Friday, April 14, 2006
ROLL MODELS
My surfing sojourns led me to settle on a channel where a pretty lady was being interviewed. Preliminary investigations that a certain Ujwala Raut was the one to whom posers were addressed. One such exploratory p. led the interviewed to coyly reveal that she had an international look. Frenetic counter-questioning and digging for ten minutes later, the chosen one had not managed to disclose even a single reason as to why she had made that particular claim. The lass took pains to explain why her being married to a Frenchman ( or a Luxembourg national, who knows !) contributed to her joining the Paris Milan fashion circuit adding to her international look, but of course.
All in halting broken clichéd sentences.
Surely the worst Denver-meets-Dahisar accent that one could imagine.
.
One reason I have given up on the idiot-box is that I can only stomach the heady intelligence levels displayed by many anchors and hosts to an extent. And the vocabulary one amasses improves with almost every shot.
On a feature on a prominent airline hiring applicants for the nation’s beauty pageant, the camera lovingly featured another comely lady who was responding to why models would do well in the service industry. She was unfailingly accurate in averaging about three grammatical errors per sentence and rounded off a fine interview by saying that she would do well because she had been trained on being “hospitile”.
And I thought these beauties were trained on communication !
Another show had four young turks holding forth on the issue of Reservation in Institutes of Higher Learning. These were presumably collegians, as their names ( forgotten !) featured against renowned Delhi institutes. I am unclear as to how the composition was arrived at, two were male and two were ladies and I can only hazard a guess that two were for and two against reservations on principle. The first male was a voluble speaker of largely disparate arguments and did not link up to or follow any particular stream of thought. The first lady was able to articulate that she was against reservation—the reasons for which were perhaps not provided by the script-writer, the second lady was an irate stream of jumbled incoherence and provoked verbosity, and the fourth, presumably a student leader, spoke his best while peering intently at the space near his shoes.
If I watch more telly, imagine how much more cleverer I’d be !!
My surfing sojourns led me to settle on a channel where a pretty lady was being interviewed. Preliminary investigations that a certain Ujwala Raut was the one to whom posers were addressed. One such exploratory p. led the interviewed to coyly reveal that she had an international look. Frenetic counter-questioning and digging for ten minutes later, the chosen one had not managed to disclose even a single reason as to why she had made that particular claim. The lass took pains to explain why her being married to a Frenchman ( or a Luxembourg national, who knows !) contributed to her joining the Paris Milan fashion circuit adding to her international look, but of course.
All in halting broken clichéd sentences.
Surely the worst Denver-meets-Dahisar accent that one could imagine.
.
One reason I have given up on the idiot-box is that I can only stomach the heady intelligence levels displayed by many anchors and hosts to an extent. And the vocabulary one amasses improves with almost every shot.
On a feature on a prominent airline hiring applicants for the nation’s beauty pageant, the camera lovingly featured another comely lady who was responding to why models would do well in the service industry. She was unfailingly accurate in averaging about three grammatical errors per sentence and rounded off a fine interview by saying that she would do well because she had been trained on being “hospitile”.
And I thought these beauties were trained on communication !
Another show had four young turks holding forth on the issue of Reservation in Institutes of Higher Learning. These were presumably collegians, as their names ( forgotten !) featured against renowned Delhi institutes. I am unclear as to how the composition was arrived at, two were male and two were ladies and I can only hazard a guess that two were for and two against reservations on principle. The first male was a voluble speaker of largely disparate arguments and did not link up to or follow any particular stream of thought. The first lady was able to articulate that she was against reservation—the reasons for which were perhaps not provided by the script-writer, the second lady was an irate stream of jumbled incoherence and provoked verbosity, and the fourth, presumably a student leader, spoke his best while peering intently at the space near his shoes.
If I watch more telly, imagine how much more cleverer I’d be !!
