anuragr

Genetic Engineering and human cloning could be the most debated issues of our times. It is easy to find at least one movie every year which tries to say something new on the topic. Last year I was not only amazed when I watched Moon but suddenly felt more sensitive and informed about the issue.

Unfortunately Splice wasn't remotely capable of doing anything like that. If it was at least entertaining I would not have regretted the few hours I wasted watching it. Much as I have liked Adrien Brody I hate to say that there is really nothing I can recommend this movie for. Occasionally you might find some scenes funny, which were not intended to produce laughter, but that is the natural response to a long, meaningless and boring sequence of chasing lesser known artificial animals.

The movie is neither a science-fiction (almost nothing is plausible) nor a horror movie as some might think. If it was made and marketed like a teen horror sequence (urban legend) or like a cathartic demon-slaying flick it would have probably been worth something, but as it is the movie is neither though-provoking nor entertaining.

The story isn't probably as bad, you gotta admit what poor screen-writing can do to a story. The context seemed very interesting at first – two scientists working on production of a new species by tailoring the DNA of other species in order to viably produce some chemicals that otherwise can't be manufactured. There is a lot of pressure to deliver results but nothing comes in between the researchers and their scientific curiosity. The new species are doomed to back-fire but the movie doesn't make any attempts to ask and address the questions on consciousness or genetic tailoring. Instead it unsuccessfully attempts to invoke a kind of fear of beasts of nature that you might have last seen in Anaconda.

The debate on genetic engineering is far beyond the scope of fear against nature. Instead of inspecting the human dilemma while tailoring the DNA, or visiting the clash between science and our ideas of consciousness, the movie chose to fuel a kind of fear against nature that is half a century old. Unfortunately that too isn't executed well. As I said, there is nothing I can recommend this movie to anyone for.

The way I discovered Miyazaki's movies was with a bit of surprise and curiosity, something that itself is best depicted in his movies. It was "Howl's Castle" that caught my attention while switching channels one Sunday. You can almost always see a sublime English influence in his work- characters with an innocent curiosity exploring a world of immense power and intractable magic. It is intriguing and immersing - a world that I hadn't seen since having read "Alice in the Wonderland" in my childhood for the first time. Music and art-direction is crafted very carefully to give an effect rarely achieved by cinema.

Castle-in-the-sky is probably one of the best of his works. We revisit Swift's "Laputa" from the Gulliver's Travels in the movie – a place far into the unknown that has had a history of the sort of power and intelligence that is unmatched by the modern civilization. The characters of the movie Sheeta and Pazu both find themselves onto an inevitable voyage to Laputa. Their rather exploratory journey to Laputa is full of hurdles and discoveries. As they run into air-pirates, plane-crashes and magical revelations we become a part of their joy, worries, inquisitiveness and amazement.

If you're thinking Harry Potter, then you're absolutely mistaken. This might just be the opposite end of the spectrum. The visual effects of the movie are not meant to transcend the limits of the real world by letting you be in a fantasy world of magic and wizardry but instead in a rather unique way to meditate on our being and might in this world, in a way the Gulliver's travel did. That all of it can be achieved through animation is something only Miyazaki can be credited to.

One thing that Miyazaki does very well is to not let somewhat sentimental moments in the movie become too sappy or theatrical. The story might have had a tendency to become that way but script kept it entertaining with jokes and "quirkiness" of its characters at times. The dubbing artists did a wonderful job in making this movie appear seamlessly "English". It would remain rather incomprehensible to me how movies from Far East can be enjoyed without any conscious attempt to overcome cultural boundaries.

There is a certain way of making movies about India – a tradition that has descended from great directors like Louis Malle and Richard Attenborough that helps us appreciate movies like Born-into-brothels, city of joy. Most of these movies present us the abject poverty of India, the absolute penury of its people. Yet, there seems a way out of this dejected existence – one that leads to happiness despite the misfortune of disease and untimely death.

Words may not be enough to express the genius of Louis Malle or Attenborough, but somehow too much water has flown down Thames since that image of India was believed in. The wilderness in East that we knew India as has experienced some major changes since World War II. With globalization, it is transforming into something else … for better or worse.

I would remember this movie not because of what it had to say about outsourcing but because of its somewhat accurate representation of India. There are things about India that are despicable- to most Westerners. But the way the movie approached the subject was not through insulting humor the way American comedies usually do, but instead with an entertaining exploration into the very land of mystery. Although mild it is a comedy, but the script seemed very much educated about how India really is. That it never mixed up any Arab stereotype with the Indian ones is both surprising and commendable for an American movie.

The first half of the movie that takes time to build up the image of India perceived by a foreigner is actually quite accurate. There are things unbearable and overwhelming about India, but much the way the protagonist discovers, it all becomes much easier when you lose yourself into the wilderness that India is. Holi, a festival in India, is seen as a a metaphor to that - an act of curiosity met with a deeper involvement.

Of course, it is the wilderness after all that forms the appeal of India. There is this whole set of rituals, mythologies, beliefs and practices that evolved with complete disconnection from the West and offer an alternate reality to the foreigner. This dualism of disgust and curiosity flows parallel in the movie and achieves a sort of resolution in the end. There are very few movies that have chosen to explore this interest in India, without getting into yoga, kamasutra and henna.

This movie does not aspire to do in cinema what the book world-is-flat did in popular literature. It is not trying to tell you that the world is changing to the advantage of the Third world or argue on whether capitalism is the only hope for the poor. It mildly makes fun of this whole world that corporate culture has given us when it pokes fun at imitation of American accents and at how that becomes a career skill for some. It looks at outsourcing as the outcome of this commoditization of human experiences altogether. I was made to feel that outsourcing is a by-product of uneven growth that our current economic systems result in. The resolution is probably through not letting oneself become a product of one's circumstances – be it corporate policies or greed for money.

That resolution could've been expressed much better way- but unfortunately the movie fumbled in the second half. If I weren't really impressed with the first half, I might not have finished watching it. Sometimes it even appeared whether the movie was meant to be a comedy or something else. Still, overall this makes for an interesting experiment with India.