Page 3 syndrome

Somewhere recently I came across this bit (or was it that I saw it somewhere?) that the art of the times exemplifies the social fabric of those days.

Making a movie on a concept like Page 3 makes the whole business of partying so much more tangible and alive that twenty years later it might serve as a learning tool in universities to better explain the concept and society prevalent today.

Having said that, I also have to add that the movie is one of the good statements of art about the society as we know it today. Media, its crucial role, the sheer lack of empathy today, the proliferation of double standards, the fickleness of relationships and above all the high of fame - all are very well encapsulated in this film (masquerading as a blurb - wannabe one at that).

Lots of bytes and comments touches you in the film - some very believable and some rather gauche but then one can see where the director comes from.

Konkana Sensharma is good (just like in Amu) though it is very difficult to distinguish her performance in one from the other. While she is great and effective, she still has to come out with her telltale mark so till then... The music of the film is extremely forgettable (even Asha Bhosale's newest rendition is hardly noticeable and easily missed).

Madhur Bhandarkar in 'Page 3', has tried to convey an important message - do we need to trivialise society this much so? He puts forth what I thought was an brilliant thought (or perhaps a question?)

"We have to remain in the system to change the system." How many of us really make an effort to change how things are? Hardly any.. Its easier to assume nothing will ever change and not make any effort at all...

PS Terribly underused Atul Kulkarni... essaying a journalist.