I Don’t Mind Luv Storys?

By Anant Mathur (June 27, 2010)

After the debacle of the last big budget Ash Cow (oops! Cash Cow) Raavan, all eyes are now on the Karan Johar produced I Hate Luv Storys.
 

One can’t help wonder about the title of this film. Not only that it’s spelled wrong because by god it makes a lot more marketing sense, since no one would want to see “I Hate Love Stories”, where’s the fun in that – But one also suspects that the title doesn’t go with the film. I’m fairly certain, as with most Bollywood Lacklusters these days, at the climax of this film, the hero ends up liking Luv Storys - so why this title?

Calling it “I Don’t Mind Luv Storys” or “How I Learned to Like Luv Storys” might make more sense. And if the hero still hates Luv Storys by the time the curtain falls, then what was the point of making such a film in the first place? It just means the character ends up right where he started and the audience is gypped yet again, big surprise!
 

From what little I have seen of the promos, the film doesn’t seem all that interesting and barring a few Karan Johar style puns and gay jokes, it’s likely not very entertaining either. I feel sorry for the actors whose time and hard work is wasted on such films. They need to say no to such scripts even if it is a Karan Johar film.

Well, here’s hoping I am wrong and that the film is entertaining regardless of the title so the struggling industry can get some more money into the pockets of Karan Johar and UTV who really need it more than any other person in this world.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved

Tip # 2: Research

By Anant Mathur (June 18, 2010)
 

When we watch films, the most noticeable thing about them is the performance. A great performance can make you believe that the people you’re watching are real. On the other hand, a bad one could ruin the entire experience. It makes you wonder how these people were even hired for the parts.

The first thing actors and writers need to do when they start a film is research. Research doesn’t mean that you come up with a look for your character. A believable character is someone who the audience grows attached to. But a character is only believable if you get the nuances right.

If you’re going to play Hitler you need to learn how the man behaved, what he believed, basically you’re trying to be him. You don’t become Adolph Hitler by putting on a Hitler costume a lot of research has to go into the part so you can be believable. Similarly, if you’re playing a police officer, don’t just wear the uniform; learn the behaviors, attitudes and responsibilities of an officer. Police officers go through rigorous training to be the men they are, a writer and actor should know all these details to help them create a convincing character on screen. Speak to police officers; find out what makes them tick before you start writing or acting. Most Bollywood filmmakers forget this, and only concentrate on the look of the characters.
 

It’s extremely important for actors and writers to know the script inside out. Read and re-read should be the mantra. Sometime writers start a story at a certain point and by the time they reach the end, what they said at the beginning doesn’t connect with the ending - it makes one wonder if these guys ever read what they write. It’s almost as if they write the story but are too lazy to go over it again to make sure there are no loose ends. A film script should go through at least 2 or 3 rewrites before you arrive at the final version.

An actor should understand the character and how he/she has evolved throughout the story. Make notes. Write a bio for the character based on the script. Treat the character as if he/she is a real person. This will give you the ability to perform the role with confidence.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Student Video of Super Mario

By Anant Mathur (June 12, 2010)

A team of students in Japan created this amazing stop-motion video based on the Nintendo game Super Mario Bros. Mario is made of pastel Post-It notes and moves around the school, leaping down stairs and up the classroom walls, avoiding turtles and collecting coins.

While not much is known in the U.S. about the project, according to the blog Tokyo Mango, the video is gaining international buzz. The whiz kids took two weeks and 5,000 Yen (about $55) to create their 1 ½ minute masterpiece for the annual school festival bunkasai.

Take a look. (Watch the left side of the screen to see Mario emerge from the recycling bin.)

Tip # 18: Character Development

By Anant Mathur (June 11, 2010)

I have often written about Character Development or lack there of in Hindi films. Changing an actor's look (giving him a beard or changing her hairstyle) doesn't mean he/she has become the character - there's more to it than that. I would like to elaborate further on the subject in this post.





WHAT IS CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT?
 
Character Development is the gradual revelation of information about a character that the audience needs to know in order to understand the character’s motivations and intent.
 

GET REAL!
 
It is very important to be realistic when developing a character for fiction. Look and learn from the environment around you. Watch how a bum on the street behaves or what a bus driver does, how a bartender serves alcohol, or how a taxi driver drives his cab. Each one of these people do things differently – heck, even two cabbies would drive a taxi differently.
 

DO YOU HAVE REFERENCES?
 
When you’re a screenwriter it’s vital to have access to references. Today, the easiest way to do research is by going online – but whether it's books, internet, television, movies, music, your gym teacher or even your uncle Joe - anything could inspire you to develop a character.

I personally like to keep the latest Psychology text handy. Perhaps the most import aspect of developing a character is his/her emotional state. If the lead character is a drunkard, there are certain things this person will or won’t do based on his mental state. So, it becomes very important to understand how a drunkard feels and acts.

Another question that may need to be answered: Is he addicted to alcohol or just a one time drunk? An addict may have several reasons or a back story which may explain to us why he is in that emotional state. The best way to learn about this type of behaviour – aside from getting drunk yourself or having a drunkard in the family – is to take a look at a Psychology text book. A Psychology text will allow you to see the behaviour patterns of a person affected by alcoholism and other such diseases which will help you create a suitable character for your story.
 

FIRST THINGS FIRST!
 
Before writing a screenplay or story, it is very import to know your character. The first thing you should do is create a character profile.

On a piece of paper, write down the character’s Name, Age, Height, Eye color, Hair color. Also jot down these 3 questions: What is the major goal of this character? Why is this goal so important? Do any events in the characters past affect the importance of this goal? Lastly, explain your character’s life till now, situation with family, his motivations, his pet peeves - anything that you feel defines this character.

A few of things you write about your character may not be part of the final screenplay, but it is important to jot everything down, they will help you define the character’s personality and although the words may not be in the screenplay the spirit of the character will be based on them.

THINGS TO CONSIDER!

All of us are greatly influenced by our relationships. How is this character’s relationship with his family members? Are there certain values or behaviors the character has inherited from them? Is he rebelling against them? Let’s say there are two actors one’s father supported and encouraged him and the other’s father wanted him to follow in his footsteps and become a doctor, obviously both of them would’ve had different relationships with their families.

Does he have a funny sounding name or a funny nickname? If his friends call him “Mutt” it gives him a totally different persona than if they call him “Stinky.” Some people are embarrassed by their names or nick names, how does you character feel about his?

What does he do everyday? Unless you have a really boring script, chances are your character does something everyday. For example he goes to work, attends meetings, has lunch with co-workers, lands a new account or saves an old one. You should know what his schedule is so you can plan your story around it – perhaps terrorist take over the building, but is it while he’s in a meeting or eating lunch or having a cup of coffee – it’s important to know where he might be so you can write the next scene.

What are his pet peeves? A pet peeve could tell a lot about a character. Perhaps he gets irritated whenever he sees people who drive while talking on cell phones or while eating. This could reveal that he believes in driving safety.

Does your character have any bad habits? Is he addicted to anything other than alcohol? Perhaps he drives around and smashes up shops when no one is around. Perhaps he eats too many potato chips.

All stories involve some kind of complication(s) the character must overcome. Most of the time it’s the character's traits and personality that pull him through and show what he’s made of. Jett Rink becomes an oil tycoon in Giant because of his hard work and patience; he was dealt a certain hand and made the best of the opportunity. What’s your character's biggest strength?


IN CONCLUSION
 
There are many aspects of character development and your character could be as deep as someone you know in real life. These basic principles will guide you in strengthening your characters and coming up with a great story/screenplay.

Some writers like to go into even more detail than what I have mentioned above. If you would like to learn more about character development, I suggest you check out the following books:

Writer's Guide to Character Traits - Linda N. Edelstein, PH.D.
Make a Scene: Crafting a Powerful Story One Scene at a Time - Jordan E. Rosenfeld
Story Structure Architect – Victoria Lynn Schmidt, PH.D.
Characters, Emotion & Viewpoint - Nancy Kress
Psychology (9th Edition) - David G. Myers
The Principles of Psychology, Vol.1 - William James
Psychology: Concepts and Applications - Jeffrey S. Nevid

 

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Amazing Wedding Proposal

I came across this video recently and I think it's easily one of the coolest wedding proposals ever! See for yourself.

An amazingly orchestrated wedding proposal that I caught live in Madison Square Park. After the surprise production number in the park for this girl, they rode off in a horse drawn carriage. In the dance the slip of paper the guys are waving around is a poloroid. The song the guys dance to was "their song."

Tip # 6: Acting

By Anant Mathur (June 05, 2010)

There are two parts to every scene in a film – the foreground and the background. Though most actors perform when they’re in the foreground, it’s a totally different story when they’re part of the background. It’s something I’ve always found lacking in bollywood films - when the lead actors of a film are in the background of a scene they’re just standing around, and most of them don’t do anything.

The job of every actor is to act even if they’re not the focus of the scene, so if you just stand around you’re not doing your job.

For example, in a scene: You’re at a party and the focus is a couple dancing on the dance floor, but you’re standing among many people behind them, well don’t just stand there and watch. Instead, maybe talk to some next to you or walk over and shake somebody’s hand as if you’ve just noticed them arrive. Your director will love you for it!

One thing actors should always remember is the best place to learn is the environment around them. We live each day in a scene, there are other people around us all the time, we speak to some of them - that’s dialogue! Sometimes someone else is the center of attention and we’re in the background but we’re doing something not just standing around.

Let’s take another example, if your child is doing something funny, you don’t just stand their watching him - your expression changes or you might react with a certain emotion if he falls or throws something. That’s how acting is! You’re not just standing around with one expression on your face; you’re reacting to the situation around you. Not only does that make you a better actor, it also makes the scene come alive.

Your most important lessons won’t come from the acting classrooms; they will come from your life. The wider the range of your experience, the more you can draw from when you perform. Learn all you can about psychology, sports, movies, history, arts, music, science, etc. Each field will help you develop as a person. Do different jobs; work at a gas station, pharmacy, factory, stock exchange, lawyer’s office, restaurant, doctor’s office, government organization, Wal-Mart, radio station, etc.

The best way to learn is by watching people in your daily life. Everyone reacts differently to the situations they find themselves in. If two people are ordering coffee chances are they won’t do it the exact same way. And if the coffee shop is out of coffee they won’t react the same way, one might get angry; the other could simply go to another shop. People don’t do things the way you do, that’s how your characters are, they’re not you, you’re playing someone else, and so they need to be as different from you as possible.

An old man’s walk is different from a young man or a nerd. A child might walk the same way as his father or grandfather does – perhaps the three of them walk with their hands behind their back. There are certain words some people will never say, it’s the same with characters – the vocabulary is unique for each individual – a cop won’t talk the same way a businessman or politician and the language may differ by region as well.

What you should do is keep a notebook with you and write down dialogue, mannerisms, and interesting situations you see in your daily life. It would also help if you travel and meet people from different cultures. How do people eat in Africa? What does it feel like to be on top of the Eiffel Tower? How does it feel to ride a horse on a race track?

Do something you’ve never done before, such as bungee jumping, repairing a computer, running a marathon. Take a risk. Lose in love. Win in Love. Travel alone. Travel with friends. Travel with family. All this experience will only help you in growing as an actor. Remember: All knowledge is learning and therefore, good.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Kites not flying with audience!

By Anant Mathur (June 05, 2010)

After collecting approx. 30.5 crores in its opening weekend "Kites" has crashed big time. It's expected the first weeks collections will be around 37-39 crores in the first week. Total collections for "Kites" are expected to be around 45 crores.

Kites Collapses in Second Week

First week collections

Kites Crashes On Monday

Kites Set To Flop

Kites Remix Fails too!

My Name Is Khan and I'm Full of BS

By Anant Mathur (May 28, 2010)

I finally had the unfortunate opportunity of watching My Name is Khan (MNIK) on DVD. I’ve always believed that a Rajesh Khanna film called “Red Rose” is the worst Hindi film ever made, that is, until I saw My Name Is Khan – the honor now belongs to MNIK. I can’t believe the critics gave this sorry piece of celluloid a 4.5 or 5 star reviews. The film is not even worthy of receiving negative stars, that’s how dreadful it is. If Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna and MNIK are the kind of films we can expect from Karan Johar, he should stop making films. If you haven’t seen MNIK, I suggest you stop reading here. If you have seen the film, please continue.

 
******SPOILER ALERT******

When will Bollywood get over its 9/11 hangover? What makes Bollywood filmmakers think they know what happened during 9/11 in North America? Apparently, as My Name Is Khan reveals, they know absolutely nothing!

The greatest problem with “My Name Is Khan” is the time line and I don't understand why no one has picked up on it. We’re shown that Rizwan Khan meets Mandira Rathod pre 9/11 in San Francisco of all places. She has a kid (Sameer Rathod a.k.a. Sam) who’s about 13 years old. Rizwan and Mandira get married and shortly after witness planes crashing into the two towers as its shown live on TV. The 9/11 disaster occured in 2001, yet the time line keeps jumping between 2001 and 2007-2008 periods; this is the biggest flaw of this film.

In June 2008, Rizwan Khan says it’s been 179 days since Sam’s death which means Sam died in 2007. Apparently, Sam is still 13 years old in 2007 - six years after Rizwan met the 13 year old - unless he has taken some potion for eternal youth, he should be 19. Sam is killed on November 27, 2007 because children in school are picking on him for being Muslim (even though he’s a Hindu). Mandira tells Rizwan if she didn't marry him Sam would be alive. She suggests Rizwan ask the president why this happened and maybe he can stop all this Muslim hate. So step-father Rizwan Khan’s journey to meet the president begins.
 
What boggles the mind is if 9/11 happened in 2001 why in the world is Rizwan Khan going to see the president in 2007. It’s not very believable that in a place like California, thousands of miles from New York (where 9/11 actually occurred) children would beat up a kid for being Muslim and riots would occur 6 years after the fact. There’s no reason for the time shifts between 2001 and 2007-2008, the film would have worked if Karan Johar stayed in 2001. The only explanation I can think of for the time shift is the Hurricane sequence when we find Rizwan in Wilhemina, Georgia (a city that doesn’t exist in reality). The Wilhemina, Georgia sequences have nothing to do with the story of the film and only add unwanted time to an already long film. In fact, Georgia is not known for hurricanes and there were no hurricanes in the state in 2007 or 2008, so even those details are wrong! Had Karan Johar done an ounce of research he’d have known that.

It’s sad to see that Karan Johar has no idea what really happened during and post 9/11 in North America or any clue about the George W. Bush presidency or any knowledge of where hurricanes occur and yet he’s made a film about all this.
 
When Rizwan is having an attack, upon seeing yellow (he has a fear for the color) and stops in the middle of the street with a cable car approaching, the people get out of the cable car and are abusive towards him. In India this is very likely but, this would never happen in North America, here people are informed about such things, especially in a big city like Frisco, people would actually try to help him.

In another scene in 2007, we’re shown people rioting and beating up Muslims or threatening them. Sorry Karan Johar, North America is not like India where anyone can start race riots and get away with it, law and order is still paramount here. And those riots never really happened in Frisco so why make them up?

Not once in the film is Rizwan treated badly for being a Muslim. Mama Jenny whose son is killed in Afghanistan, by Muslims, loves him. Even people at immigration cleared him without any problems when he arrives at the airport. The only time he gets arrested is when he starts shouting “My Name is Khan and I’m not a terrorist” at a ralley. That’s just another factor showing how lame this film is. The scenes with the reporters look like they’re forcefully added to the film.

Rizwan suffers from Asperger's Syndrome (AS), but nothing is said about what this disease really is or how it affects different people, what causes it or what can be done to help people who have this - we're only given a generic description. When you have a platform such as Karan Johar did, it’s very sad that he doesn’t use it to inform and educate people; this was also the case with R. Balki’s “Paa”.

If Indian filmmakers can’t talk about or explain a disease they shouldn’t make a story around it, it’s very insulting to people who suffer from these diseases. They’re not creating any awareness. After people watched My Name is Khan no one cared about what AS is. Karan Johar should watch films like Philadelphia (1993) to learn how to construct a touching story. Philadelphia made people aware and changed the perspective of many people. I highly doubt My Name is Khan will do any such thing. 

There isn't even a mention of how many people suffer from AS for goodness sake. It took me 2 minutes to find out that an estimated 60 million people suffer from Autism around the world and AS affects 20 million people worldwide. Boys are three to four times more likely than girls to have AS. If Karan Johar can waste 2 minutes on showing the names of sponsors and friends, the least he can do is devote 10 seconds to an insert with statistics about AS.

There are lots of reasons Rizwan could have suffered from the disease, we’re told that he has the disease in childhood, before his father died, so it can’t be because of his father’s death. Nothing else happens in his life, that we’re told about to cause it. What’s the reason? Was he born with it? Did he develop it later? Can he be cured? No explanation is given. We’re also told that Rizwan is afraid of the color yellow but again the why, how, where and when are missing.
 

Another thing I didn’t understand is why Rizwan is travelling the country running after President George W. Bush; why not stay in Washington. You'll never guess where he meets the president at the end... Washington - SURPRISE! And when he does meet the president it’s not even the one he was chasing all those months, elections have happened and it’s the president elect that he meets (some black dude who doesn’t look anything like Mr. Obama).

I have said this many times: Indian filmmakers need to start doing research, it’s sad that in the world of today with Wikipedia and thousand of other ways to do research online, Indian filmmakers still come up with such bullshit and buy the reviews to con people into watching their films.

Unless they’re making these films for uneducated fools who have never seen a single film in their lives, this bullshit needs to end. The audience is used to well researched Hollywood films in North America, if Bollywood can't do the same they should stop releasing their films in North America, the audience here won’t buy your crap. Kajol is wasted in this film and Shahrukh hams yet again, trying to imitate Dustin Hoffman’s Rain Man and Tom Hanks’ Forrest Gump doesn’t make you a great actor Mr. Khan. Tom Hanks and Dustin Hoffman are remembered for their portrayals of Forrest Gump and Rain Man, but such will not be the case with this forgettable Shahrukh Khan performance. SRK showed much promise when he first arrived in Bollywood – Karan Johar and Aditya Chopra have ruined his talent.

Hard to fathom why Fox Searchlights released MNIK? It’s depressing to see India is so backwards in terms of story telling, at least get the bloody time line right!! Throughout the film Rizwan keeps saying “I can repair anything” and even has a sign in the later reels, how one wishes he could repair the screenplay of this film.

I don’t want this post to get too long, but I would like point out that I haven’t even touched on half of the other problems with this film like how did all those people (friends and family of Rizwan) get to Wilhemina – a town of just over 200 people – in the middle of a hurricane? I’m sure there’s no airport in Wilhemina and Georgia is on the opposite side of the United States, over 2000 miles away, from Frisco and Rizwan's friends and family.

All the money spent on making and promotion of My Name Is Khan could’ve been better spent making 10 sensible films like “A Wednesday”.

I would like to end by saying My Name Is Khan is VERY DISAPPOINTING!!!!

P.S.: I came across this comic about MNIK and I think it’s 1000 times better than the actual movie. I hope you will enjoy it and get the bad taste of MNIK out of your system. Please click on this link for the comic:

http://www.thevigilidiot.com/2010/02/16/my-name-is-khan/

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

The Price of Success!

By Anant Mathur (May 23, 2010)

For a long long time I have been saying that critics are paid for writing reviews in Bollywood. This became even more evident after the Producer’s Strike in 2009. Ever since the strike, critics have been giving 3 to 4 stars (out of 5) to every big film that’s released. After seeing these films I find that most of them don’t even deserve 1 star.   

A prime example is the recent release Housefull. Many critics gave it 4 stars or more and praised it madly, but there were a select few who reviewed it honestly and gave it what it deserved (1 star). Now, I'm all for every film having it's target audience and maybe some viewers not liking a film as much as the others. But critics take an academic approach to films and try to come to understand why a film works, how it works, what it means, and what effects it has on people - without being biased. Thus, I find it hard to digest that the difference would be so drastic that some critics give the film 4 stars while others are giving the same film 1 star. 

Below are links for Housefull reviews by two of the country’s top critics. One is witty, honest and hilarious. The other is just hilarious and obviously paid for by the producer or distributor. I leave it to you to decide which one you believe, but after seeing the film I could only believe the one which gave it 1 star.

Khalid Mohamed's Review of Housefull
Taran Adarsh's Review of Housefull
 

The latest bollywood release "KITES" is getting mixed reviews. I haven’t seen the film, but after seeing the trailer, I have no interest in seeing it on the big screen. The film seems to be very high on gloss and low on story, then again, most love stories are. It's becoming increasingly obvious that the positive Kites reviews are the ones that may have been paid for. Below are some links for reviews of Kites, you decide:

Khalid Mohamed's Review of Kites
Komal Nahta's Review of Kites
Taran Adarsh's Review of Kites
Subhash K. Jha's Review of Kites
Nikhat Kazmi's TOI Review
Mayank Shankar's HT Review
Raja Sen's Review for Rediff
J. Catsoulis NY Times Review
Kevin Thomas' L.A. Times Review
Peter Debruge's Review for Variety
Sarita Tanwars Review for Mid-Day
S. Gupta's Indian Express Review
Anpama Chopra's NDTV Review
Rajeev Masand's CNN-IBN Review
Martin D'Souza's Review of Kites
Apurva's Review for Chakpak
Sampuran's Ent. Daily Review

The way success is measured in bollywood is all wrong. If a film costs 2 crores to produce, collects 3 crores and is taken down after the second week, it’s considered a hit - only because it made more money than its cost. Whereas, if a film costs 50 crores and collects 45 crores, it’s considered a flop even though it was in release for more than 5 weeks and drew 15 times more business than the small budget film. Amazing!

In order to tell if a film is truly successful we must look at how it performs in the weeks following its initial release and not its budget. For example if a film makes 20 crores in the first week of release but falls 80 percent in the second week (earning 4 crores) and another 90 percent in the third week (earning 40 Lakhs for a total of 24.4 crores), it should be considered a terrible film no matter what the budget is. The reason being, in the first week the film made an exuberant amount of money because of strong promotions, star power, etc. But once the audience realized it was no good, the collections dropped dramatically and it was off the screens in 3 weeks. It doesn’t matter if the paid critics gave it 4 stars, the target audience has spoken. If the film is any good it would’ve lasted for more than 3 weeks.
 

Let’s take another example, 3 Idiots collected 54 crores in it’s first week, 50 crores in the second week (a drop of only 8% in collections). This suggests that the film is pretty decent and audiences have liked it and seen it on more than one occasion. In the third week the collections were steady at 28 crores (a drop of 44%). Fourth weeks collections were 14 crores (a drop of another 50%). In the fifth week the film was still going strong (collecting 9 crores – a drop of 36% from the previous week). This example shows the progression of a hit film over the course of the first five weeks in release. As you can see the collections never fell below 50% from week to week and even in week five, 3 idiots made more money than most movies do in their first week. Unlike flop films which are considered hits because of their first week’s collections, a true hit has considerably smaller drops in collection from week to week and stay on the big screen for more than 5 weeks. 3 Idiot was the highest grossing film for 4 straight weeks and stayed in the top 5 (in collections) for 12 weeks.

Kites will likely be declared a hit after the first week of release. On average Hindi films have a 500 screen release. Kites is being released on 2,500 screens worldwide, more than twice that of Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna (1200 screens). It is commonly believed that distributors of KANK knew the film would flop and thus designed a wide release that would ensure the film makes its money back in the first week. Like KANK, distributors of Kites expect to make their money back in the first week as well and probably will. But I think it’s the weeks following the initial release that will tell the real tale of whether the film is loved by audiences or not.

With 10 thousand shows daily, a hyped up film like Kites is bound to make its money back in the first week, just the names associated with the film will pull in audiences in week one. The producers and distributors of Kites along with the media may declare it a hit after the first week, but whether the audience truly loves it won’t be known till at least 3 weeks after its release when the numbers can really be compared.

Collections of KANK fell more than 65 percent in the second week and the trend continued for the next three week. The first week’s collections of KANK were just about 15 crores. For weeks four and five collectively it was a less than 1 crore. Week five’s collections were a dismal 23 lakhs after which the film was yanked (total collections: 24 crores). My Name is Khan had the same fate; it too had a wide release of over 1500 screens, did bumper business in the first week (due to the names attached) then dropped tremendously in the following weeks. Now compare this to a film that’s loved by the audiences like 3 idiots and you’ll understand what I mean.

"A Wednesday" lasted for more than 7 weeks and even though it didn't make as much money as Kites will probably make in the first day, it's a good film because the audience went to see it week after week. It wasn't released on 2,500 screens and didn't have the promotional budget or star power of Kites but it lasted longer than most "wide release" films do.

Another advantage Kites has is its distributor Reliance owns 525 screens worldwide and close to 200 screens in the United States. So, even if Kites is taken off other screens after the first week, reliance can keep it going on their screens for weeks, the audience will wonder why it's still running and may go to see it for curiosity's sake. 

I would like to end this post with the same issue that started it, the reviews of critics. In my opinion, buying reviews is the wrong way of promoting any film. Not only are producers cheating the audience, but they fail to realize the audience will smarten up and stop coming to see their movies; YashRaj Film has been experiencing the audience’s wrath for several years now.

I believe that over the last few years critical reviews have hurt the success of films. If the critics didn’t review films on the day they were released they would have a better chance of success than they currently do. Instead of getting into bed with the critics, Producers should be able to get a court order preventing critics from reviewing films until after the first week of release. This way the audience can decide if the film is good without the critics influencing their judgment. And films will likely not be taken off screens after 2 days or in some cases 2 shows.

The audience should be the final authority in the success or failure of a film, but when their judgment is manipulated by a critic’s review, it’s unfair to the success of the film. In the end, critics usually send the wrong message and it’s the film that pays the price.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Tip # 23: The End

By Anant Mathur (May 21, 2010)

The last thing an audience sees in the movie theater are the words “THE END” or something to that effect. It symbolizes the completion of your entertainment, whether you are satisfied or not is up to you to decide. It is the responsibility of every filmmaker to leave the audience with a memorable ending. A reason for them say: “Wow, what an incredible film”.

Usually films have a reasonable story until they get to the end, by the time we arrives at the conclusion it almost seems as if the writer was too tired to come up with a suitable end. The film you have given 2-3 hrs of your life to ends up as a big fat pile of garbage.

Filmmakers need to realize that it doesn’t matter how good the first 2-3 hrs of the film are, what the audience remembers most, by the time “THE END” pops up on screen, is the last 10-15 minutes. And if that doesn’t provide an appropriate finish, it leaves a bad taste in their mouth.

Most filmmakers don’t even know when to end their story, they drag it out and a five minute ending becomes 30-40 minutes of torture.

Although there are many other vital elements to creating an entertaining story, I strongly believe that with a great ending, half the work is done.

The ending of a film needs to be gripping, spellbinding and should keep you on the edge of your seat. It should be something worth talking to your friends, family or co-workers about. The best response an audience can give a films is a round of applause before leaving the theater. Now that’s a film worth seeing!

The audience should respond positively to a film they’ve just given 2-3 hrs of their life. When I view films today, I end up saying “I want the last 2-3hrs of my life back”. Films are supposed to entertain us not stir up feelings which make us wish we didn’t see the darn thing.

Special Effects, Big Stars, Big Budgets aside, the primary purpose of a film is to leave you entertained. It doesn’t matter how much money was spent to make the film, if it’s not entertaining, it will leave the audience unsatisfied.

There are a lot of factors involved in telling a successful, crowd-pleasing tale, but it’s the ending which you remember when you’re exiting the theater. A brilliant ending can't save a horrible story but if a movie is going to be bad at least you get some gratification for sitting through it.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Tip # 9: Casting

By Anant Mathur (May 16, 2010)
 

One of the things that baffle my mind is why Indian screenwriters construct stories with actors in mind. What end up happening is that the character takes on the personality of the actor rather than being an original entity! This is why it seems that Shahrukh Khan has been playing the same character, in every film, for the last 15 years or so.

Today, Ninety percent of Bollywood films have actors portraying characters they never should be playing. That’s one of the key reasons why so many films are bombing these days. You shouldn’t hire friends or popular actors unless they can do justice to a role. After the story, the actors are probably the next worst thing to cut corners with. There is no excuse for not using proper actors in your project. Actors are supposed to breathe life into your characters and miscasting your film can irreparably hinder its success.

When a director first gets a script, he reads it through several times to get a feel for what the story is about and who the characters are. As he reads the script, he gets an impression of the characters. He then has a meeting with the Producer(s) and the Casting Director to share his ideas of the characters.

After the meeting, the Casting Director’s job is to sift through scores of potential actors for every part and audition them, only bringing the strongest candidates to the producer and director’s attention. The producer and director choose from the candidates that have been pre-selected by the casting director.

Two things the director and producer look for when reviewing candidates are:
 
         1. DO THEY HAVE RANGE?
         The general idea here is, “Can they act?” and you need to find this out quickly. 
         Can an actor give you both ends of the spectrum? Are they believable when 
         they are in a tense, dramatic scene? Are they believable in a comedy? Another 
         way to approach it is to see how different the actor and character are? Never 
         hire an actor who is similar in personality to the character, he won’t have the 
         range to push the character to a new level.

         2. CAN THEY TAKE DIRECTION?
         Any good actor will make a choice when they enter the casting room. They will 
         decide who this character is and give you their interpretation. So, what the  
         director needs to do is give them some “direction” – ask them to read the part 
         again but do something totally opposite from what they just did. This gives the 
         director an idea if they have range, and if they can take direction.

Improperly casting a film can be a disaster for your movie and cause some embarrassment. Do not proceed with a film under any circumstances unless you’re thrilled with your cast, you’ll only wish you had when you see it in the editing room.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Tip # 14: Brainstorming Session

By Anant Mathur (May 04, 2010)

Often times a screenwriter is stuck trying to find an idea for a story. One way I find helps a great deal in such situation is to brainstorm. By brainstorming I don’t mean to think of the plot or characters or dialogues, but instead let it all go. Just start writing the first thing that comes into your head, don’t worry about grammar, punctuation or if it makes any sense. Write without any comma, periods, question marks or exclamation points. Let it be a large single paragraph of what comes into your head.

Consider the following example, I am trying to think of a story and I have come up with this so far [A divorced mother with a young daughter, is just leaving the home of her husband to start afresh] but now I’m stuck…

So what do I do now?
Well, I brainstorm, here’s how…

the ex-mrs. yadav is leaving the house she has called her home for the last 10 years she has sole custody of her daughter pia and left her drunk wife-beating husband with the bottle to do what it wants to him as she exits the gate of the house it begins to rain heavily a security officer calls a taxi for mrs. yadav and her daughter they swiftly jump into the car and instruct the driver to head to the airport but just as the driver pulls onto the highway they get stuck in a massive traffic jam up-ahead is a large-scale accident involving some 25 vehicles one of those in the accident is mr. rajesh singhania a local business man on his way to collect goods for his business he’ll never make it now the manufacturer closes in 10 minutes he picks up his cell and calls his secretary miss juneja and asks her to call the manufacturer and inform them of the mishap sweating profusely he hears back from miss juneja who informs him that the manufacturer will be at the warehouse for another hour and if he can make it in that time he can have the good today desperate mr. singhania looks for a way to get out of the traffic jam and reach his goods he comes across a taxi and throws the driver out taking over himself he backs the car out through traffic and gets to some local roads where traffic is moving well finally gazing into the rear view mirror singhania  notices the yadavs in the back he jams the breaks and the car comes to an abrupt stop pia not wearing a seatbelt flies out of the windshield and lands on the road a few feet ahead.

Well that’s it, this may not be the best paragraph or story ever written, but it does have some potential, I have created a few situations which I may be able to use, the characters are solid and action is fast moving. Plus it may motivate me to come up with a story around the whole idea. That’s pretty much all it takes to get out of a jam when you’re unable to write. This way of brainstorming has helped me on many occasions and I hope it will do the same for you.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Bollywood or Bust!

By Anant Mathur (April 27, 2010)

Many millions of young men and women travel thousands of miles to the glamorous world of Bollywood, eager to make it in the film industry. A few are successful, but most find disappointment and leave their dream behind to pursue something else.

So what is it that makes the successful ones so different?

There are 5 things you must have if you want to be successful in Bollywood:

5)    Money
4)    Connections
3)    Luck
2)    Luck
1)    Luck

Money!
Bollywood is one place where money talks, proudly! If you have the cash you can be anything you want (actor, director, producer, writer, etc.). A few Crores is all you need to get your first film on the floors, the distributors are so desperate they’ll release anything. The story is not important.
 
Connections
Since most people who arrive in Mumbai are not loaded, it is extremely helpful to have connections in Bollywood. If you don’t, well it’s not the end of the world; it just means your journey will be more difficult.

If you have connections use them wisely, if you’re striving to be an actor, settle for small parts, they’ll lead to bigger ones. If you want to be a technician work in any and everything it doesn’t matter how bad a film is at least you’re getting your name out there which will generate more work for you.

For those who have no connections, well the first thing is to get connected. The best way to go about this is to meet people. Make connections with media people, producers, distributors, anyone involved in films, no matter how small, do odd jobs to get your foot in the door. Once the foot is in the door, make every effort to get noticed.

Luck! Luck! Luck!
The most important ingredient you need to be successful in Bollywood is not talent but luck it is so important that it occupies the top 3 spots of the 5 things you need to be successful. Being in the right place at the right time is very important, as is the ability to convince film people that you’re worth the risk. And if your luck stands and your film is a potential money maker, no matter how little the profit, you will find you have a permanent place in the glamorous world of Bollywood.

Singh is Kinng and Welcome are two of the most successful films in recent years, both are horrible films (and both are lifted from Hollywood films), but they did tremendous business at the box office, why? The answer to this question is... You guessed it: Luck! Luck! Luck!

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Actors Say A Lot Of Things, But When The Story Is No Good...

By Anant Mathur (April 16, 2010)

"HOUSE FULL" boards are rarely seen at cinema halls these days, I think it’s only fair to dissect the situation and figure out why?

Many actors say that they read the script of a film and then decide which film they want to be a part of. The script is paramount! But all that is bull, only 2 or 3 actors are able to do that, the rest need to make money so they can pay next months bills. The majority of actors will work on any film as long as they’re paid for it. It doesn’t matter if it’s lead actors or character actors. Recently, it was reported that Arshad Warsi wasn’t happy with the script of Golmaal 3 and didn’t want to be a part of film, but when the producers threw 3 crores at him and he changed his mind. Well, right there is the reason I don’t want to watch this film, because obviously the story is going to be lousy and the only reason the actors seem to be a part of it is because they’re being offered big bucks.

Obviously, the only reason they’re making sequels in India is to make money, producers have finally figured out that people who supported them in the first film will be curious and turn up for the sequel, so who cares about the story, right! Well that’s not the point of sequels, at least not entirely. Yes they can make you money, but only make them if there’s enough good material for another story. When you watch a trilogy like Back to the Future, Matrix or Lord of the Rings, the thing that stands out the most is that the stories got better or more entertaining with each sequel. But some films can’t have sequels, so there’s no point in making them. Why cheat the public just for a few more buck, sooner or later they’ll figure it out and stop coming to see your films and it will be disastrous for producers in the long run when the public knows they can’t be trusted. This is what’s happening with Yashraj Films (more on that later).

With the media the way it is today, actors use and abuse the media and vice versa. So it’s become very difficult to comprehend if what they’re saying is true or false. Well, here’s a way to determine just that. Most articles we read today are part of a publicity stunt which occurs a few days or weeks before the release of a film. So if an actor is in the news just a few days before the release of a film, as hard as it may be to believe, its part of the publicity for their film. The only time an actor really says anything they mean these days is if there is no film release in the near future.

Actors need to take their craft seriously and not just look at publicity. If their work is good they will be remembered. No one forgets Tom Hanks after his film has been retired from the screen because he gives a sincere performance and the story is good. That doesn’t mean there’s no publicity involved in his films, but there’s a right and wrong way of doing things and at the moment Bollywood is more in the wrong than the right.

There was a time when a Yash Raj Film was one of the most anticipated films of the year. Then they began mass producing and the story took a back seat to the number of films they could churn out. Soon after, the audience realized this and stopped watching their films. In the last 5 years, since the mass production began, all of the following Yash Raj films have flopped: Pyaar Impossible, Rocket Singh - Salesman of the Year, Dil Bole Hadippa, Roadside Romeo, Bachna Ae Haseeno, Thoda Pyaar Thoda Magic, Tashan, Aaja Nachle, Laaga Chunari Mein Daag, Jhoom Barabar Jhoom, Kabul Express and Ta Ra Rum Pum. This is the reality of cinema today. The audience isn’t stupid. With the advent of the internet and sites like YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook and imdb, the public is far more aware of what’s out there. This knowledge changes the way they think.

Hollywood films are far superior to Bollywood films any day. Bollywood is still about 30 years behind in terms of story and technique. They’re just now getting into techniques which were used in Hollywood 30 years ago. The problem is that the Indian audience has by now seen at least a few Hollywood films and they find it very easy to figure out the Formulaic Hindi films. Even today, a Hollywood film with a 1 star rating is far superior to Bollywood films which receive 4 stars. The screenplay is the biggest difference. For some reason, Indian’s can’t get out of the Indian mentality; we live in a world that’s vastly different from 30 years ago. It's not just about clothes and style we're different mentally.

The biggest problem in India with writers is they consider Syd Field a script writing guru. Syd Field, who has NEVER written a film script in his life, is being taken seriously because he is from the west (a white guy) and feels the 3-Act Structure is how films should be made. Note to all Indians, not all white guys are gods. He is totally a scam artist, I don’t care how many books he has written on screenplay writing, he has no idea what he’s talking about. The easiest films to figure out are the 3-Act Structures:
   Act 1: Setup (of the location and characters)
   Act 2: Confrontation (with an obstacle)
   Act 3: Resolution (culminating in a climax and a dénouement).

You know exactly what to expect and when it will happen because there are only three types of things that will happen in this story at certain intervals. Indian films are based on this 3-Act Structure, that's what makes them so predictable. I like to call it the Boy Meets Girl (Act 1), Boy Loses Girl (Act 2), Boy Gets Girl Back and They Live Happily Ever After (Act 3) structure.

A 3-Act Structure gets writers obsessing on plot, when character should be driving the story. It gives a false sense of security. It makes screenwriting structuring an exercise in mechanics and stifles creativity. It's based on the entirely spurious assumption that you can impose structural constraints on your story from the outside. It rests its authority on the howlingly wrong interpretation of Aristotle's theory that there's a beginning, a middle and end in every story, not three acts.

Any advice on how to write a screenplay should offer something that helps writers break out from the tyranny of iron-clad templates. The 3-Act Structure looks decidedly tired and old-fashioned, guidance on screenwriting structure needs to get real and stop pedaling the patented formulas and regurgitating material from the so-called 'definitive' bibles.

For writers who want to create something more exciting than the usual Bollywood lackluster, there seems little point in following tips designed to suit every scriptwriter.

Inglourious Basterds is not a 3 act structure, neither is Ben-Hur and thousands of other films. A film should be structured as per the films’ demand. You can’t decide on a 3-Act Structure before you start writing, this is why screenplays today are so horrible. Some stories work as two acts, some as five, so it’s totally dependent on the narrative of the story, not on any formula, how you write a screenplay.

The worst thing you can do when screenwriting is to choose what kind of structure you want to use before you've got a solid idea of what your story needs.

Another problem is the lack of characterization in Indian films. Shahrukh Khan has been portrayed as the same character in all his films since Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge there is no difference. That’s because when an Indian screenwriter writes they keep Shahrukh, Salman, Akshay, etc. in mind, they know what their personalities are like and base the character on that. This is absolutely the wrong way of characterizing. The way a character behaves should come from the mind of the writer not the personality of the star. It’s the actors’ job to portray a character which is different from whom they are, but sadly it's not the case with over 90% of Bollywood actors.

Every time I watch Swades I feel it was written for Aamir Khan, Shahrukh is simply trying to ape him. Since Swades was written and directed by Ashutosh Gowariker, who also wrote and directed Lagaan - starring Aamir Khan, it’s not difficult to fathom that he probably had Aamir in mind when he wrote it. Next time you watch Swades think of how Aamir would have played it. This will show you how characterization in done in India.

How you create your character is probably the single most important aspect of screenwriting. Indian screenwriters should start with that, and shape their narrative around the demands of the character. Not the other way around.

The primary reason a Hindi film flops is the story is no good. No superstar or ace director can save a bad story. A good story can have bad acting and direction and still become a hit, but not the other way around. If things are to change in Hindi films, writers need to stop using the predictable 3-Act Structure and concentrate on characterization and story.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due!

By Anant Mathur (April 16, 2010)

Filmmakers and people associated with films are often asked: “Who has the toughest task in making a feature film?”

Well, depending on whom you ask you will receive different answers. A director will say his is the toughest task, a writer will say that without his creative vision there is no film, and an actor will say that without him the story can’t communicate with the audience so his is the toughest part because they have to act out the correct emotions and get into the skin of a character.

But none of these are actually true. The toughest task in filmmaking is, in fact, the producer’s role. The producer is the one who finds the story or comes up with an idea for one; he hires the writer, the director, the crew and the actors. The toughest part of making a film is arranging the financing, and guess what, that’s also the producer’s headache. And if he selects the wrong writer or director, the film doesn’t work (this is a problem with many Bollywood films) and flops big time.

Most directors will tell you that they have the toughest task, but directing is arguably the easiest part of filmmaking. Unless you’re making something like Star Wars, Terminator or The Matrix, a director’s job is simple: get the actors to do what the script says. Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge was written and directed by Aditya Chopra. He also wrote Veer-Zaara, but his father (Yash Chopra) directed it, now the stories of both these films are quite similar to an extent and their genre is the same. So it makes no difference if Yash Chopra directs it, if Aditya Chopra does or if you give it to a newcomer. It’s a very easy story to direct anyone could have done it. In Hollywood, most TV shows (eg. M.A.S.H., Baywatch, Friends, 24) and several movies series (eg. Original Star Wars Trilogy, Superman, X-Men and Alien series, etc.) have had different directors directing each episode or film, but you can't tell it's a different director because the screenplay is done well and the director knows exactly what to do.

Let’s take another example, Karan Johar wrote and directed Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham and Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna. He also wrote Kal Ho Naa Ho which was directed by Nikhil Advani (a newcomer). Watching the film, you can see that it’s a Karan Johar film in terms of the plot, style and how everything unfolds, but it’s not directed by him, and you don’t really notice that it’s not directed by him. So here we can see that it’s the writer’s work we see on screen not the director's. Karan recently directed My Name is Khan which was not written by him (probably because he’s not comfortable writing something like that) but he received praises for directing a different genre successfully, well of course he did it successfully - all the work was done for him by the writer. Even if someone else directed it, there wouldn’t have been much difference in the way the story was told, because if a writer has done what they’re suppose to it makes the director’s task very easy, especially if you’re working with well established actors like Karan Johar and the Chopras do.

Most Indian directors can’t handle directing newcomers - that’s why the likes of Karan Johar and Aditya Chopra stay away from them, they have no idea about film direction they’re only in this business because of their fathers. Do you really think Aditya or Karan would have had the same success if they were struggling artists and not their father’s sons?

On the other hand, directors like Rakesh Roshan, Raj Kanwar and Subhash Ghai have no qualms about directing newcomers because they know how to extract a performance from an actor. Rakesh Roshan and Subhash Ghai also have another advantage on directors, they themselves were actors so they know how actors are and how to get them motivated.

Actors who have done more than 1 film are very easy to direct, they know what’s expected of them and they don’t need to be told how to deliver a line as compared to a newcomer who has no clue about filmmaking. With newcomers, a director’s task is a little harder, but at the end of the day, that’s what their job is: to direct actors and shoot the best possible scene. When a newcomer doesn’t deliver it’s the director’s fault for not being able to get the right performance out of them and settling for what they’ve got.

Directors are given too much credit when it comes to filmmaking and that’s wrong in most cases. It should be the producer who receives the credit for getting a film made. Remember, it’s the producer who receives the best picture award not the director. The only time a director is more important is when he’s making a complicated sci-fi or action film, in that case, yes he’s the most important part of a film because he’s the only one who knows how to shoot these complex scenes.

A director has many people helping him: the writer, cinematographer, art director, editor, costume designer, assistant director, etc., so he’s not even responsible for most of the visual ideas on screen. It’s a fact that a badly directed film can be saved with good editing, but a badly produced film can’t be saved.

After the producer, the writer is probably the next most important person associated with a film. He can make or break your film. Without a good screenplay the director won’t be effective, no matter how good he is and the same goes for actors and the rest of the crew. If a story is not spellbinding it doesn’t matter who’s associated with the film, it won’t be successful.

We can argue till the end of time what part of filmmaking is the toughest, but in my experience of watching films and making them (producing, writing, directing, editing, etc.) I find the producer’s task to be toughest.

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

Why are Indian writers and critics so stupid?

By Anant Mathur (April 09, 2010)

I was reading a review on the film Jaane Kahan Se Aayi hai (starring Riteish Deshmukh and Jacqueline Fernandez) when a thought entered my head: Why are Indian writers and critics so stupid?

Don't these dumb idiots know life can't exist on Venus, even a 4 year old kid knows that! Grow up guys; there are planets outside our own solar system - why can't the girl be from one of those planets which can support life, instead of our solar system. Its little things like this which pisses off the audience for paying 250 Rs to see an idiotic film. At least get your science right! Do some research - it's not difficult - especially these days with Wikipedia and Google. Or here’s an idea… grow a brain?

It’s terrible to see actors like Riteish and Jacqueline work so hard and people not come to see the film because of idiotic concepts or lack of research. To waste talented actors in shit like Aladin and now Jaane Kahan Se Aayi Hai is a shame.

I have seen many Hollywood films based on female aliens coming to earth and I can guarantee that this one doesn’t even come close to any of them. One that really stands out in my mind is the Hollywood comedy My Stepmother Is An Alien, a brilliant idea which is well executed.

Why doesn’t anyone question stupidity in Hindi films? How can a writer, director, producer and actor all think that a girl coming down from Venus is a possibility? Shouldn’t someone at some stage of production have said “wait guys, life can’t exist on Venus how about if the girl is from Planet X”. And why do all Hindi films have to be about a loser who become a hero by the climax rolls around, can’t he just be a normal guy having an off day or something.

I doubt Indian writers and critics have the brain power to comprehend what I’m talking about. So it will be a sad day if Jaane Kahan Se Aayi Hai flops at the box office, but I will be the first to tell you, it won’t be a surprise.

If you would like to watch some really good Sci-Fi films about aliens, I highly recommend the following:
1) Forbidden Planet (1956)
2) It Came from Outer Space (1953)
3) I Married A Monster From Outer Space (1958)
4) The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)
5) Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
6) Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956)
7) The War of The Worlds (1953)
8) My Step Mother Is An Alien (1988)
9) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
10) Starman (1984)

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.

"The Hurt Locker" - An interview with Writer/Producer Mark Boal

If you caught the Oscars a week ago, you saw Mark Boal pick up the Academy Award for writing "The Hurt Locker". Be sure to check out the videos of him answering questions from the StoryLink Community shortly before his big win:

http://www.facebook.com/video/?id=102333436077

A Backwards World?

By Anant Mathur (17 March 2010)

This week I want to write about a thought that came into my mind a while ago when I was thinking about how backwards the world we live in is.

Think about all that we go through in life and then we end up being 60 or 70 years old and are unable to enjoy anything. We have finally reached the pinnacle of life and have the means to do whatever we want and nothing needs to be done. The children are all grown up, house is paid for, there’s a BMW parked in the driveway. All we can do is find new ways of spending our salaries or pensions.

For most of us, life goes something like this…

1. We’re born
2. We go to school and get an education.
3. After we graduate we look for a job
4. Once a job is secured we find that perfect mate (if we haven’t already) and get married.
5. Then we have children.
6. We help our children get the best possible education so they can get a great job.
7. Once our kids find a great job, they leave the nest and start the cycle again or we live with them through their cycle until we’re dead.

But throughout this cycle there are a lot of heartaches and pain, the number one problem being that we never seem to have enough money to pay for the needs of our children. And I think the system is to blame for that.

The way I see it, the system needs to change, instead of getting a low income when we’re in our 20s and it gradually going up as we’re promoted and get older, wouldn’t it make more sense if we get paid a higher income in our 20s and we can save for the future instead of struggle through life. Think about it, why do we need to be paid $150,000 in our 60s? When our kids have left or are working and the only person we have to support is our spouse.

We start out in our 20s making, let’s say, approximately $25000 or so per year. Part of that goes for the student loan(s) we took out to complete our education, some goes towards that piece of junk parked in the driveway, majority of it goes towards rent and groceries, and if there’s anything left over we might go grab a beer with our friends and bitch about how we hate our job, our boss and how underpaid we are.

So, wouldn’t it make more sense to be making $150,000 (per year) when we’re in our 20s, we can enjoy spending time with our kids without the worry of how we will pay for their Braces, Piano Lessons, iPod, xBox, or in certain cases that operation they really need. We'll have no worries about mortgage payments, and we can drive a BMW while we're young, instead of when we're in our 60s and too afraid to go fast. And as we get older we have money saved, so we can start getting paid less. In our 30s we make an average of $100,000 per year. In our 40s we make $70, 000, and $50,000 in our 50’s. By the time we make it to our 60s the average yearly income drops to $30,000 or $25,000. Then when we retire, we get our pensions, the same as in the other system. Doesn't that seem like a more interesting approach to how we should be living?

But the way we’re brainwashed into life, people will wonder what the hell is wrong with me. They want to get paid more not less as they progress through life and work harder and harder. But to them I say… wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in a world where we felt like we belonged instead of strugglin’ and bitchin’ our way through life?

© Anant Mathur. All Rights Reserved.