The Minstrel Diaries.

To Kill a Twitterbird - Tales from the Ivory Cage

2009-09-19T06:14:00.000-07:00

Calling 90% of your vote bank as "cattle-class" and "holy cows" on a public domain might not be the political acumen that people like Mr. Amar Singh of the Samajwadi Party are known for. Therein lies the difference between 'them' and Mr. Shashi Tharoor - a difference now tom-tommed by Mr. Tharoor's defenders. Also, compare the "holy cows" post to one of the "bloody natives" phrase used by caricatures of loyal 'sahib' stereotypes during the Raj (white or brown) and the "If they don't have bread give them cakes" phrase attributed to Marie Antoinette. These are used to portray the chasm of condition and mindset between the plebeians and the patricians - generally at the expense of the latter.

Bad idea coming into politics, Mr. Tharoor. A fantastic education, a career diplomat, successful author of a bestseller (wherein he compared the Congress Party to the Kaurava Army from the Mahabharat and Mrs. Indira Gandhi to Duryodhana - but that was a long time ago!) and a person who nearly became Secy. Gen of the UN - this was the last place he should have gone to. A person who comes under the sub-head of what I believe the Bengalis call the Bhadralok (I didn't know the Kerala equivalent) is simply not ready for the House of the People. Why? Because you have to deal with the People. And the result? Kiss goodbye to all those happy hours of laughing and joking about the Great Indian Populace. Their idiosyncrasies. Those soppy soaps on TV, the chalta hai attitude, all that hypocrisy in the name of religion, caste etc. And the Sarkar - boy, it's a gold mine for clever observations. All those over-earnest Babus and ministry zombies, the convoluted procedures of the sarkar, the chest-thumping patriotism and party-politics, the extended tea breaks - really gave a lot of material for another book. And what did we leave behind? Beautiful company, where they sip Whisky and Soda, call each other "Old Boy" or "Old Man" and say things like "Good show, Tharoor, that's telling the buggers", shake their heads at how incredibly foolish the bureaucracy actually is and how these buffoons run the show at the Parliament, reminisce about the time good old Johnny hit a 124 n.o. and the Stephanians lifted the Cup.

We all have prejudices. Writers in India depend upon their countrymen's caricatures to fuel some really snappy writing based on biting satire and dry scorn. Brilliant intellectuals, who were heads of the Drama Club at Stephens and took a Blue at Oxford, heap derision on our "provincial" mentality and our 'Hindu Rate of Growth' (Hindoo?). People like Morarji Desai, Lalu Yadav etc were prime targets. But you do these things within the safe confines of the Gymkhana Club or the IIC, not in Paharganj or Faridabad. There, you meet the subject-matter of your prejudices. Maybe we as people just don't "get it." Maybe we don't have a sense of humor. Maybe our education is based more on utility than on the Classics. Or maybe we draw a line at being called cattle. The possibilities are many. The bottom-line is that as a Minister, you can't let your true feelings show. Not on Twitter. That's being a little too spontaneous. Gets you compared to Bertie Wooster. "Calling a spade a spade" his defenders argue - not a defense Mr. Tharoor would be comfortable with, which helps my view that politics - anywhere in the world - is about the politically-correct.

It may be argued that Mr. Tharoor has done more in his lifetime than any of our glorious MP's combined. He is definitely one of the most intelligent. But sons-of-the-soil know more about the ordinary man than Mr. Tharoor. They may not fulfill the common man's wishes, they may ignore their cries and may usurp their money - but they won't call them (or worst, their party leaders) 'holy cows.' It is too sanctimonious and I feel that Mr. Tharoor, should he manage to put this past him, should be more careful in the near future. Or if he doesn't want to play the 'game' and display more integrity than the average Mantri, he will be welcomed back to the hallowed intellectual circles where we will once again be privileged to get his views on all things convoluted. A little prejudice may be a good thing after all!! Ivory Towers zindabad.

Bloody racist moi?

2009-05-31T04:46:00.000-07:00

Horrible about the way those bloody Aussie ba*****s kicked the living daylight out of our guys Down There. I tell you, yaar, these goras will always be racists, no matter how much they appear to be refined. Do you know, even the chinks and the blacks hate us there!! Don't these bloody idiots realize that we are partners in their own fight. Sahi hai, they deserve their lot. But I have signed the online petition calling to stop racist attackes against Indians across the world. Sahi hai na, if you're jealous of our brains and our ability, match us in bloody education, don't hit us. We are victims everywhere.

Arre yaad aaya, do you know that our building's watchman just bolted for the hills. Literally man, bu**er was a bloody Nepali Gurkha, ha ha . I remember we used to have so much fun with that guy. My younger brother and his friends used to call him 'Bahadur' or 'Thapa' and we had great fun shouting "Shaabji, Shaabji." They actually made the poor fool watch that Paresh Rawal film (or was it some other film-never mind, there are so many one forgets) and asked him to imitate that. The damm fellow wasn't even a chink, kind of a hybrid. He once told Mr. Joshi who is from Nainital that his bloody ancestors were kin of the ruler of Nepal who once ruled Nainital. Bloody cheek of that Bahadur, imagine!! He almost got thrashed that day by us, we made him beg for mercy. Saala, do kaudi kaa.

You know, in college my cousin thrashed a bloody kallu who told him to leave him alone. I tell you man, these bloody africans are so messed up. Saala udhar toh jungle-wangal mein ghoomte rehte hain. Civilized nahi hain. Tried to be a stud, man, first day of college went around saying hello and stuff. Cousin was, like, bloody go back to your jhingalala. Had a lot of fun with that guy. Thankfully he didn't have those other people of his race. They tend to group together, you know. So when he talked to bhai's GF, he got it!! I think he knows the meaning of kallu by now, the whole world says it!! Shaamu bhi bolo to samajhta hai.

There is a chink in his coll. No, I don't know where she's from. Might be from Jap, Chinese, Thai (wow!), Korean, Vietnamese or maybe even from the North East. Bloody, they all look the same anyway!! Anyway, she got a better placement offer than him. Imagine!! Saala apni country jaao naa! Why are they coming here to take our jobs? I tell you this government...they allow everyone. And don't even get me started on those Bangla refugees. I'm telling you, we pay a price for our tolerance.

Anyway, I must leave now. They are holding a protest march at India Gate against all that Australian s**t. Natrajan is gonna head the procession - he has to, these bloody southies must be directly in the firing line - blackest of them all!! Ha ha ha, you know Khanna told Yadav to prepare the slogans. Poor Yadav, his ilk are only good at cramming whole books. They can't be creative!! Not that Khanna is any good either, pind ka puttar 100%!! Tiwari is true to his jaat, bloody chaaloo. And these bloody Asif and Taariq, unki toh bloody loyalty hi nahi pataa yaar. I tell you, our kind is the best. And anyway, we must stop all these bloody foreigner-types from hitting us. They are simply so racist.*

*: [NOTE: The last para has been abridged in the interest of national security]

Musings on random movies watched recently

2009-03-16T07:18:00.000-07:00

1. Anurag Kashyap: Gulaal and DevD released recently. Trouble with most Anurag Kashyap movies is the gimmick-overkill. Here is a man who is one of the most intelligent writer and director in the industry today. Yes, we see the carefully-crafted Dev, the charismatic and pugnacious Ransa, the feisty Chanda, the dithering Dileep - all too human and as close to reality as you can get in a multiplex. Yes, we understand the subtle symbolism present in each scene. We giggle at the racy comments and wry jokes. We are awestruck at Kafka-esque situations, Sahir Ludhianvi poetry and the quirky music. But do you have to show off? The second half of DevD degenerated into a spectacle of Trainspotting-style orgies, No Smoking looks like it was written in a hangover after a night of hard drinking with Kafka. I mean, all those pop culture mujra numbers in Gulaal get jarring after a while. Dev in DevD clears cellar after cellars and we are forced to watch the oh-so-slow disintegration. It's like a cricket fanatic quoting stats throughout the match. It's great for a while, but will you clam up now so I can watch the match? It's like the overkill of similies in this post. Don't try and cram so much into a little movie. The way you are progressing now, and with the level of your intelligence and acumen, you will make many, many more movies. Best of luck. And note that I haven't touched Black Friday even with this mild criticism.

2. Dibakar Banerjee & Sriram Raghvan: 2 absolutely super-fantastic films each! The makers of Delhi 6 should have consulted Banerjee from the outset. They could never get the nuances right ("Are you a true Bengali? No, my father was arrested in Calcutta and the moniker stuck.") Delhi is not one, homogenised unit. Not many are 'from' Delhi - most people just reside there. Presenting Delhi is a very tricky job for everyone but Banerjee. Raghvan's first film was pretty good, but Johnny Gaddar is a movie I rate above all the (mostly) formulaic horsedung we call the 'profound' Hollywood flick. 'Slick' is inadequate - the movie gallops like a frightened horse and never stops! All characters of a Hadley Chase always receive their just desserts in the end (he was quite moralistic that way.) The protagonist who, perhaps surprisingly, gets the viewer on his corner for his sheer audacity, also does not escape. The movie celebrates Dharmendra, who delivers the best line yet: "It's a dark road you've taken, my boy." Thundering and prophetic!

3. John Cusack: There are three John Cusacks. Cusack A is the romantic. The guy who, in the 80's and the 90's, starred in some of the most stirring rom-coms. Cusack B is an outspoken liberal activist who has starred in some of the most biting and heartrending anti-war films ever. Cusack C also spills into the A and B. All his characters have quirky personalities which remain with us for a long time. From an obsessive puppeteer looking for love in one and control in another to a record-store owner obsessed with soliloquizing about relationships and with his encyclopedic knowledge of rock. From a non-conformist teenager (not conforming to rules made by adults and adoloscents alike) madly in love with a "brain" and kickboxing (in that order) to a middle-aged, paunchy father who tends to internalize his pain and now has to re-connect with his daughters. From a jaded hitman who finally decides to take on the violence machine (this in two movies) to an injured conman caught between a manipulative flame and an equally ruthless mother. Cusack has a wonderful voice and a breezy style of dialogue delivery (not unlike Cary Grant) which connects immediately but with an undercurrent of dry humor. Apart from that, he holds strong anti-establishment views and has great taste in music (he listens to The Clash.) He is the everyman and also the one who stands alone. Apart from Con Air, America's Sweethearts, all other Cusack films are worth a watch.

A critique of the Ajith D case

2009-02-25T00:33:00.000-08:00

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

~ Voltaire

The Supreme Court of India, in a coram consisting of the Chief Justice and Justice Sathasivam, allowed criminal prosecution to continue against one Ajith D, who set up an "I hate Shiv Sena" community on Orkut. The charge was under Sections 295-A and Section 506 of the IPC.

http://ccjig.blogspot.com/2009/02/criminal-case-against-orkut-activist.html

http://ekawaaz.org/2009/02/24/blogger%e2%80%99s-can-be-nailed-for-anonymous-persons-slur-and-comments-supreme-court-of-india/

295A is deliberate and malicious acts to outrage the religious feelings of a group. Section 506 is criminal intimidation. This decision to allow prosecution is a blow to free speech, that cannot be denied. It will now go to the lower courts for prosecution on merits. I believe this case will be dismissed later on merits as:

(a) Section 295-A is not satisfied here. This is not a 'cold, calculated attempt' to malign a religion. It might be termed as 'reckless', but that is not a crime. The nature of the language is not to malign deliberately. Nor is this libel or any other form of defamation. In Ramji Lal v. U.P. (AIR 1957 SC 620) , the Supreme Court held that it is only the aggravated form of insult which will be punished. Section 506 sounds laughable. Where is the intent to injure? Anyone can make an empty threat. Is there any solid proof that someone (possibly a puffed-up kid) intended to carry out the threat?

(b) Ajith D only set up a forum. The actual comments were made by someone else. This is not even abetment.

However, the larger blow is that the prosecution was allowed to carry on. I fail to understand why the law in India does not recognize the special nature of public figures and public groups. To illustrate, let us assume that Dhoni plays badly and in a fit of anger, I begin a "I hate Dhoni" club. Or I start a "I hate Amar Singh" forum. Why only these two people, and not anyone else? Because, they are in the public eye. They are intimately involved in matters of larger public interest, like entertainment, sports and policy and politics. It is only natural that they will be in the limelight constantly and will be the targets of more-than-the-usual accolades and brickbats. Ram Ordinary (or Rahim Common-one has to be PC) does not interest me. He may be a very good man or a bad one but I will not set up a website against him. There has to be a seperate standard of judgment as regards public figures.

In other words, incorporate Hustler v. Falwell (485 U.S. 46). This was a case where a celebrity was made the butt of ridicule in a national publication. The US Supreme Court ruled that the public figures, who are constantly in the public eye, will have to bear speech critical to their role. And, to me, it makes perfect sense. A political group must understand that there will always be a vocal opposition amongst the populace. This populace will target them. This populace will also say very bad things. This populace will threaten them. They will pelt them with eggs. They will take out protest marches. The populace will send them lacy pink underwear. The populace will sms TV channels. People will commit suicide protesting their policies. People will question their private lives, sources of income, their nationality, their outlook to minorities and their connections to movie stars. People will ridicule their accent. People will ridicule their spouses and children. People will also praise them, laugh with them, re-elect them, attend their rallies and will repose faith in them. Only political parties, celebrities and athletes will be exposed to all this in India. And they must bear it. These are the pros and pitfalls of their status.

I know drawing an analogy to American free-speech laws is not favoured in India. But the reasoning should be examined in the absolute. A public figure should be subject to a more rigorous standard of defamation and public hurt. And finally, if someone threatened the Shiv Sena on the net, then please find that someone. Do not shoot the messenger.

When He arrives....(script)

2009-02-16T07:04:00.000-08:00

[INSPIRED BY A PIECE BY ROBIN WILLIAMS ON ONE OF HIS STAND-UP SHOWS]
Apologies for the amateur scriptwriting.

Exterior: A 7-star hotel in a metropolis in India - evening, around 7 pm. Sound: Traffic on the boulevard.
Interior: A presidential suite in the hotel.
Shot: DHIRENDRASWAMI CHANDRASARASWATI BABA (D.C.), sitting on a waterbed, dressed in a loose-fitting shirt and dhoti; and 4 DISCIPLES all dressed in orange, sitting on chairs. D.C. is talking and smiling.

Cut to the drawing room:

Zoom to a waiter clearing the writing-desk on which an empty teapot, cups and plates lie.

Zoom to an open minibar that is being replenished by another waiter. A 5th DISCIPLE supervises.

Sound: Voices from the bedroom.

Cut to close-up of D.C. back in the bedroom.

D.C.: "But I really feel that we can come here again next year. I think the organizers did a very good job."

1st DISCIPLE: "And the guest list was full of VIP's. The entire state cabinet, businessmen, movie stars..not just the riff-raff."

Shot: D.C. face. D.C. nods and smiles.
Shot: 2nd DISCIPLE face. He is looking at a few printouts.

2nd DISCIPLE: "Baba, we received assurances from 7 businessmen for contributions. I think they should be in the name of the widow-charity in DCpura. That is new, and transfer to the UBS account would be easier."

3rd DISCIPLE: "Arre haan, this reminds me, Motwani from PRABHU-TV was requesting that we do some extra shows next month. Apparently, Dholu Baba is getting a bariatric surgery done."

D.C.: "Not without advance..."

3rd DISCIPLE: "I told him 10 upfront. He has agreed."

5th DISCIPLE enters from the other room.

5th DISCIPLE: "Baba, there is a reporter to meet you. Said he had an appointment"

D.C.: "Give us 5 minutes. Then go out and bring him in."

Cut to the drawing room. REPORTER is sitting watching the waiters leave. 5th DISCIPLE motions him inside. REPORTER gets up. Fade out.

Fade in on bedroom. Close overhead shot of REPORTER and D.C. sitting face-to-face. D.C. is now dressed in saffron robes and is sitting in yogic posture. REPORTER is touching his feet. Sound: Recorded chanting of hymns playing softly somewhere in the background.

Shot: REPORTER'S face as he comes up. It is filled with reverence.

REPORTER: "I can't tell you how grateful I am to see you."

Shot: D.C. smiles beatifically and nods.
Shot: 4th DISCIPLE whispering to REPORTER.

4th DISCIPLE: "Get on with it. Baba has to retire early tonight."

REPORTER nods fervently and gets back to facing D.C.

REPORTER: "Baba, your followers refer to you as the messiah sent by the Almighty Himself. It is said that you have cured leprosy, palsy, epilepsy and other diseases. You have the power to change the working of the cosmos. You can turn back time. "

D.C.: "It is all due to the 10-year yoga I did in the jungles of Bihar. God himself came to me and appointed me as his agent on Earth. I am a full-fledged Tantrik."

REPORTER: (Nodding eagerly) "You are also one of the most powerful men in the country. You mediate disputes between businessmen, manage mergers between political parties and apparently, nothing in the film industry gets completed without your blessings."

D.C. smiles quietly.

Meanwhile, the sound of cars on the streets is somehow able to make itself heard over the chants.

D.C.: "You see my friend; no ordinary mortal can do this." (Seriously) "Believe in the Divine, that's what I always tell them. Even the celebrities. My miracles prove my that the Divine exists. It is only a fool who chooses to ignore the way of the Lord."

REPORTER: (scribbling furiously) "I agree. But Baba, cynics say that God-men fool the populace. The very miracles that they show are mere hocus. They.... (He looks at the disciples who are now scowling) Well, you know what they say. It's not me."

D.C.: (serene smile intact) "I pray for them all the time. Just because God does not manifest Himself to each and every one in the cosmos does not imply his non-existence. It is..could you please put that out? (REPORTER fumbles with his cellphone playing 'Paani De' from Guide and quickly rejects the call) It is His way. He only manifests Himself to those who undergo kathin tap. As I tell people, he is not available on demand. I have seen Him, I have heard His voice and I alone can channel his miracles."

Shot: REPORTER nodding and scribbling.
Shot: 1st DISCIPLE checks a Fossil on his wrist and gestures '5 minutes' to D.C.
Sound: The sound of honking cars is pretty evident now. The hymn music can barely be heard. Vague sounds of shouting and commotion emanate from the hotel's corridors.

REPORTER: (fidgeting nervously) "There was this tax case 3 months back. Apparently, some arrears of contributions received..."

2nd DISCIPLE: (sharply) "That matter is sub-judice. Anyway, the official making that report has been transferred on a major penalty charge."

REPORTER: (hastily) "Yes, yes, of course, quite so. Anyway, Baba, what do you pray for everyday?" (His cellphone trills again. He makes a face and disconnects the call.)

D.C.: "I pray that the world can also get to see God the way I see Him. I pray for peace, harmony and prosperity. I wish people understand that my words, my teachings and my prayers, not to mention my cures are emanating from the Lord Himself. I bless all the merchandise that we sell for charity, so that the sick and the marginalized can also hear the Lord. I pray that....has there been an accident outside?"

The sound of the street is now hard to ignore. REPORTER'S cellphone trills again.

REPORTER: "Baba, my editor is persistently calling. He..he knows I'm in an interview with you. This must be important...if I can get a minute..(D.C. smilingly nods) Thank you so much Baba."

REPORTER goes to the outside room.

4th DISCIPLE: (Peering out of the windows) "There is a huge jam outside. All the cars are at a standstill. In fact, people are getting out of their cars. They...they are behaving oddly. Must be an accident somewhere..."(he trails off, shrugging)

D.C.: (Looking at the disciples) "Let's wrap this up fast. I need to take a shot of Bacardi and look over my discourse tomorrow. (pause) You know, I think I was quite profound with this reporter. I feel at peace. Look over his final draft." (gesturing towards the outer room)

Reporter enters the room as if on fire.

Shot: His face is ashen white, but ecstatic. His mouth moves but no words come.
Shot: At the other end of the room, the 6 faces stare back at him in surprise.
Sound: Loud noises of car horns and people's voices.

REPORTER: (in a low, intense voice) "It's come! It's finally...come. Baba, it's come"

D.C. "What? What has come?"

REPORTER: "Baba, it's Him. He has arrived on Earth."

Shot: All the others look at each other in disbelief.

Shot: D.C. wipes his face. He is deathly pale.

D.C.: "You mean....but how..how can you tell?"

REPORTER: (in a rapturous voice)"113 confirmed sightings have been made around the world. 20 in our country alone. They say that we may soon hear what He has to say. Baba, this is fantastic. Finally, the unbelievers will get to hear what you and others have long been...Baba? Baba? What...what are you doing?"

Shot: D.C. is scurrying to change his clothes. All the disciples are on phones.

1st DISCIPLE: (on his cellphone) "Yes, yes, I don't care. Just get us tickets. Yes, passports are in order. Just remember, must be a very, very obscure country."

2nd DISCIPLE: (also on cellphone) "Do you understand Dobriyal-ji? We are calling in that favour now. I don't care how, send me the statements on my Blackberry."

3rd DISCIPLE: (a hand on the speaker of the cellphone) "Baba, all the other Babas have also skipped. The others are claiming that they were under some influence."

4th DISCIPLE: (on cellphone) "Yes, pack everything. If anyone asks, tell them that Baba is so rapturous on receiving the news that he has gone on an extended maun vrat. Stonewall the reporters."

5th DISCIPLE: (on the house phone) "Yes, we are checking out now. Please get a cab ready for us."

Shot: An overhead shot of the whole room with all the 6 except the REPORTER scurrying and hurrying. REPORTER stands still.
Shot: REPORTER gazes in bewildered dismay at D.C's now-colourless face.
Shot: Exterior of the hotel.

FADE TO BLACK

Making History

2009-02-14T22:14:00.000-08:00

"History demands much of America and its leaders and I am confident it will judge the 43rd president as a man more than worthy of the great office the American people twice entrusted to him." - Karl Rove at the time of leaving office.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBkZWQzNWM2ZDIwN2QyMTg4OTUzMjc1ZGFhOTc5OTM=

History will be kind. History is always kind. History is made by savvy doctorate aspirants, maverick "investigative" journalists and success-hungry authors. They understand that history always has room for the counter-view. It becomes fashionable to revise opinions, negate events and analyze actions. Sample this as an example:

[HISTORIAN & ASPIRING AUTHOR]: "You know, I've written a book about how Adolf Hitler was the most vile, psychotic, racist, bigoted, insecure and bloodthirsty man in history."

[PUBLISHER] : (Yawns) "Good, good. You should show it to me someday. Hey, y'know a new Paulo Coelho book may be out soon. This time, it's about spirituality"

However:

[H & A.A.]: "You know, I've written a new book which, relying upon my painstaking investigations, reveals how Hitler was a mere puppet in the hands of Himmler and Goebbels. He realized that the war was getting out of hand and sought to stop it. But they kept him locked up and used his lookalike in all those ridiculous speeches. He may also have been half-Jewish and half-Romany."

[PUB.]: (Slobbering) " Tell me more. Do you want to sit in my chair while you talk?"

You get the picture.

Moreover, generations have a short memory span. I do not know what happened at the time of the Emergency in India. True, there were some dodgy things going on. But, whatever you may say, she was a tough dame - not like all these lilly-livered poltroons in office today. This explains the old Mrs. G consistently topping polls as one of the best PM's India ever had. So what about all the sterlizations? They gave them a radio, didn't they. The detentions? Oh, a bunch of rabble-rousers in jail. The stifling of free speech, judicial review and everything else our country considers sacrosanct? Ahh, it was exaggerated. Anyway, they said they were sorry. Another example is that of Francisco Solano Lopez. Fact: This man had 300,000 Paraguayans killed because of the war he began at the insistence of his mistress. However, there is now a debate as to his 'legacy.' So, maybe Rove is right. Maybe tomorrow, the doctrine of pre-emption gets relooked. Maybe tomorrow, they feel that the Might of the Right was right. Maybe they just get plain nostalgic. They might even find a little WMD in Iraq! Then, his legacy will be remembered. The ghosts of their dead young soldiers forgotten to statistics.

Finally, maybe history is a little difficult to call. The impact of events may be analyzed in the long-run to be different from the mainstream view. Intentions will be looked into. But, again, how can views turn 360? Suddenly, Marie Antoinette is a saint and J.F Kennedy debauched! Mark Twain had said somewhere that a person must be judged in the absolute of their times, not in the relative of ours. These are grey areas of history and yet again, I will assert that the personal aspirations of the investigator, coupled with our inevitable amnesia will play a major role. Watch a movie called The History Boys to get a taste of this phenomenon.

Gilliam's Island

2009-02-10T11:12:00.000-08:00

Yes, I watched the BAFTA awards this year. Yes, I did watch it to see whether Rehman won one. No, I don't think that Slumdog, although good, is the best movie to come out in ages. If you want to see Danny Boyle at his absolute best, then watch Trainspotting. Anyhow, I was a little surprised when they said that the award for the Best Film is the penultimate award. In all other award shows, this category is the finale. The last award was the Fellowship...something akin to an award for Lifetime Achievement. And you could have knocked me down if it wasn't Terry Gilliam accepting the award!

The man was one of the Monty Pythons. That alone should suffice as an awesome credential. Python fans know that while Gilliam rarely appeared on-screen, his surreal animations were as much a driving force behind their works as anything else - funny, but subtly subversive. He went on to create movies that owe their seeds to the pythonesque (the word is in the dictionary). However, the eclectic cinematography and the brilliant satirical, surreal plots that we saw and admired in movies like Brazil, Jabberwocky and The Fisher King stand testament to this man's brilliant mind. The genre under which he is categorized is not original...that of surrealism and dark humor in satire. However, the brilliant execution on screen - the dehumanizing effect of bureaucracy and its effect on an Orwillian world in Brazil for instance, made one laugh and cringe at the same time. Surrealism is a method of tying things together. The Fisher King is one of the most beautiful films about redemption that I have ever seen, directed with a brilliance that is now characteristic of the man. I believe this was a well-deserved honour for a great creative mind.

I'll watch the BAFTA again next year!!

"Down these streets a man must go..."

2008-10-17T23:16:00.000-07:00

Many call Polanski's Chinatown to be a tribute to the 'hard-boiled' school of Hammett and Chandler. I haven't read a lot of the former and too much of the latter! There would have been differences, though. For instance, in a Philip Marlowe story, Mrs. Mulwray would have either been the villain or would have survived had she been of strong character. Death through suicide was not the option. But most horrifying, for somebody who considers Marlowe as his hero, was the fact that Gittes does 'sleazy' jobs - photograph affairs or do divorce works. No, not Chandler. Hammett maybe, but not Chandler. I still feel Bogie did a better job anyway. He portrayed the depth of the character better. Today's movies may have more realism, but Bogart's style was Marlowe. He portrayed the layers of the character perfectly. And that is an important point.

The best thing about reading a Philip Marlowe novel is the depth of the protagonist himself. That is where I part with Hammett. In Maltese Falcon, Sam Spade's about-turn at the climax probably changed the course of writing history. Contextually, it was the right thing to do....every hard-boiled detective worth his salt would have thrown the dame "out on her ear." But where is the redeeming feature? It's all very well to say that the man is tough, but is that all there is to him? Many commentators find Philip Marlowe moralistic only at the last few novels, particularly The Long Goodbye. But, even from Big Sleep where he does it "for a dying man" (General Sternwood), to "Farewell, My Lovely" where he does it for an ex-con, Marlowe is what commentators like to call the product of his creator's 'English' sense of fairplay. At the same time, the superlative prose and the gritty setting ensure that the man is tough-as-nails. The prose is the reason I read the books again and again and again. Farewell, My Lovely and The Little Sister are particularly recommended and The Long Goodbye is still relevant as a message and as beautiful, if cynical, commentary. Where the others got it slightly wrong was the fact that they created the perfect scenario - mean streets, torpedoes, crooked cops, carnivorous women, shysters and blood. The language was as far away from the Agatha Christie-esque drawing rooms and manors as possible. But the protagonist was two-dimensional. The plot came before the shamus. Chandler had the luxury of watching Hammett do it first, and using the cues from him, create something that was better and more layered. With Chandler he hit pay dirt! The man was in the thick of things, talking to the reader directly. Yet, the man did not spill his heart out to you. The commentary generally only gave a account of all the conversations and actions, liberally peppered with fantastic metaphors. The story was not presented in a straightforward way and the protagonist had to be understood by his dialogues. For instance, in Farewell, My Lovely, at the Bay City pier, Marlowe lashes out at Red Norgaard when Red gently chides Marlowe for committing an elementary mistake and not being able to get on Brunette's boat. This anger must have stemmed from embarrassment - also a reminder that our hero is human! This makes reading fun, when the reader participates.

This is the only issue I have with Chinatown. The plot and the scenery is quintessentially out of the tough school. But Chandler would not have liked the hero. He was a modern go-getter who hardly had time to play chess, drink, take on cases that would be termed as pro bono work today and worst of all, to wisecrack!!

But hey, way better than a Hercule Poirot, eh?

[Title taken from a Chandler essay, The Simple Art of Murder, wherein he says that the streets in this world are tough. But a man, who though flawed, is fearless, tough and courageous with integrity, must go down these streets. "A hero" he called him!]

New music ain't that bad (PART 2)

2008-09-30T04:39:00.000-07:00

Here's the list of my modern rock top 10. 'Modern' is a broad term but let's say 90's and 2000's. Otherwise I will have to add bands like The Pixies, Sonic Youth and Dinosaur Jr. The scape is generally indie and alternative. But, in my opinion, it doesn't matter much 'cause all these genres generally overlap. (Some might even call some of these rock/pop or something...I don't care...it's my list!!)

1. The Strokes: Must be sick of the 'saviours of rock' tag that is automatically attached to them. A minor Stroke-o-mania took place (alt: Everyone had a stroke) at the turn of the millennium as the hype around these guys swelled to a crescendo. And surprisingly, they were not English!! The hype has since died down, the mantle has passed to other bands. But one thing is for sure...under all the hoopla and the debate, the talent that these guys possesed was underestimated at best! Julian Casablancas sings with a voice that sounds as if he's on the intercom (although, he now sings with greater amplification). They lyrics are funny and clever and snobbish and plebeian. Nick Valensi is a modern day God of guitar and his teaming up with Hammond is like Ronaldiniho-Eto'o for the old Barca. This band opened the doors for the others. Listen to Is this it to understand what I mean. I can go on forever about these guys, but will go on to the next.

2. The Arctic Monkeys: Arguably the most popular of the genre. Wonderful, down-to-earth guitars and great lyrics, this band will soon be counted among the rock greats after the rip-roaring success of Favourite Worst Nightmare. Alex Turner has a charisma to rival Jack White today and reminds me of Blur and Damon's days (it's Demon Days now I guess, heh heh!!)

3. The Black Keys: Very different from the normal indie sound. This band is one of the most exciting bands out there today. Quite simply, it is a mixture of Jimi Hendrix and the Allman Brothers. This one is a duo like the White Stripes and it has a fantastic, back to the oldies, country rock approach that will make a rock purist slobber. Hard rock fanatics, don't miss 'em!!

4. Kings of Leon: This band is just pure US south....names like Caleb, Nathan and Jared!! Rapid 'thrash' sound (to use a metal term) and offbeat lyrics and vox, this band is like a pick-me-up. They were praised by Dylan himself. That's introduction enough!! Red Morning Light is a number I have used as a ring tone for almost a year and a half!!

5. The White Stripes/The Raconteurs: The influence of White Stripes on the indie scene is about the same as that of Strokes or the Monkeys. They are the most decorated, that's for sure. Jack White is the most wildly inventive man. While White Stripes stretch the barriers, Raconteurs also play some good 'ole rock and play it well.

6. The Tragically Hip: I guess this is one of the oldest bands in the list. This band excels in doing the simple things right and are known for their live shows. Some of their individual numbers like New Orleans is sinking, Little Bones are top-notch.

7. The Rakes: Another band which benefits from good lyrics. The lead singer somehow reminds me of Chris Cornell but sans the zoned-out look (and of course, the voice). But this is a band which innovates very well (their bass is especially solid) although they wisely never stray too far from the mass bread-and butter stuff. They also carry off their 'look, i'm watching normal life with a wry face' effect to good results.

8. The Flaming Lips: To me, they bring a lot to the table. Their lyrics are always well-acclaimed. But they are intelligent about their music section and somehow, there is no gulf between the music and the lyrics. A very talented band indeed and time doesn't make them mediocre.

9. The Vines: If you want to head bang like there's no tomorrow, this is your band. They take old punk elements and infuse it with sounds from the 60's. The result is quite satisfactory - both for the fan and for the band.

10. The Libertines: When the Brits hell-raise, the world can only sigh in envy. Ozzy did it, the Sex Pistols did it and the Rolling Stones did it. These guys carry on the fine tradition. Brilliant, rollicking music, loud vocals and deafening controversies - the epitome of success.

Honourably mentioned: Razorlight, The Killers, Guided by Voices, Muse, Digitalism, The Fratelli's, Kasabian, Art Brut (Argos is doing a Jack Black), Modest Mouse, Klaxons, Death Cab for Cutie, Bloody Valentine, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, The Kooks, The Frames and a lot more.

Not mentioned: Franz Ferdinand (Yeah, I know it's shocking. But they're over hyped), Jet, Maximo Park (better not sell out, mates), Arcade Fire (boring), The Hives (what's all the fuss about, anyway?), Datsuns, Dandy Warhol and many other boring bands.

New music ain't that bad!! (PART 1)

2008-09-27T23:09:00.000-07:00

I may be off the mark here, but most of the rock fans that I come across generally prefer a few mainstream metal or rock acts. Maybe the advent of P2P will change all that! But honestly, can't we get enough of Pink Floyd? No. Why? "'Cause that's some deep s**t man!" (Snort..sniff sniff). OK, I get it. Obscure lyrics go well with your pre-food charas. We were toddlers in the 1990's but we all understand Kurt. He appeals to our inner angst, whatever that means. And his obscure lyrics go well with your pre-food charas.

Oldies are good. Some of them, like Nirvana or LedZep or Kinks, were great (The writer is a big Nirvana-head.) But why do we generally have such limited tastes in rock? An average fan would have heard:

1. The golden oldies like Beatles, Doors, Sabbath, LedZep, AC/DC, Def Lepperd and Nirvana (which were fantastic) but not Kinks, The Smiths, Velvet Underground, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr. And I'm not showing off obscure names. These bands are (were) mainstream rock.

2. New ones like Nickleback, Staind, Trapt or Green Day. Worse still, they consider rap-core cool. Linkin Park made a killing passing off rap as rock to impressionable kids like me. I wish I could go back and return the cassette that I had bought once.

3. Death metal or stuff that calls itself "Fury-venom-lava-nails-snakes-maggots-lice-dandruff-cannibals-hannibals-skulls-Hetfield" and takes this stuff seriously.

It's the age of P2P. Go out and listen to some new stuff, too. Specifically, there's some cool new indie rock out there that is really good. It's generally a back-to-the-basics kind of a set-up these days with minimum editing and processed sounds. A four or a five-piece band generally having names begining with 'the.' And the lyrics are a huge improvement over the usual dime-a-dozen quasi-insightful poetry. They are quirky, zany and observe the little things of daily life. For instance, a song by The Rakes called '22 grand job' would appeal to an average young officegoer: Girl from work looks alright/But the lights are too bright/Bloke in Sales likes her too/What am I supposed to do/But he's earning 28/And I'm on 22/In the City its alright. A song by my favourite band, The Strokes, is about a star and his bitterness for the crowds: I hate tham all/I hate them all/I hate myself/For hating them/So I'll drink some more/I love them all/I'll drink even more/I'll hate them even more than I did before.

And the sound is brilliant. It's generally simple but it connects instantly. And the best part about them is that you don't miss the oldies that much.

[NEXT POST: My top 10 modern rock bands]

What an Idea! What a waste!

2008-08-13T06:30:00.000-07:00

Seen the Idea commercials lately? Oh we are so proud..."little, naked brown children" with toothy smiles and all are now talking to yuppies on equal terms. Let's see what we have here. We have rustic kids who would ideally work as chotus in highway dhabas or work on their ancestors' fragmented little piece of land, get drunk on country hooch and commit little crimes. We have little girls who would be married off early, silently suffer their husbands' excesses and get burnt when he dies. Just another generation in the life of Obscuregarh.

Stereotypical, did I hear you say? Then how about this? All these children of the dammed learn English. Brainchild of a jovial priest who understands the power of an Idea and calls the Lord 'sirjee' (and who, in real life, is a part of a family who grabs land calling themselves farmers - but that's not material here. Maybe I'm jealous!) So anyway, all these kids are taught 'angrezi.' Now they can talk down the snob, they thank the Lord for the food they eat and are now part of a brave new generation.

My question is this: They learn english, so what? Can their talking stop casteism in the gaon? I can't even assume that. When the panchayat burns down the marginal worker's house, will their talking stop it? I don't see prosperity in the village. It's still dusty and underdeveloped. I don't see the kid telling the lala that he has given him the wrong wages. I don't see the little girl putting her foot down against child-marriage. I don't see the ending of all the evils that these people are plagued by. This is a stereotype of another sort: that english is the end of our troubles as we know it. We have a fascination. The old-timer blesses the food and prays before the meal after cribbing a few lines that his munni taught him. One wonders if they understand what it means. They're just happy they know some english and can show off.

What an Idea, sirjee? What a wrong assumption of prosperity. Give me the earlier Idea ad - the one which took on casteism.

Our Democracy and the fall

2008-07-24T14:27:00.000-07:00

This is a ditty based on all the trust-vote drama in the Lok Sabha the other day. I also watched Bridge on the River Kwai recently. (Almost as entertaining as watching the trust vote, but the movie is not that bleak!)

Therefore, this is to be sung to the tune of Colonel Bogey March.

Manmohan, oh he survived the poll
Karat, dug himself a big hole
'Coz Amar, throughout this summer
Gave away banknotes, to one and all!!

Advani, he thought he would stand tall
His MP's, right in the Parliament Hall
Flashed money, but this wasn't funny
'Coz they cross-voted, ignoring his call!!

Maya, oh she was made to feel small
"Madam PM", came up against a wall
She's not happy, because the SP
Gets the CBI at their beck-and-call!!

Netas, oh they're having a ball
A good time, was had by them all
It's shocking, everyone's talking
'Bout our democracy's fall!!!

2008-01-05T21:50:00.000-08:00

Why every line of P.G. Wodehouse's Jeeves stories are worth it:

1) The adjectives used to describe entrances and exits: "Jeeves shimmered in" (referring to Jeeves' quite movement); "He beetled off"; "I tooled up the hill" etc.

2) Bertie Wooster's personality as reflected in his writings and his dialogues. While conversing with a patrician headmistress, the headmistress would use words like: "This is iniquitious" or "It's a crying shame", while he would use words like "A bally scandal" or a "A grim show." In a book, Jeeves tells Bertie: "There is a way to extricate Mrs. Travers from her sea of troubles. Shakespeare." Bertie wonders why Jeeves is calling him Shakespeare! He uses acronyms to good effect: "I told the aged r"; "He uncovered the fragrant eggs and b."

3) His informal style of writing should be contrasted with other people personalities: "I don't know if you have ever had the experience of starting off on a binge, filled with a glow of exhilaration, if that's the word I want, and then without a moment's warning, having it switched off as if somebody had pressed a switch." Compare this to Jeeves' dialogues which adequately reflect his personality: "I shall be delighted to accompany you officer, if such is your wish. And I feel sure that, in this connection, I may speak for Mr. Wooster also. He too, I am confident, will interpose no obstacle in the way of your plan. If you consider that circumstances have placed Mr. Wooster in a position that may be termed equivocal, or even compromising, it will naturally be his wish to exculpate himself." Only a habit of reading prolix legal texts prepared me for this!!!

Why every book of Asterix is worth it:

1) The names and suffixes: 'ix' for Gauls, 'us' for Romans, 'ic' for Goths (German), 'af' for Normans etc. Names like Cacofonix for a bard, Spurious Brontosaurus for a wicked Roman, Rhetoric for a Goth, Toocleverbyhaf for Normans etc. An Egyptian architect is called Edifis.

2) The subtle artwork. In a scene where the forests near Asterix's village are bombed, in the background we see a family of owls angrily leaving their tree-home with their bedding etc. The cover of Asterix and Cleopatra spoofs the poster of the mega-budget Liz Taylor-Richard Burton movie, Cleopatra.

3) Stereotypes. The British drive on the wrong side of the road and use sentences like "Oh, I say, jolly good, what?" The Swiss first beat up the Romans and then give them first aid. The Goths are shown as militaristic. The Arab tribes are forever warring and the Corsicans (Sicilians) are have clan-rivalries. Even the Gauls from Massila (Marseille) are portrayed as playing bowls.

4) The fun with historical events. At the end of Asterix and the Goths, the druid tells them that the Goths will forever be fighting and can never be united. Actually, history proved him wrong when Bismarck united Prussia and then invaded France. When Asterix goes to search for petroleum, the locals in Arabia tell him that it is worthless!! On the way to India, they have a dish which the locals tell them is "only a poor man's fare-it's called khaviar (caviare)." There are accusations of doping in the first Olympic Games. Don Quixote and Sancho are depicted when Asterix goes to Spain. Also, Unheyginix, the fishmonger, has an unfinished site in Britian where he has laid up menhirs - which is shown to be modern-day Stonehenge.

5) Finally, the writing style. Ceaser sees his laurel wreaths and says "My laurels are all crumpled up. I must have rested on them by mistake." He keeps saying "Et tu, Brute" to Brutus who gets highly irritated by this. Egyptians speak in hieroglyphics. A secret agent for the Roman army is code-named H2SO4 (how revolting!) and a password for an army is Cogito ergo sum. A Gaulish village is partitioned-the village on the left is ruled by a chief who has "the people's mandate" and the chief on the right rules "by Divine Right." And when the 2 sides fight to an inconclusive end, the chief of the left tells his man: "Don't worry, you showed them who's Right!" and the one on the right cheers his men by saying: "You left them standing on the left!" Ceaser listens to a senator rant against him and call him a 'pleb' (plebian) and tells his men to get him a seat (to make him sit down and shut up). They reply by saying: "A plebiscite! What a good idea!"

What's the word I want? It's on the tip of my tongue....begins with a p.

Ah, Priceless!! Thank you Jeeves.

Revisions

2007-12-29T04:04:00.000-08:00

Today, if one reads the old philosophers, one gets the feeling that it is not relevant anymore. Thus, I attempted to revise their original theories with those that fit the modern context. Of course, this is based on a very simplistic understanding of their thoughts. So here goes a batch of 11 philosophers, political scientists and legal thinkers. I may put down more revisions later.

PLATO: (On modern democracy) "I told you so."

RAWLS: (On legislators) "Law-makers went behind a veil of ignorance and were never seen again."

GROTIUS: (On International Law) "Even the will of God cannot destroy the law of nations - Bush alone has that power!!"

WEBER: (On the definition of the modern State) "A (modern) 'State' is one which has the monopoly over the contracting of private entities to commit physical force."

MARX: (On the modern proletariat) "Workers of the World, Unite!! You have nothing to lose but your stock options, paid leave benefits, medical benefits, retirement funds, tax exemptions........"

FUKUYAMA: (On the acceptability of liberal ideas): "Liberal democracy is naturally acceptable to all societies. Or else we send a cruise missile down their posterior..!!!!"

CICERO: (On the Natural Law) "It is derived from the rationale of a judge who believes that it derives from the rationale of the people and is thus immutable. It certainly cannot be derived from the rationale of the State."

AUSTIN: (On the Positive Law) "Law is defined as the command of the State which is backed by force...until it can be held to be ultra vires on a future date."

BERKELEY: (On Everything) "Everything is perception. And advertising is God..!!"

ARISTOTLE: (On the Golden Mean) "When choosing between two extremes, choose one that suits you the most and call it the Mean."

NIETZSCHE: (On the Superman) "The superman (ubermensch) is a person beyond Good and Evil. Ordinary mortals call him a Bureaucrat."

"Our violence...."

2007-11-16T08:54:00.000-08:00

CONGRESSMAN: (Ranting) "Narendra Modi is a scourge on the Planet!! He ought to be thrown out of power!! He is guilty of genocide..." (5 minutes of stuff like this)

WAG: "How can you say this? Your coalition partners are doing the same in Nandigram."

CONGRESSMAN: (Confused whisper) "Dada, help me out here!"

DADA: "Arre, you do not get it. Modi is a communalist. He targetted the minorities. We did not kill selectively. You see, even our violence is secular!!"

The equality of the sexes

2007-06-27T21:43:00.001-07:00

"You can't fool all of the people all the time" ~ Abraham Lincoln

"Pratibha Patil set to be India's first woman President" ~ The Hindustan Times on 14/06/07

Yet again, Abraham Lincoln turned on his head!! When it comes to pulling the wool over the eyes, our legislature exceeds itself, time and time again. The UPA announced Pratibha Patil as their candidate for President of India. People went crazy talking about a woman President. I recall the TOI gloating over the fact that India will have a woman president much before the United States does. Of course, more than a week has passed since then and a lot of inspired mud-slinging is going on even as I write this, no doubt helped by the flaky lady herself! I guess they ought to issue a gag order, because every time she opened her mouth, the ruling party winced and the nation blinked!! It is very early days, of course, but why do I get the feeling that this one will turn out to be an embarrassment? The political parties have done it again! They have played petty politics to get one of their own into Raisina Hill.

And I have serious problems with folks who say that this is a landmark step towards equality of the sexes in India. Let us reflect on this term-male and female equality. Feminists are fond of saying that the world has suffered under a paternalistic world order. They say that if women were allowed equal status as the men, the world could have been a better place. But has equality really helped us? It has helped them personally-Mayawati seems to have assets to the tune of 52 crores!! But has it helped the country? Mayawati, Jayalalitha, Rabri Devi, Uma Bharati etc have all been Chief Ministers but they have never been known as reformers. Their states have not really improved under their rule. Indira Gandhi was mired into many controversies. Sonia Gandhi is best known for stepping down from the post of the PM and then ruling from behind thin arras. Now, all these women have broken male bastions-ergo they have contributed to 'gender equality.' But achievements? They are exactly like their male counterparts in that department-they have achieved nothing! This is not restricted to politics alone. Sania Mirza is paid almost as much as Rahul Dravid. Her performance to date has also been a lot like the Indian cricket team. In the words of Don McLean for Janis Joplin: "I asked her for some happy news/But she just smiled and turned away." And Sunita Williams achieved nothing for India but we still adore her!!

We tend to believe that equality implies achievement. That is not so. Achievement is measured in what you do, not where you are. Femininity implies wisdom, courage and above all, compassion. That is why these terms are symbolized by goddesses-Kuan Yin, Athena and Saraswati!! Kiran Bedi is a good example. She humanized the prison system in the country. This is what a male-dominated world lacks-the 'human touch.' More appropriately, the 'woman's touch.' That is why we do not need people like Pratibha Patil. Let's face it-the woman is a consensus candidate. She has a couple of shady deals in her past. She is known for her unremarkable political and administrative legacy and she is a faithful servant of the Congress party. In sum, like most of the Presidents of the past, we will have a puppet in what is essentially a titular post. Hell, APJ was a lot better than her!! Going by our standards of equality of the sexes, this is a remarkable achievement. Did we want a woman prez who is exactly like most of the men before her? Is this what the feminists hoped to achieve? I don't know about anyone else, but if you tell me that she symbolizes the achievements of the Indian woman, then pardon me if I laugh my chauvinistic head off!!

And the next time I hear the words: "This is so like men", accompanied by the usual cynical sneer, I will turn around and reply: "Us and you, both!"

THE WEST ACCORDING TO EASTWOOD!!

2007-06-07T03:41:00.000-07:00

I recently bought a DVD CD containing three Clint Eastwood movies that I had not seen before. The purpose was to unwind, and watching the old west come alive was just what the doctor ordered. One of the movies was The Outlaw Josey Wales. Looked like a 'spaghetti western'-ish kind of a movie. So, I decided to start with that. What I was expecting was Colts and duels, tough hombres complete with the rough voices, feisty women, sombreros and cacti, catchy themes, sheriffs and bank-robbers and amidst all this, Clint with his squint (rhyme unintended) his cigar, his quick draw, the frowning face and the low voice. Sergio Leone typified it. And I wanted to be entertained. Josey Wales seemed to be 'it.'

Or so I thought!!! What I saw over the next few hours will soon lead to this blog entry!!

In hindsight, I suppose I should have guessed. The director was Clint himself - it was mentioned on the cover. Knowing the kind of movies he directs, it could never be that simple a theme. But even then, I would not have been prepared for anything like Josey Wales. There's a message and it is delivered directly and effectively. Although this is supposed to be an action film and contains some wonderful gun fighting scenes, action is not the force driving the movie.

Clint is Josey Wales, a farmer living peacefully in Missouri until partisans of the Union army from Kansas raid his farm and kill his wife and child in front of him. He becomes a fearless and a famous guerilla, who has sworn vengeance against the Kansas renegades. When the movie begins, the civil war has ended, his gang has surrendered and he is on the run. He is branded an 'outlaw' with a price on his head. So we see him constantly outwitting his pursuers, killing bounty hunters and spittin' chaw on almost everyone!! However, on the trail, he meets an eccentric old Indian chief, an American Indian woman, a Kansas woman with her daughter and a dog. They tag along with a reluctant Wales, who is only looking to "lie low in Indian country for a while" and presumably, plot his revenge. The lady has a ranch owned by her dead son. The bunch, which has now increased in number, starts residing at the ranch. And therein lies the message. How can a group of diverse people, separated by wars, bitterness and greed even live together? Because this is what the inhabitants of the ranch are. They are people from Kansas and people from Missouri; Indians and Palefaces; Man and Animal; Union and Confederate! The feisty lady from Kansas, persistently making snide remarks against Missouri, fearlessly bears arms against the pursuers from Kansas ("they bring shame to Kansas!") The Indian is ready to stand by Wales through thick and thin. The people of the town cover for Wales when marshals from Kansas come-a-calling, even though there is a reward on his head. Even the local Indian tribe allows them to continue living on the ranch, even though they are on their (the Indians') land. The reluctant Josey Wales, with vengeance in his heart finally finds a family and love. So although he still wants to fight, he apparently wants an end to the madness. The existence is as close to idyllic as it can get. Every prospect pleases and Man learns to mend his ways!

Anti-Establishment, I wondered? Much of the troubles of the world seem to be due to the faceless government. But this much-abused term cannot adequately cover the theme of the film. This is more about living together. After all, every member of the group should be a sworn enemy of the other. But the important fact is that the war has ended!! It's time to move on. In the end, Wales forgives his old mate, Bloody Bill, against whom he had sworn revenge, blaming the madness of the war. After all, this is also Josey’s own purgatory. I guess he and Bloody Bill must have also killed and slaughtered, although this was shown in rushes at the start (the real 'Bloody Bill' Anderson was a terror! Incidentally, he rode with Frank and Jesse James.) When the local Indians threaten the tranquility at the ranch, Wales rides down to meet their Chief and makes a deal with him to peacefully dwell at the ranch and respect Indian marks and property, thus avoiding another wasteful battle. It is clear that this agreement will be stronger than any other agreement made by governments because the bond of men with men will always be stronger than one with 'two-faced' people. Maintaining your cultural identity is important but respect for the other is what everyone learns. Wales is forced to spit chaw outside the house! The woman from Kansas comments on Indians and allows the Indian chief to comment on people from Kansas. The dog helps in chores!! They live together, work together, sing and dance together and when the pursuers finally track them down, fight together!! And since the inhabitants of the ranch represent the 'good' in all of us, the 'evil' partisans hell-bent on war are finally killed and the death of their leader by Wales is dramatic. The message is not subtle but there are no sermons and no discussions. It is visual and stark. The 'good' here are not sanctimonious - I doubt Wales even considers himself as the moralist. Their goal is simple-live in peace and harmony and by hard work. Essentially the rebuilding of society. The ranch is like Gandhi's phoenix settlement-only the residents are armed!

Eastwood's screenplay is prima facie a departure from the usual gung-ho western, especially from Sergio Leone's movies. I personally feel that even Sergio's films had similar trends, even though they were not as stark as this. For instance, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was all about the quest for gold amidst unbridled greed. However, another underlying question seemed to be: Why waste time on a war when there is a trunk of gold to be had? The war is depicted in all it's brutality - the young soldier wanting a cigarette before dying, the treatment of prisoners at a Union camp and the futile war for a bridge. However, our boys do get their own backs-they destroy the bridge and thus 'end' the war in their own way. Even in A Fistful of Dollars, Clint does save the town, his bartender friend and a woman prisoner from Ramon and avenges his beating. It is not all about money. In High Noon, the ex-sheriff makes a choice-to kill Frank Miller instead of running away. Something which the townspeople did!! Thus, not all westerns are about ridin', shootin' and bar brawls.

Finally, credit to Clint Eastwood. The man has acted in and directed some of the most significant films in the world. There is a keen sense of characterization in his movies. As an actor, he created memorable roles like 'The Stranger with No Name', 'Dirty Harry', 'Pale Rider' and even Frank Dunn. Like The Outlaw Josey Wales, the movies he made are all unique and never fail to leave a mark on viewers. Here's to Clint-may he ride forever!!!!

"ALL THE PERFUMES OF ARABIA..."

2006-12-31T10:07:00.002-08:00

Quite often, in a fit of anger, we feel like murdering somebody. “I’ll kill that man”; or, “How I wish somebody would strangle her!” However, as soon as our anger passes, we cease to think on these lines. The whole idea sounds absurd, when you think rationally.

However, what happens to those who actually murder?

Barring seasoned, hardened and psychopathic criminals (though there should be a discussion about them, too), how does a normal person react when he or she has actually killed someone? I mean look at it this way – he takes a knife, stabs the other, cleans the knife, gets rid of the body, hides the knife, cleans up, prepares a good alibi and may call or wait for the gendarme. Basic steps, right? But what does the murderer feel after committing the act in question? At one level, of course, his thoughts would be on how to evade the Authorities. But even supposing he escapes, or survives, what will he think?

Take for instance, an Agatha Christie-esque novel. A murder is committed. The Continental detective applies his ‘grey cells’ and after a lot of “Eh Bien’s” and even more interrogations, he summons everyone to the drawing room (even the butler) and announces the culprit. We are given to understand that the nice, personable secretary Mr. Carstairs poisoned Lord Dingdongle of Dartmoor with a shot of cyanide in his after-dinner port. But how did Carstairs feel, in his bedroom alone, four hours after the crime, when he had no reason to believe that he would be caught? Did he feel any remorse, any guilt? Killing a living, breathing human being is not like using that typewriter, which he used to wield before becoming a criminal and then a jailbird!!

I recently read a case, decided in the Supreme Court of India in the mid 60’s. This was while studying for Evidence Law (I did horribly, if anyone wants to know!!) This case was called Sahoo v. State of U.P. – [1965] 3 SCR 86 is the citation for those who want to read it in full. The fellow Sahoo was apparently having an affair with his daughter-in-law and frequently quarreled with her (the son was generally out on business.) One day, he murdered her after a major quarrel!!! He had sent his youngest boy to the fields sometime in the wee hours of the morning. When he returned, he heard a gurgling sound and then saw his father going outside muttering something. 6 witnesses heard the man soliloquizing that he had killed her and finished the daily fights.

Academically, the only reason that this judgment is important is that the Court treated the soliloquy as evidence of a confession and convicted the man (a confession made to the police is not evidence.) After reading this, I wondered why the man behaved the way he did. He should have tried to distance himself, destroy evidence – done something!! The evidence against him was only circumstantial – a skilled lawyer would have reduced his sentence. Why, then, did he go about muttering and virtually declaring to all and sundry that it was he who had done the deed? I feel the answer to this, lies in the functioning of the human mind. The mind is inherently rational. Killing is an act of irrationality. Once the feeling passes, the enormity of the deed sets in. No doubt, psychologists, criminologists and others would have a better, maybe even a different answer, but the fact that the guilty mind works in mysterious ways cannot be denied. Maybe that’s why they call a person ‘guilty.’ In this particular case – Justice (later Chief Justice) Koka Subba Rao himself wrote:

“A confessional soliloquy is a direct piece of evidence. It may be an expression of conflict of emotion; a conscious effort to stifle the pricked conscience; an argument to find excuse or justification for his act; or a penitent or remorseful act of exaggeration of his part in the crime. The tone may be soft and low; the words may be confused; they may be capable of conflicting interpretations depending on witnesses, whether they are biased or honest, intelligent or ignorant, imaginative or prosaic, as the case may be. Generally they are mutterings of a confused mind.”

I don’t think that Subba Rao had any scientific basis when he delved into the psychology of the murderer after the committing of the act. This is more out of common sense than anything else. However, I feel that even the scientific studies may not establish anything a whole lot different.

Shakespeare had it right centuries ago, when he wrote about the guilt of Macbeth and lady Macbeth after they killed so many people. Macbeth began to see the ghost of the Banquo all over the place. Lady Macbeth died due to guilt. I have to reproduce a small extract of her soliloquy:

“Here’s the smell of the blood still; all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh, oh, oh!” [Act V Scene 1]

Although, to be precise, she only abetted in the disposal of the weapon!!

And what of poor Raskolnikov? Rodion Raskolnikov, who thought he was a genius and who felt that his genius deserved a separate code of morals. He could not live with his crime and strangely enough, found spiritual fulfillment in Siberia.

The discussion can be endless. However, one thing is for certain. Murder is not like the detective stories – for the simple reason that it involves human beings. Thus, the next time you contemplate killing somebody, remember that you may be able to shake off all authority, but not your own conscience!!

BUFFON AND THE FOOTBALL SPIRIT

2006-06-15T03:41:00.000-07:00

It is, of course, trite to hold that football (not the American ‘soccer’!) is the most watched sport on the planet. I wish I was paid every time I heard the words “the glamour, the passion, the glory” etcetera. The images of all memorable moments are quickly displayed in 30 seconds advertisement spots for the 20th century football buff, whose already eager spirit becomes even more fervent. The media constantly analyzes the chances of each particular team and the ‘stars’ become superstars. And every piece of news relating to the Cup becomes an international event. Children around the world may not know algebra but can discuss Wayne Rooney’s metatarsal bone ad infinitum. Ronaldiniho is being painted on Calcutta slum walls. Those who remember the last World cup bitterly rant against the German coach’s exclusion of Kahn. Devoted Serie A fans will consider themselves a class apart from the many Asians rooting for David Beckham – and his country England (rather than the other way round!)

All this while, behind the hoopla and the glamour and the stardom, the game beckons!

There is a thing about football, and the World Cup that places it above this dull glamour. If we close our eyes and think about football and particularly about the World Cup, what do we see? Roaring crowds? Athletic teams? Reminiscences from some old matches? A favourite football star? We usually visualize the glamour of the World Cup. Patriotic or nationalistic sentiments carry some away. But these things do not drive football. Glamour is present in many sports – and it is naïve to presume that it is merely glamour that produces such a tremendous following for the sport. Patriotism is also not the reason. An ‘English Fan’ for instance, may shy away from paying his taxes and curse his country all day! He may support a club that is run by a Frenchman and relies on French players. Things like glamour and patriotism are surface reasons. How does it make football distinct? Similarly when people say they are ‘attracted towards the sport’ and give reasons like its athleticism and the level of competition, they don’t know what they are saying. Athleticism is present in every sport and is generally used relative to some other sport – for instance, some Indian football fans look upon cricket fans with disdain, holding that cricket is an “armchair sport.” Also, football is no more athletic than, say, Tennis, F1 racing or even Badminton. Finally, ‘team spirit’ and ‘bonding across cultures’ is not a reason that can adequately explain the sheer love for the game that we observe and feel. I will not even write about it.

The question still remains. Why do we like football so much? The reasons are not those that are given above.

Football is a sport that has the ability to uplift. Its power is unmatched by anything else. It can take you above all the regular into a place where there is spiritual fulfillment. It is as close to Nirvana as you will ever get. And this is not mere wordplay. Look at Gianluigi Buffon. For the uninitiated, he is the goalkeeper of Italy and is among the best in the world, if not the best. Buffon has recently been associated with a scandal regarding match fixing and betting in Italy. Prosecutors have even questioned him. Nevertheless, he was called to the squad and barring any calamitous event or human insanity, will be the number one choice keeper for the azzurri. The papers have made the usual noises – “should this man play at all?” etc. People may say that he has a point to prove. They will think that should he emerge a hero, he would have purged himself of all his sins. But at the time of donning his distinctive jersey, in that 90-minutes time period, Buffon will be in another land. His mind will be freed of all earthly worries, he will forget all those newspaper articles, he will barely be distracted by the crowds around him, the flashing camera bulbs will fail to sidetrack him and he will be in a place where there is only the game and himself. The spirit that takes him to this zone is not defined by words like ‘patriotism’, ‘competitiveness’, ‘glory’ and ‘honour’. It is a higher Force. It is not religious. Religion means adherence to a God, or a Leader, or even faith. There is neither faith nor a figure guiding this force. It is mystical, metaphysical. When they celebrate a victory or mourn a defeat, it is actually the zenith of that experience. Ronaldiniho may best define that spirit. The look of child-like happiness on his face is nothing but the total giving up of oneself to the spirit of the game. Why do we get irritated when some officious referee blows his whistle? In my opinion, it is due to the fact that he is the embodiment of all those laws and the morals of a world that the game seems to have left behind. This is their world for the next 90 minutes and they can fly! Angola plays Portugal. Historic occasion, right? Possibly. But during the game, all the ‘gravity’ would be forgotten as the players do their thing. Serbia & Montenegro, that has officially ceased to exist, would reflect about the emotions involved during the 2006 World Cup in documentary films. But during the game, they would have left the politics behind. It’s all right for the English tabloids before and after the game to talk about Beckham’s latest hairdo, or Sven’s latest affair. But during the game, Beckham will forget the hairdo he sports and Sven will disregard the latest scandal. Emotions and politics and unity are never present during the course of a football match. Because the spirit of football does not have room for it. The spirit of football is free of all the worldly elements that weary us. If any happen to creep in, they only evoke disgust. The purpose is to win the match but winning cannot be on a players mind throughout the game. It is only a larger objective. Running down the flanks, a winger will not think of winning or loss. He will only do what he has to do. There will be nothing else on his mind except what he is to do and how he is to do it, not why. The Spanish team would have forgotten all regionalism and will play together. A football player will leave behind all trivialities. There will be no place for emotions. No place for sentiments. No place for musings about ‘honour’ and ‘glory’. There is just – the game.

Otherwise he would risk becoming a philosopher or a politician!

2006-04-10T04:16:00.000-07:00

Well, I suppose its customary to write a Prologue or a Preface or an 'Achtung' notice at the beginning!

To me, it is like one of the opening scenes in a Western flick where the Chief Protagonist gets off the train. The sign reads El Acmeville (Pop. 800, atleast till last night!) The guy rolls his own cigarette-or a cigar and looks around. You know the rest! The folks from the city will soon call him the 'Man With No Name' while he calls them Shorty and shoots bullets without removing the cigar.

This is my first post on my first blog and I feel like I have reached a tiny, unknown station in the Wild West. I have read just a few other blogs and know next to nothing about the phenomenon they call 'blogging.'

These are the Minstrel Diaries. Minstrels were like bards, they wandered from town to town, singing and performing for the people. The writings in this blog, like all my musings will tend to wander...No specific topic and a tendency to ramble. The prolixity may be explained by the fact that yours truly is studying law-pretty far gone from a minstrel! However, there is a joy in jotting down your thought process and hence the allusion. Just hope that I can update my blog-I have to live up to the name!

That's it for now I guess! It looks like the start of a beautiful friendship.