"The Namesake" Movie, Almost as Terrible as Michigan's Football Team

            As many people know, I am a diehard (University of) Michigan football fan. Ever since my childhood, I have sported maize and blue and despised everything pertaining to Ohio State. Every November, Michigan and Ohio State meet on the gridiron, playing in arguably the biggest rivalry game in the county. In this year’s Michigan Ohio State game, like the previous six, Michigan lost. But this game left me particularly hopeless and upset. I thought a less talented yet exciting Michigan team would put up a respectable fight against Ohio State and maybe even pull off an unlikely win. But it was not the case, at all. They lost by 30 and utterly embarrassed everyone associated with the university.

            As I watched the Michigan football team pathetically crumble before my eyes on TV, I noticed many similarities between the game and “The Namesake” movie. I had very high expectations for the game and the movie. Both started out very well. Michigan’s defense stopped Ohio State early and marched down the field on offense with ease while “The Namesake” seemed like it would turn out into an intelligent, powerful movie based on the opening few scenes. But then things began to go awry, Denard Robinson, Michigan’s quarterback and best player, fumbled on the Ohio State nine-yard line and Gogol saw the wonderfully attractive (…not) Moushumi for the first time. Both moments foreshadowed very bad things to come. Michigan quickly lost their momentum as Ohio State started scoring while “The Namesake” began to get extremely cheesy, especially with Maxine present. A glimmer of hope appeared in both amid the mediocrity. Michigan scored to pull within three points of OSU, filling me with all sorts of optimism and cheer. Similarly, I thought the scenes involving Asoke’s death in “The Namesake” were very well done and made me start to believe that the movie could turn itself around. But these glimmers of hope did not last long. Ohio State returned the ensuing kickoff for a touchdown while Maxine decided to make the movie unrealistic and cheesy by getting angry at her grieving boyfriend for not going on a trip with her. From there, both went from bad to inconceivably and outrageously worse. Ohio State started piling on the points while Michigan could not muster any kind of consistent attack. Once Gogol, met Moushumi, “The Namesake” lost all hope. The second half of the game opened with Michigan throwing an interception while losing 24-7. I lost all hope at that point, throwing my Michigan hat in disgust at the TV (making a louder sound than I had anticipated). The interception reminded me a lot of Moushumi and Gogol’s weird and kind of creepy dance in their bedroom following their wedding. I think all of us realized then that the movie could not get any worse. I never watched the end of the game and we still have not finished the movie but I do not have a problem with either. Michigan football, the winningest program in NCAA history, now cannot stay within thirty points of their hated archrival. I feel very ashamed to support Michigan. In addition, “The Namesake” had probably equal entertainment value to Michigan’s football team (and that’s zero). In my mind, both the game and the movie are examples of how people call fall miles short of achieving an important goal.

Where Did All This Humor Come From?

            I could not stop laughing while watching that movie. I don’t know if the makers of the film wanted it to be hilarious but if they did, they certainly succeeded thus far. I especially enjoyed the film’s portrayal of Mr. Lawson’s class. I found that scene very unrealistic yet extremely funny. In addition, the filmmaker’s decision to have Kal Penn (who, like Gogol, changed his name) play Gogol’s role was interesting to me. When I think of Penn, I think of the “Harold and Kumar” film in which Penn played a dysfunctional stoner looking to grab some mini cheeseburgers at a White Castle restaurant. Thus far in “The Namesake,” he has not drifted very far from that role. I find it interesting that a primarily comedic actor took the role as Gogol. I never got the impression that the character Gogol had any sense of humor. He seemed depressed, overly reliant on others, and dismissive throughout the book, not humorous. So far, I really like how the movie has slightly drifted away from the book. I think if the movie stayed exactly like the book, it would not have as much entertainment value as the slightly changed version. I did not foresee myself enjoying the book but after watching the first forty minutes, I cannot wait until sixth period tomorrow. The filmmakers successfully spiced up the book enough to make into an entertaining movie in my opinion.

Just Imagine if Every American Took AP English 12

  Although they amp up the daily stress level in class, discussions provide us students with valuable life skills. They encourage intelligent communication, something that all of us will need in our future endeavors, whatever they may be. The fact that we can communicate our thoughts and opinions in an intelligent manner will surely put us ahead of the curve. I cannot think of any profession that does not require intelligent communication of some sort. In addition to communication, discussions force us to deal with pressure. AP English 12 forces us “bring it” everyday in class, or else lose valuable participation points. Although I have found it nearly impossible to achieve a perfect participation score, I still think it’s a valuable incentive for actively participating in class. It makes us smarter and more accountable; things that I do not think we will fully appreciate until after we graduate. Some of my experiences in other classes, where teachers seemingly devalue accountability, have mad me fearful of what exactly the future of America holds. If one of the top 100 public schools in the country allows (I would guess) a quarter to a half of its students to get by without challenging them to reach their potential, then I think Americans should feel very pessimistic about the future. I think we Americans take for granted the fact that America has achieved the power it has today through the hard work and intelligence of its people. In all honesty, there need to be more classes like AP English (am I really saying this?) across the country, classes that encourage students to work hard and achieve their academic potential. American schools must make their students more accountable.

Gogol and Moushumi: The Definiation of a Dysfunctional Relationship

             At first, I could not believe Moushumi’s actions in chapter ten of Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake. I felt extremely upset about how Moushumi completely betrayed Gogol without even talking to him about the problems dealing with their relationship. Although after thinking about it, such a miscommunication should not come as a surprise in Gogol and Moushumi’s relationship. In order to have a healthy relationship, both parties must share their feelings and communicate effectively with each other and in Moushumi and Gogol’s dysfunctional relationship, this has not occurred. The third-person omniscient narrator illuminates their lack of communication when he/she describes Gogol’s thoughts about going to Moushumi’s friends’ parties: “In the beginning these occasions hadn’t been quite so excruciating (237). By using the painful diction “excruciating,” Lahiri indirectly characterizes Gogol as unhappy about going to Moushumi’s friends’ parties. Because Gogol unhappily attends many of Moushumi’s parties without expressing his unhappiness, Lahiri highlights the miscommunication in their relationship. In addition, the narrator describes Moushumi’s failure to communicate with Gogol after their unhappy anniversary dinner: “She shakes her head. She doesn’t feel like explaining” why she is unhappy (253). Through the use of the callous diction “doesn’t feel like,” Lahiri indirectly characterizes Moushumi as apathetic toward relating her feelings to her husband. Lahiri shows that both Gogol and Moushumi fail to communicate with each other effectively. I believe that this miscommunication has resulted in Moushumi’s affair with Dimitri and has resulted in the overall unhappiness of Gogol and Moushumi. Lahiri highlights that people in relationships need to communicate their feelings if they want happiness and longevity in their relationship.

Gogol vs. Nikhil: The Narrator's Take

            I realized after reading chapter ten of Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake that the narrator refers to Gogol as Nikhil in the sections focusing on Moushumi and as Gogol in the sections focusing on Gogol. I find this subtle discrepancy very interesting because it highlights a change in narration when the focus of the book changes. In chapter nine, a section primarily about Gogol, the narrator describes how Gogol feels about the people at Donald and Astrid’s party: “Gogol has nothing to say to these people” (237). In contrast, in chapter ten, which focuses exclusively on Moushumi, the narrator states that “[Moushumi] has ignored Nikhil perhaps more than necessary” (246). The narrator appears omniscient as a whole throughout the novel because he/she tells the thoughts of many of the characters but the narrator never reveals the thoughts of more than one character at a time. This, in addition to the different names used for Gogol, leads me to believe that the book contains numerous third-person limited narrators, one for each character whose thoughts are revealed. The narrator who reveals Gogol’s thoughts refers to him by his given name because he feels that deep down, Gogol represents his true self more than Nikhil. This further highlights the utter faultiness of Gogol’s marriage with Moushumi. Moushumi does not truly know Gogol; she only knows his façade Nikhil. The fact that Gogol refuses to open up his true self to his own wife foreshadows their divorce because Moushumi cannot fully understand him. Lahiri’s use of multiple third-person limited narrators highlights the subtle discrepancies between Gogol and Moushumi’s thoughts that will prevent them from having a long and happy marriage.