Fantasy Exchange : Have the courage to reveal your inner most fantasies. And while you're at it, encourage your partner to reveal his or hers.
• The eyes have it : Try keeping your eyes open during lovemaking. It might intensify your connection - emotionally, physically, and spiritually -with your partner.
• Be spontaneous : Try sex in any other room in the house or the backyard for that matter.
• No criticism in bed : Instead of complaining about what your partner is doing (that is unless you're being hurt or abused), tell him/her what you like.
• Plan time for sex : Do whatever you like to do beforehand, go to a movie or dinner, take a walk, have a glass of wine by candlelight, whatever you like to do as a couple. But set aside that time.
• Ask : You need to ask your partner the same questions that you've asked yourself. What does your partner want from your love life? Talking openly might bring you closer to one another, and that's likely to make sex more interesting for both of you.
• Don't ignore sexual problems : People often shy away from sexuality because they don't want to face failure but these problems need to be addressed head on.
• Lubrication is important : In terms of how aroused a person is, lubrication for a woman is the equivalent of an erection for a man.
• Stop comparing : Don't worry about what everyone else is doing; you do what is right and agreeable to both of you.
• Foreplay matters : Take a hot shower or bath together. Extend your foreplay time.
• Be innovative : A blindfold can add a degree of intimacy and trust in your partner that other things cannot. Read your partner an erotic bedtime story or write a sexy letter describing everything you'd like to do to them.
• Aphrodisiacs : Feed each other sensually suggestive finger foods. The best way to feed each other is naked, of course! This would set the tone for an incredible lovemaking experience.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Sex on her mind
Picture this: Champagne, candlelight, a man at the door who craves commitment. Does it sound like every woman’s ultimate fantasy?
For ages the world has been trying hard to figure out what’s going on in a woman's head? What does a woman want: the quintessential question? The answer: champagne, candlelight, a man at the door...most of the times. The stuff most women fantasize about.
It’s not hard to understand actually...women do fantasize. A woman's fantasies are certainly not limited. All have their own peccadilloes. If your body hasn't been called "perky" since Gymboree, in fantasy you can give yourself permission to swing naked from a crystal chandelier. Here's another favourite: a rustic cabin in the woods, pink Champagne and Benicio Del Toro. The reality: a cramped studio in the city, Diet Snapple and a guy who hogs the remote. Don't get me wrong; I've got nothing against the keeper of my remote. It’s just my fantasy and reality never find common ground. But we still continue to fantasize. And yes, if it involves sex, it’s all the better.
Nothing beats a good sex fantasy. Even researchers agree. Linda Wolfe a famous author studied a sample of 15,000 women aged 18-34 years, and less than three percent said they never fantasize. It was seen that females are more likely to prefer erotica with a "softer," more imaginative side than the "harder," more explicit forms preferred by males.
Dr. Nimish Seth, psychologist says: “There’s no such thing as an inappropriate fantasy. A lesbian fantasy is not proof that you're gay; a dominatrix fantasy doesn't mean you ought to run right out and invest in a pair of leather pants. Whether you choose to explore your fantasies—however mild or wild they may be—is up to you. But by all means don't hesitate to let your imagination jump-start your body into a sexier sex life. Sometimes a girl needs a jolt of adventure—if only in her daydreams”.
For ages the world has been trying hard to figure out what’s going on in a woman's head? What does a woman want: the quintessential question? The answer: champagne, candlelight, a man at the door...most of the times. The stuff most women fantasize about.
It’s not hard to understand actually...women do fantasize. A woman's fantasies are certainly not limited. All have their own peccadilloes. If your body hasn't been called "perky" since Gymboree, in fantasy you can give yourself permission to swing naked from a crystal chandelier. Here's another favourite: a rustic cabin in the woods, pink Champagne and Benicio Del Toro. The reality: a cramped studio in the city, Diet Snapple and a guy who hogs the remote. Don't get me wrong; I've got nothing against the keeper of my remote. It’s just my fantasy and reality never find common ground. But we still continue to fantasize. And yes, if it involves sex, it’s all the better.
Nothing beats a good sex fantasy. Even researchers agree. Linda Wolfe a famous author studied a sample of 15,000 women aged 18-34 years, and less than three percent said they never fantasize. It was seen that females are more likely to prefer erotica with a "softer," more imaginative side than the "harder," more explicit forms preferred by males.
Dr. Nimish Seth, psychologist says: “There’s no such thing as an inappropriate fantasy. A lesbian fantasy is not proof that you're gay; a dominatrix fantasy doesn't mean you ought to run right out and invest in a pair of leather pants. Whether you choose to explore your fantasies—however mild or wild they may be—is up to you. But by all means don't hesitate to let your imagination jump-start your body into a sexier sex life. Sometimes a girl needs a jolt of adventure—if only in her daydreams”.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Om Shanti Om
The mother, dressed in the finest of silks (with enough glitter embroidered on it), decorated in the finest jewelry, finishes giving her "aarthi" to an equally decorated deity, against the background of thumping background score (even if it is devotional tune) and waits for her son to take the first blessing, a tradition that he hasn't missed ever in his lifetime. So as there surrounds pindrop silence in the huge prayer hall of the modestly sized mansion, that is conveniently filled with guests, who seem to have no other jobs but to wait for the son to take the first blessing, a helicopter descends from the skies outside the mansion and the son jumps out of it before the chopper has even touched the ground. And the bombastic score kicks in again. Meanwhile, the editor has a merry time intercutting between the beaming mother's face and the athletic son's, who doesn't waste time catching his breath, inspite of the 10K run from the helipad to the prayer hall. The orchestra swells, along with the eyes of the mother, as the son walks into the house with a sense of accomplishment that could only come with conquering Mt. Everest. The jobless loitering guests couldn't be any happier. To the collective applause of the gathered audience (for reasons unknown), the son bends down and takes the first blessing from his mother. The audience becomes overwhelmed (thanks in large parts to the thumping score pumped throughout all the corners of seating auditorium) with joy, happiness and ecstacy, as kerchiefs come out to wipe away the tears streaking down the cheeks at just the same time that goosebumps make their special appearances - another typical moment in the dreamy world of Indian movies. The surprising aspect is, the above description is not from the loud 70's era, which the Hindi filmmakers seem to have taken a great shine on nowadays in the name of homage, but from a contemporary movie from just a few years ago.
Which goes on to say that immaterial of the era, escapism is here to stay. The audience wants the hero to triumph in the end (however stacked the situation is against him), the audience cheers when the guy gets the girl in the end (no matter how mean he has been to her throughout most of the movie), the villain should meet his fitting fate, the end credits should roll against up-tempo beat, Satyameva Jayate, Jai Hind! The audience needs the formula, the audience craves for the formula, only the tools change, only the methodology changes, the formula remains the same. VIVA! FORMULA!
A couple of decades ago, serialized in a local Telugu weekly "Andhra Bhoomi", the famous cartoonist Mallik, created a seminal piece in Telugu literature - a never attempted before, completely cliche-ridden, over the top, farcical parody of the then prevalent conditions in Telugu cinema (though not much has changed from then). The title of the serial was "Superhit", which came with a tagline "ani oka dikkumaalina kadha" (A wretched story). Filled in the story every single caricature known to mankind - on the hero's side - an ultra-rich family, with a reckless, wasteful hero, a doting sister-in-law, a cute neice who mouths dialogues way beyond her age, a brother who is always caught up in his business, and looks harangued for most of the time; on the heroine's side - a handicapped brother, who dreams of standing on his legs, literally, one day, a blind sister, a shawl-draped, bed-ridden mother, who coughs lightly before uttering anything, a portrait of the dead dad hanging on the wall (garlanded, of course), which the shawl-draped mother makes it a point to talk to, whenever she has a cause of complaint against anybody. Oh, and there is also a second heroine, in the near by slum, who is the best thing to have happened to her people and whom the whole slum knows by her name (and vice versa). Create a scheming villain, who always had an eye on hero's property and heroine's chastity, in that order, along with a standard format of heroine hating the hero first, before finally falling to his charms, a compelling reason why the heroine should not marry the hero according to her mother (in a flashback episode, hero's father was the reason why the heroine's family was destitute), some twists and turns and some the fill in the blanks that the readers could fill out even before anyone said 'Go' - Presto! A superhit story served hot and ready! Mallik ended up creating a story that mirrored the readers' (audience's) taste to perfection. Whoever said "Can't beat 'em? Join 'em" couldn't have said it better.
There are two ways of poking fun at something - laughing at it and laughing with it. While the former makes up mockery, the latter accounts for parody, why ch is a more benign and endearing form. Parody is never mean in nature, it wallows in the same system it is poking fun at. Parody has come late to the Indian scene, while it has become a mainstay in the Hollywood fare (The "Airplane" movies, the "Naked Gun" series and most of Mel Brooks' comedies). Though Kundan Shah's "Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron" was an attempt at ridiculing the unholy nexus of the print media with the political machinery, it cannot be completely termed as a parody (inspite of the many hilarious moments, including the final climactic staging of Mahabharat's "Vastra aparaharan" scene, with the blind Dhritarastra chiming in with a timely "yeh kyaa hO rahaa hai"), as the underlying theme is a deadly serious one (pun intended). There are two ubiquitous spheres in the present day society that constanly crave for attention - 1.Politics 2. Movies. While satire handles the role of mocking the political system, parody is the only way of laughing at the dream world and the dream merchants peddling impossible fare to wide-eyed mass audience. Where reality is scarce and escapism rules, where reason ends and fantasy rules, where people openly pledge their allegiance to formulaic fare and decry anything that is little bit preachy and informative, the situation could not get any better to make fun of. And what better way to make fun of a formula film, by making a formula film about a formula film?
Farah Khan has her head planted firmly on her shoulders while shepherding the herd throughout the length of the movie. The plot of "Om Shanti Om" is only an excuse. In fact, the movie would have still worked, even if it were a series of disjointed segments with no continuous narrative (similar to the brilliant Monty Python movies). The story merely sets up the platform to laugh at situations that are funnily bad and hilariously absurd. To term "Om Shanti Om" as a spoof of just the 70s is a great disservice to the movies of the current era, which work no less hard, dishing out the same recipes of the Valmiki and Veda Vyas era. The movie is not merely a parody on movies. It even makes fun of the audience, who thoroughly enjoy such guilty pleasure fare. Here is a situation - the hero is handicapped, not merely to the extent that a hero can be handicapped photogenically, but handicapped in all senses and faculties, with no legs, no arms, no sight, no hearing and no sound. Yet he is still a hero, and deserves every chance to romance his heroine against Alps background. The audience and the makers are unfazed at the impossibility of the situation. Dream sequence - an all empowering possibility that can defy rules, commonsense, intelligence and logic. And so the dysfunctional hero grooves with the international beauties in an item song to commemorate (in fact, rue) the heroine's wedding with someone else. As though the absurdity isn't enough, Javed Akhtar joins the party coining the situation in what could only be termed as bizarrely apt - Dard-E-Disco. "Om Shanti Om" isn't a spoof. It in fact is a tribute - a tribute to everyone who cheered and clapped, when long lost brothers separated during childhood came together in the climax, singing the same song they practiced as kids. It in fact is a tip of the hat - a bow to everybody who yelled at the screen egging the hero to thrash the villain even more for all the injustices he committed during the stipulated movie time. It extends a heartfelt gratitude to all who laughed with the hero, cried with the heroine, growled at the villain, pitied with the second heroine. In effect, "Om Shanti Om" is truly of the people, by the people and for the people. Now that kind of idealism calls for another entirely out of place item song - "Jashn-E-Filmi Zindagi"!
Which goes on to say that immaterial of the era, escapism is here to stay. The audience wants the hero to triumph in the end (however stacked the situation is against him), the audience cheers when the guy gets the girl in the end (no matter how mean he has been to her throughout most of the movie), the villain should meet his fitting fate, the end credits should roll against up-tempo beat, Satyameva Jayate, Jai Hind! The audience needs the formula, the audience craves for the formula, only the tools change, only the methodology changes, the formula remains the same. VIVA! FORMULA!
A couple of decades ago, serialized in a local Telugu weekly "Andhra Bhoomi", the famous cartoonist Mallik, created a seminal piece in Telugu literature - a never attempted before, completely cliche-ridden, over the top, farcical parody of the then prevalent conditions in Telugu cinema (though not much has changed from then). The title of the serial was "Superhit", which came with a tagline "ani oka dikkumaalina kadha" (A wretched story). Filled in the story every single caricature known to mankind - on the hero's side - an ultra-rich family, with a reckless, wasteful hero, a doting sister-in-law, a cute neice who mouths dialogues way beyond her age, a brother who is always caught up in his business, and looks harangued for most of the time; on the heroine's side - a handicapped brother, who dreams of standing on his legs, literally, one day, a blind sister, a shawl-draped, bed-ridden mother, who coughs lightly before uttering anything, a portrait of the dead dad hanging on the wall (garlanded, of course), which the shawl-draped mother makes it a point to talk to, whenever she has a cause of complaint against anybody. Oh, and there is also a second heroine, in the near by slum, who is the best thing to have happened to her people and whom the whole slum knows by her name (and vice versa). Create a scheming villain, who always had an eye on hero's property and heroine's chastity, in that order, along with a standard format of heroine hating the hero first, before finally falling to his charms, a compelling reason why the heroine should not marry the hero according to her mother (in a flashback episode, hero's father was the reason why the heroine's family was destitute), some twists and turns and some the fill in the blanks that the readers could fill out even before anyone said 'Go' - Presto! A superhit story served hot and ready! Mallik ended up creating a story that mirrored the readers' (audience's) taste to perfection. Whoever said "Can't beat 'em? Join 'em" couldn't have said it better.
There are two ways of poking fun at something - laughing at it and laughing with it. While the former makes up mockery, the latter accounts for parody, why ch is a more benign and endearing form. Parody is never mean in nature, it wallows in the same system it is poking fun at. Parody has come late to the Indian scene, while it has become a mainstay in the Hollywood fare (The "Airplane" movies, the "Naked Gun" series and most of Mel Brooks' comedies). Though Kundan Shah's "Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron" was an attempt at ridiculing the unholy nexus of the print media with the political machinery, it cannot be completely termed as a parody (inspite of the many hilarious moments, including the final climactic staging of Mahabharat's "Vastra aparaharan" scene, with the blind Dhritarastra chiming in with a timely "yeh kyaa hO rahaa hai"), as the underlying theme is a deadly serious one (pun intended). There are two ubiquitous spheres in the present day society that constanly crave for attention - 1.Politics 2. Movies. While satire handles the role of mocking the political system, parody is the only way of laughing at the dream world and the dream merchants peddling impossible fare to wide-eyed mass audience. Where reality is scarce and escapism rules, where reason ends and fantasy rules, where people openly pledge their allegiance to formulaic fare and decry anything that is little bit preachy and informative, the situation could not get any better to make fun of. And what better way to make fun of a formula film, by making a formula film about a formula film?
Farah Khan has her head planted firmly on her shoulders while shepherding the herd throughout the length of the movie. The plot of "Om Shanti Om" is only an excuse. In fact, the movie would have still worked, even if it were a series of disjointed segments with no continuous narrative (similar to the brilliant Monty Python movies). The story merely sets up the platform to laugh at situations that are funnily bad and hilariously absurd. To term "Om Shanti Om" as a spoof of just the 70s is a great disservice to the movies of the current era, which work no less hard, dishing out the same recipes of the Valmiki and Veda Vyas era. The movie is not merely a parody on movies. It even makes fun of the audience, who thoroughly enjoy such guilty pleasure fare. Here is a situation - the hero is handicapped, not merely to the extent that a hero can be handicapped photogenically, but handicapped in all senses and faculties, with no legs, no arms, no sight, no hearing and no sound. Yet he is still a hero, and deserves every chance to romance his heroine against Alps background. The audience and the makers are unfazed at the impossibility of the situation. Dream sequence - an all empowering possibility that can defy rules, commonsense, intelligence and logic. And so the dysfunctional hero grooves with the international beauties in an item song to commemorate (in fact, rue) the heroine's wedding with someone else. As though the absurdity isn't enough, Javed Akhtar joins the party coining the situation in what could only be termed as bizarrely apt - Dard-E-Disco. "Om Shanti Om" isn't a spoof. It in fact is a tribute - a tribute to everyone who cheered and clapped, when long lost brothers separated during childhood came together in the climax, singing the same song they practiced as kids. It in fact is a tip of the hat - a bow to everybody who yelled at the screen egging the hero to thrash the villain even more for all the injustices he committed during the stipulated movie time. It extends a heartfelt gratitude to all who laughed with the hero, cried with the heroine, growled at the villain, pitied with the second heroine. In effect, "Om Shanti Om" is truly of the people, by the people and for the people. Now that kind of idealism calls for another entirely out of place item song - "Jashn-E-Filmi Zindagi"!
Show".
Trend is often defined as a precursor to a cliché. A youthful movie becomes successful and the market is flooded with clones and drones; a vengeful movie strikes some chord with the audience and it is treated to different variations of the same blood and gore. Stranger it may seem, because not too many good movies find followers lining up in their paths. A "Siva" was followed by thousands of its minions (pramadha gaNaalu would be a better term), but a "Kshana Kshanam" had no takers. A "Nuvve Kaavaali" opened the floodgates to hundreds of unwanted adaptations, but a "Chirunnavuto" walked alone. Going by this simple sampling, one can fairly predict how "trends" would treat this new innovative movie named "Show".
More than the guts factor, which is required in sizable proportions, to embark upon a movie making adventure such as this, it is the audacity of the maker (Neelakantha) to believe in himself, and attempt at convincing the audience, that it does not need a few hundreds lakhs, a few foreign locales and hordes of characters, to get a point across. Well rounded characters, even without enough motivations behind their actions, but possessing a simple ability of remaining true to their characters without trying too hard to grab the attention of the audience and engross them, are some of the stand out points of these so-called "good movies".
More so in cases where the focus of attention shines on only on a handful characters, the terms sincerity, wit and innovation come into play at every twist and turn. When there aren't too many distractions bothering the audience with their smoke and mirrors act, every word that the character utters comes under the mental microscope and every step that the script takes comes into serious relief. Braving this minefield of a playfield, the maker (incidentally, the script writer too) made sure that the subject matter wasn't too abstract for the audience to understand, or too intricate for them to follow. This bravura performance, fittingly rewarded at the national level, deserves a sound round of applause, for its lucidity in flow and elegance in execution.
If the entire movie is to revolve around two characters, and the setting is in and around a house, the cameraman has to think really hard to frame his shots to avoid repetition and bring out a sense that involves the audience in the proceedings. It is really easy to go overboard on such occasions and overdo the job, making the piece a little too self-conscious, while making the audience appreciating the craft and overlooking the material. Ravi Yadav, the photographer, who walks this thin line between creativity and exuberance, deserves kudos almost on par with the writer-director, for the unique number of ways he composed the different sequences in the movie. If at no point does the movie feel like a ultra low budget movie shot on a 35mm film, it is because of the inventive camera work that went beyond the call of duty of picturising the action of the movie, to the point of depicting the characters in a different angle, literally. Ravi Yadav certainly joined the ranks of a Govind Nihlani or a Ashok Mehta or a Balu Mahendra, for his fantastic work on Show.
One obscure category deserves some serious mention here. Sound mixing, that became a vital part of the movie, in the final act of the movie, was done with utmost attention to the detail elevating the mood of the characters and more importanly the tempo and the drama. The clarity of the sound and the ability to distinguish between the voices (with special mention to the voice that dubbed the lead character's wife's voice), which becomes a important part in shifting the gears, would not had been possible, but for the sharp ear of the mixer.
Surya - the one, who really infused life into the words and thus into the movie, with a tour-de-force performance, should become a serious contender to best actor Nandi, along with Prakash Raj (for Nuvve Nuvve). The way he relegated the female character (in a good way) to becoming just a wall to bounce emotions off, Surya, through his body language (going a little overboard at times, as dictated by the script), and emerged the sole winner from among the ones facing the lens, is a treat to watch and appreciate. One would seriously hope that this movie serves him as a springboard for better roles and even better Performances.
Lastly, if the movie pitch goes something on the lines of - "two characters try to kill some time engaging each other doing nothing but TALKING during a 5 hour period, holed up in a house, by staging a mock play which is in a reflective of the lead character's life" - the producer should either be completely ignorant or supremely confident about the abilities of the maker on pulling off, a risky proposition as this and Manjula proves that she belongs to the latter category. In the celluloid world, filled with dreamy characters occupying perfect worlds, where their only concerns revolve around expressing their love and winning over hearts, here is one that dares to be different that wins over the minds, for a change. We are ready with the three cheers, say when!
More than the guts factor, which is required in sizable proportions, to embark upon a movie making adventure such as this, it is the audacity of the maker (Neelakantha) to believe in himself, and attempt at convincing the audience, that it does not need a few hundreds lakhs, a few foreign locales and hordes of characters, to get a point across. Well rounded characters, even without enough motivations behind their actions, but possessing a simple ability of remaining true to their characters without trying too hard to grab the attention of the audience and engross them, are some of the stand out points of these so-called "good movies".
More so in cases where the focus of attention shines on only on a handful characters, the terms sincerity, wit and innovation come into play at every twist and turn. When there aren't too many distractions bothering the audience with their smoke and mirrors act, every word that the character utters comes under the mental microscope and every step that the script takes comes into serious relief. Braving this minefield of a playfield, the maker (incidentally, the script writer too) made sure that the subject matter wasn't too abstract for the audience to understand, or too intricate for them to follow. This bravura performance, fittingly rewarded at the national level, deserves a sound round of applause, for its lucidity in flow and elegance in execution.
If the entire movie is to revolve around two characters, and the setting is in and around a house, the cameraman has to think really hard to frame his shots to avoid repetition and bring out a sense that involves the audience in the proceedings. It is really easy to go overboard on such occasions and overdo the job, making the piece a little too self-conscious, while making the audience appreciating the craft and overlooking the material. Ravi Yadav, the photographer, who walks this thin line between creativity and exuberance, deserves kudos almost on par with the writer-director, for the unique number of ways he composed the different sequences in the movie. If at no point does the movie feel like a ultra low budget movie shot on a 35mm film, it is because of the inventive camera work that went beyond the call of duty of picturising the action of the movie, to the point of depicting the characters in a different angle, literally. Ravi Yadav certainly joined the ranks of a Govind Nihlani or a Ashok Mehta or a Balu Mahendra, for his fantastic work on Show.
One obscure category deserves some serious mention here. Sound mixing, that became a vital part of the movie, in the final act of the movie, was done with utmost attention to the detail elevating the mood of the characters and more importanly the tempo and the drama. The clarity of the sound and the ability to distinguish between the voices (with special mention to the voice that dubbed the lead character's wife's voice), which becomes a important part in shifting the gears, would not had been possible, but for the sharp ear of the mixer.
Surya - the one, who really infused life into the words and thus into the movie, with a tour-de-force performance, should become a serious contender to best actor Nandi, along with Prakash Raj (for Nuvve Nuvve). The way he relegated the female character (in a good way) to becoming just a wall to bounce emotions off, Surya, through his body language (going a little overboard at times, as dictated by the script), and emerged the sole winner from among the ones facing the lens, is a treat to watch and appreciate. One would seriously hope that this movie serves him as a springboard for better roles and even better Performances.
Lastly, if the movie pitch goes something on the lines of - "two characters try to kill some time engaging each other doing nothing but TALKING during a 5 hour period, holed up in a house, by staging a mock play which is in a reflective of the lead character's life" - the producer should either be completely ignorant or supremely confident about the abilities of the maker on pulling off, a risky proposition as this and Manjula proves that she belongs to the latter category. In the celluloid world, filled with dreamy characters occupying perfect worlds, where their only concerns revolve around expressing their love and winning over hearts, here is one that dares to be different that wins over the minds, for a change. We are ready with the three cheers, say when!
How to Gain Weight... Quick & Easy
Gain Weight Step 1 - eating
Eating is the first and most important factor that is needed to gain weight. It's simple - you need to eat more calories than you burn. This does not mean eating anything and everything that is not nailed down. Carefully plan your meals with foods that will help you gain lean mass, not fat. I suggest 6 meals. Breakfast, lunch, dinner, and three other small meals scheduled throughout the day. The goal is to eat every 2.5 to 3 hours.
Focus on foods such as steak, chicken, fruit, milk, vegetables, cheese and assorted types of nuts. It's recommended to eat 4 - 6 pieces of fresh fruit a day, and at least four tall glasses of milk. Milk is a great, cheap protein source - take advantage of it. A sample snack meal would be a glass of milk, an apple, and a hand full of peanuts.
Take time to lay out a meal plan. What you eat is the most important ingredient in a successful weight gain program.
Gain Weight Step 2 - lifting
As stated, proper eating is of utmost importance when attempting to gain weight, but if you do not lift weights, the majority of that gained weight will be fat - not muscle.
When trying to gain weight, I suggest working out three times a week. You need to lift hard and then recover for the next workout. Focus on the big exercises such as squats, deadlifts, bent-over rows, chin-ups, bench press, & military press. These are the exercises that will turn those extra calories into muscle. You are not going to gain much by doing lateral raises and step-ups every workout. You need the multiple-joint lifts that will shock your system and stimulate your body into growth. Focus on getting strong by adding a small amount of weight each workout. If you focus on strength, size will follow. Case in point, look around at your local gym - the strongest guys are also the biggest.
If your training routine is working, then stick with it. If you're not getting the results you need check out Bob Myhal's Ultimate Muscle Mass Training Program. It is, quite simply, the best muscle-gaining program around. It rocks!
Gain Weight Step 3 - supplements
To gain weight, you do not NEED supplements, but they will help you gain the weight quicker. That's what they are, supplements to an already good diet and training program. Think of supplements as the finishing touch.
I like to keep things simple and, therefore, I suggest only two types supplements for those wishing to gain weight. The first is a weight gain shake. The shakes I recommend are ProLab's N Large 2. It's the best value out there. The way N' Large 2 will help is by giving you a large quantity of calories in one small serving. It will provide you with 620 calories in one easy shake and is especially great for people who do not have time for breakfast, or snacks while on the go. Just mix a serving with water or fruit juice and gulp it down in a just a couple of minutes.
The second product is basic Creatine monohydrate. Most people gain 5 - 7lbs in the first two weeks of Creatine use. If you are interested in quick weight gain, and increased energy for your workouts, Creatine is definitely worth a go. American Creatine is a good choice if you're not sure of which product to choose. It's high-quality and inexpensive, a winning combo in my book
How much will you gain?
First, I feel I must cite the obligatory disclaimer of "everyone's body responds in different ways, so results will vary." That said, if you do eat well, lift hard and use just the 2 supplements mentioned above properly, you can expect a weight gain of about 10-15lbs within a month. I hope this article has provided you with an idea of what's needed for successful weight gain.
Eating is the first and most important factor that is needed to gain weight. It's simple - you need to eat more calories than you burn. This does not mean eating anything and everything that is not nailed down. Carefully plan your meals with foods that will help you gain lean mass, not fat. I suggest 6 meals. Breakfast, lunch, dinner, and three other small meals scheduled throughout the day. The goal is to eat every 2.5 to 3 hours.
Focus on foods such as steak, chicken, fruit, milk, vegetables, cheese and assorted types of nuts. It's recommended to eat 4 - 6 pieces of fresh fruit a day, and at least four tall glasses of milk. Milk is a great, cheap protein source - take advantage of it. A sample snack meal would be a glass of milk, an apple, and a hand full of peanuts.
Take time to lay out a meal plan. What you eat is the most important ingredient in a successful weight gain program.
Gain Weight Step 2 - lifting
As stated, proper eating is of utmost importance when attempting to gain weight, but if you do not lift weights, the majority of that gained weight will be fat - not muscle.
When trying to gain weight, I suggest working out three times a week. You need to lift hard and then recover for the next workout. Focus on the big exercises such as squats, deadlifts, bent-over rows, chin-ups, bench press, & military press. These are the exercises that will turn those extra calories into muscle. You are not going to gain much by doing lateral raises and step-ups every workout. You need the multiple-joint lifts that will shock your system and stimulate your body into growth. Focus on getting strong by adding a small amount of weight each workout. If you focus on strength, size will follow. Case in point, look around at your local gym - the strongest guys are also the biggest.
If your training routine is working, then stick with it. If you're not getting the results you need check out Bob Myhal's Ultimate Muscle Mass Training Program. It is, quite simply, the best muscle-gaining program around. It rocks!
Gain Weight Step 3 - supplements
To gain weight, you do not NEED supplements, but they will help you gain the weight quicker. That's what they are, supplements to an already good diet and training program. Think of supplements as the finishing touch.
I like to keep things simple and, therefore, I suggest only two types supplements for those wishing to gain weight. The first is a weight gain shake. The shakes I recommend are ProLab's N Large 2. It's the best value out there. The way N' Large 2 will help is by giving you a large quantity of calories in one small serving. It will provide you with 620 calories in one easy shake and is especially great for people who do not have time for breakfast, or snacks while on the go. Just mix a serving with water or fruit juice and gulp it down in a just a couple of minutes.
The second product is basic Creatine monohydrate. Most people gain 5 - 7lbs in the first two weeks of Creatine use. If you are interested in quick weight gain, and increased energy for your workouts, Creatine is definitely worth a go. American Creatine is a good choice if you're not sure of which product to choose. It's high-quality and inexpensive, a winning combo in my book
How much will you gain?
First, I feel I must cite the obligatory disclaimer of "everyone's body responds in different ways, so results will vary." That said, if you do eat well, lift hard and use just the 2 supplements mentioned above properly, you can expect a weight gain of about 10-15lbs within a month. I hope this article has provided you with an idea of what's needed for successful weight gain.
Mr & Mrs Iyer
When a movie is specifically termed as a "commercial" one, one could pretty much gauge the sanity and fantasy levels within the same. Brand it an "Art" movie, regular movie watcher would shun it like the plague. The common perception that art movies are something where one has to engage their gray matters in order to enjoy them, art movies aren't really accessible to an average movie-goer, art movies are too close to the real life and one doesn't need pay money to be reminded of his every day life when he could watch it pass by without any extra charge, are some of the reasons why the parallel movement hasn't really caught on, like the independent film movement in Europe or in America. Of late, be it for the reason that commercial movies has wandered off into the deep end of the mess pool, or be it because of the fact that people started accepting more reality than theatricality in regular fares, movies like "Hyderabad Blues", "Show" etc are finding wider acceptance and larger recognition.
To look back upon Mr & Mrs Iyer, it is difficult to make out, if it is a love story against a communal riot backdrop or a social commentary woven around human emotions, but it clearly succeeds on both fronts. Aparna Sen, who made a brilliant debut with "36 Chowranghee Lane" in the early eighties, deftly balances both the plot points, without going overboard on either of them. A large-scale tragedy seldom affects somebody until it is given a human face. Communal riots, which usually tend to polarize the public opinion, one way or the other, would be viewed under a wholly different light, if the tragedy strikes too close to comfort or the if it is visited upon somebody too close to the heart. Aparna Sen (along with Dulal Dey) weaves a simple story around this point and manages to hold the audience heavily dreading for the tragedy to hit the lead pair and hugely rooting for their safe escape from the clutches of communalism at the same time.
The movie has uncanny similarities in Maachis and Ijaazat, both Gulzar's movies, with regard to plot and its sensible dealing with the issues - be it personal or communal. With patriotism (or essentially communalism) translating to flag waving hero killing the neighboring country's enemies by the dozens and with secularism equating to the hero singing communal harmony sermons on the top of his voice, along with the obligatory members of the minority communities, a realistic treatment of the above mentioned two important issues of the society, was either largely missing or hugely wanting. Govind Nihlani's Tamas, Gulzar's Maachis and to a certain extent Mahesh Bhat's Zakhm, handled the growing menace of communalism, pre and post-independence, not with the heavy-handedness that it is usually dealt with in the regular fare, but with the sensitivity and sensibility, the theme truly demands. These two aspects tend to give the movies their rough and real edges, assaulting the emotions and disturbing the psyche.
The emotional aspect of the movie aside, the setup of the love story (if it can even be called one), no matter how familiar and formulaic, feels fresh and vibrant, thanks to the players before and behind the camera. Konkana Sen Sharma (daughter of Aparna Sen), carries off the role of a devout traditional Tamilian house-wife (fitting the accent and mannerisms perfectly), stumbling (and at times, hamming) during the first act, but regaining her ground, and pulling it off with great conviction at the end. Rahul Bose (of Bombay Boys fame) plays a good foil as a calm and composed Mr. Iyer to a temperamental Mrs. Iyer. The one aspect that sticks out as a sore thumb, is the "too realistic" yet ordinary photography by Gautam Ghose, which captures characters talking in the dark, AS characters talking in the real darkness. The music director, Ustad Zakir Hussain's, a percussionist himself, conscious usage of stringed instruments for the background evocative score, is commendable, for his involvement in understanding of the message of material - strings that tug the hearts and strings that break them.
Mr & Mrs Iyer demonstrates how involving a movie watching experience can get, if it just sticks to the basics. It teaches the importance on the clarity of understanding of the material at hand, by the maker. It just shows how the "ordinary people in extra-ordinary circumstances" theme should be dealt with, by treating extra-orindary circumstances not in a ham-handed way but in an ordinary way. And who better to learn all these than from the master, Aparna Sen!
To look back upon Mr & Mrs Iyer, it is difficult to make out, if it is a love story against a communal riot backdrop or a social commentary woven around human emotions, but it clearly succeeds on both fronts. Aparna Sen, who made a brilliant debut with "36 Chowranghee Lane" in the early eighties, deftly balances both the plot points, without going overboard on either of them. A large-scale tragedy seldom affects somebody until it is given a human face. Communal riots, which usually tend to polarize the public opinion, one way or the other, would be viewed under a wholly different light, if the tragedy strikes too close to comfort or the if it is visited upon somebody too close to the heart. Aparna Sen (along with Dulal Dey) weaves a simple story around this point and manages to hold the audience heavily dreading for the tragedy to hit the lead pair and hugely rooting for their safe escape from the clutches of communalism at the same time.
The movie has uncanny similarities in Maachis and Ijaazat, both Gulzar's movies, with regard to plot and its sensible dealing with the issues - be it personal or communal. With patriotism (or essentially communalism) translating to flag waving hero killing the neighboring country's enemies by the dozens and with secularism equating to the hero singing communal harmony sermons on the top of his voice, along with the obligatory members of the minority communities, a realistic treatment of the above mentioned two important issues of the society, was either largely missing or hugely wanting. Govind Nihlani's Tamas, Gulzar's Maachis and to a certain extent Mahesh Bhat's Zakhm, handled the growing menace of communalism, pre and post-independence, not with the heavy-handedness that it is usually dealt with in the regular fare, but with the sensitivity and sensibility, the theme truly demands. These two aspects tend to give the movies their rough and real edges, assaulting the emotions and disturbing the psyche.
The emotional aspect of the movie aside, the setup of the love story (if it can even be called one), no matter how familiar and formulaic, feels fresh and vibrant, thanks to the players before and behind the camera. Konkana Sen Sharma (daughter of Aparna Sen), carries off the role of a devout traditional Tamilian house-wife (fitting the accent and mannerisms perfectly), stumbling (and at times, hamming) during the first act, but regaining her ground, and pulling it off with great conviction at the end. Rahul Bose (of Bombay Boys fame) plays a good foil as a calm and composed Mr. Iyer to a temperamental Mrs. Iyer. The one aspect that sticks out as a sore thumb, is the "too realistic" yet ordinary photography by Gautam Ghose, which captures characters talking in the dark, AS characters talking in the real darkness. The music director, Ustad Zakir Hussain's, a percussionist himself, conscious usage of stringed instruments for the background evocative score, is commendable, for his involvement in understanding of the message of material - strings that tug the hearts and strings that break them.
Mr & Mrs Iyer demonstrates how involving a movie watching experience can get, if it just sticks to the basics. It teaches the importance on the clarity of understanding of the material at hand, by the maker. It just shows how the "ordinary people in extra-ordinary circumstances" theme should be dealt with, by treating extra-orindary circumstances not in a ham-handed way but in an ordinary way. And who better to learn all these than from the master, Aparna Sen!
The Da Vinci Code
At the center of all the controversy surrounding the book and the movie stands Sex. Opus Dei, Priori of Sion, Knights of Templar, The Secret Dossier - all these terms that had come into vogue ever since Dan Brown published his thriller a few years ago are just diversions to the main issue that has the Catholic Church up in arms - Did Jesus have Sex, did Jesus consummate his relationship with Mary Magdalene, or precisely, Did Jesus engage in normal regular human activities? Populist history (theology, mythology and the different bodies that dealt with the life and death of Jesus Christ) has portrayed Mary Magdalene as a prostitute, who had been rescued by Jesus from the public, casting stones and aspersions against her and her lifestyle. She was inducted into his coterie (disciples) and had been awarded a respectable status both from the historical standpoint and from a religious perspective in all the 4 important gospels. Again, the populist history stopped at this point as far Magdalene was concerned regarding her no more or no less than the rest of disciples following Jesus at that point. The theory, that was in question for some time ago, dusted up and brought into popular culture in the current era, first by the non-fiction publication "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and later by the fiction "The Da Vinci Code", takes the issue one step further and questions the relationship between Jesus and Magdalene - whether it was purely spiritual or platonic or whether Magdalene was indeed the wife of Jesus - a point that is quite keenly contested and vociferously rejected by the devout Christians the world over in general, and the Roman Catholic Church, in particular.
So what if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, had physical relationship with her and produced an offspring? A few years ago, one more book (and later made into a movie by the same name) "The Last Temptation of Christ" by Nikos Kazantzakis posed the same question, in that, a bruised and battered Jesus, in his final moments on the cross, briefly entertains the thought of not bearing the burden of sins of the entire humanity earning him a painful crucifixion in the process, but leading a normal life like any other regular human being, getting married and bearing kids. However unlike "Last Temptation" which poses the question in a rather philosophical way, "Da Vinci Code" argues with a straight face that Jesus was indeed married and had most certainly borne an offspring with Magdalene, citing age old documents, secret parchments, hidden codes and sometimes the secrets that lie between the lines. So what if Jesus had a wife and a kid? Would it reduce his divinity any lesser making him a mere mortal? Does it completely wipe away his sacrifice for humanity? Would it totally skew or negate his preachings and teachings about love, affection and tolerance? The questions, though seem innocuously simple, do not have easy answers. The point is not whether Jesus could have had the life of a normal man. The implications surrounding an issue as huge as "Jesus' kid" would become not only mythological in nature but also gigantically political. Entertaining the thought that there indeed was a Jesus' kid and that history had clearly marked his lineage, the order of the religion founded on the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, would question its faith and its foundation time and again, when the world witnesses Jesus' kid and his progeny undergo the same day to day difficulties and hardships that the rest of the world is saddled with.
It would only then seem natural that God's kids and his lineage be bestowed with special powers and privileges than the rest. Miracles would become commonplace; Eradication of the misery, hunger, poverty and other's wordly plagues would be expected of them. And failure to do so would immediately reflect on the belief system. If the grandson of God does not have the capability of bringing a dead person to life, His healing powers are a myth and the God in question does not exist, and the whole belief system is a farce.... or so would the argument go. Therefore the situation was perfectly ripe to whoever founded a religion around the life and death of Christ or the powers that finally vested control of the religion, wipe off any traces of mortality to Jesus thus making him the sole descendant of God. For a conspiracy theory to survive and perpetuate over a period of time, it is not the believability or rather the veracity of the theory that makes it tick, but it is the mere possibility that such a situation might exist that determines how long the theory lasts. Oliver Stone's brilliant movie "JFK" a few years ago plays on this very issue quite dramatically. It may never be known to the world the identity of the killer(s) or the reasons behind the assassination of Kennedy. But Oliver Stone pieces the puzzle in such a way that he creates the possibility of a conspiracy, with everyone right from an ordinary cop in the Dallas Police Department all the way upto the White House dragging even the President Lyndon Johnson into the muddle, to be in on a massive cover up operation. Again, it is not the truth but the possibility that such a situation might exist, however slim the chances are, that determines the lifeline of the conspiracy theory.
In just the same way the conspiracy theory put forth in Da Vinci Code that Medeival Kings colluding with the Catholic Church burned down all the documents that made any reference to the marital life of Jesus, and summoned religious writers to clean up the gospels, publish only those that conformed with the Catholic Church's view of Christianity and relegate the rest to either gather dust or burn up in smoke, has some roots in truth and deduction. The recent unearthing of the "Gospel of Judas" by the archaelogical teams that throws a different light (a more benevolent light) on the relationship between Jesus and Judas as against the accepted traitor-betrayed theory, leads to believe that there is more here than meets the eye. Chruchill once famously said "History is written by the victors". If at the end of the day, Roman Catholic Church stands as the lone victor among the capitulated and the defeated versions of Christianity, it is befitting that the world and history percieve Chrisitianity through the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, accepting whatever Rome decides that Christ had done or not done religiously, promptly rejecting all other versions that would not agree with the fundamental foundations of the Chruch. Conspiracy? Yes, but, possible? Yes, equally. The reason that such kind of highly contentious and potentially damning situation exists is because of fact that with Christianity, history has as much say in the belief system as pure faith. Jesus was as much a mythical figure as much as he was historical. If it is to believed as per all the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that vouch for Judas being a traitor who betrayed Jesus for a few gold coins, as a statement of faith, then the Gospel of Judas, that wasn't accorded the same status alongside the other four, which argues against that notion bearing a stamp of history, stands right up against it.
The fact that Dan Brown bases his entire theory on Priori of Sion, a secret society that purports to protect the bloodline of Jesus without revealing their identities to the world for obvious reasons, which included illustrious members like Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci and many such, was an elaborate hoax in itself. The society was cooked up in the fertile imagination of a French swindler during the period of second world war, who created an entire back history to the society about how it protected Jesus' and Mary's lineage through tightly guarded secrets and tightly lipped personnel, who passed on the secret from generation to generation. That he registered the name of the society in France, registered all his documents with the French National Library in Paris under the name "The Secret Dossier", indicated in them that Magdalene fled to France after Christ's crucifixion, and even insinuated that the bloodline of Jesus are still in France, were all purely patriotic, if not brilliantly clever. Even though Brown's instrument to prove this theory about Jesus was blunt and bent in shape, he did stumble upon a potentially explosive piece in his research about the possibility of Jesus's mortal marital actions. Whether, as he says, this was the greatest lie perpetrated on the mankind since the dawn of civilization can be greatly argued about, there are no arguments that his work remains a highly entertaining piece of fiction, with a dash of conspiracy, backed up by some truths of history. If not for all the crazy conspiracy and unnecessary controversy that Dan Brown welcomed into Christianity, he should at least be commended for prodding every Christian into asking himself this question at a very personal level - Does it matter?
So what if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, had physical relationship with her and produced an offspring? A few years ago, one more book (and later made into a movie by the same name) "The Last Temptation of Christ" by Nikos Kazantzakis posed the same question, in that, a bruised and battered Jesus, in his final moments on the cross, briefly entertains the thought of not bearing the burden of sins of the entire humanity earning him a painful crucifixion in the process, but leading a normal life like any other regular human being, getting married and bearing kids. However unlike "Last Temptation" which poses the question in a rather philosophical way, "Da Vinci Code" argues with a straight face that Jesus was indeed married and had most certainly borne an offspring with Magdalene, citing age old documents, secret parchments, hidden codes and sometimes the secrets that lie between the lines. So what if Jesus had a wife and a kid? Would it reduce his divinity any lesser making him a mere mortal? Does it completely wipe away his sacrifice for humanity? Would it totally skew or negate his preachings and teachings about love, affection and tolerance? The questions, though seem innocuously simple, do not have easy answers. The point is not whether Jesus could have had the life of a normal man. The implications surrounding an issue as huge as "Jesus' kid" would become not only mythological in nature but also gigantically political. Entertaining the thought that there indeed was a Jesus' kid and that history had clearly marked his lineage, the order of the religion founded on the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, would question its faith and its foundation time and again, when the world witnesses Jesus' kid and his progeny undergo the same day to day difficulties and hardships that the rest of the world is saddled with.
It would only then seem natural that God's kids and his lineage be bestowed with special powers and privileges than the rest. Miracles would become commonplace; Eradication of the misery, hunger, poverty and other's wordly plagues would be expected of them. And failure to do so would immediately reflect on the belief system. If the grandson of God does not have the capability of bringing a dead person to life, His healing powers are a myth and the God in question does not exist, and the whole belief system is a farce.... or so would the argument go. Therefore the situation was perfectly ripe to whoever founded a religion around the life and death of Christ or the powers that finally vested control of the religion, wipe off any traces of mortality to Jesus thus making him the sole descendant of God. For a conspiracy theory to survive and perpetuate over a period of time, it is not the believability or rather the veracity of the theory that makes it tick, but it is the mere possibility that such a situation might exist that determines how long the theory lasts. Oliver Stone's brilliant movie "JFK" a few years ago plays on this very issue quite dramatically. It may never be known to the world the identity of the killer(s) or the reasons behind the assassination of Kennedy. But Oliver Stone pieces the puzzle in such a way that he creates the possibility of a conspiracy, with everyone right from an ordinary cop in the Dallas Police Department all the way upto the White House dragging even the President Lyndon Johnson into the muddle, to be in on a massive cover up operation. Again, it is not the truth but the possibility that such a situation might exist, however slim the chances are, that determines the lifeline of the conspiracy theory.
In just the same way the conspiracy theory put forth in Da Vinci Code that Medeival Kings colluding with the Catholic Church burned down all the documents that made any reference to the marital life of Jesus, and summoned religious writers to clean up the gospels, publish only those that conformed with the Catholic Church's view of Christianity and relegate the rest to either gather dust or burn up in smoke, has some roots in truth and deduction. The recent unearthing of the "Gospel of Judas" by the archaelogical teams that throws a different light (a more benevolent light) on the relationship between Jesus and Judas as against the accepted traitor-betrayed theory, leads to believe that there is more here than meets the eye. Chruchill once famously said "History is written by the victors". If at the end of the day, Roman Catholic Church stands as the lone victor among the capitulated and the defeated versions of Christianity, it is befitting that the world and history percieve Chrisitianity through the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, accepting whatever Rome decides that Christ had done or not done religiously, promptly rejecting all other versions that would not agree with the fundamental foundations of the Chruch. Conspiracy? Yes, but, possible? Yes, equally. The reason that such kind of highly contentious and potentially damning situation exists is because of fact that with Christianity, history has as much say in the belief system as pure faith. Jesus was as much a mythical figure as much as he was historical. If it is to believed as per all the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that vouch for Judas being a traitor who betrayed Jesus for a few gold coins, as a statement of faith, then the Gospel of Judas, that wasn't accorded the same status alongside the other four, which argues against that notion bearing a stamp of history, stands right up against it.
The fact that Dan Brown bases his entire theory on Priori of Sion, a secret society that purports to protect the bloodline of Jesus without revealing their identities to the world for obvious reasons, which included illustrious members like Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci and many such, was an elaborate hoax in itself. The society was cooked up in the fertile imagination of a French swindler during the period of second world war, who created an entire back history to the society about how it protected Jesus' and Mary's lineage through tightly guarded secrets and tightly lipped personnel, who passed on the secret from generation to generation. That he registered the name of the society in France, registered all his documents with the French National Library in Paris under the name "The Secret Dossier", indicated in them that Magdalene fled to France after Christ's crucifixion, and even insinuated that the bloodline of Jesus are still in France, were all purely patriotic, if not brilliantly clever. Even though Brown's instrument to prove this theory about Jesus was blunt and bent in shape, he did stumble upon a potentially explosive piece in his research about the possibility of Jesus's mortal marital actions. Whether, as he says, this was the greatest lie perpetrated on the mankind since the dawn of civilization can be greatly argued about, there are no arguments that his work remains a highly entertaining piece of fiction, with a dash of conspiracy, backed up by some truths of history. If not for all the crazy conspiracy and unnecessary controversy that Dan Brown welcomed into Christianity, he should at least be commended for prodding every Christian into asking himself this question at a very personal level - Does it matter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
