythological Calypso is forced to release him by Zeus and his messenger Hermes and she feels indignant about the gods' objection to her sexual behaviour. Nolan's sirens are never shown openly, another moment of asexuality from him. Nolan's Odysseus feels extremely out of character for wanting to both hear the sirens' songs as a guilt ridden war hero tied to a mast and then feeling anguish about it. In the original Odysseus wants to hear the sirens' song because he is curious about a desire so irrerestible to men.

The Sea People are an actual historical phenomenon who were most likely just the Sardinians and other tribal groups from Greece itself. Nolan takes this and turns Homer's Odyssey into a metacommentary about the modern collapse of the West. It's too on the nose, betraying a lack of trust in his audience as well as a disenchantment with the world. It's very boring and corny. Homer's Odyssey is way more complex, intriguing and alien.

For a film so heavily focused on the Zeus' law of hospitality (xenia I believe Nolan admits it in one of his interviews) the choice to omit the Phaeacians is very interesting. Because if he had decided to keep them in his entire thesis of Bronze Age Collapse symbolized by the violation of xenia (and really actually just based around the Trojan Horse) would crumble.

Ironically what Nolan does the best here is Agamemnon's shiny mask with human spine flowing down. This is the core of Nolan. It's Batman. Hidden beneath all the "true cinema" is an idolization and fixation over the great man, his mistakes and his legacy. He is fundamentally a comic book movie director and I think that's the root of his success.

I made manchurian today and it was a banger but it lacked a certain smell/taste that the street style chinese food has especially made by those caravans. It's an extremely overwhelming smell and taste that makes these dishes very addicting and also unique so much so that the whole room would stink of it. It's a common flavour in almost everything from chowmein to chilli paneer to chilli potato to manchurian. No I am not talking about MSG. I added that in my manchurian. I saw someone say it is chicken/mushroom powder or dark soy sauce but I am not sure. This was the recipe that I used:

For sauce:

1 tablespoon of green chilli sauce, red chilli sauce, soy sauce, schezwan chutney, tomato ketchup with 1 tsp MSG and some sugar for balance. Vinegar too.

The veggies that I used were spring onions, capsicum, cabbage, carrots, red onions, garlic and some ginger.

Corn starch slurry for thickening.

Also my manchurian was dark brown in colour but a lot of places that I order it from make it in bright orange colour.

From what I can sense in these protests is that there is a genuine anger in the youth even though their protests and demands are disorganized and misguided. I think if this anger continues, there is a likelihood of power changing hands. It will ultimately go to Congress. They are the only party with staying power in India and a pan-India appeal. I know we would prefer actual communists and marxists to take the lead but they have almost no clout. This is the pitfall of electoralism unfortunately.

It seems ideologically confused and is a misguided reactionary protest by what seems like a largely upper caste and upper middle class youth.

I love reading as a hobby but my specialization is in Physics. I don't aim to become a classist or learn Greek or Latin. I mostly wish to read for fun and expand my horizons. I have read the Odyssey, Metamorphoses and Euripides' Bacchae. English translations which I found pretty easy to parse through. I wonder if things would seem more difficult if I go deeper and that should I stop here?

All art is not equal.

All art is not equal. You cannot equate every piece of art just because human effort and hardwork has gone into it. And every person is not qualified to make a judgment about what is good art and what is not. You develop a certain level of discernment with exposure and education. Someone with a classics education has way more education and training in understanding the nuances of classical art and literature because that is something they have specialized in and have dedicated time and effort to. They understand the social and historical nuances behind the said art better than anyone else. Someone who is an artist has a much better sense of what is good and bad art because they are well versed in the techniques of creating art and can therefore judge on the basis of that unique knowledge they possess. A filmmaker is a better critic of filmmaking than a writer who is a better critic of writing. An aficionado who has watched 1000+ films has better judgement of the artform than someone who merely watches films for entertainment.

Public audiences should not be tastemakers because masses are not a monolith and the level of education as well as exposure to the medium everyone has is different. Tastemakers should be diverse, varied and unique on individual level but they should extensively well read, well educated and well traveled in order to be given a level of authority.

Giving public audiences and fandoms the power to influence art is a net negative for art itself. Art made in service of the masses will always suffer. If parasociality is driving decisions behind the artwork and not the artistic vision then the art is bound to suffer. This is why franchise IPs will never be good art be it the movies or books. Books and movies made to service fans are entertainment pieces and entertainment pieces are not all art.

Entertainment pieces serve their purpose and they should be relegated to the place they belong to: their own niche. They can be "mainstream" but they are not to be lauded as good art.

If you are someone who cares deeply about art you should not care about petty grievances like being mean to other people. You should be allowed to not accompany your friends to the latest capeshit if you don't wish to and you do not need to feel bad about that. You should also have enough discernment in friendships and a good idea of when to break the said friendships. Having standards does not mean you are a terrible person. It just means you have a strong personality and not everyone will like you. You don't have to be likeable. The biggest hurdle to this is that you seek others' approval. Stop that. You don't have to care.

I have a Bsc(H) Physics, Msc Physics and am currently pursuing Mtech. Growing up I was always interested in English literature and studied French as my second language. But there's a mindset in the Indian society for constant grindset and aiming for the job that makes the most money. It's a mindset that is deeply rooted in how poor everyone is and I always bought into it. My parents always conditioned me into it talking about how they hope I don't have to lead a like of constant struggle like them. I did show interest in sciences especially when I was young but I ultimately ended up wanting a more holistic education. Growing up I was a nerd and without any shame. I was not someone who cared about what people thought. In fact I used to avoid them. I used to be the one from my class who issued the most books from library. In the hindsight I should have just gone in that path.

Early on I decided that I would not prepare for JEE. I found it to be a waste of my time when I knew that I would make it to top central universities with just my academic performance. Plus the whole JEE culture was frankly repulsive to me. Due to unforseen circumstances five years later I ended up pursuing engineering. The college I was getting has a lot of esteem, name and fame. It would have looked good on my CV so I did it. Not that I care about my major. It's... okay? I am in the semiconductors field. It sounds exciting but it's also very boring. I spent the last three days reading the Odyssey more than working on this research paper I am supposed to write.

But frankly I hate it. The worst thing is the peer group. Talking to them is so frustrating. They have diametrically opposite interests as me. I get bored in their company most of the time. But what sent me spiraling today was when I found out that a school friend of mine who had gone down the Arts path just got accepted for a PhD at Princeton University in French Literature. In a lot of ways she is living my life. My entire worldview crashed. I could have excelled so much if I had gone into Arts, I realized. She studied from the same undergraduate college as me. Meanwhile here I am doomed to work in an industrial research job as an ideal worker. My life is a one big mistake.