Vantage Point : One review In between the 8 views

There is no such thing as reality, reality is what you perceive to be real. That is one thing that Vantage point pushes on to the viewer with a lot of impact. One incident looked on by different people differently, multiple views - each decoding the entire landscape of things happening at a place. No one has a complete view of everything and everyone contributes to the story from where they are. The premise of this movie is definitely challenging. Telling a story of how 15 mins worked for all its central characters showing different point of views of the same event and also moving the story ahead at the same time is difficult and I feel the director Pete Travis, has done a marvellous job in shooting it.

But even before starting to talk about movie I would go out of my way and appreciate the screen writer Barry Levy for writing such stuff. One of the tightest and best screenplay I have seen for a movie in recent times.

The Incident

The incident is not very complex. There is a summit in which president of USA Ashton (William hurt) is participating with the Spanish authorities for Anti-terrorism movement. There are mixed reactions from the people in Spain on this as he reaches the place for the summit. Once he finishes his speech, someone shoots him. This is followed by 2 bomb blasts one at the podium there and one outside somewhere.

Perspectives of the incident

This same incident is shown to the viewer with multiple perspectives of people who are reporting it - the media - represented by Sigourney Weaver as Rex. The other perspective is of the secret agents - Barnes and Kent (Dennis Quaid and Matthew Fox), they try and find who is the culprit, post the event. Then you have the perspective of President Ashton (William hurt) . Add to it a common man perspective - an American who is overwhelmed by the presence of American president in Spain. Howard Lewis (Forest Whitaker) is a simple man who puts his heart first, loves his family and is having a bad patch in life. His camera captures the most important cues that takes the movie forward. Then there is a view of a Spanish Cop Enrique (Eduardo) and his girlfriend Veronica (Ayelet Zurer) - how their acts make the whole incident move and end is interesting. Lastly and the most interestingly there is this terrorist's perspective with a beautifully acted role of Said Taghmaoui (Suarez) as a cool, smart and menacing terrorist, who is as he says smarter than Americans. He is assisted by a few of his allies.

Putting so many perspectives of an incident with complex causes and effects and developing the each of the character in 90 mins - making us understand what are the drives for each one of them seems like a mammoth task. And surely the screen writer has succeeded in making that happen along with the director. Every 10 minutes the movie reveals itself a little more. Its like story doing a striptease in a slow and entertaining fashion :).

The only thing that I thought spoiled the power packed action was the end. It was just too quick and too unbelievable to get everything at the same place co-incidentally. The end leaves you a little unsatisfied.

Actors have done fabulous job with Dennis Quaid and Said Taghmaoui leading the pack. The best part of the movie is that the actors did not have to command the screen, everyone had to underplay their characters as everyone was equally important and each of them have done perfectly well. Ayelet Zurer as confident independent Veronica impresses the viewer for sure.

A good screenplay assists the editor well. Stuart baird does fair in his job. At times though you feel that you are watching the same seen again, as he spends more time on the incident and less on characters. Atti Orvarsson's music too is adequate. Did not find it extraordinary. Same was the case with Cinematography by Amir Mokri which in parts was extraordinary but was average in some other parts.

Overall its a thin story line, with a dissatisfying ending but fabulously written, directed and acted. You need to watch it to make your own view. But for me it easily goes with a 3*.

I am an Atheist if ....

They say I am a Jain. They say it was our biggest festival yesterday. They say if I am a Jain I need to follow a few things as per what they say Jainism Says. They say, I follow. They say pray, I do. They say believe in not killing smaller animals, I do believe so. But who are "They"? They are no one but people like you and me who were told by someone else that they belong to a particular religion. The key here is "to belong" , we all do chores and follow our notions of religion "to belong".

Every person is unique not just because he looks so, but also because of the complexity of his thoughts. Everyone has a personal set of beliefs and everyone defines for himself what he wants out of life. We are all so different and then based on a set of belief we get together, we form a group of people following a particular belief structure - we say we follow a particular religion. I dont think that english word "Religion" completely translates the essence of "Dharma".

I have read somewhere Dharma is nothing but a way of living, also read somewhere that religion is to give a person ethics and teaches him the difference between the good and the bad. Combining both I think Dharma is an Ideal way of living which we think we should follow. Moreover, I strongly believe that existence is defined by purpose. The existence of Dharma should hence always be "to direct" - to direct us to the best and ideal way of living to justify our purpose of existence. Now the question is who defines this best and ideal way of living? I just wonder for my life, how would someone else define what I choose, based on my belief structure, I define MY DHARMA (I am getting microsoftised it seems) .

Hey wait ! so am I trying to say that everyone should have a different Dharma?

Bingo! yes I am trying to say just that.

But then, having a known number of religion today is making us divide into groups, making us fight with each other based on set of beliefs for each, wouldn't each person having different Dharma lead to Chaos then?

I think - No. Think of it, when we will appreciate that all of us are different, all of us have a set of their own beliefs (doesnot matter if it comes from Jainism, Buddhism, Hiduism, Islam or Christianity or all of them) , we will appreciate that each person has a different dharma, which comes to him not by his birth but by his own effort to find the purpose of his existence. This will in some way make all of us different, but as a race all of us will be homogenous. There will be no groups based on set of beliefs. Hence there will be no faction claiming that their set of beleifs are better than the other factions. We will respect everyone's views and the challenge will be not to try to convert someone else to our set of belief (call it dharm parivartan, but not in the connotation that it is used now). We will truly "belong" - belong to human race more than belonging to religious divides. We will be "Dharm Nirpeksh".

Oh! So Am I suggesting that I would leave Jainism and would prompt people to leave whatever religion they "belong" to get their Idea of Dharm?

No.
Different religions we have have come out of years of experience, trials, understanding of the society and it would be ridiculous to say that all of it doesnot matter. Infact everything does. If one is confused about certain issue regarding the morals and ethics and the directions required in life, there should be someone he can turn to. He needs to refer to these standard set of beliefs that we, as a society have created over years. He need to seek these answers in various forms, in various scriptures, in various religion. And he should choose what his individual intellect would say is the best. One should not be stopped to follow the beliefs of other religion just because he was born in another.

So, If believing in one religion is believing in god - I am an atheist.

But I believe in God and his definition cannot be something that someone else teaches me, it has to come from within. Just like everyone reinvents the wheel when he learns to walk - my experience of my childhood will not help my child to stand up and run, similarly everyone has to reinvent the wheel as far as finding his Dharma is considered.

So yesterday, while sitting in that group of people praying things that I dont understand, I think I could understand to an extent, that I need directions from the Ideal way to live and I need to define My Dharma. I need to define the belief of what would be my ideal way of living (defining cannot be a one time activity here, its a lifetime one). I hope I find MY DHARMA one day and I truly "Belong" to my own beliefs.