The Cup Chronicles - India vs Pakistan

 

        vs










  
The greatest sports rivalry in the world. A Battle Royale, as Star Sports calls it. The last time these two teams met in a world cup, it was the largest television event of the year. Tickets for this encounter in the 2015 world cup were sold out within 12 minutes. India are five for five against Pakistan in world cups, but Pakistan are way ahead in the overall head to head.

All this will ensure that India vs Pakistan at the Adelaide Oval on the 15th of February 2015 will be the most watched and anticipated cricket match of the year, but considering that in the 2013 Champions' Trophy, this fixture, though intended to be a knockout game, turned out to be a dead rubber, will it really be all that important in the larger scheme of things in the world cup?

The answer to that, to put it briefly, is yes. Even though India has been the number one ODI team in the world for the better part of the last four years, and Pakistan has been several spots behind in the ICC rankings, these two teams are more evenly matched for this encounter than they have been in years. This is not because they're equally good, but because they're equally weak.

The Indian team is at a very low point. It has failed to register a single win in its last 10 completed ODIs in the southern hemisphere. It has not won a single match in its entire tour of Australia. Even its performance in the two warm-up matches has been abysmal. 

While getting hammered by Australia was expected, its performance against minnows Afghanistan was extremely poor as well. It managed to pile on 365 runs due to the countless lifelines it was given by poor fielding, but then conceded way too many runs with the new ball against an inexperienced batting line up. What's worse, it ended up conceding over 200 runs and did not even bowl the Afghans out.

India's pace attack is the most incompetent in the world today among the major test playing nations. While Indian experts continue to shower the likes of Mohammad Shami and Umesh Yadav with praise, the fact is that these bowlers are not really fit to play international cricket. India's latest obsession with genuine fast bowlers has resulted in speed becoming the only criterion for selection, regardless of how indisciplined and inaccurate bowlers are.

The Indian batsmen can generally make up for the weaknesses in the bowling when they're playing in the subcontinent, but have failed miserably overseas. Batting collapses are almost second nature to the Indian team while playing away from home, and even the likes of Kohli and Dhoni have been unable to save them for crushing defeats.

But in the sport of cricket, you're only as good, or bad, as the opposition allows you to be, and this time, the Pakistani team is actually a shade weaker than India. Pakistan have had a torrid time in ODIs since the beginning of 2014, having won only 4 matches out of 16 against major teams. They have an inexperienced and extremely erratic batting line-up, and even stalwarts like skipper Misbah and Younis Khan are not the kind of players who can win matches single-handedly for their team.

Pakistan's bowling attack, once feared by the entire world, and often capable of defending totals under 200 with ease, is now thoroughly depleted without stalwarts Saeed Ajmal and Umar Gul. Even Junaid Khan, their most skilled pacer, exited the tournament before it even began due to injury.  Wahab Riaz, their fastest bowler, has major consistency issues, and the 7'1" Mohammad Irfan is no different.

India's strengths, though not many, include a batting line-up that can be very effective on its day, with each batsman capable of being aggressive as well as circumspect. The spinners can be economical, but not enough to make up for the runs that the pacers leak. Pakistan have a decent bowling attack with Irfan's bounce and Riaz's pace likely to trouble the Indian batsmen, especially the likes of Dhawan and Raina.

Pakistan have serious issues chasing totals above 250, while India find it almost impossible to defend anything under 300. This yin-yang equation will ensure that this match will be like India-Pakistan matches of the yore, i.e, Indian batsmen vs Pakistani bowlers. India, however, hold the advantage when it comes to dealing with the pressure of big matches, as captain Dhoni's calming influence has helped all those who have played under him to keep a cool head in high pressure situations.

And then, of course, lies the fact that India have history on their side. It is no fluke that India have never lost to Pakistan in world cups, and have generally won against them in world tournaments. It is because the Indian team constantly faces immense media and public pressure, no matter who it's up against, and as a result, Indian players can withstand the extra pressure they face while playing Pakistan, who often collapse under it, since the only time they have to deal with it is against India.

This match, besides being a match against their arch-rivals, is also the key to India's entire world cup campaign. A win would be a confidence booster, and it would go a long way in ensuring that they finish at least second in their group. On the other hand, an unprecedented loss could shatter their confidence completely, and they might struggle to beat even West Indies and Ireland.

Let the games begin!

On AIB Knockout, Aamir Khan, and the Freedom of Speech

A nagging, overly critical and analytical voice resides in my head. It is the one that makes me go through your favourite films and TV shows with a fine-toothed comb, find every small mistake, and then trash them on this blog. Sometimes, it also speaks about relevant social issues, and right now, that is everything surrounding All India Bakchod's Knockout, the roast of Ranveer Singh and Arjun Kapoor.

After this event was released on YouTube on the 28th of January, it was the talking point on social media. While I was watching it, I thought that it was funny in parts, but repetitive. The overly critical and analytical nagging voice said, dude, it's just riding on the shock value of mainstream Bollywood celebrities swearing their pants off. I can't believe KJo took his mom to this thing.

It came as absolutely no surprise that some group had decided that AIB Knockout was "obscene" and had declared that it would file a complaint against it. But when AIB decided to take the video down, the nagging voice said, why give in? Doesn't that give credence to these "concerns"? Does it not send out a message that fear and intimidation works?

AIB's response to all of this, while very well crafted, failed to really provide a concrete reason for taking the video down, even though it claimed that it was not because of "a phone call at 3 A.M" or "a morcha outside their houses." Hmm. I don't buy it, said the nagging voice. In fact, I'm still left wondering, does that not make these extremist groups smell fear, which is the bedrock of their existence?

The nagging voice's questions made me think about the freedom of speech. You're barking up the wrong tree, bruh, it said. There is no freedom of speech in this country for the likes of AIB. The number of buffoons who have actually been conditioned to believe that "being offended" by someone's words should be a justified cause for legal action is always on the rise. Freedom of speech ends when the Right gets pissed off. 

So, what? They piss us off all the time when they come up with pearls like "girls should be married off at the age of 16 so that they don't get raped." Are you an idiot? That's because they rule this country, mofo. Jeez, there's no need for swearing, man. STFU, it said. Are you trying to censor me? Think about what I said two paragraphs ago. What happens when people give in to extremist demands?

The answer came the next day. FIRs were filed. Not only against AIB, Ranveer Singh, Arjun Kapoor, and Karan Johar (those who were on stage), but against audience members Deepika Padukone and Sonakshi Sinha. The nagging voice's concerns turned to outrage. Are you f@*king kidding me? This, is what happens in a "free" country? Apparently, it does. But what about the 4000 other people who attended the event, just like Deepika and Sonakshi? They're not famous, so they don't matter.

So, this is all a publicity thing? Nothing is really going to happen to these guys, right? Is that the point? They got what they wanted, didn't they? The video was taken down. Oldest trick in the book - threaten something so bad that you get what you want. But why waste time on something like this? Aren't there more important issues to deal with? What about the Rohtak rape case? That's old news, dude. We've been over that with the 16th December case. Mainstream media has moved on. An issue is only important if it's trending. Don't ask stupid questions. Get with it, bruv. 

Then came a response to AIB's roast by none other than Aamir Khan, probably the smartest and most articulate superstar in the industry. Which honestly isn't saying much, considering the competition. He said, "creative persons have a responsibility," and he spoke quite responsibly, making it crystal clear that he was expressing his personal opinion, and that he believed that creative responsibility and freedom of speech are two very different issues. Well done. I was quite impressed.

But then the voice started on me again. Wait a second. Who is Aamir Khan? Whatever do you mean, nagging voice? Doesn't he, more than anyone else, represent that very Bollywood, (the one that takes itself too seriously) that AIB spoke about? Well, that's true, but he did not really lash out at anyone, and was quite articulate.

No, dude, think about who he really is. Okay, enlighten me. Is he a "true artist"? Well, not really. Only when you compare him to his competition. You mean the guy who cannot finish a sentence and has to resort to crude hand gestures to communicate, and the guy who contradicts himself virtually every two minutes. Right. But let's give him some credit. 

Okay, but consider this. For all his posturing about trying to improve standards of mainstream cinema, did he not make Dhoom 3, which apart from being insufferable, was also a ripoff? You're forgetting Ghajini. Exactly. A film that glorified violence against violence, and was also a blatant ripoff. But come now, ripoffs are hardly news in Bollywood.

Yeah, but this isn't Sajid Khan doing it. If someone who claims to have moral integrity, and thinks of himself as a responsible artist, makes atrocious ripoffs of Hollywood films, and then uses the faith that the public has in his word to sell it those films as good, is that person really all that responsible, and does he have a lot of moral integrity?

Interesting point, nagging voice. Now that I think about it, while it is true that he is a better actor than his two rivals, the fact remains that he is in the industry only because of who he's related to. Yes, he may have re-branded himself in the new millennium and backed some wonderful films, but he is not all good. Exactly. He is someone who takes himself too seriously, which is not as harmless as it sounds.

Ahan. Explain. Well, it is no secret that the Bombay film fraternity is a close-knit group that rules with an iron fist, deriding anyone who criticises it, labelling them as jealous. There is an unspoken understanding of mutual back slapping, and hardly any serious internal criticism is heard. If things like AIB's roast were to become commonplace, that world would come crashing down around those who depend on it for survival.

You're right, nagging voice. But what about freedom of speech? What about it? What do you think it should look like? You remember when that whole thing with TOI and Deepika happened? Yeah. So, imagine, instead of saying that TOI should retract what it said, how about people just use the same freedom of speech that it used, and make as much fun of that horrendous publication (I couldn't bring myself to call it a newspaper) as they want. 

Also, if anyone wants to point out that it's hilarious that Deepika, a non-actress who has gained stardom using the old Bollywood formula of becoming the object of male desire in her many item songs, suddenly has a problem with being objectified, they should be able to do so. If Deepika wants to respond to this viewpoint, she should also be allowed to say whatever she wants. That, my friend, is freedom of speech.

Thanks, nagging voice. You are very articulate, and I think I would be lost without you. I wish everyone had a voice like you in their heads. 

No, bro, if I were in someone else's head, they wouldn't be so open-minded and would probably have shut me out a long time ago. So, really, I wouldn't even exist without you. 

That's true. We're a great team. Like Raja and Rancho.

Word.

The Cup Chronicles - Players to Watch In The 2015 World Cup

Perhaps no other team sport depends as much on individual performances as cricket does. From Sachin Tendulkar's Desert Storm innings, to Wasim Akram's hattricks, individual performances have often turned cricket matches, especially ODIs, on their heads. 

The world cup brings together cricketing stars from all over the world who up their game in a bid to win the sport's most coveted prize. Listed below are 25 players who I think will be the ones to watch out for in the 2015 world cup. I am dividing them into four categories - Game Changers, Stalwarts, X Factors, and Wild Cards.

AB de Villiers - The best batsman and the most valuable player on the planet right now. He is the key to removing the 'chokers' tag that has haunted the Proteas for so long. However, he is often burdened with the dual responsibility of batting through to the end as well as scoring quick runs, which might prove to be his undoing. He is also arguably the best athlete the game has ever seen, and that's keeping Jonty Rhodes in mind. Sanjay Manjrekar rightly said that there should be a test to determine whether AB de Villiers is human or not. Game Changer.

Virat Kohli - The only batsman who can match de Villiers in limited overs cricket. While de Villiers is the master of improvisation and unorthodoxy, Kohli can often be equally lethal without playing a single unorthodox stroke. If he continues to bat at number 4, he would finish more innings, and his ability to snowball into an avalanche towards the end of an innings will come into play. He is the linchpin of India's batting order and will determine India's fate in the world cup one way or another. Game Changer.

Steve Smith - He has seen a meteoric rise in world cricket after hitting the purplest of patches in the last 18 months. Almost de Villier-esque in improvisation, he is extremely difficult to dismiss once he's set, and can score at will. He is an excellent fielder as was seen by the world in the IPL. His success will almost certainly ensure wins for Australia. Game Changer.

Mitchell Johnson - The fastest and most lethal bowler in the world. He has ensured with his performance in the last Ashes series that English batsmen will be terrified of him for as long as he plays. Constantly bowling into the ribcage of batsmen at over 145 kmph, his three over spells will be turning points in each of Australia's matches. Game Changer.

M S Dhoni - While he is never out of form in one-day cricket, he has not had the same impact on matches overseas as he used to. But as he's proven many a time, he always comes to play in the big matches. It is imperative that he promotes himself to number 5 so that he isn't always left trying to come back from behind after a batting collapse. This will also enable him to bat along with Kohli for long periods, ensuring that India's two best batsmen can feed off of each other. Stalwart.

Dale Steyn - The Steyn remover is not as deadly in colour as he is in the whites, but he is probably the greatest fast bowler that has ever lived. On the surface, it seems like he does not have too big an impact on a one-day game, but closer analysis reveals that a lot of wickets taken by fellow pacers Morne Morkel and Vernon Philander in this format are actually a direct result of the pressure applied by Steyn at the other end. Equally good with the new ball and at the death, he can be the perfect blend of a wicket taking and economical bowler. Stalwart.

Hashim Amla - I honestly don't know what to say about this man. On one hand, he has almost always played in very friendly conditions and easy match situations, and on the other, I'd be crazy to say that a player with his record is not an extremely gifted player. He recently became the fastest to 5000 ODI runs, beating the great Sir Viv Richards to the mark by 13 innings. It is important that he gives South Africa good starts for de Villiers to capitalise on. Stalwart.

Kumara Sangakkara - Few batsmen have hit a patch so purple this late in their careers. He is the best batsman Sri Lanka have ever produced, and is only 15 runs short of overtaking Ricky Ponting as the second highest ODI run getter of all time. This is his last world cup, and after having lost two world cup finals in a row, he will do all he can to ensure that there isn't a hattrick. He will consistently score runs, but his team needs to make sure that he is not forced to play the role of both linchpin and finisher. Stalwart.

Mahela Jayawardene - It is almost a given that Jayawardene would follow Sangakkara in any discussion of cricket, as they have been the twin pillars of Sri Lankan cricket for the last decade. Unlike Sangakkara, he has almost faded away in the twilight of his career, but he can still pack a helluva punch. He is much more adept at dealing with pressure in the big games than Sangakkara, and he proved that with his stunning hundred in the 2011 world cup final. Stalwart.

James Anderson - Even though I do not see England going very far in the world cup, they can do reasonably well in the group stage, and a lot of it is courtesy Anderson, one of the most skilled bowlers in world cricket. He's got the cricket ball on a leash, extracting swing, both conventional and reverse, where everyone else fails to. He will be a handful on the lively pitches of New Zealand, and even Australia. Stalwart.

Tilakaratne Dilshan - Also in the twilight of his career, he has been in good limited overs form in the last year. His performance at the top of the order is important for Sri Lanka's success, as he is one player who can take the game away from the opposition with his aggressive batting. Stalwart.

Ross Taylor - He has been in excellent form in the last two years in all formats of the game. His record at home is very impressive, and he can be circumspect as well as explosive, making him the nerve centre of New Zealand's batting line-up. If he does well, maybe the Kiwis can finally make it to a world cup final. Stalwart.

Glenn Maxwell - His performance in the 2014 IPL showed the world that he is one of the most explosive batsman in limited overs cricket today. He strikes at 120 in one-day cricket. If he gets going in the last ten overs, he can single-handedly win games for Australia. He has also shown that he can bat patiently in the middle overs. Also an excellent fielder and decent part-time off spinner. X Factor.

Angelo Mathews - The Sri Lankan captain has had a great year to emerge as one of the best allrounders in the world, and it's mainly because he has become a terrific finishing batsman. While contributions from the three stalwarts will be important, he can be the one who makes the difference with his ability to finish an innings with the bat, and to be miserly with the ball. X Factor.

Ajinkya Rahane - He has emerged as India's most consistent and reliable test batsman, and we know from the IPL that he can also do well in the shortest format of the game. Indian fans will hope that he can carry his form into the world cup so that he can improve on an unimpressive ODI record. As a classical opener, he will see off the new ball but still score quickly, as he has a wide range of orthodox shots at his disposal. X Factor.

David Miller - Killer Miller, as he was known in the IPL after a 37 ball century, will be the man South Africa will rely on to finish off innings. He must perform, as South Africa's biggest problem in world cups has been batting collapses due to the lack of solid finishers. X Factor.

James Faulkner - An allrounder who averages 48 with the bat with a strike rate of 110 is definitely someone to watch out for. He has emerged as an excellent finisher for Australia. There are doubts whether his injury would allow him to bowl in the world cup, but if he recovers, he will be a vital cog in the Australian machine with his ability to bowl in the middle overs and at the death. X Factor.

Steve Finn - Anderson and Broad are a good bowling pair. Add the 6'6" Steve Finn, and England have a potent pace attack. Finn has been England's trump card whenever he has played in his injury plagued career. He showed good form in the recently concluded tri-series, and he could give the English batsman a chance to win games if he continues this way. X Factor.

Lasith Malinga - He used to be the best limited overs pacer until a few years ago, but the sheen has worn off, and a lot of batsmen, especially the Indian ones, have his number now. He still takes wickets at the death, but he can be scored off, which blunts the edge he had in the last world cup. However, conditions Down Under are suitable to fast bowling, and he could take advantage of that to ensure that Sri Lanka are a side to be feared. X Factor.

Eoin Morgan - England has looked a completely different ODI team since he took over as captain. England's best limited overs batsman, his ability to finish innings well will ensure that they're taken seriously by other teams. X Factor.

Kane Williamson - One of the best young batsmen in the world, he has been recently been named Mr. Consistent. He will be New Zealand's second go-to man with the bat. X Factor.

Rohit Sharma - For over seven years, he has frustrated fans and critics alike with bursts of brilliance and countless unnecessary implosions. He has generally been patchy overseas, but a hundred against Australia in the recently concluded tri-series will give him and Indian fans some confidence. He is generally a ticking time bomb when he comes out to bat, as everyone knows that the inexplicable, awful shot that will send him packing is right around the corner. But if he does get in, he is literally unstoppable, as he proved with his two ODI double hundreds. Wild Card.

Brendon McCullum - He can play the most unbelievable innings in all formats of the game, but the flipside is that he's extremely inconsistent, because of which he averages only 30 in ODIs. If he can keep a cool head, New Zealand will have a powerful batting trifecta that will ensure substantial success in the tournament. Wild Card.

Mohammad Irfan and Wahab Riaz - They form the core of Pakistan's bowling attack, but haven't had the best time in the last year. Both have issues with consistency, but they have to step up, since Pakistan's bowling attack is heavily depleted without Saeed Ajmal and Junaid Khan. If they can take advantage of the friendly conditions that Australia and New Zealand provide for pacers, Pakistan will be a team to watch out for. Wild Cards.

Keep reading The Cup Chronicles for both insights into the 2015 cricket world cup!

The Cup Chronicles - Preview of the 2015 World Cup

With the world cup right around the corner, I thought that this would be the best time to drop some cricket on y'all. The Cup Chronicles will be a series that will talk mainly about India's important matches in the 2015 world cup, along with other cricket gyaan that I have gained from years of binge-watching this awesome sport. Today's entry will focus on team India's chances in the world cup based on their recent performances, along with a little bit about other teams and where they stand.

If experts of the cricketing world, especially the Indian ones, are to be believed, India are going into this world cup as favourites. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong come the 15th of February, but as of now, this is definitely not true. Cricket analysis in the mainstream media is extremely myopic, as most analysts, even those who were champions of the sport when they played it, are generally not willing to get to the real problems faced by the Indian team, as it might hurt their pockets.

Team India's record in one-day cricket, just like its record in test cricket, has been abysmal outside the subcontinent in recent times. More specifically, its record in Australia and New Zealand, the hosts of the 2015 world cup, has been absolutely horrendous. It has failed to register a single win in its last eight matches in these two countries, and only one of these eight matches has been against the mighty Aussies, the other seven being against significantly weaker teams, England and New Zealand.

It may be argued that team India viewed the recently concluded tri-series, in which it did not win a single game, as a warm up series, and therefore, went in with the goal of working out some kinks rather than winning, but going back a year to India's humiliating, winless tour of lowly New Zealand, and three years back to the awful performance in the tri-series against Australia and Sri Lanka, one is bound to think that there are some serious flaws in that hypothesis.

The conditions in Australia and New Zealand are just not suited to team India's playing style. While team India can do quite well in one-day cricket in a place like England, where conditions naturally favour the bowlers so much that limited overs cricket has to be played on pitches that are very different from the ones used in test cricket, the same does not apply to Australia, where conditions are almost identical for all formats of the game.

India's weakness against bounce and pace is therefore, easily exploited by sides with good pace attacks in one-day matches, where they're forced to look for quick runs. Add to this the enormous grounds in Australia, where boundaries are more difficult to come by, and we have a team almost entirely dependent on its batting failing to get the above par scores it needs to stand a chance against quality batting line-ups.

There is also the matter of India's world cup squad, which looks quite weak on paper given the inability of a lot of its key players to do well away from home. Not selecting the in-form Murali Vijay could cost India dearly. A tired, and often toothless pace bowling attack, along with spinners who have failed miserably away from home, could lead to an early exit from the world cup for India. Well, as early as it can be in a format where 42 matches are played in the league stage, at the end of which all the major eight teams qualify for the quarter-finals.

If team India is to have a chance of defending the world cup, it needs to maximise the output from its very limited squad by making smart and progressive selections for the playing eleven. Captain Dhoni needs to be his innovative self and forget clichéd formulae that cricket "experts" often prescribe. He needs to understand that he has an extremely poor pace bowling attack that will bleed runs without giving him enough wickets, and he's better off going with economical medium pacers.

He needs to forget that Suresh Raina is a good middle order batsman in ODIs at home and look at his abysmal record overseas, and more importantly, his crippling fear of fast bowlers like Mitchell Johnson and Dale Steyn regardless of whether the match is taking place in Mumbai or Melbourne. He needs to realise that he, Dhoni, is not the batsman he once was and cannot blaze away the second he comes in to bat, and therefore needs to come up the order so that he allows himself some time to settle in for the long innings.

My pick for India's playing eleven, in batting order - Dhawan, R Sharma, Rahane, Kohli, Dhoni, Raina, Binny, Ashwin, A Patel, B Kumar, Shami. Jadeja's exclusion may raise eyebrows, but Axar Patel has outbowled him in recent times, and India already has a batting allrounder in Stuart Binny. Rahane batting at number three is also an unusual choice, but it will enable Kohli to come in a little later so that he can bat through to the end more often, as with the new rules the game has become more about the last 15 overs than the first 15.

India's run in the league stage has been made considerably easy due to the fact that they play arch-rivals Pakistan, whom they have never lost to in world cups, in Adelaide, where conditions are as close to home as they can be Down Under. There is also the fact that they have West Indies in their group, a team that, for all practical purposes, is no better than the minnows. I will pray that I don't have to eat my words when India plays them at Perth on the 6th of March.

India's real test will begin in the quarter-finals, where they will, in all likelihood, play perennial underdogs (and semi-finalists), New Zealand, in their own backyard. If they were to win that match, they would probably play Australia in the semi-final, or as they would like to call it, the final before the actual final, where they could face either Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or South Africa.

Australia and South Africa are going into this world cup as favourites with well rounded teams that have a good balance of stars and utility players. While South Africa, as always, need to learn how to deal with pressure come the knockout games, Australia also need to address a few issues that could be their undoing. Michael Clarke's insistence on playing in the world cup even though there isn't a place for him in the team, besides being very un-Australian, could cost them dearly if he gets injured in the middle of the tournament.

Sri Lanka and Pakistan are always in with an outside chance of winning these major tournaments, but since they're both the kind of teams that can beat, or lose to any team on any given day, I doubt anyone can predict how their performance is going to be. New Zealand are a team to watch out for, because even though they lack what it takes to go all the way, they have players who can be party poopers for other teams. England have no chance of winning, but their strong bowling attack has proven in the tri-series that they cannot be considered pushovers.

All in all, while this world cup will probably not be able to match the intensity of the last one, as there is nothing quite like a cricket world cup in the subcontinent, it promises to be an exciting tournament nonetheless because of the change in the rules, and because it will be the last for several modern day greats. I'm sure that the blue billion will continue to bleed blue and hope that India beats the odds to bring home the world cup again, and so will I. In the words of God, come, let us chase the dream again.

The Feudal Film Industry

Long before I was exposed to Hollywood in a big way, I used to devour Hindi films like no one else I knew, and there was hardly a film made in my lifetime that I didn't know of. Bombay cinema has been a part of my life since before I can remember. I have been a remarkably keen observer of the industry and its cinema my entire life, and in all modesty, my knowledge of it, by layperson standards, borders on the encyclopedic.

The umpteen observations that I have made about the industry and its cinema have coalesced into a juggernaut that has gained a lot of momentum in the last few years, because despite the seemingly bright future that developments of the last decade promise, change in the industry has come at a glacial pace, since it takes two steps back for every three it takes forward. My theory for this, and the subject of this article, is that Bollywood is just plain, old-school feudal, and it is imperative that there is a transition to a less exploitative mode.

The industry looks a lot like the pyramid of feudalism, where those at the top are literally standing on the shoulders of those at the bottom. High atop the pyramid are the three mega-stars, exchanging positions every few years, bickering like teenagers about who the biggest star is, or alternatively, using a slightly less juvenile ploy called humility and saying that neither of them can compare to the biggest star of the industry - Amitabh Bachchan.

One of them has harped on the fact that he, unlike the other two, was an outsider in the industry for the first half of his career, but has spent the other half acting no differently than the average insider, which he can get away with, since he is now one of the richest actors, and one of the most influential people in the world. His stance on whether he is a "real actor" or just an "entertainer" changes depending on whether his last release insulted the audience's intelligence or not.

The other two are poster children for nepotism. Born into illustrious families of filmmakers, they entered the industry at laughably young ages, straight away as leads, or "heroes" as we like to call them. One of them, because of his higher level of intelligence, a much higher level of seriousness and commitment, and practice of a style of acting that had been in vogue in the industry for decades, quickly became recognised as a "real" actor. In recent years, however, his style of acting had begun to seem extremely dated, until last month, when his latest release restored some faith in his acting ability.

Then we have the reigning king who, just like the king of the jungle, belongs more in a circus than the film industry, but trifles such as the inability to act, or even to communicate without mime do not stop people from becoming mega-stars in B-town. Indeed, no one who has seen him in action for the last few years can deny that there is an uncanny similarity between Bollywood and western Europe circa 1200 A.D, where those who have absolutely no talent exploit the power they've inherited, get away with anything, and keep the lion's share of the profits.

Below these three on the pyramid, lie various other male stars, almost all of whom are related to one of the several Bollywood clans. The number of male actors that achieve stardom but are not connected to any of these clans is shockingly low. Like noble families, these clans rule with an iron fist, keeping outside challenges to their power in check. If one or two manage to slip through the cracks, relationships are forged by marriage, and they become part of the system.

The sense of entitlement of these star kids is appalling, but completely believable if they're seen as heirs to a fiefdom. When they go on talk shows and declare in their nauseatingly fake accents, that they carry the expectations of the world on their shoulders, that the struggles of the "commoners" do not compare to theirs, it is clear that their pea-sized brains cannot comprehend that their counterparts in other parts of the world, despite having the crucial element of talent, struggle for years, sometimes decades to achieve what their surnames have given them, and that a lot of these "commoners" would rape and pillage to get what they got at birth.

Then come the actresses, or "girls" as a lot of these superstars like to call them, blissfully unaware of how condescending and sexist they sound. There is not so much a glass ceiling in Bollywood as a concrete one. Female superstars are almost unheard of, and the only actress who came close to becoming one did so more due to her image as the "Dhak Dhak girl" than her acting skills, only to exit the industry in her early thirties to get married and have kids. Her efforts to make a comeback in recent years have failed, a constant reminder that as a woman in the industry, the only thing one has to offer is youth and beauty.

Countless successful films and years of work, and actresses still struggle to make even the smallest of dents in this stiflingly low concrete ceiling. Some of them are admittedly talentless, but no more so than their male counterparts, who achieve stardom overnight, get significantly bigger paychecks than them with less than half their experience, and always, always get top billing. It speaks volumes about the industry's blatant sexism that top actresses often make almost the same amount of money for a dance number at an award ceremony as they do for a lead role in a film.

While the system is undoubtedly to blame for this kind of sexism, part of the blame needs to go to the actresses themselves. It must be kept in mind that no matter how feudal the film industry is, power relations between the sexes here are not at the same level of disparity as they would be in another field. These actresses are extremely wealthy public figures, and therefore, have the means to at least try to right this imbalance. However, most of them, lacking any talent and having made their way into the industry purely on the basis of their looks and/or surname, choose not to do so lest they lose their 15 minutes of fame.

The industry's obsession with physical appearance is not limited to women. If you don't belong to a Bollywood clan, the only way you will become a 'lead actor' is if you are good looking. Those who do not fit the bill are doomed to be 'supporting' actors for the rest of their lives, no matter how talented they are, which is why the history of Bollywood is ridden with the graves of potentially incredible careers of brilliant actors.

All this talk of actors entails the risk of this article seeming too myopic and actor-centric. The average film viewer in this country hardly thinks beyond the actors and the music. The self-proclaimed film buffs who believe they're better often talk about directors. What everyone talks about, though, but doesn't really think carefully about, is a film's narrative.

Yes, narrative. Story. Script. Screenplay. Despite this country's obsession with stars and songs, which is carefully fuelled by the industry, the films that generally emerge as winners in the long run are the ones with the best stories, and regardless of which aspect of the film the average viewer talks about, the one that has the maximum impact is the writing.

Narrative cinema is the dominant form of cinema in the world, especially in this country. There is a reason why classical Hollywood, and even Bombay cinema, centred entirely on the narrative, because filmmakers in those days did not have the benefit of a million smokescreens, such as visual effects and mindless, high-octane action to fool the audience.

If a film's narrative is indeed so important, why is it that the average viewer in this country, or even the average film buff for that matter, hardly ever knows who the writer of a particular film is? It's because when the devil is in power, the greatest trick he can pull is to make you believe that angels don't exist. Indeed, it is not a coincidence that writers, the most important components of the filmmaking process, are the most badly treated community in Bollywood.

Just like the middle class threatened the absolute power of the aristocracy in the middle ages, writers have the power to change the film industry for better and for always. New ideas, deeper stories, and a more nuanced style of storytelling would demand changes that would expose the star-producer complex for what it really is - a fraternity of talentless nepotists. It is no wonder that those in power in Bollywood have created a system where being a writer is such an unappealing prospect.

To protect their vested interests, the Bollywood fraternity by and large has deliberately worked to keep writers on the fringes of the industry by giving very little value not only to the profession, but to the very idea of a good script. Whether it be star, producer, or director, members of this ruling class have shouted from the rooftops for years that cinema is a business, and since the primary goal of any business is to be financially profitable, the success of a film depends only and only on how much money it makes.

In all seriousness, the flowchart above does sum the industry up pretty nicely. The vicious cycle of awful cinema and a seemingly unalterable, oppressive power structure in the industry begins and ends with the injustices writers have to face in Bollywood. Their ideas and stories are often stolen by clan based production houses that get away with it. They're paid pittance compared to directors and actors, and are often blatantly denied credit for their work. The writer credit has become even less important in recent years, with things like "publicity design" taking precedence over it in a film's credit sequence.

Writers are not the only ones to be treated poorly in Bollywood. In fact, this is where the industry's feudal nature is most starkly visible, because apart from the stars, producers, and directors that belong to Bollywood clans and form the ruling class, professionals of any other field in the filmmaking process are no more than powerless peasants.

This is illustrated quite well by how much money and recognition the industry's singers get. For an industry that often depends entirely on music for the success of its films, singers are treated quite horribly. The money they make may seem like a lot to the average Indian, but it is not even remotely close to being enough considering how widely their songs are circulated, and that for a lot of films, the songs are the saving grace.

Even worse is how little recognition they get from people. The old axiom, "jo dikhta hai wahi bikta hai," comes into play here, aided and abetted by the industry's ruling class. Singers are not the most visible figures, sometimes because they're not attractive enough, and sometimes because it would simply not work for the powers that be if some of the real stars of cinema gained too much recognition among the masses. Remember that the next time you hear someone say "..that Shahrukh Khan song" or "Bhai ka gaana".

As I said before, change in the industry and its cinema has come at an extremely slow pace. Some of the real filmmakers who made their way in after struggling against the system for years had hoped that the golden age of Bollywood's box office would mean that a small part of those billions would also come their way, but have now realised that an economic boom without any devolution of power only means that the ruling class has become stronger than ever before.

While the big productions are routinely bringing in hundreds of crores, the fact remains that most films in Bombay still lose money. This stark contrast has made even the dumbest of superstars realise that it is because of their ability to pull crowds in that their films make the big bucks, and they have seized on this opportunity to take home the lion's share of these profits and become disproportionately, obscenely wealthy and powerful.

Just think about this for a second - an industry in which the some of the most expensive productions are budgeted at around 20 million dollars, a tiny amount compared to big Hollywood productions, is also home to the world's second richest actor. The outrageousness of that makes it crystal clear that this box office boom has almost entirely worked towards filling up the coffers of superstars and producers instead of being used to produce better cinema.

Why do these clans continue to rule Bombay without their authority ever coming into question? It is because of the audience that consumes the industry's cinema. This audience is often divided into the masses and the classes, a classification that is a little too simplistic, but does serve a purpose. While I cannot intelligently talk about all of the 'Indias', or target audiences that exist (just like B-town's rulers), there are some issues that I believe are common between a lot of these audiences, only one of which is that they don't have a very refined taste in cinema.

The idea of a clan based industry is very deeply engrained into the minds of Indian audiences, to the point where it doesn't even occur to us to question it. We seem to take for granted that sons and daughters of big stars and producers will succeed them, without ever really considering whether they deserve to or not, and even if they do, whether it should be in their early twenties as leads in the biggest productions, without having worked their way up.

A lot of these actors have pretty long careers despite the fact that their films do not succeed commercially, or even critically, simply because of their godfathers in the industry, and because if they do happen to give even one or two decent performances among twenty terrible ones, the naïve audiences actually believe that these actors "can act," as if merely the ability to act once in a blue moon entitles one to star in big productions and earn tens of crores. Well, I occasionally blog. Where is my Pulitzer?

It is unbelievable how much Indian audiences mollycoddle these talentless stars. A ten or twenty percent success rate is considered abysmal in most other professions, unless one is a professional pick-up artist, and yet so few people, even among the supposedly enlightened audiences, ask the all important question - should these "actors" even be in a film industry?

This question should be asked even for stars who have a higher success rate, because the truth is that the Bombay film industry is one of the most well known in the world, and in terms of the number of films produced, is also one of the biggest. Why should an industry that caters to over half a billion people be content with stars who are average, or even slightly above average actors? Why should these stars get acclaim for giving good performances in roles in which they just have to be themselves?

And then we have the double standards of Indian audiences, especially the classes. The scale on which stars are judged is completely different from the one used for judging non-stars, which works out very well for the former lot, as they can continue to compete in the kids' pool and get participation trophies. Great work by incredible actors who are forever destined to play supporting roles receives polite applause, whereas even an average performance by a star gets a standing ovation.

These double standards are not just limited to actors, but apply to Bombay cinema at large. Innovative art cinema is often dismissed as "arty-farty nonsense" by viewers who like the same kind of cinema as long as it is made in other countries. Urban viewers often look down upon extremely well made rustic films, but readily lap up mediocre "new-age" films simply because of their urban setting. 

We also have the section of viewers who consume Bombay cinema, (because it would be politically incorrect not to) but are impossible to please, even though their taste when it comes to Hollywood cinema is absolutely atrocious. And then of course, there are viewers who never owned a dictionary and therefore, never learned that "different" doesn't mean "good", and that badly made films are not to be cheered frantically for just because they showcase "something new" or "something relevant".

The biggest culprit, however, is the class of viewers that consumes Bombay cinema quite voraciously, but is actually embarrassed of it on a pretty deep level. This leads to rationalisation, because they cannot seem to admit that they like films they know to be bad, and therefore, feel the need to argue that these films are actually good. 

They constantly justify the presence of talentless stars in the industry by saying that they're actually good actors and do belong in the film world, simply because they cannot reconcile that part of them that likes these stars because of looks, 'charisma', or other such things, with the part that wants to believe that they have good taste.

Who is to blame for the sad state of cinema in Bombay? On one hand, there is a feudal film industry dominated by those who don't even deserve to be there, but have created a system almost unfit for any creative work, only to keep themselves in power. On the other, there is a brainwashed audience that cannot even think beyond what Bollywood's ruling class wants them to think, and is so starved for good cinema that it has forgotten what it looks like.

What does the future hold? I cannot say for sure, but after having spent a year in Bombay and listening to some true filmmakers and other unsung heroes of the industry who have been fighting for change at the grass-root level, both in terms of approach to cinema and the power structure of the industry, I'm hopeful that change, however slow, will come to the industry, and one day, it will not be referred to by a moniker as insulting as "Bollywood".

Busting Perceptions - Rush

I learned only a few months ago that this film was supposed to be a big deal. At first I was puzzled, since I could barely get through it the first time I watched it. My puzzlement turned to incredulity when I saw how militant people got while defending it, especially since most of their arguments made my case for me, and they had nothing but ad hominem attacks in response to my arguments against this sports biopic.

So, I decided to watch Rush again. Full disclosure - it didn't seem as awful as it did the first time, but honestly, that isn't saying much. I can understand why Formula One fans like, or even love this film, but what about the rest? I find it inexplicable that this film appeals so strongly to them. Sure, it has great "visuals" and the score is composed by Hans Zimmer. These two factors are generally enough to please the average viewer, which I can accept when there's a foundation of a half-decent screenplay, but that is not the case with Rush.

Admittedly, it is not easy to make a film about real people, based on real incidents that were well publicised, but I will repeat what I wrote about Argo - if you're spending millions of dollars to make a film that will be seen all around the world, do it right or not at all, for there are no participation trophies or consolation prizes at that level.

Diving right into it, the biggest problem with Rush is the seeming obsession with authenticity and historical accuracy (the reason I use the word 'seeming' will become clear later on). While F1 purists seek to justify this, they would do well to bear in mind that the vast majority of people who watched this film are not F1 fans, and director Ron Howard made it clear that he did not want Rush to be like a documentary and it was important that it catered to a wider audience, not to mention that authenticity and accuracy cannot be excuses for bad writing.

Right from the first act itself, it is clear that screenwriter Peter Morgan and Ron Howard intend to show us the supposedly important events in the lives of the two main characters - James Hunt and Niki Lauda - regardless of whether they belong in the narrative or not. Clay Regazzoni's warning to Lauda to stay away from a girl because he couldn't match up to her ex, Hunt, and Hunt's "meet-cute" with his future wife are examples of this, as they're nothing but dead spaces.

On the first viewing, I just could not stop thinking that it's almost as if they've chosen to re-enact incidents that actually took place instead of dramatising them. One of the biggest blunders a filmmaker could make is to believe that the audience wants to watch something "real", and give it exactly that. While I would not be so arrogant as to say that the audience has no idea what it wants, I would maintain that it cannot really articulate what it wants.

"Realism" is one of the most grossly misused words in reference to cinema. Reality is boring, and no one wants to watch it. A well written and well designed screenplay, no matter how "unreal", feels realistic, and that is what the audience really wants, not a re-enactment of something that once happened, unless of course, it's a case of truth being stranger than fiction, and let's face it, that's not something that happens everyday.

To illustrate my point, I'd like to draw attention to the rivalry between Hunt and Lauda. Not being an F1 enthusiast, I assumed that the portrayal of this rivalry in the film must've been quite accurate. I was wrong. The rivalry is fictional. Lauda and Hunt were friends, and even roommates for a while, and barring the fact that Hunt swayed the vote taken before the German Grand Prix in 1976, there is not the slightest hint of antagonism between the two.

When I learned this, I could not fathom what a writer could possibly have been thinking while writing this film. If the premise, the very foundation of your so-called biopic is fiction, why on earth would you not take more liberties to add to the drama?! How could you possibly think that after a century of narrative cinema, an audience would like to watch a rivalry which basically involves juvenile trash talk and tattling to the authorities, and eventually ends in friendship after one person almost dies? Bollywood did that 13 years ago in Josh, and that was a considerably better film.

Morgan and Howard probably assumed that audiences today were too brainwashed, too conditioned to really use their heads, which is why the film's core is a rivalry that is as hackneyed as it gets - the calculated vs the impulsive. This in itself would be acceptable, since there are only so many original ideas, but it is the way in which this conflict is portrayed that is unacceptable, i.e, the lame dialogue between Hunt and Lauda that the film is littered with, repeatedly telling us what we already know - that Hunt is willing to take risks that Lauda isn't, and also that Lauda apparently likes being called a rat.

There is also the matter of how the two main characters have been designed. Howard and Morgan have very amateurishly given us two characters that are two different ends of a horseshoe magnet - they seem like polar opposites, but are surprisingly close to each other. First, let's look at James Hunt. While it is obvious that his character cannot be as detailed and authentic as Lauda's, since no first hand research can be done, that does not mean that the character has to be a complete cliché.

The stereotype of the impulsive, rash, carefree, yet extremely gifted and likeable womaniser who needs a little discipline to get his act together and achieve the greatness he was destined for has been pelted at us for decades, in countless films and television shows, to the point that it is painfully boring to watch now, especially if it is copy-pasted like it has been done in this film.

I do not give two hoots about whether Hunt was like this in real life or not, and nor should I. What I want to see is a character that cannot be summed up in its entirety in a single scene, with everything after that being just a reiteration. What's even worse is that even though this particular stereotype implicitly promises the viewer a transformation so that the goals of the character can be achieved, no such thing happens in Rush. In fact, throughout the film, there is no obstacle in Hunt's path to the world championship that he overcomes.

Niki Lauda is supposedly the antithesis of Hunt. Due to the fact that Morgan, Howard, and Bruhl could do all the first hand research they wanted, this character ended up becoming too specific in all the wrong ways. Daniel Bruhl became the spitting image of Niki Lauda. You can hardly tell them apart, and if sources are to be believed, the accent and mannerisms that Bruhl adopted were exactly like Lauda's.

While it is impossible not to Laud (see what I did there?) the effort Bruhl and the rest of the team must've put in to make this character as authentic as possible, I can't help but think that they would've been better off investing their energies elsewhere. The wisdom of the ages tells us that excess of everything is bad. Moreover, there's a reason that one of the tenets of filmmaking in the Golden Age of Hollywood was not to draw any attention to any aspect of the filmmaking process.

It is impossible not to notice how much effort Bruhl put in to get the accent right. This is not a good thing for a multitude of reasons. One, as I said before, drawing too much attention to the effort being put in is not done. Two, getting an accent right should not be on the list of priorities while designing a character. Lauda's character barely has any depth, and despite the efforts to make it seem authentic, it is nearly as shallow as Hunt's.

Three, having an accent like that makes it pretty hard for the viewer to take anything he says seriously, especially when he keeps saying "asshole" like he does. And finally, if anyone feels that I'm completely wrong about all this, and Bruhl and the rest of the team putting in that much effort to make him seem exactly like Lauda is justified, there is a response to that as well.

Writing is about killing your favourite babies, and this can easily be applied to the entire process of filmmaking. If something in your film is so good that it sticks out and draws attention to how poor the rest of the film is, remove it, because uniformity of tone and quality is pretty important. One of the reasons why Hunt's character seems even more generic is that Lauda's seems too specific.

People keep saying that authenticity is important while making films like this in order to do justice to real people and events, but what they don't realise is that no biographical film can really be made without a few liberties, because what actually happened is of no consequence whatsoever if it's not dramatic enough. Howard and Morgan have taken liberties as well. Indeed, the central situation of this biopic is fiction. But they did not have the conviction to really take it all the way, and that resulted in the limp, boring, and clichéd mess that is Rush.

If anyone feels that drama can be sacrificed for authenticity, I would say that they might prefer to watch documentaries over fiction. If anyone feels that it is not possible to dramatise events any more than they have been in Rush, I would refer them to The Social Network, one of the best Hollywood films of the century so far, which is based not just on real people, but people who could probably buy Columbia Pictures three times over and turn it into their ping-pong rooms.

2014 - A Friends Odyssey

On the twentieth anniversary of Friends, I decided to take some time off from trashing your favourite movies and patronisingly telling you to widen your horizons. Instead, I will finally let out my conflicting emotions about one of the most popular and influential sitcoms of all time.

To say that Friends has influenced an entire generation would only be a half-truth, since the show's influence extends far, far beyond those born in the 70s and the 80s. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is in us, the children of the 90s, where the legacy of Friends is truly visible.

It was in the countless re-runs of the show in the mid-2000s that those of us born circa 1990 got the first taste of 'grown-up' humour. It is because we watched it in our formative years, the impressionable teens, that Friends shaped the way we talk, behave around people, and even think.

I don't think Uncle Sam has any idea how much it owes to Marta Kauffman and David Crane for Americanising the young anglophone Indian. I'm pretty sure that I have not met more than a handful of people from this demographic that have not seen Friends, and most of the people I know have seen the entire show more than a few times.

In high school, it was almost fashionable to start a conversation with "Do you remember that episode in which..." without actually specifying which show you're talking about. This would generally lead to a seemingly endless conversation until someone had the sense to say "Okay, this could go on for a while."

Whether it was Ross and Joey shinnying each other down the 'water-pipe' (which always annoyed me, because it was a fire escape) or Ross' "My sandwich!" meltdown, quoting and re-quoting one's favourite scenes was in vogue throughout high school, not just because it was the only adult sitcom we watched at that time, but because it gave us, young anglophone Indians, something to identify with, something to aspire to.

Indeed, living in a country where our demographic had been rendered politically and culturally irrelevant, aspiring to the sitcom lifestyle of these six fictional New Yorkers seemed natural enough. The way they spoke was the way we spoke, their sense of humour was the foundation of ours, we adopted their relationship jargon, because their ideas of adult relationships became canon for us.

The greatest contribution of Friends, as many have pointed out, was to make sarcasm a way of life. Everything we said was layered with it, and those who didn't get it or use it were almost an alien species. For the Chandlers of the world such as myself, this was a god-sent, for a world that does not accept sarcasm is one that we are fundamentally at odds with.

While the other characters are rarer in the real world, I'm sure many of us know milder versions of Ross, Joeys who we don't think of as Joeys (because in the real world, it's 'politically incorrect' to think of people as dumb), pseudo-Phoebes (idiots masquerading as kooks) and Rachel-Monica hybrids (quirky women who are high-maintenance but enjoy considerable popularity with the opposite sex and not their own).

Underneath this glossy veneer though, lies an ugly truth. While most characters in other sitcoms are meant to be seen as dysfunctional, in Friends, the dysfunctional nature of the characters is merely a token trait, for comedies cannot be made around 'normal' characters. That the Friends and their lives were meant to be aspirational may have been what made the show new and refreshing, but it is this very thing that is hard to digest, and sometimes, disturbing.

Ross and Chandler, in contrast to Joey, are men who "repel women all the time". Ross is the nerd who always comes up with fun facts that puts everyone to sleep, while Chandler has seemingly insurmountable problems with intimacy. However, a closer look reveals that it is only in contrast with Joey that their 'unattractiveness' comes to light, and that too if you're willing to see only what the writers want you to see.

In the ten seasons of the show, Ross has been in more serious relationships than any of the other characters, including the women. Carol, Julie, Rachel, Emily, Mona, Charlie and the many other attractive women that he has dated every now and then show that despite the "three divorces" spiel that we hear all the time, Ross is actually quite a catch!

Chandler, despite all his shortcomings, does not fare too badly on the relationship scorecard either. Barring Janice, the women he dates are quite attractive, and getting together with one of your best friends isn't too shabby for anyone, let alone the guy who's meant to be seen as someone who'll never find love. To top it all, he (along with Monica obviously), is the first of them to get married, something that goes into the win column in the show's universe.

Ross and Chandler's supposed unattractiveness is just a token trait, given to them to make them more relatable. An exercise in futility, because if they were truly unattractive, they would not be aspirational. It is truly laughable then, that when at the end of one episode, the question "who do you think would be the last of us to get married?" is asked, all eyes immediately go to Chandler.

Now let us look at Joey, who is supposed to be the only overtly attractive one of the three. A stupid, sex-obsessed pick-up artist who barely forms any deep or lasting relationships throughout the show, and the classical douchebag who sleeps with women and never calls them again. This is the guy we are meant to see as attractive, only because he is good looking, 'less weird' than the other two, and gets laid more, the implication being that quantity trumps quality.

Monica, Rachel, and Phoebe. The quirky, the likeable, and the kooky. Seems like the perfect trinity, doesn't it? A deeper look would reveal that it is far from it. It would also reveal that the latent sexism of the show is actually quite blatant, for throughout the show's run, the primary, all consuming force that drives each of these three women is the utterly desperate need to - wait for it - get married.

 

Monica's high-maintenance nature may explain why she may be unattractive to some men, but it still does not explain why that bothers her so much, because she makes no effort to change that and is actually proud of the way she is. Her yelling "my day is finally here!" the moment she wakes up on her wedding day reflects a mentality primitive enough to be an issue dealt with in Mad Men.

While Monica's obsession with finding a man who 'puts up' with her quirks can be explained, the same cannot be said about the other two. Rachel, clearly the most likeable and easy-going of the three, and very popular among men, is also the most desperate. Just a single viewing of the episode in which she goes to preposterous lengths to woo Joshua, her recently divorced customer, by putting on a show in her cheer-leading costume, and actually kissing his leg is ample proof of her desperation.

And then we have Phoebe the kookfest. Phoebe, who does not believe in evolution or gravity. Phoebe, who believes in past lives. Phoebe, who in one episode, believes that she's being possessed by a dead woman, and in another, that her mother's spirit is in a cat. And yet we have the same Phoebe ultimately deciding that the institution of marriage is so important to her that the love of her life not wanting to get married becomes a deal breaker, even though he wants to live with her in an arrangement that is virtually indistinguishable from marriage.

The extremely dated, ridiculous notions of love and marriage do not stop with the women. Ross (obviously) deserves a special mention in this context. I'm sure everyone remembers the episode in which his second wife, Emily, tells him that he needs to fulfill certain conditions if they are to have a chance of being together, one of them being that he can never see Rachel again.

Tough decision? Not really. On one hand, there is his sister, his best friends, an entire life that he has built for himself, while on the other, there is a woman he has known for four weeks. However, when the rest of them finally tell him what they really feel about what he has to do, his outburst about how "life is all about making compromises" actually shuts them up because not one of them has the sense to point out that what he's saying is a pile of horseshit, that life is certainly not about sacrificing your de facto family for a woman you married on a whim, and that if it wasn't for the stigma of another divorce, this would be a no-brainer.

Sex and relationship politics in the 21st century is something we have to thank Friends for. A ridiculous and unnecessary amount of thought and effort going into 'getting laid' is what Friends gave us, all the while reminding us that there is still such a thing as 'too much effort' which will make you seem creepy and weird. It spawned the pseudo-liberal wankers, who say "sex is not a big deal" in contrast to the traditional, conservative viewpoint on the subject, but don't have the brains to apply the same thought to themselves and ask that if sex is really not that big a deal, then why should it be on one's mind all the time?

Friends established sex as the primary goal of life for any modern day 'liberal', but it also said, hey, there's no need to be too liberal now, and antiquated views on marriage, handed down through centuries of brainwashing by a patriarchal society, are still cool. True, we did have Ross and Rachel having and raising a baby not only out of wedlock, but also when they were not romantically involved in any way, but this was nothing more than an attempt on the part of the writers to have Friends maintain it's 'soapcom' status and keep the story moving.

While almost all its viewers have been deeply affected by the impact of these archaic views being perpetuated by Friends, our generation specifically suffered more by being exposed to the culture of snobbery, judgement, and ostracisation glorified by the show. 

While using sarcasm and Friends jargon was pretty harmless, the flip-side was that endlessly mocking one's personality traits that deviated from the norm became a way of life. Nobody could freely be themselves, or be anything other than silently tense while in a group, because the smallest of slip-ups would mean a lifetime of ridicule.

Friends relentlessly told us that it is not okay to be different. Being weird is not cool, and you will be judged and mocked for it your entire life, even by those who claim to be your family. The group's endless Chandler bashing was not in good humour, especially since a lot of it was behind his back. When Monica says "I'm just going to label it 'what were you thinking?'" about one of Rachel's boxes, the latter's horrifyingly vicious response is "I was just going to walk across the hall and write that on Chandler," because that's what true Friends think about each other, don't they?

Friends has a legacy like no other show before or after it. Its concept became the prototype for many highly acclaimed and popular sitcoms of the 21st century, and it met its one true successor in How I Met Your Mother. It made us and our lives funnier, and therefore better. It gave us an escape when it hadn't been our week, month, or year.

However, there's no denying that there is a dark side to this legacy, which is entirely due to the fact that it was a show that was meant to make you aspire to its lifestyle. Our desire to be like the characters made us not only embrace, but enforce conformity. It said that in love, politics is not only inescapable, but desirable, and technicalities matter as much, if not more than emotions. It made us believe that in life, while it is okay to bend the smaller rules dictated by society, we should not dare to question the cardinal ones. It told us that the ultimate goal of life is to get married.