Scene I: Bhajji walks out of the dressing room, make-up and all. This will be his best shot. This is his big moment. He walks to the center of the field.
Director: Andddd Action -Phaaat! One Tight slap! The melodramatic hero reduced to tears while all relatives run to the victim to provide their shoulder in this time of distress.
A scene from a Hindi movie…..or a scene from the recent IPL. The line is a blur!
The Indian Premier League, a recent creation by the BCCI, is another big money making machine for all those involved. The game that follows the twenty20 format has more moolah going around than any other professional sports today. It began with crickets being auctioned as commodities. The highest bidder got to own an entire cricket team that would rake in million for the next few years. Of course the front runners in the game were the big-wigs of the country including some of the top names from Bollywood. Teams comprising of the best players from around the world battle it out for prize money that would secure the future of their next two generations.
A game once attached to prestige and loyalty for one's country has now diminished into any other business where pride and honor have gone out the window, or rather off the field. All teams are backed by Bollywood stars, which mean all brands they endorse automatically get linked. Also such star power attracts media hype and all actions, on and off the field is scrutinized. From its initiation in April the DLF has made more Indian news than any other national news in the country. And why not…when it brings in the TRP's who would want to eliminate such content for the sake of true journalism? Leading Indian News channels have dedicated 50% of their time on the DLF. NDTV 24x7 has molded some of its program formats to that of this Twenty20 game. Every single move of the cricketers as well as team associates is captured and analyzed. And by moves, not those with regard to the game per se but quite the contrary. In the last two months the number of controversies generated on the cricket field in India speaks for the dire situation the game has come to.
Like any other typical Bollywood movie, more masala and more action generate more revenue. Similarly, on the field more drama creates media hype. Right from unacceptable uniforms of the cheerleaders down to enmity among players everything has been BREAKING NEWS. Honestly, the attire of a foreign cheerleader on the field is irrelevant to a cricket lover. And when other mediums don’t shy from flaunting a woman's body, why the upheaval now?
The media has got its priorities wrong. While calamities hit many parts of the world this year, news channels continued to give more air time to a game considered a religion in India. In this ironic situation, the game has lost its honor and prestige among true cricket lovers while at the same time has made those who don’t know the stumps from the wicket watch the game for sheer star power.
Tune in for more filmi spices onto the cricket field.
I represent the print media and am a devoted citizen of my country. Therefore I can confidently state that I am a Citizen Journalist. Today as a Citizen Journalist I do not need to hold a Journalism degree but what is absolutely indispensible to my position is a camera, a recorder and of course being in the right place at the right time.Today, the argument about what makes the news has transcended to a level of WHO makes the news. A struggling reporter for whom, earlier it would be a near impossible feat to get a byline and would have to slog hours to reach a respectable position can now conveniently publish all material sans an organization. All media forums and new media are embracing what are called 'citizen journalists' with open arms, harnessing the advantages of the burgeoning citizen journalism phenomenon. The Internet with its infinite space and storage provides platforms like blogs, YouTube, networking sites to upload almost anything and everything. Most often than not, used and misused, but nevertheless this is one of the most popular way to be heard!
Citizen Journalism also called participatory journalism, as the dictionary states, gives citizens the responsibility of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information. While views and reviews on stories always formed a part of news content across various traditional media outlets in the past, now they are being professionally incorporated into news items and also form leads to new stories. Hard core news sites like CNN have introduced their own initiative of Citizen Journalism with ireport, a network that allows anyone to upload and discuss news focused content. Editor's gatekeep all content and around 10% of all submissions get published. But is this journalism? What about all the ethical baggage that comes along with a profession?
Click image for reader pictures on BBCI was there
7/7/2005. Central London was struck by suicide bombers and the underground railway system was ripped, killing around 52 people and injuring many more. Life came to a standstill with that event and then began a series of investigations and accusations. However all footage of the event, at least the one shown by news channels would be from several moments after the horrific event. Until of course they knew a bomber was about to strike! However in this rat race of 'breaking news' and who cover the entire story first with EXCLUSIVE footage is where citizen journalism gains prime importance. At this point of time news channels opened up all channels to acquire any material from onlookers to support their coverage. BBC news watchers who witnessed the entire event grabbed this opportunity and photographed the entire debacle and realizing the dire need of the hour immediately sent it across to the BBC news team. The photographs were uploaded on the site the very next day. The audience should know the capacity of the destruction that occurred but as a citizen does one have the right to capitalize on others misfortunes?
7/7/2005. Central London was struck by suicide bombers and the underground railway system was ripped, killing around 52 people and injuring many more. Life came to a standstill with that event and then began a series of investigations and accusations. However all footage of the event, at least the one shown by news channels would be from several moments after the horrific event. Until of course they knew a bomber was about to strike! However in this rat race of 'breaking news' and who cover the entire story first with EXCLUSIVE footage is where citizen journalism gains prime importance. At this point of time news channels opened up all channels to acquire any material from onlookers to support their coverage. BBC news watchers who witnessed the entire event grabbed this opportunity and photographed the entire debacle and realizing the dire need of the hour immediately sent it across to the BBC news team. The photographs were uploaded on the site the very next day. The audience should know the capacity of the destruction that occurred but as a citizen does one have the right to capitalize on others misfortunes?
Click image for eyewitness forum on BBCI was a part of it
While millions watched on TV the aftermath of a mentally troubled student's open fire on the campus of Virginia Tech University, there were many who witnessed the nightmare and lived to recount it on various news portals. All online news sites and blogs opened their lines to discussion and eyewitness counts to enhance the interactivity with the audience and gain an in-depth analysis of the matter. There is no doubt that the stronger voice of the audience is having a beneficial effect on the range of stories and perspectives that journalists cover. But do such discussion forums lead to unearthing more dirt than being beneficial?
While millions watched on TV the aftermath of a mentally troubled student's open fire on the campus of Virginia Tech University, there were many who witnessed the nightmare and lived to recount it on various news portals. All online news sites and blogs opened their lines to discussion and eyewitness counts to enhance the interactivity with the audience and gain an in-depth analysis of the matter. There is no doubt that the stronger voice of the audience is having a beneficial effect on the range of stories and perspectives that journalists cover. But do such discussion forums lead to unearthing more dirt than being beneficial?
Closer to home
This year's biggest news ever in the UAE was supported by a reader's picture that was pasted on the front page of all leading newspapers. The massive pile-up on the dreadful Tuesday of March 11th, dubbed as the biggest car accident in the UAE was caught on tape and photographed on camera phones by those in the vicinity. Perhaps all the facts and figures that newspaper articles depicted were from personal recounts and photographs. The 8 column photograph that ran in all newspapers, with the cars on fire was sent by a reader who happened to take a shot that explicitly explained the magnitude of the catastrophe. Because media cannot be everywhere, newspapers need to rely on citizens for additional scoop on events. This news was fodder for video enthusiasts who made it to the scene to shoot the destruction and upload it on YouTube. Personally I wouldn’t view such a video and replay horrific images, which need to be forgotten rather than make gruesome hair rising content. With such freedom bestowed upon a civilian who derives satisfaction only from the fact that someone is viewing 'his work', boasting about the number of hits his content received; are we shrugging off the responsibilities that the traditional school of journalism has at its core?
This year's biggest news ever in the UAE was supported by a reader's picture that was pasted on the front page of all leading newspapers. The massive pile-up on the dreadful Tuesday of March 11th, dubbed as the biggest car accident in the UAE was caught on tape and photographed on camera phones by those in the vicinity. Perhaps all the facts and figures that newspaper articles depicted were from personal recounts and photographs. The 8 column photograph that ran in all newspapers, with the cars on fire was sent by a reader who happened to take a shot that explicitly explained the magnitude of the catastrophe. Because media cannot be everywhere, newspapers need to rely on citizens for additional scoop on events. This news was fodder for video enthusiasts who made it to the scene to shoot the destruction and upload it on YouTube. Personally I wouldn’t view such a video and replay horrific images, which need to be forgotten rather than make gruesome hair rising content. With such freedom bestowed upon a civilian who derives satisfaction only from the fact that someone is viewing 'his work', boasting about the number of hits his content received; are we shrugging off the responsibilities that the traditional school of journalism has at its core?
Each of those stories would not have been possible, certainly with the speed with which they were produced, without the new technologies that allow intense interaction between journalist and audience. But it is in the area of the contested news agenda and opinions about the news agenda in which public participation raises the most interesting dilemma. The average citizen can now make news, act that was once only the province of seasoned journalists. At the same time the rigors and ethics involved in the act of reporting are being ignored in this new wave of journalism. Privacy is now a thing of the past and people's emotions are being played with. You cannot expect a civilian to understand, that grief while reporting a sensitive issue has to be minimal for, the aim is to inform not create a furor. Perhaps user generated content is the need of the hour, but at the same time media education to such individuals, who contribute such content, is imperative. However calling it journalism is a farfetched ideology. If all citizens could report, it would defeat the very foundation of a profession. As long as new media survives, user content will help reinvent and develop powerful content for online news, information and entertainment. But journalist….he is not!
Gulf News Citizen Journalism Policy
The 11 Layers of Citizen Journalism
Reading provides news dimensions to ones imagination. It opens up ones senses making everything subjective to the reader. Many a times, popular novels and biographies are adapted onscreen. But do they translate and connect with an audience who has already created their own visual movie through their minds eye? The problem is that while some books make successful movies, many crash at the box office due to lack of substance.
The Kite Runner - Worth the Read 
A book venture by first time writer Khaled Hosseini, "The Kite Runner" was an instant bestseller when it hit book stands. In the present scenario where war ravages in almost all parts of the world, the writer has packed the life of a boy seeking acceptability and superiority with the backdrop of a turbulent country environment. Connecting readers with forgotten emotions the book is a nail bitter till the very end.
This heart wrenching winner will raise every hair of your body making you question human traits of honesty loyalty and devotion. Set in the backdrop of the atrocities that contaminated the Afghan Society during the Taliban rule and the Soviet invasion this book tells a story about Amir whose innocence is tainted by ulterior selfish motives and grows up to repent all the pain he inflicted.
Rewiew of The Kite Runner by The New York Times
Did the same tension the book promised from its first page which it successfully delivered till the very end translate onscreen?
Apparently Marc Forster, the director didn’t do much to keep the kite flying high! Known for intense drama and award winners such as Monsters Ball and Finding Neverland, The Kite Runner is a disappointment, both for movie buffs and book worms. While adapting the gist of the story aptly, the director could not capture the internal turmoil of the individuals that made the book such a sensation.
The Kite Runner - Not Worth the Watch 
The film follows the story of two boys living a contended life in Afghanistan around the 1970's. While one is the son of the respected businessman, the other a son of a servant. This status difference doesn’t stop Amir (Zekiria Ebrahimi) and Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzadaand) from bonding and spending their entire childhood exuding innocence and flying kites. Life goes on, with Hassan sacrificing all for the other and Amir, in his yearn to gain the respect of his father, baring his inner demons. Testing times approach with Hassan being raped by a gang of boys (all in the tender age of adolescence) and Amir fails his companion by turning away. With the invasion of the Soviet in 1979, Amir and father are dispelled from their roots and follow a path that takes them to a land of dreams, America where their endeavor to build their life again. Expecting to leave behind all the guilt baggage, Hassan's loyalty and Amir's cowardice comes back to haunt him.
Those watching the book unravel on the big screen; first have to familiarize themselves with raw actors, seen rarely on film. Once that is out of the way, readers try to find the intricacy that keeps them hooked to the book. Many gripping moments may not gel with the visualization of the reader. Another drawback moviegoer's face is the constant attention division between the subtitles and the onscreen motion, missing out on unique moments. Breathtaking locales are a saving grace to the entire bookish adaptation debacle. However, giving credit to the captain of the ship, the direction is worthy of praise. Marc Forster brought out the best of the child protagonists and adult Amir (Khalid Abdalla) was topnotch as a spineless man.
Those watching the book unravel on the big screen; first have to familiarize themselves with raw actors, seen rarely on film. Once that is out of the way, readers try to find the intricacy that keeps them hooked to the book. Many gripping moments may not gel with the visualization of the reader. Another drawback moviegoer's face is the constant attention division between the subtitles and the onscreen motion, missing out on unique moments. Breathtaking locales are a saving grace to the entire bookish adaptation debacle. However, giving credit to the captain of the ship, the direction is worthy of praise. Marc Forster brought out the best of the child protagonists and adult Amir (Khalid Abdalla) was topnotch as a spineless man.
Read the movie review at: MovieFreak
Risky Waters- Should Directors Adapt?
Adaptation genre is a tricky territory. It is near impossible to build the aura of a bestselling book. Imagination being individual specific, readers probably approach adaptations with a preconceived vision, which once not created leads to immense discontent. The filmmaker has to bind a 326 page book into a 2 hour film and therefore has to forgo instances that a reader may look forward to. Comparison apart, someone who is oblivious of the raging book, approaching the film as another of Mark's masterpiece will leave the theater with renewed understanding of world that is ravaged by violence and mayhem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
