The animated film “Cars,” which Walt Disney will release on June 9, grew from a cross-country trip Pixar creative guru John Lasseter took a few summers back with his wife and kids. Business week has more.
Category Archives: ET
Remembering Jeremy Brett
He (Jeremy Brett) literally took that show on his
shoulders – it was extraordinary watching him work.
To say that it ultimately killed him is probably too strong
a judgement, but it certainly took an enormous toll out
of him. He is, undoubtedly, the definitive Holmes, and I
think it will be very difficult for anybody to top him. The
series was geared to being accurate as far as the original
stories were concerned, and his portrayal of Holmes had
all the nuances you find in the books – the manic bits, the
quiet bits and the drug-taking.
Peter Haining
Jeremy Brett added something to the character of Holmes
that no one else whom I have seen has done: He brought a
sense of humor to the part. And he and David Burke and
Edward Hardwicke let us know that this Holmes was very
good friends with John Watson. I think that Sherlock Holmes
badly needed this sort of treatment. Conan Doyle never
intended Holmes to be taken as seriously as some
Sherlockians take him.
Nancy Beiman
May 22nd is the birth anniversary of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,
the man who introduced the most popular inhabitant of
Baker Street in London–Sherlock Holmes. And, the biggest
tribute one could pay him is to remember’Sherlock Holmes’
and the man who played him the best–Jeremy Brett.
In a lot of ways, Jeremy Brett was a departure from the rest
who played it on stage.
The medium of television brought in several new dimensions
to Doyle’s work, almost impossible in theatre. When it was
Jeremy Brett’s time on TV, the medium evolved, and producers
had all the crafts of film making at their disposal, to make the
canvass richer and the story telling even more exciting. And
Jeremy Brett knew how to exploit all of it to his advantage.
He gave his best to the camere. Let it be his brooding when
the case is in progress, or his frustration when he is idle, or
his impishness when he is on a trail, he pulls it off like no
other. And just when you thought Holmes is too good to be
real, he brings to the fore his eccentric and probably a tad
darker side of Holmes.
Jeremy Brett though starred in several movies, could not
match his potrayal of Holmes.
Interestingly, Mr.Holmes loomed large on his writer and the
actor who played his role. They could never come out of their
engagement with Mr.Holmes, much to the delight of their fans.
Web links
Taxi 9211: An actor-star duel
Ever saw a chess game played by amateurs…the way they try to make up their weak defence, by going for an early kill?
Amateaur chess players are weak in defence and ever keen to sweep the board clean. The option of a checkmate dawns on them, only when the board nears empty. They play for a kill and not for a win.
Taxi 9211 takes a similar format.
It tells the story of two characters who are blessed with a limited mental defence and a short fuse.
Jai Mittal(John Abraham) is the son of a rich guy, who just lost his golden goose(his father) and caught in the midst of a legal battle to acquire the eggs. Raghav Shastry(Nana Patekar) has never seen a golden egg..worst still, he has never heard of the story–The goose that laid golden eggs or The golden goose that laid eggs. Instead, he is out there on the streets as a taxi-driver and tries hard to steer through his mundane life.
John Abraham dresses in white, plays white and gets to make the first move.
Raghav Shastry (Nana Patekar) wears khaki and itches to take up the police work. He weilds his lathi, lashes his tongue and the game is on.
The game sets off with a bang(literally) on the bustling streets and escalates to a police station. The action reaches a crescendo when each of them occupy other’s turf–their homes.
Then the killing begins.
When both of them see enough of red, they strike an emotional chord and the game ends a draw, with both emerging as winners.
The movie takes a three act structure. The setting, the confrontation and the resolution.
The first two are decent, it is the third that takes a beating. Just as the confrontation heat is on, the movie rushes towards a climax.
So, what works for the movie? Novel canvass, Nana Patekar, Sanjay Dutt (the narrator) and the crisp editing.
What could have been better? Jai Mittal’s character, and the resolution.
Overall, the movie is worth a watch, and the Sippys should be congratulated for presenting a different fare.
One question that leaves you nagging at the end of the film–Why John Abraham? Was the budget so high (it does not appear so) that you needed star power for an assured box-office opening? And if John Abraham is a must, why not open the story with his character and unravel the other shades, not just burst out as they did, in the third act. Nana Patekar is world renowned for his throw-a-slap-in-the-face kind of roles. It is John Abraham, the star, who still needs to establish his image as an acto…so why deprive him of that chance and leave his character half-cooked.