मेघदूत: "नीचैर्गच्छत्युपरि दशा चक्रनेमिक्रमेण"

समर्थ शिष्या अक्का : "स्वामीच्या कृपाप्रसादे हे सर्व नश्वर आहे असे समजले. पण या नश्वरात तमाशा बहुत आहे."

G C Lichtenberg: “It is as if our languages were confounded: when we want a thought, they bring us a word; when we ask for a word, they give us a dash; and when we expect a dash, there comes a piece of bawdy.”

C. P. Cavafy: "I’d rather look at things than speak about them."

Martin Amis: “Gogol is funny, Tolstoy in his merciless clarity is funny, and Dostoyevsky, funnily enough, is very funny indeed; moreover, the final generation of Russian literature, before it was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, remained emphatically comic — Bunin, Bely, Bulgakov, Zamyatin. The novel is comic because life is comic (until the inevitable tragedy of the fifth act);...”

सदानंद रेगे: "... पण तुकारामाची गाथा ज्या धुंदीनं आजपर्यंत वाचली जात होती ती धुंदी माझ्याकडे नाहीय. ती मला येऊच शकत नाही याचं कारण स्वभावतःच मी नास्तिक आहे."

".. त्यामुळं आपण त्या दारिद्र्याच्या अनुभवापलीकडे जाऊच शकत नाही. तुम्ही जर अलीकडची सगळी पुस्तके पाहिलीत...तर त्यांच्यामध्ये त्याच्याखेरीज दुसरं काही नाहीच आहे. म्हणजे माणसांच्या नात्यानात्यांतील जी सूक्ष्मता आहे ती क्वचित चितारलेली तुम्हाला दिसेल. कारण हा जो अनुभव आहे... आपले जे अनुभव आहेत ते ढोबळ प्रकारचे आहेत....."

Kenneth Goldsmith: "In 1969 the conceptual artist Douglas Huebler wrote, “The world is full of objects, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.”1 I’ve come to embrace Huebler’s ideas, though it might be retooled as “The world is full of texts, more or less interesting; I do not wish to add any more.” It seems an appropriate response to a new condition in writing today: faced with an unprecedented amount of available text, the problem is not needing to write more of it; instead, we must learn to negotiate the vast quantity that exists. How I make my way through this thicket of information—how I manage it, how I parse it, how I organize and distribute it—is what distinguishes my writing from yours."

Tom Wolfe: "The first line of the doctors’ Hippocratic oath is ‘First, do no harm.’ And I think for the writers it would be: ‘First, entertain.’"

विलास सारंग: "… . . 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."

Saturday, September 05, 2020

पौगंडावस्थेकाळी धरणीकंप...Raquel Welch@80

I wrote on this blog on March 23 2010:

Marathi can be such a vibrant, colourful language! Here is one example.

In my childhood, English movies, released at theatres, had no Hindi subtitles. The knowledge of English was not as widespread as is today. Sound at the cinema was often poor. It was some times hard to even catch Marathi dialogue.

Like most people, I too struggled with English movies. But like English books, I kept trying. (My father used to tell us not to bother about meaning of each word when we first started reading English books. He thought it killed the joy of reading.)

One of the most important tool to promote any film was usage of large billboards and posters. Occasionally the posters were paraded across the city using brass-bands.

I have forgot most of the beautiful girls I came across in real life but not posters of movies! I still remember where all they were hung in Miraj.

The posters of English movies carried Marathi translation of the titles. They often carried a brief summary of the story.

One such memorable title was 'प्रलयकाळी धरणीकंप' (Earthquake on the doomsday). It was translation of 'One Million Years B.C.' (1966)!

I feel Marathi title is better than the English one. It also is far more realistic too because although I don't mind them meeting in delightful comic strip 'B.C.' by Johnny Hart, humans and dinos were separated by millions of years on this planet. (Lucky us!)

I saw the movie in early 1970's at Amar talkies in Miraj. I was attracted to it by its poster and Marathi title.

I liked the film ok. I saw it again a few years ago on TV. 

I don't remember what I liked then: the fight between a Ceratosaurus and a Triceratops- both of them look like caricatures of what we now know they looked like in real- or scantily clad Raquel Welch!

I guess both. All three of them are in the poster below.   I wasn't alone facing that dilemma. 


 courtesy:    Warner-Pathé Distributors, Ltd. (United Kingdom),     Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (United States)

There is a funny story about the bikini she wore in the film.

Raquel recalled, “When the bikini would get wet, it would stretch, so you’d be coming up and out of the water and there were a lot of strange things going on with it.”

In 2011, Raquel’s deer-skin bikini was included in Time Magazine’s list of ‘Top Ten Bikinis in Pop Culture’. The fur bikini also has its own Wikipedia page: 
 

Wiki informs: "...The publicity shot of Welch from the movie became more famous than the movie itself, becoming a best-selling poster and something of a cultural phenomenon. The image can be recognized by people around the world, even among those who are not familiar with the film..."

54 years later, apparently, she still looks very attractive.


picture is undated but belongs to this century

No comments: