Horcruxes

A Horcrux is a dark magical object used to attain immortality. The concept is first introduced in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, though Horcruxes are present in earlier novels without being identified as such. The creation of a Horcrux requires one to commit a murder, which, as the supreme act of evil, "rips the soul apart". After the murder, a spell is cast to infuse part of the ripped soul into an object, which becomes the Horcrux. Rowling has never published the actual enchantment. In the final book of the series, Hermione finds the spell in a book titled Secrets of the Darkest Art.

Both inanimate objects and living organisms have been used as Horcruxes, though the latter are considered riskier to use, since an organism can move and think for itself. There is no limit to the number of Horcruxes a wizard can create. However, as the creator's soul is divided into progressively smaller portions, he loses more of his natural humanity and his soul becomes increasingly unstable. Under very specific conditions, a soul fragment can be sealed within an object without the intention or knowledge of the creator.
Horcruxes are extremely difficult to destroy. They cannot be destroyed by conventional means such as smashing, breaking, or burning. To be destroyed, a Horcrux must suffer damage so severe that repair through magical means would be impossible. Very few magical objects or spells are powerful enough to achieve this. Once a Horcrux is irreparably damaged, the fragment of soul within it is destroyed. A Horcrux can be magically undone only if the creator goes through a process of deep remorse for the murder committed to create the Horcrux. The pain of this remorse is so excruciating that the process itself may kill the creator.
Voldemort's creation of Horcruxes is central to the later storyline of the Harry Potter novels. As the number seven is a powerful, mystical number, Voldemort intended to split his soul into that many pieces, with six in Horcruxes and the last reposing within his body.
All of Voldemort's created Horcruxes were made using objects that had been important to him or that held some sentimental value.

Marvolo Gaunt's Ring
Tom Riddle created his first Horcrux using a ring owned by his maternal grandfather, Marvolo Gaunt, during the summer before his sixth year as a student at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, when he was sixteen years old. He casts the spell after murdering his father. The ring is introduced during the fourth chapter of Half-Blood Prince, having already been destroyed by Albus Dumbledore, but its significance not yet revealed.
In a Pensieve memory, it is revealed that Riddle had taken the gold ring, which has a black stone inscribed with a magical symbol, from his uncle Morfin Gaunt, whom he had framed for the murder of his father and grandparents by altering his uncle's memories. Riddle wears the ring while still a student at Hogwarts, but eventually hides it in the house where the Gaunt family had lived. It remains hidden under the floorboards, placed in a golden box, and protected by several enchantments, until Dumbledore finds it during the summer break between the events of Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince. Dumbledore destroys the Horcrux with Godric Gryffindor's sword, though he is mortally injured by the ring's curses after putting the ring on his finger. The injury leaves his right hand permanently disfigured and would have killed him quickly if not for the intervention of Severus Snape, who slowed the curse to Dumbledore's right hand and arm, making them look withered, but the curse still progressed up Dumbledore's right arm and would eventually kill him if it had run its course. The damaged ring is kept for a time on a table in the Headmaster's office.
Before his death, Dumbledore hides the ring's black stone inside a Golden Snitch and he bequeaths the Snitch to Harry in his will. Dumbledore had learned that the stone is, in fact, the Resurrection Stone, one of the three Deathly Hallows. This was why he had put it on his finger: he had hoped to activate it and apologize to his long-dead family, quite forgetting it was also a Horcrux now, and thus likely to be protected by destructive enchantments. Voldemort remained unaware of the stone's additional magical properties throughout his lifetime.

Tom Riddle's Diary
Tom Riddle used his diary to create his second Horcrux during his sixth year at Hogwarts. He cast the spell after murdering his fellow classmate Moaning Myrtle using the Basilisk. The diary is introduced in the second chapter of the Chamber of Secrets and is destroyed by Harry Potter during the climax of the same book.
Before Voldemort's downfall, he entrusted the Horcrux to Lucius Malfoy. While aware of its corrupting magical properties, Malfoy did not know the diary was a Horcrux. In an attempt to discredit Arthur Weasley, Malfoy hid the diary in Ginny Weasley's cauldron, amidst her other books. Tom Riddle's soul-fragment possessed Ginny and, through her, reopened the Chamber of Secrets, finally starting to draw her life from her. At the end of book two, Harry saved Ginny and destroyed the diary by stabbing it with the venomous fang of a Basilisk, making it the first Horcrux to be destroyed. His reports of the diary's behaviour to Dumbledore were the latter's first inkling that Voldemort might have created not just one Horcrux, but several: "What intrigued and alarmed me most was that the diary had been intended as a weapon as much as a safeguard",implying that Voldemort must have had backups of some sort.



Helga Hufflepuff's Cup
Tom Riddle used a cup owned by Hogwarts founder Helga Hufflepuff to create his third Horcrux. The spell was cast after he murdered Hepzibah Smith by poisoning her. The cup is introduced during the twentieth chapter of Half-Blood Prince and is destroyed by Hermione Granger in the thirty-first chapter of Deathly Hallows.
Hepzibah Smith, who owned the cup, was a distant descendant of Helga Hufflepuff. Riddle killed Smith, stole the cup, then framed her house elf Hokey for the crime. Voldemort entrusted the cup to Bellatrix Lestrange, who kept it protected in her vault at Gringotts Bank, a place to which Harry guessed that a once penniless Voldemort would have always coveted a connection.

Salazar Slytherin's Locket
Riddle created his fourth Horcrux using a locket once owned by Salazar Slytherin, which had once belonged to Riddle's mother, Merope Gaunt. The spell was cast after Riddle murdered a Muggle tramp. The locket is introduced briefly in Order of the Phoenix (described only as "a heavy locket that not one of them could open") and is destroyed by Ron Weasley in the nineteenth chapter of Deathly Hallows.
Slytherin's locket was passed down through the generations and eventually ended up in the possession of Merope Gaunt. After being abandoned by her husband Tom Riddle Senior, Merope sold the locket to Caractacus Burke, shopkeeper of Borgin & Burkes, for ten galleons, a fraction of the locket's true value. The locket was eventually sold to Hepzibah Smith. Riddle stole the locket, along with Helga Hufflepuff's cup, after murdering Smith. Once the locket became a Horcrux, Voldemort hid it in a cave where he had once terrorized two of his fellow orphans. The cave's magical protection included a door that could only be opened with a blood offering, an enchanted boat, a basin of potion that causes pain and horrific visions to the drinker, and the use of Inferi. Dumbledore and Potter pursued the locket in The Half-Blood Prince, only to find a fake necklace.
Disillusioned Death Eater Regulus Arcturus Black had learned about the Horcrux and its hiding place beforehand. In an effort to bring about Voldemort's eventual downfall, he and his house elf Kreacher broke through the magical protection and stole the locket. While Black died in the effort, killed by the surrounding Inferi, Kreacher took the locket back to their home at Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place. Kreacher continued to protect the locket for years. However, while the Order of the Phoenix was using the house as its headquarters, the locket was stolen by Mundungus Fletcher, a petty criminal and member of the Order. He gave it to Dolores Umbridge as a bribe when she caught him selling stolen property.
Two weeks later, Harry, Ron, and Hermione infiltrated the Ministry of Magic where Umbridge worked, and stole the locket. Ron later saved Harry from being strangled by it when he wore it around his neck. When Ron attempted to destroy the locket, the fragment of soul inside assumed the shape of Harry and Hermione and played on Ron's fear that his two friends had started a romantic relationship during his absence. Ron destroyed the locket using the sword of Godric Gryffindor in the Forest of Dean.
After the release of the final book, several reviews noted similarities between Slytherin's locket and the One Ring from The Lord of the Rings, as both artifacts negatively affect the personality of those who wore them, are extremely difficult to destroy, and ensure their creator immortality.



Rowena Ravenclaw's Diadem
Lord Voldemort created his fifth Horcrux using Rowena Ravenclaw's diadem. A diadem is a kind of crown. Etched upon its surface was Ravenclaw's famous quotation: "Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure." It was said to enhance the wisdom of its wearer, which is Ravenclaw House's most treasured attribute.

Nagini
Nagini is the snake that Voldemort has with him all the time. It is the only live Horcrux apart from Harry Potter. Voldemort uses the snake's milk for sustenance in Goblet of Fire before he is resurrected by Peter Pettigrew. This Horcrux was created by Voldemort when he was hiding in the forests of Albania; the victim of murder who led to its creation was Bertha Jorkins.

ARE WE PROGRESSING BACKWARDS?

11th April 2011, 2:31 pm

“A small step for man, a giant leap for mankind”

It is generally assumed that giant leaps in technology lead to the improvement of society. With technology we can do things earlier generations couldn’t imagine. We can travel vast distances in a short time, do incredibly complex calculations, and spread ideas around the world within seconds. Surely these advances make us more able than our ancestors. But is this really the case? For all our forward progress, do we leave something equally valuable behind? Ok. We are making giant leaps but what we often fail to realize is that are we really moving forward?

Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. It undergoes continual changes; it is barbarous, it is civilized, it is Christianised, it is rich, it is scientific; but this change is not amelioration. For everything that is given, something is taken. Society acquires new arts, and loses old instincts. The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet. He is supported on crutches, but lacks so much support of muscle.

Today man has fallen in the evil clutches of his own creation, thus disabled. Disabled, he can’t move forward. Under the illusion that he is moving forwards, he does not realize that he is actually going backwards. He has a fine Geneva watch, but he fails of the skill to tell the hour by the sun. A Greenwich nautical almanac he has, and so being sure of the information when he wants it, the man in the street does not know a star in the sky. The solstice he does not observe; the equinox he knows as little; and the whole bright calendar of the year is without a dial in his mind. His note-books impair his memory; his libraries overload his wit; the insurance-office increases the number of accidents; and it may be a question whether machinery does not encumber; whether we have not lost by refinement some energy, some vigour of wild virtue.
Do these same conclusions apply to modern technology? I think they do.

Consider an advance in communication, the cellular phone. We’re no longer forced to make phone calls from a set place, allowing spontaneous communication. As circumstances change, we can make calls from anywhere at any time to adjust our plans. The benefit is clear, but closer examination reveals drawbacks. Now that we have cell phones, we don’t plan ahead anymore. Why bother when you can make a call later? So we wait until the last minute, thinking organization doesn’t matter. The result is confusion. If there is a missed call, loss of service, or malfunction of equipment, we’re left without a plan. Even if everything works perfectly, we still engage in ‘phone tag’ that wastes more time than it would have taken to create a decent plan to begin with. Even if we wanted to go back to the pre-cellular way of doing things, I doubt anyone remembers how. The same could be said of the internet. We can hear a million voices, but have no way of knowing which ones are worth listening to. Millions of new articles are published every day, so we neglect the literary masterpieces passed down to us.

I’m not saying that technology is bad or that society is declining. But we’d be intelligent to abandon our modern vanity. We’re aren’t any smarter than our ancestors. We’re actually dumber in many ways. It’s time to stop thinking of technology as a cure-all and recognize it as a double-edged sword.

Technology isn’t just all-good things. Every loss have its own share of gain. Someone might get disease and as a return, he will know what he must do to prevent it from happening again and to be more disciplined in taking care of his own health. No matter how much our invention we make, we will lose something as a return and global warming is clear example of what humans greed have caused to our nature. The pollution emitted by our so called “progress” is engulfing the pure air and making it contaminated. The ozone layer is depleting, greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere making the earth warmer. Earth’s condition is much, much worse than it was during the time of our forefathers Many of us believe our way of life is easier than it was years ago. In many cases it is, however we fail to see the consequences brought forth by our need to make life easier. Too much freedom has brought about sedentary lifestyles where machines do the thinking and the work for us.

In the near future it should be no surprise if people pay money to breathe clean air and those were short a dime remained breathless. We live in a so called "free" country, but paying to grab a quick breath of air is not my idea of freedom.

The easier life gets, the more destruction we give to the Earth. Our lakes and forests are dying. Acid rain has made these ecosystems unable to support life. Rainforests are being cut down for cattle ranching and farmland. As we cut the forest down we could be losing valuable resources that have not yet been found. The fingerprint of human influence has been detected in many different aspects of observed climate change. We've seen it in temperature, and increases in atmospheric humidity, we've seen it in salinity changes. We've seen it in reductions in Arctic sea ice and changing rainfall patterns.
The HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY shows greater conceptual advancements the further back you look. One of the great advancements of the 20th century is it’s “transportation technology”. I find this hard to believe, the creation of the these forms of transportation are 100’s and 1000’s of years old. The wheel was invented in 4000bc, the rockets in 300CE and the steam engine in 1689. In this regard, our advancement is not really advancement, but refinement. We create nothing, we continue to modify what already exists, through analysis and division.

In our recent modern history all inventions have been to make life more convenient for us. From transport to entertainment to cooking utensils, more and more things are becoming mechanised or computerised. However, this has had an impact on our health. We are not exercising, we are eating too many convenient foods packaged in plastic and stuffing them in a microwave consequently our health is diminishing. As a nation, we are becoming severely overweight. By regressing to more traditional ways of cooking, by going back to traditional forms of entertainment, we will actually see a large progression with regards to our health.


Things go in cycles. We are moving up and out like a particle in a tornado. For example, we seem to be at exactly the same point we were at in the late 1800′s and during the renaissance period, exploring spirituality, developing art, and improving communication. The earth will go back to where it started. They say in the beginning there was nothing but water on earth. The way the ice caps are melting, time is not far when we have nothing but water on earth.
We are thus moving backwards towards the inception of earth, although we feel we are progressing forwards.

Why I did not like Shutter Island

28th march, 2011 9:16 pm

p.s-

The views expressed are not entirely mine. I have just edited some viewer's comments on the movie. Nontheless, i totally and completely agree with the views expressed here.

1. I hate to say this as much anyone else but for me this film had a horribly disappoint ending. First before I delve into that I'd like to say that the acting, the writing, the shooting, the film in general as far as quality goes was very good. But the ending was very disappointing. And no I am no idiot or newbie when it comes to film. But I thought the was very much a cop out. Now granted I know this is based off of a novel, hence there are certain restraints to adhering to this novel somewhat. That being said I found the idea of the medical experimentation, mental hospital, nazi experiments, and astray patients much more tantalizing, realistic, and more full of potential. The trick ending where its all in someone's head is done far too often sadly. I was hoping that while it dragged one there at the end it would ultimately reveal he was playing them or that he would stay true and not give in. But that didn't happen. I guess for me I was just expecting something not so cliché for an ending from the likes of Scorsese's genius mind. But all things said and done I definitely can't give this movie all negative remarks, wonderfully acted and scripted. Great atmosphere, shooting, photography, etc. But I feel the ending should have been less cliché.

2. The film makes no damned sense, unless the point of the film is supposed to be that the people running the insane asylum are more insane than the inmates.

For this film to make any sense, you have to accept the premise that psychiatrists who actually care about a mentally ill patient would try to cure such patient by doing things that would drive a sane person crazy; that they would play cruel head games that encourage delusional beliefs. How can any sane person believe that giving Teddy/Andrew evidence to support his delusions is going to cure him of delusions? In fact, as the film progresses, we see Teddy/Andrew getting more deluded, more paranoid, more violent. The role-playing is clearly counter-productive.


And for this film to make any sense, you also have to believe that these same doctors would give a startling degree of freedom to one of the asylum's most violent killers. Andrew/Teddy attacks a patient and knocks out a guard. He blows up a car, for goodness sake! That alone should prove it was insane to give him any freedom to wander alone, even for a short time.

The movie was set up as a mystery - what is the secret of Shutter Island? But the resolution (that Teddy/Andrew was insane all along, and the doctors were pretending to be evil because they thought that would cure him of his delusions) makes no sense. There is nothing worse than a mystery where the solution bends all rules of logic. It reminds me of the following joke:

Dennis Lehane: What is furry, has four legs, purrs, and reads the newspaper every day? Richard Nathan: I don't know. Dennis Lehane: A cat. I lied about the newspaper.

I thought that joke was annoying the first time I heard it, and it's annoying as the basis of the mystery in "Shutter Island."

Furthermore, the resolution is not the result of any actions taken by the protagonist. The role-playing game doesn't lead Teddy/Andrew to discover the truth himself. He is merely a passive listener as the solution is explained to him. The breaks several major rules of screen writing.

And what about the very end? Most people interpret Teddy/Andrew's last line as meaning Andrew is only faking his regression, so that he can get a lobotomy and avoid facing the truth. But if he were faking it, why would he give this away to the doctor playing Chuck? And why are so many people moved by this act of cowardice? Can there be anything more cowardly than someone choosing to get a lobotomy to avoid facing the truth about himself? Are we supposed to empathize with someone who chooses to destroy his own intellect?

I cannot understand how anyone can think this is an intelligent screenplay.


3. Let's break it down simply. The whole movie is a two hour long, twilight zone style "and then he woke up." Everything you watch, all of the characters, all of the story, mean nothing. They are erased at the ending when the protagonist "comes to" and realizes that he's just a murderer. But keep in mind, this isn't any normal crime. It is at once as cliché and as over the top as possible.

There was one fascinating mystery that I hoped would be explained but wasn't. Teddy makes his way to a lighthouse and runs up the stairs to find one of the doctors from the mental hospital in a office.

OK. It's a lighthouse. There's a spiral staircase running through the middle of it. How in the world did the doctor manage to get a desk, chairs, file cabinet, lamps, etc., three stories up a spiral staircase? And why? I'd ask the same question of Scorsese. You and some brilliant actors made this turd.

Why?

4. I just kept thinking that this couldn't have been one of those "it was all a dream" clichés, but sadly it was. The entire film was so redundant that all I could say at the end of the film was: "seriously?" Do NOT waste your money… it will leave you angry and frustrated.

5. I've never been too fond of twist endings, but I felt the twist in this film really made the film entirely pointless.

We spend most of the movie engrossed in a detective story with a few flashback puzzle pieces and are left to wonder how those fit into the twist we all know is coming. The fact we all the twist from the trailer means its basically only a matter of time.

I left feeling hollow and annoyed. What is the point of all this? What are they trying to say about crazy people? In the end Andrew (Teddy for most of the movie) is to be lobotomized, so the message is about how sometimes drugs and respecting patients doesn't work so let's carve them open? Rather than creating an expertly crafted detective story we instead get an obvious twist (even to those who turned the channel every time the trailer was on) that halts the story. I cared about Teddy's demons, wanted him to get off the island but you can't yank the character around into someone else and expect me to still care about him when everything he's been characterized as and experienced has been one big delusion.

It was still an okay film... just apparently not my style of film.

A phenomenon, a revelation, a lifestyle, the eighth wonder of the world… I can just go on and on and might probably even run out of synonyms that will do justice to this 21st Century marvel. It’s facebook I’m talking about. There are very few websites or companies that can boast the success Facebook enjoys. It has almost become a religion now (& I’m a follower I confess). In the 5 years of Facebook it has changed the way people live.

Facebook calculates that around the world, there are more than 800 million users online who spend more than 3 billion minutes on Facebook every day.

It’s more like a virtual meeting place where people can hang out with friends. They can discuss on different topics, share information, and exchange files and pictures. people use these sites as a platform to meet long lost friend and batch mates, whereas there are others for whom it becomes a bridge to meet their future love. Some people also use these websites to promote their blogs and services. It has made world a small place and everyone can stay connected.

But I’s not all sunshine and roses. There are some drawbacks too.

Perhaps the biggest online social networking drawback is that it makes identity theft easier. It is easy to mask real self behind a fake profile.
Cyber criminals analyse social networking profiles for information that can help them to steal your identity.
While you need to add some personally identifiable information for people to discover you online, it is advisable that you don't go overboard to post every little personal detail about you. Privacy settings can be changed to "friends only," so that only those with your approval are allowed to view your profile. . Avoid posting personal information that is not necessary. While you may add your birth day and month (else your friends will forget to wish you on your birthday), you can avoid adding the year of birth.


Don't befriend unknown people: If you don't know them, it might not be worth the while to be friends with them. People think it’s a matter of pride if they have 400-500 friends. Better have just 100 friends whm you can trust.

If you are angry over something, the online world is not always the best place to vent it out. Take a deep breath, close your eyes, count up to 10 and then log out. Even in the offline world people don't like abusive people. Abusing and trolling lowers your online credibility, make you lose friends and also can get you blocked. It is social networking and not unsocial networking, a bit of civility is expected
Before posting a message on your profile or sending it someone check it twice. You don't want to send a soft message to the wrong person or you may even consider rephrasing a sentence that can have a double meaning.

In a craze to be noticed people put their good, bad and ugly selves out there for all to see. Until a while ago, we fought and made up with friends in private. But the latest wave of voyeurism encourages you to go public with your spats, however close the relationship is.


Friends may tag you in pictures or videos that you'd rather not have others see. If photos are posted up and you are tagged in them, chances are a professor, employer or one of your parents will see these and not be very y happy about it. There are many people who have not been hired because the employer did not like what they saw on the applicant's Facebook profile. So it's important to monitor your Facebook pictures and un-tag any that look like they could cause problems.

Facebook wastes a ton of time. It can be pretty addicting, like any website, so make sure you set a time-limit for how long you can spend on the websiteRemember that Facebook won’t shut down your account if you don't come up with something new every half-an-hour.Facebook is good for staying in contact with friends, but you need to understand that these sites can be used to some extent, but not over the limit.


The good news is that the pros for social networking outweigh the cons. And with a few healthy habits, you can avoid or minimize the drawbacks. Just remember to be careful and responsible .As with everything, use your common sense.

WHAT 9 MONTHS OF COLLEGE HAS TAUGHT ME


23RD MARCH 2011, 7:25 PM

Goa chalte hai weekend par, class ke baad pool khelne chale…food court mein kya hoga…teacher kitna paka raha hai…aaj raat man-u ka match hai….raat ka kya plans hai…koi assignment to nahi dena hai…saamne wali ladki kitni hot hai. These are the popular chatting topics while the lectures are on. And when topics seem scarce there is always sleep, so sweet in the lectures. You stayed awake last night till 4 watching a movie. You had fought with your conscience long before you convinced it sleep can be done in the class. Movie is really important. So you had a hearty sleep for full one hour of the lecture where the foolish lecturer kept on blabbering thinking there is someone in the class who want to listen to him. And then you wake up just to realize that your attendance has gone past. What I have never really understood is how after the lecture ends your sleep vanishes. It’s almost magic.

Often we text that “Busy, In class”. So ironical, because all we do in class is to sleep and have fun fighting, playing and cracking jokes on the teacher. Semesters come and go and we promise every time “next semester mein to dikha doonga’’. Sad that the ‘next semester’ never comes. Mom asks ‘padhai kaisa chal rha?’ We reply haan padh hi rha tha, while you may be playing ‘counter strike’. People think you’re not cool until you have a girlfriend/boyfriend in college. You’re supposed to be a loser without them. There are boys who are happy with ‘bird watching’ while there are others who might actually take the step which is supposed to make them COOL. Girls eye boys, dressing in strangest possible ways and boys try to show off in front of girls. The hottest gal in college becomes a debatable topic. ‘Woh mere ko dekh rahi hai/raha hai’ is supposed to be a fashion statement.

When I was in school, especially 11th -12th standard, college life attracted me. I wanted to end my schooling as soon as possible. I was sick of the blue dress we wore to school every single day, standing in the hot sun for prayers in morning assembly, Getting punished if you have not worn your tie (which we often didn’t). I so wanted to grow up. Today I may have ended my school life, and may have grown up. But this has added a sense of responsibility. Pokemon, Aladdin and Son pari seem so kiddish today. Stone paper scissors seem a distant past. Now ego has crept in, relationships are more complicated, friendship is not so innocent. Slangs were considered bad when we were small, but now F-word is part and parcel of everyone’s vocab (though I am still holding on)...I often wonder how my friends change their vocabulary when they go back to their homes. An India defeat or Ronaldo’s goal miss...people have so different reactions when they are in the hostels and at home...
Drinking, smoking is a parameter of one’s coolness. Getting hangovers and moreover pretending to have is something what a college goer take pride in.People love showing off that they don’t study as they don’t want to be tagged as a ‘padhaku’ or a ‘nerd’. And still the same people top the exams. Kind of weird. Relationship status changes faster than your clothes, your words don’t reflect your feelings and lies are part and parcel of life.

Your friends become your family and never realize we’re closer to them than to our family. We listen to great songs everyday and each one becomes memorable and reminds us of a certain event... Becoming nocturnal is a part of your day. Sleeping the day out to utilize the night is one of the most valuable things college life has taught us. Skipping breakfast every morning just to be in time for the lecture has a uniqueness of its own. Having some snacks with friends at the canteen after having toiled for hours in the Workshop is worth every bite. Doing assignments on the last night has a feel of its own. We learn how to deal with pressure and still manage to come out with flying colours. Making fun of that one guy in your class whom everyone seems to make fun is ecstatic.

Keep taking photos; they will be memories after your college life. Because however much we may complain about lecture hours crawling their time, how days will turn into 4 years, we may never realize.Guess it’s what college is all about. What matters is to Study hard and Play harder. Enjoy to your fullest, as these days won’t last forever…

FILM REVIEW : DHOBI GHAAt

Dhobi Ghaat- A Heartfelt Tribute to Mumbai

5^th February, 2011

2:00 a.m.

Finally managed to watch dhobi ghaat. Good in most parts, except the abrupt ending. Loved the way Mumbai has been brought about in the film. We have seen Mumbai being depicted in various Hindi films. But the freshness and reality kiran rao brings to the city in her movie is commendable. The Mumbai rains, the Ganesh chaturthi celebrations, even the slums. Just one word ‘wow’. It would not be wrong to say Mumbai is the 5^th character in the movie. And what a character! Throughout the movie one feels as if the city is a silent spectator. In fact, the city speaks volumes through its silences.

Monica dogra is lovely. As shai, she is the soul of the film. The exhilarating glow on her face is out-of-this world. Absolutely Loved her. The major reason why one should watch the movie. The find of 2011, according to me. Prateik babbar is very good. Great acting. The interactions between Monica and prateik constitute the best scenes of the film. Amir Khan is ok. Does not have many dialogues. Did not like his role much. Isn’t this time he stops doing painter roles and roles where he is the quiet guy. We have seen enough of that in taare zameen par and ghajini. Aamir deserves better. The girl playing yasmin (kriti malhotra) is excellent. The most real character which actually makes you feel how she is feeling. Her video letters just touch your heart, especially towards the end.

Although the film bears resemblance to ‘wake up Sid’. Both having photography and Mumbai as their principal themes, dhobi ghaat manages to evoke the right emotions in you. The background tunes gel well with the emotions of the scene. Special mention to the cinematography. Amazing shots of Mumbai, none of which seem fake. So real. Long time since I had seen such cinematography. Hats off!!

Now to the cons. The abrupt ending is the biggest flaw. One wants to know what happened next and all we see is to find ourselves staring at the black screen. Some other flaws are if prateik’s family is so poor in the movie, how he manages to watch Salman khan “disasters’ like yuvraaj and hello in the multiplex? And it feels a little weird why Monica dogra comes so close to prateik, who’s just her dhobi. And the old lady’s sadness remained a mystery till the end.

The start is little boring, specially the amir khan scenes. But once Monica and prateik meet, the film takes you in its flow. Kiran rao definitely had her vision right. Liked the film. Give your eyes a treat. You certainly won’t be disappointed. Not the best, still easily one of the finest movies the year will see.

My rating - ***