Mirza Ghalib

Generally people associate Ghalib with dejection, separation, frustration, etc. All these feelings are quite apparent in his work. But the legend called Ghalib is much more than that. Even while displaying the same feelings of grief, separation, broken-heartedness, the words he used, and specially the linkages that he made of his feelings with phenomena of nature, beauty of his lover and sometimes religious and social dogma is really amazing.
I’ll like to discuss about few of the amazing shayaris of Ghalib:

1. Harek baat pe kehte ho tum ki tu kya hai
This was the introductory ghazal for the TV series. It starts like this:
“हैं और भी दुनिया में सुखनवर बहुत अच्छे,
कहतेहैं की गालिब का है अंदाज़-ऐ-बयान और”
Which means that though there are many poets and masters of words in the world, but the style of Ghalib was somewhat ‘different’. I dont think this was written by Ghalib himself, but it may be possible if we look at other works of Ghalib.
“हर एक बात पे कहते हो तुम के ‘तू क्या है’ ?
तुम्ही कहो के यह अंदाज़-ऐ-गुफ्तगू क्या है ?
रगों में दौड़ते फिरने के हम नही कायल
जब आँख ही से न टपका तो फ़िर लहू क्या है ?”
Which means that ‘why do you boast yourself and disgrace others by belittling them.
The next line is a marvel. He says that I am no fan or admirer of something that is ‘able to flow through veins’ (like blood). If it can’t get out of eyes like tears, then whats so special about it? This beautiful verse tells that tears that a person sheds are more powerful than the blood that flows in the veins.
“चिपक रहा है बदन पर लहू से पैराहन

हमारी जेब को अब हाजते रफू क्या है?"

(पैराहन=clothes, हाजत=requirement, रफू=mending)
Which means that clothes are attached with the body through blood, now what is the use of mending my pockets? He questions the materialism and money mindedness here. Being soaked in blood, and clothes sticking to body because of blood, signifies the state of pain, and mending of pocket signifies longing of worldly needs. The use of word ‘pocket’ is important as money is usually kept in pockets.
“जला है जिस्म जहाँ दिल भी जल गया होगा,
कुरेदते हो अब राख-ऐ-जुस्तजू क्या है ?”
(राख-ऐ-जुस्तजू= ambitions reduced to ashes)
Ghalib says that heart along with its desires might have got burnt the same way as the body (burnt in pain) now what is the use of searching for any leftover ambitions? Quite simple but very effective
“रही न ताक़त-ऐ-गुफ्तार और अगर हो भी,
तो किस उम्मीद से कहिये की आरजू क्या है ?”
(ताक़त-ऐ-गुफ्तार= strength to speak)
This is again one of the best of Ghalib. He says that ‘I no longer have strength to speak anymore. And even if I have, I cannot tell what my desire is, as I have no hopes left’. Which means that pain has left me speechless and hopeless.

2.Hazaron Khwahishe aisi
One of the most famous ghazal of Mirza Ghalib’s shayaris. The verses go like this:
“हजारों ख्वाहिशें ऐसी की हर ख्वाहिश पे दम निकले,
बहुत निकले मेरे अरमान लेकिन फिर भी कम निकले”
Ghalib says ‘I have plethora of desire, and each desire is such as ‘to die for’’. This means there is a deadly(strong) longing for those desires. He says that desires are never ending. Even if most of them get fulfilled, we still feel unsatisfied.
“मोहब्बत में नही है फर्क जीने और मरने का,
उसी को देख कर जीते हैं, जिस काफिर पे दम निकले”
(काफिर=infidel, liar)
Ghalib says that life and death in love, both are related to the beloved. Here life refers to the pleasure of being with the beloved and death refers to the pain of separation because the lover turns out to be a betrayer/liar. He says that the company of the same person gives life whose betrayal gives death, so there is not much difference between life and death in love.
“निकलना खुल्द से आदम का सुनते आए हैं लेकिन,
बहुत बेआबरू होकर तेरे कूचे से हम निकले”
(खुल्द=heaven, आदम=Adam, बेआबरू =insulted, कूचा=house)
Ghalib says that we have heard about the disgraceful banishment of Adam from heaven, but my banishment from your house (by your rejection/betrayal) was much more disgraceful.
“खुदा के वास्ते परदा न काबे से उठा जालिम,
कहीं ऐसा न हो या भी वही काफिर सनम निकले”
(काबा=shrine)
This one is amazing. Here Ghalib asks (probably religious people) not to unveil the shrine, as he might see his beloved beneath the shrine instead of God; the same beloved who had betrayed in love. It also means that Ghalib is saying that the truth which can hurt let it be untold. ‘Ignorance is bliss’ as the truth can be as disheartening as the betrayal of a lover.
“कहाँ मैखाने का दरवाजा ‘गालिब', और कहाँ वाईज ,
पर इतना जानते हैं, कल वो जाता था की हम निकले”
(मैखाना=place where wine is served, वाईज =priest)
Here Ghalib says that, a person who is believed to be as pure as a priest, and a place which is believed to be as sinful as a place where wine is served, these two things cannot be related as per social norms. But he says that ‘yesterday when I was leaving that place (after drinking wine), the priest came in’. This does not, however, shows that the priests or religious heads are corrupt. It means that every person on this earth has weakness. If we go by the first verse, we can say that every person (even someone like priest, who can be considered as unearthly) has some desire which needs to be fulfilled.

3. Achcha Hai…
This is also one of my favourites:
“उनके देखे से जो आ जाती हैं यूँ मुह पर रौनक,
वो समझते हैं की बीमार का हाल अच्छा है”
(रौनक=smile)
This is Ghalib at his best. He says if I smile looking at you you feel that I am alright, even if I am feeling pain at the core of my heart. It shows that sometimes people require something more than a sympathizing gesture.
“देखिये पाते हैं उशाक बुतों से क्या फैज़,
एक बराहमन ने कहा है की ये साल अच्छा है”
(उशाक=lovers, फैज़=blessings, बराहमन =a learned person)
This verse clearly distinguishes lovers from remaining (sane) people. Ghalib says that lets’ see what kinds of blessings we can get from the lovers, though the learned ones say that everything is going to be allright.
“हमको मालूम है जन्नत की हकी़त लेकिन,
दिल के खुश रखने को ‘गालिब'ये ख्याल अच्छा है”
(जन्नत=heaven)
This is my favourite. Ghalib says that even though we know the reality of the heaven, its good to live in its illusion. Here reality of heaven means that hopelessness has no end, but the illusion of heaven is somewhat a soothing feeling which says that everything is going to be allright.

4. Yun Hota to kya Hota
This one is also a famous ghazal by Mirza Ghalib:
“न था कुछ तो खुदा था कुछ न होता तो खुदा होता,
डुबोया मुझको होने ने, न होता मैं तो क्या होता”
Ghalib says that when there was nothing, there was God and He will remain when there will be nothing. I am suffering because of my existence, what would have happened had I not existed.
“हुआ जब ग़म से यूँ बेहिस, तो ग़म क्या सर के काटने का,
न होता यूँ जुदा तन से तो जानो पर धारा होता”
(बेहिस=tormented, तन=बॉडी, जान=knees)
This is again a masterpiece. Ghalib says that when I am suffering so excruciatingly from grief and pain, that I won’t mind being beheaded. If not removed that way, my head will rest on my knees anyway. (The posture of crying while sitting with head bend on knees)
“हुई मुद्दत की गालिब मर गया पर याद आता है,
वो हर एक बात पे कहना, की यूँ होता तो क्या होता”
Simple yet powerful. Ghalib says that when I will die people will remember me (as an insane) who used to say that what would have happened if this had happened….
While searching for the deep meaning works of Ghalib, I c ame across many blogs. One such blog is here:
http://nisthaonweb.com/art/
It contains the lucid narrations and meaning of the lyrics of some of the famous shayaris of Ghalib. Two of my favorite ghazals of the TV series on Mirza Ghalib, which used to come on Doordarshan long back, are beautifully explained here:
“Ye na thi hamari qismat, ki visaal-e-yaar hota”
http://nisthaonweb.com/art/2008/10/09/ye-na-thi-hamari-kismet/
“Baazecha-e-atfaal hai duniya mere aage”
http://nisthaonweb.com/art/2008/08/07/baazeecha-e-atfaal-hai-duniya-mere-aage/

Boys do Cry....

One of the famous verses of Mirza Ghalib says:
“दिल ही तो है न संग ओ खिश्त, दर्द से भर न जाये क्यूँ
रोयेंगे हम हज़ार बार,कोई हमें सताए क्यूँ”
(संग-ओ-खिश्त = Brick Stones)
Which means that if it is heart, it will feel pain. And if something/somebody hurts it, it will cry.
Sometimes the celebrities take these words of Ghalib real seriously. This trend is being followed in India as well. It does not matter much with female celebrities but the case is somewhat different with male celebrities(dont ask me why).
Most of us remember when Kapil Dev shed tears in front of the camera when he was alleged of being involved in match fixing. Also the veteran Communist leader Somnath Chatterjee went emotional when the MPs were not listening to him when he was the speaker.
Latest in the spree is the senior BJP leader L K Advani. I saw his pic in a newspaper after the election results were out and there he was wiping out his tears. He could not become PM.
Now this is real amazing. Is becoming a PM an ambition? ofcourse it is, as per ourpolitical leader cum comedian Laloo Prasad Yadav. I remember him quoting in an interview, “Arre PM banna kaun nahi chahta? hum bhi banna chahte hain..” (who dont want to become PM, even I do). No wonder if Mayawati, oops i mean “a woman, from oppressed sect, daughter of a dalit, face of the ‘Bahujan Samaj’ (a society comrising of majority) Mayawati; no wonder if she too wants to become Prime minister of the country. This recent elections in India saw many PM aspirants who came out openly. There might be others as well, who were secretly harboring this dream and who might have shown their real intentions if the polls had resulted in a hung assembly.
Ofcourse crying gives you sympathy, specially when men cry in front of media. Everyone started believing that how can a person like Kapil Dev be indulged in match fixinbg? no no, its a plot. And how can the indisciplined MPs dont listen to a senior leader and the hon’ble chairperson Somnath Chatterjee?? ( Though they forget that Somnath himself was seen number of times shouting in parliament when he was not the cahirperson). Ofcourse crying in public gives men sympathy of public. But other than sympathy it also gives you support. People turn in their favor.
But here case is different. People may feel sorry for Advani but no one would be now willing to give him the PM seat. The mandate is out and clear. They DONT want him as PM. Though browsing through internet I came across a site where there was an opinion poll for the most desirable cabinet. Most of them have put Advani as PM. One of them has also written as “PM: Advani (as Vajpayee jee is not there)” . Thats exactly the reason. LK Advani is one of the oldest national level leaders. But voters dont see him having that much potential as they would believe him having when he used to stand besides Vajpayee.
Ofcourse when you lose, you get emotional. You feel sad. But showing it in public is something that is digestable and sympathy-winning but only in case of Wimbledon. Not in election. You cant cry in public saying that people did not help me in fulfilling my desire of becoming prime minister. Its not somebody’s personal interest that are seen when there is a question of millions of people.
Advani is a great leader and a very senior MP. He has offered to step down from the post of leader of opposition, though his party is not allowing him to do so. This drama isnt necessary. If country has got an able prime minister then the country should also get an able leader of opposition and Advani has a lot of experience in this case.
So instead of crying in public the celebrities should continue to deliever what they can give best. They should remember what Ghalib has said:
“गालिब-ऐ-खस्ता के बगैर कौनसे काम बंद है
रोइए जार जार क्या कीजिये हाय हाय क्यों”
(Why do you cry like this, O miserable Ghalib, when the world does not care…..)

Jesus

Jesus

The power of words 2

In the continuation of the series of mesmerizing ghazals, here I present 2 more:

1. Ranjishe hi sahi by Mehendi Hasan

This has now become my favorite. This is a song which tells the mourning of a man whose lover has ditched and left him. He wants to see her once again. He knows that she wont change herself even if she comes back, but still, mad in her love he wants to see her once again. He says O my beloved, even if its animosity between us please come back at least to hurt me. Come to me, even if u want to leave me again. even if there are no such close relations between us, please come to do social formalities. He says that the honor/ pride of my love deserve to be pacified by you. The most touching line is where he says that its been ages that I have forgotten the taste of pleasure of crying, please come and remind me of that. Some words used are: रंजिशें-Animosity, मरासिम-relations, पिंदार-pride, लज्जत-taste, गरिया-crying, राहत-ए-जान-one who satisfies soul

2. Tujhse naaraz nahi zindagi from the film: Masoom,

This is a unique song where a man though being pissed off by his life still has hopes. He says that man being innocent is never prepared of facing sorrows, he always thinks that everything is going to be all right. He says that even when you are plunged in grief, you will see something new and bright. You will learn some new relations. He says when there is a suffering, you also get something to soothe you. The best line is where he says that if eyes have become heavy, let them shed tears. Who knows tomorrow I'll be so happy that I will miss these tears.Amazing lyrics by Gulzar.

Secularism/Non-secularism...

"Secularism" is a big term. It has got a wide portfolio of usage in Indian politics. When the politicians of our country have to justify some of their acts they use this term.Its a term which has been coined n number of times in media and has seen so many changes in its usage that it itself would have forgotten its real meaning.

In simple terms it means that "the state won't support or follow a particular religion". India is supposed to be a secular country at least according to our constitution. Unfortunately but, the usage of this term and practise of secularism has lost its meaning in our country. Greedy ad manipulative politicians of our country long back drew a hypothetical line between 'secular' and 'non secular'. Any breach over the line would mean disrupting the communal harmony of the country. The funny part is that all these 'secular' people have different agenda for their secularism. And those who allegedly come under 'non secularism' prefer to be called as secular. Lets take a few examples as we go on with this debate;

1. Varun Gandhi's speech: Varun Gandhi, the grandson of former prime minister Indira Gandhi made some comments against muslims. They were derogatory indeed. Its not clear what he exactly said as he keeps arguing that his voice has been manipulated . But he allegedly said that "..we will chop off the hands of those who will stand against us (hindus)..." . He then became the center of criticism by both political parties and social activities. His own party started deserting him and criminal cases have been filed against him. Adding spice to this publicity, the big don Dawood ordered his shooter to go to India and finish him off, as "our men are in danger". The obedient shooter came to India only to be caught by the police.

But all these incidences have actually made Varun Gandhi a celebrity. He is now more popular in media than his cousin Rahul Gandhi. Just by breaching the hypothetical line of secular and non-secular he got what he wanted at the time of election; publicity. No wonder if he emerges winner with record votes this time. Following the foot steps of Varun another BJP candidate from Bangalore declared that he "don't need a single minority vote to win" thereby gaining popularity in media and thus the attention of public.

This incidence shows that secularism/non-secularism is nothing but a gimmick to gain sure shot popularity.

2. Muslim student's plea in supreme court: A school student belonging to Madhya Pradesh filed a petition in supreme court to be allowed to have a beard in the school. The court rejected his plea saying that they cannot encourage such 'talibanism' of India. Media, again adding spice, gave this news prominence. Now here the argument put forward by the court was that secularism should not be misunderstood. Secularism doesn't mean that we favor extremism of any religion. Indeed a strong move by SC.

3. Anjali Waghmare and Kasab: Now this could become a plot for some upcoming film in bollywood. Kasab is the only terrorist who was caught alive in the 26/11 attack in Mumbai. He is facing his trial. The court assigned an advocate Anjali Waghmare as the defense lawyer of Kasab. Following this, many Shiv sainiks (members of political party Shiv Sena in Maharashtra) attacked the residence of Anjali saying that she should not accept the court's offer to defend Kasab. Anjali after undergoing a much deeper thought process finally decided to defend Kasab and is currently facing a harsh criticism from the Shiv sainiks.

Now these three incidences show three different aspects associated with secularism/ non-secularism. First thing is that Secularism is not associated with favoring or not-favoring any religion. The state remains neutral in any religious matter. In fact state should be kept aside from religion. People who make speeches like Varun Gandhi cannot separate state and religion. They believe the religion followed by majority should have a say in the matters of state. However, the basic definition of secularism does not allow this.

Instigated by the examples set by people like Varun Gandhi, people like that student of Madhya Pradesh asks the court to allow him to follow what he feels like religion. But the court has to abide by the constitutional definition of secularism. School in India is a school, not a place of religious fanatics to practice education and religion (and arms) at the same time. Schools have certain rules that need to be followed irrespective of whatever religion you belong to. Court says that if they allow beard in schools, they would next be getting petitions from people to allow girls to wear a burqa in schools. They cannot allow all this. Educational institute represent an integral part of state and should be kept away from religion.

The third example set by Anjali Waghmare is the best as far as individual efforts are concerned regarding restoring confidence in secularism/ non secularism. Past 60+ years have seen so much changes in the usage of the word secularism and acts in favor of/ against non-secularism that secularism itself has lost its real meaning. Like schools, courts are also an integral part of the state and they should be kept aside from region or any other kind of bias. I am not supporting Kasab, who in India would like to support the man behind the merciless killing? I am sure even Anjali Waghmare would not want to. But, since its a matter of state affairs, rules must be followed. For a lawyer, protocols and rules set by the court are their religion and Anjali just followed that. When she told the chief justice about her decision, the Chief Justice asked, "Are you sure? you want to defend him?" "Yes" came the reply from brave Anjali.Anjali Waghmare is not a bad Indian or supporters of terrorists, she is a true Indian and we all should feel proud of her. Can anyone imagine how difficult that decision would have been for her.

What requires to fight against the selfish biases regarding secularist/ non secularist thing is a little courage. We all should understand that state is the most important and stands above any religion.

Lead India--- all eyes on "you"th!!

"Lead India" is the term coined by the media (TOI) to instigate the youth of the country to have some active participation in the politics, policy making and administration of the country. Our country has seen decades of corruption, politics of hatred, divide and rule policies adopted by our elderly 'so-called' leaders. The media says that enough is enough. Its time now that the older generation should take a back seat and should allow younger generation to let them give their contribution towards the development of a new India. And I could see a lot of initiatives as a part of this scheme or similar to this program, initiated again by media, all over the country to bring the youth come forward to have a say in policy making decisions for the country.

I support all this if they actually are a result of some motivation for welfare of the country, and by far and large, it seems it actually is.If it is, then thank God, the Indian media realized that they can use their far reaching calibre for some betterment of the society. If this initiative of Indian media worked then kudos to Indian media. I believe that all those youngsters who commented before TV and in newspapers that youngsters should vote; they themselves vote too. We all should realize that vote is the only weapon that democracy has given in the hands of common man. But this weapon is actually the only Brahmastra.

As compared to rural youth of the country the urban youth is well informed of these initiatives. What they can do is educated the rural youth about the power of their vote and the difference each vote could make. This will require an extra devotion and dedication for the welfare of the country. And this step is important for 2 reasons:

1. Rural population of India exceeds the urban population. Even if you could enlighten a big chunk of the urban youth to use their power to choose in a responsible way, you may still end up with loss because its the rural and the less informed population whose vote make a difference and believe me people from these region DO vote without knowing the difference their one vote could make

2. The issues at the ground level has got nothing to do with the issue that are highlighted in media. Residents of a village who have not seen electricity for ages have got nothing to do with the terrorist threat from Pakistan. These issues can only lure media and urban population. If the youth is so determined to change the facet of the elections this time they have to communicate the seriousness of the issues to the ground level. No political party would do that. They would do what is beneficial to their own self.

The most effective way the media can adopt is to allow the youth to participate in the biggest fair of democracy. They now already know the power to vote and the power of "choosing NOT to vote" (that's also a provision in our Constitution I came to know about recently only, thanks to media again). But what is more important is the options among whom we have to choose. As Mr. White says in Reservoir Dogs; "The choice between doing ten years and taking out some stupid motherf**ker, ain't no choice at all". If u find none of the candidates you have to choose from eligible, then what would you do?

Like choosing from the nominated candidates, there should be a voting for the candidature itself. However, this idea is not practical. Yesterday I heard in Radio FM that they will organize a show in which callers can ask the candidates some specific questions regarding their policies and their agenda. Its a good move but again, wont help much, as politician will say what they say best..

However, if something is not going to work shouldn't suggest that the initiative itself is worthless. At least someone is trying. My salute to all those young men and women who have taken this cause seriously.

Yes WE CAN make a difference!!

Happy Birthday Quentin Tarantino

Quentin Tarantino: 27th March

The man behind the masterpiece works of hollywood; Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and KIll Bill. Tarantino has directed 5 movies for Hollywood, and all of them aer well known:

Reservoir Dogs
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill
Death Proof (aka: Grindhouse Deathproof)

Though he has also directed a movie "My best friend's birthday", but thats not that well known.

All the above mentioned 5 movies are considered as legends of cinema. Each one of them showcase the charismatic work of Tarantino.

(1) Reservoir Dogs: This film tells an unusual story about six criminals who are united to form a team which will execute a robbery. Only the man who forms this gang knows the true identity of each one of them. He is also aware of their nature, so he warns them not to try to intrude in any one's personal life. But being like street dogs, these criminals try to pull off the perfect crime, quarreling in between then laughing with each other then again suspecting each other's behavior, only to end up to find that one of them is an undercover cop. Beautifully crafted with interesteing characters played by Steve Buscemi, Harvey Kietel and Michael Madsen. Reservoir Dogs is film of its own kind. Quentin Tarantino himself played a small role in the movie. It was his 1st masterpiece.

(2) Pulp Fiction: Now what to say about this movie? this is an oscar winning movie by Quentin Tarantino, tells the story of some strange characters from the world of crime. Two assasins work for a mobster. They have their individual confusions in lifes. One of them is ordered to take care of the don's wife, only the don is unaware that the guy is having a crush on her. Other one thinks that God wants him to leave that job and is sending him signs. There is another story of a boxer who double crosses the don, and then ends up saving his life by helping the don in some "grave" situation. This film won the "palm-dor" at the Cannes film festival. Tarantino won an oscar award for best director for Pulp Fiction. John Travolta, Samuel Jackson, Uma Thurman gave an oscar worthy performance. Bruce Willis also played an important part in the movie.

(3) Jackie Brown: Story of a woman who is used by a don to execute a smuggling and how the woman with the help of her friends and fooling the cops gets the mobster killed along with his associates. Samuel Jackson again recieved an oscar nomination for his performance in Jackie Brown. Film also featured Pam Grier, Robert De Niro, Bridget Fonda in some amazing roles.

(4) Kill Bill: One of my all time favorite movie. A completely different cinematic experience. I regret I did not watch this movie in theatres. Kill Bill is a revenge based movie made in 2 parts: Kill Bill Vol.1 and Kill Bill Vol.2. A woman ex-assasin tries to leave her job when she finds out that she is pregnant, but her boss named "Bill" and her fellow assasin friends did not let her go. They kill her to-be-husband and everybody who come for her wedding. The woman herself is shot by Bill in her head. But she did not die. After recovering from coma after 4 years, she finds out that she has lost her child. Then she sets out on a killing rampage. She hunts down all her previous associates, 2 of them have left the business of killing. But she shows no mercy and kills everyone. And finally she tracks down Bill and finishes him. This movie or a set of movies show exceptional performances in terms of acting (Uma Thurman, David Carradine, Daryl Hannah), action (action sequences by Lucy Liu, Gordon Liu; in the vol.1 movie, the bride i.e. Uma Thurman kills around 88 people), music (soundtrack of both the movies are just amazing) and the overall direction (the one and only Tarantino)

(5) Death Proof: All the 4 movies above had few common things which are actually trade mark of all Tanatino movies: a mob, or mobster, assasins, indiscriminate bang-bang, reversed chronlology (Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill) or messed up sequence of events/ scenes (Pulp Fiction). However the concept of Death Proof or Grindhose: DeathProof is somewhat different. From what I read from the internet, Grindhouse was the name given to some older movie theaters where a person, on a ticket of 1 movie, can enjoy 2 B-grade movies which were generally full of ghore, violence, sex, etc. Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez (another Hollywood director) used to work in such Grindhouse theaters in their childhood. When they grew up and became successful film directors, they jointly made a movie titled "Grindhouse" which was actually a 2-in-1 movie, inspired by the B-grade movies of that time. Grindhouse featured 2 movies, one by Robert Rodriguez "Planet Terror" and another by Tarantino titled "Deathproof". In between these two movies, there were fake trailers/promos of similar movies which are never going to come. This was a kind of experiment which worked.

Deathproof is a story of a crazy psychopath who calls himself "Stuntman Mike". He has a car which he used to call Deathproof car. Stuntman Mike used to lure girls and used to take them for a ride and then he would deliberately try to accident the car with some other heavy vehicle so that no one could survive. He takes on a ride a girl (RoseMcGowen) and kills her in an accident. He too suffers badly in the accident and remains in hospital for a long time. But his car Deathproof still remains intact. After recovering from the hospital, he again find some new target, a bunch of girls, who themselves are looking for a new adventure. But this time Stuntman Mike makes a mistake. He under estimates them. Deathproof is a real fun to watch. Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike has given an amazing performance.



Right now Tarantino's new movie "Inglorious Basterds" is ready for release this year. It stars Brad Pitt and the backdrop chosen this time is 2nd world war. I am eagerly waiting for this movie.

Now why I like Tarantino. I definitely do not have a clear answer to this question, But I like the way he experiments, specially the Grindhouse thing. Most of us would have thought , what a silly idea to implement. But he implemented it. The dialogues in his movies are really impressive, specially in Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. I also liked the original soundtracks of all his movies, specially Kill Bill.

There is a way to think and implement what you call "Out-of-box". Quentin Tarantino knows how to do that. He is unique, amazing, no doubt about it. This arian is also a talented actor. I saw him in "From Dusk Till Dawn". He did a terrific job. The amazing story of the movie "True Romance" was written by him. This is a man whom I would call a person with a difference. This is a man who does what he thinks is good. It requires creativity and courage and Tarantino have that in ample.