All in bad taste!

The Apprentice (2024)
Director: Ali Abbasi

youtube clip

There used to be something called decorum, a set of behaviours that everyone agreed upon, accepted as social mores and considered good manners. For example, one does not speak loudly in a library or crack a joke at a funeral. 

Now, it seems that all of this is a relic of a distant past. Nothing is taboo anymore.  

That was what went through my mind as I sat down to watch this film about the early rise of the current two-time President of the USA, Donald Trump. Narrating anyone's biopic inevitably includes some unsavoury details. With so much information available, much of it questionable in authenticity, how are we truly going to tell someone's story, warts and all, without hurting the sentiments of the person occupying the august seat, or at the very least, without tainting the highest office in the land?  

Here we have a film released about the early life of the very person who eventually won the elections to become President. In fact, he had previously served as President, a term before the current one. In America, there is a tradition. The past President is still addressed as ‘Mr President', not 'Mr Ex-President', implying the honour attached to the position. Similarly, a retired Ambassador is still referred to as Mr/Madam Ambassador. Somehow, all that goes out of the window when it comes to Trump. Rules do not apply.  

It recounts the early years of Donald Trump as a novice property dealer grappling with legal challenges stemming from accusations of racial discrimination against his black tenants. Trump endures a difficult existence, overshadowed by a domineering father, a mother who consistently hovers over him, and an alcoholic brother. He seeks assistance from a ruthless, high-powered lawyer, Roy Cohn. The name Roy Cohn emerged during the McCarthy era, when he served as the prosecutor who played a key role in sending the Rosenberg couple to the electric chair for espionage.

With Cohn's ruthless methods and Trump's foresight, the Trump brand fills the skyline of 1980s New York. The film proceeds to illustrate how Trump woos his first wife, Ivana, his infidelities, his use of amphetamines, hair transplants, liposuction, spousal abuse, betrayal of his old friend Cohn, and everything else to depict what type of self-serving man he is. I find it all in poor taste.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

A question of loyalty versus compassion.

During Trump's second inauguration as US President, a bishop made a direct appeal to the President to have mercy on the LGBTQ+ community and undocumented migrant workers. Trump, in his campaign speeches, promised to go hard on illegal immigration once he took office. Previously, the Biden administration had a lax stance on immigration. Trump also declared that there are only two genders in the USA: male and female, unlike the spectrum of over 68 gender expressions advocated by liberal thinkers. 

The decree would automatically make millions of immigrants to the US illegal, and the woke generation is fearful that there would be a witch hunt against the LGBTQ+ community.

This issue regarding immigrants coming to America is not new, as far as the world's biggest economy is concerned. It has been ongoing since the Cold War. America has itself to blame for its predicament. America, being the self-proclaimed leader of the free world, took it upon itself to curb the spread of communism, especially in its backyard. Central and South American countries have been in turmoil for a long time. To ensure that left-leaning leaders do not take over, the US placed despotic, US-friendly puppet governments. These leaders were opposed by their own people, and over time, a resistance guerrilla army emerged. The people were caught in the crossfire between the military forces of the government and the rebel militia. As economic activities came to a grinding halt, the citizens, especially the rural population, began to flee.

Suddenly, the US had a problem at its borders in the 70s and 80s. Thousands of refugees from El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala started flocking to its borders and sneaking into the US. News of illegal immigrants from El Salvador succumbing to the elements as they traversed deserts hit the headlines. They were escaping US-supported death squads in their country. Many churches in the US, led by a Presbyterian minister, Rev John Fife of Tucson, Arizona, took it upon themselves to aid and harbour these illegal aliens as they made their way into America.

The way they looked at it was like this. During WW2 Hitler's Germany, millions of Jews are brutally killed because of the apathy of many Germans, including their religious leaders. Christianity, being the saviour of the underdogs, as evidenced by events during Jesus' lifetime, had a moral right to defend the oppressed and the persecuted. The dilemma was whether to flaunt the law to attain a higher purpose or to conform as good citizens. It was not just a question of nationalism versus belief but of being human.

In the 1980s, these stories were of national interest. All parties, political leaders, the general public, and the legal system took an interest. Rev. John Fife and members of the Sanctuary Movement, which by then included over 2,000 churches and had spread to Canada, were charged with abetting the entry of illegal immigrants into the country. A public debate ensued. On one side, there was the faction supporting the Government's desire to maintain law and order, as they had been doing for ages. Then there was the other side, who blamed the US, which had started the whole fiasco in the first place. There was a compulsion to provide a safe haven for the victims.

Probably bowing to the pressures of public sentiment at the time, the accused were let off with a slap on the wrist. They were not imprisoned but received suspended sentences and probation. It was considered light for a crime against the State.

(P.S. In the rush to build and control a waterway that bypassed Cape Horn, America supported a Panamanian resistance group fighting for independence from Colombia. Not to mention the Banana Wars in South America after the US acquired the country following the 1898 US-Spanish War. America instigated various resistance groups to protect its business interests. With such a long history of meddling, it is no surprise that trouble comes back to bite its southern end. To complicate things, in the name of preserving American business interests, Greenland may be 'invaded' via gunboat diplomacy!)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Death can be a satire?

A Case of Exploding Mangoes

Author: Mohammed Hanif

On 17th August 1988, President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan was killed in an aircraft crash. Perishing together with him on the Hercules C-130 military aircraft were the President’s close assistant Akhtar Abdur Rehman, American diplomat Arnold Lewis Raphel and 27 others.

In the rest of the world, a country owns an army. In Pakistan, however, its Army own the country. In 1976, Prime Minister Bhutto elevated ul-Haq to a full general. One year later, he deposed Bhutto and declared martial law. Bhutto was hanged for treason.

Ul-Haq’s 11-year tenure as the Supremo saw him announce Pakistan as a nuclear nation, aided Afghanistan to fight the Soviets and secured himself as a prominent Islamist leader. In a way, he was instrumental in making Pakistan a theocratic country and the rise of global Islamic terrorism.

The crash was extensively investigated by many quarters, but nothing was conclusive. The possible theories range from aircraft failure, as the C-130 was notoriously famous for faulty equipment, to sabotage by Americans, Soviets, Mossad, the Pakistani Army, and even Bhutto’s dependents.

Mohamad Hanif, the author of this book and the head of BBC Urdu service, was consumed by the crash. The interviews he conducted did not reveal much. The aircraft did carry mangoes. A rope was found among the debris. Someone suggested the possibility of explosives in mango seeds and the usage of poisonous gas to incapacitate the pilots as the craft plunged head down suddenly.

In most countries, too, something so sombre, like the death of a leader, is not sneered upon. This rule may not apply to Pakistan. Because of the restriction of freedom of speech, Pakistanis have volumes of jokes about their leaders. Every other day, even its immediate neighbour finds pleasure in mocking Pakistan. So, it is not surprising to read the humorous narration of the moments before Zia-ul-Haq’s demise in this light-hearted satire.

Even though the exact cause of the crash is not explained and the real perpetrators of the accident are not told, it seems like everyone had a burning desire to see the President die - the Pakistani Army, a Trade Union leader, the curse of the imprisoned blind gang-rape victim or a disgruntled soldier whose father was killed by Zia. A crow, possibly intoxicated by the nectar of the sweet Pakistani mango, may have a hand in it, too. The aircraft also carried such a heavy load of mangoes, so aromatic that it filled the whole vessel that the air conditioning need not be switched on. VX gas filled the machine when it was switched on later, and we know what happened next.

(Dedicated to RK, a Pakistani-Hindu from the Sindh Province, who paints a rather rosy image of his Motherland contrary to the perception of the rest of the world.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Nobody likes a smart Alec!

Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: 2020
Cultural Learnings of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

Yes, that is the final name to Borat's 2006 follow-up mockumentary. The title went through many name changes; the previous ones were equally ridiculous and ridiculously long. It also has the dubious reputation of incurring the wrath of many Americans (and Kazhaks) and attracting many legal suits. The Kazaks were just as pissed for depicting them as a bunch of village fools ruled by a despotic regime.

If one is looking for a Wodehousian type of humour in this offering, look elsewhere. It is a lowbrow comedy through and through with toilet humour, genitals, menstruation and all.

It was strategically released before the US Presidential elections and contains some not so savoury depiction of Trump's lawyer and former Mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, in a hotel room kerfuffle with a young journalist. It is all a prank, and the film is full of it. Borat holds a mirror to the Americans right on their face to showcase their latest embarrassing side. He prods the gullible public in the manner of a naive East European native who is struggling with his English to ask current questions like whether one should vote for the Democrats. Their hypocrisy is laid bare for us to scrutinise.

In a scene, Borat's 16-year-old daughter had swallowed a toy baby figurine on a cupcake. This is obviously referring to the Pizzagate scandal where allegedly prominent figures are involved in Satanic practices like eating babies. She is then brought to a Woman's Clinic for treatment run by a pastor. Borat with his bumbling English telling the pastor, "My daughter got baby in stomach, I want to take out. I give her baby. (referring to the cupcake he had fed her or is it incest he is indicating?)" is just too funny.

The film has another court case against the estate of a recently deceased Holocaust survivor who was apparently tricked into an interview which was subsequently included in the film. Many of the 'participants' in the movie are mere passers-by.
On one side, the viewers will go off thinking that it is a Democrat bashing movie. Then we realise that Trump, his party members and the Republican supporters are also not spared of his caustic sarcasm.

https://fb.watch/1l4jxH57Uw/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 

The new norm?

That a look at these two Presidential debates, the first one was in 1960 between JFK and Nixon, whilst the second one happened recently in the year 2020. See the vibes surrounding the two debates. Without a shadow of a doubt, there is much professionalism and decency in the former whereas in the latter we only see crass behaviour and lack of common decency.

In our formative years, we were taught that to listen and to let another to speak are common decencies. Only the immature and ill-mannered interferes one's conversation we were told. We also trained to fight facts with facts, to argue it out like gentlemen in decorum, without being personal or hitting below the belt.

Somewhere along the way, while we were napping, a lot of things changed.

The '90s brought in the internet culture and work ethics of the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Workers were expected to dress down to work. Work time needs to be flexible, they said. Jobs is famously known to walk around bare feet and is said to stretch out his naked feet on the office tables whilst discussing work matters with his contemporaries. Seniority went out of the window when open office concept came to being.

Smartphones did not make people smarter. It only built them a personalised echo chamber for them to wallow around in the sweetness of their pixelated self. The 'self-generation' that did not give two hoots about the feelings of the about the other morphed. Under the cloak of anonymity, they would swashbuckler their thoughts with the sorcery of keyboards which are not their views actually but mere parroting of the hidden hands of the cabal.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. 

Follow

Follow

A necessary evil?

Vice (2018)

Violence has always been justified to attain specific agendas. Naturam Godse justified the assassination of Gandhi by invoking the Gita. He substantiated his claim by highlighting Krishna's teachings to the cold-feet warrior in Arjuna to basically carry out the duties that he was born to the world. Unfortunately, not everybody knows the reason for their existence. Some births seem so wasted that one often wonders whether it was Nature's accident.

The Universe has had a lousy track record. Violence and destruction have been the mainstay, periodically jostling creations to another jumpstart.

Just like how a white lie is not considered wrong, violence for a bigger narrative seems totally justified. In the Crusade Wars, brutal killings of brothers defended as a necessary evil to uphold a divine decree. In the name of race and religion, Man continues to ponder and kill, making excuses as they go.

This Oscar-nominated film tells about the life and times of Dick Cheney who was the Vice President during George W Bush's tenure as the President of the USA. In any other country, this movie would have been viewed as being anti-nationalist, portraying the country as an evil Empire run by greedy men who cared a damn about their own people, what more other countries or environment. Even though traditionally the Vice President is powerless, GW Bush got into politics because of his father and leadership was never his strong point. This reformed alcoholic was a lame-duck President. Dick Cheney was the de facto President of the USA who pulled the strings of the administration and was the puppet master who turned the world upside down. 

Christian Bale in the lead role.
From Batman to Fat Old Man

Endorsing the unitary executive theory where the President controls all the power of the Executive branch of the country, he is seen to have 'created' the turmoil that the world is in today. Starting in life as a Yale dropout with alcohol problems, he morphed with the help of his sweetheart and wife, Lynne, from being a linesman to get into the White House. He had gone in and out of the White House from the time of Nixon's administration. First working under the eccentric Donald Rumsfeld,  he endured repeated heart attacks and finally went into the private sector. He later became the running partner for GW Bush and had purportedly benefitted from the many fake or faulty intelligence that surfaced as justifications to walk into sovereign countries in the name of fighting terrorism.

https://asok22.wixsite.com/real-lesson 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The sun would still rise...

They say the silent majority has spoken. They say this is democracy in its full glory. That a single swallow would not make a whole summer. The loud and verbose cannot hoodwink the masses with their rhetorics and statistics. After all, they, the elitists and the deep-pocketed, only make a small portion of the general public. The 99% do not share the same sentiment as the top 1%. They do not care what the foreign policy is or who does what to whom in the name of justice or freedom. They are interested only in bread and butter issues. They want their continued way of life, their style of doing things and their rights. And they saw through the media bulldozing of intelligentsia agenda and meaningless smokescreen. Did they really? Do they not expect some decorum of their leaders, some politeness in speech and inclusiveness in leadership? Are they persuaded by his media presence, his fast talk, his ability to go down to their level to speak their lingo?

Some say that people are stupid, that they think with heart or sometimes at groyne level. If you look back in history, many leaders have been saying this as well. Sayyid Qutb, a leading member of Egypt's Islamic Brotherhood, had said after his short stint in American for his sabbatical that people generally do not know what they want. They need a knowledgeable and strong leader for them to pave the way. This sentiment was echoed by Steve Jobs when someone asked whether people would like his product. He had replied, "... people do not know what they want, we will show them what they want and like!". Schopenhauer posits that we pick our choices not with our minds but with other primal urges.

The self-proclaimed 'know-it-all' thinkers think that big decisions involving repercussions of world proportions or even our civilisation should not be left to the commoners. The public is viewed as sheep easily herded to march to the slaughter, or perhaps like the mice or children who follow like zombies to the tune of the Piped Piper! But hey, this democracy. The government of the people, elected by the people to serve the people. Ironically when a politician wins the elections, they conveniently forget the third part.
Now that storm is over or is it just beginning, or it is the eye of the storm? Time will tell. Meanwhile, the sun still rises for the mortals to strive another day. It is reconciliation time...

Mud in the face, big disgrace...

Welcome to New York (French-English; 2014)


I cannot fathom why the doyen, Gérard Depardieu, the name who is synonymous with modern contemporary French cinema would stoop so low as to appear in a meaningless movie like this one.
It is no secret that it is a thinly veiled saga of the defamed ex-IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. There are too many similarities between the two to deny.
If one were to think that the film was made to highlight how he was framed, or show another version of how it have happened or how the whole fracas affected his career or his nomination of Presidency, you are in for a surprise.
It depicts none of those.
As you are aware, this high flying big gun with a soft spot for the fairer sex was to go for Presidency of France. The fact that the the accusation of rape by a chamber-maid in a New York so near before the win event screamed to high heavens of conspiracy theories. However, the film depicted none of the above. In short it was a pure meaningless graphic display of warped deviant show of lust and its varieties. The actual story only picked up towards the second half of show, that too in a wishy-washy malaise fashion.
It paints DSK as a remorseless sloppy oversized man way past his prime who thinks that everything can be bought with money. Everybody else is a persona non grata, the only important thing to him seem to be luring females and fulfilling his lust.
Jacqueline Bisset plays the role of his wife, Monique, whose is fed-up with his antics. She is more worried of how that snafu would jeopardise her advancement in her career as she is all too familiar with his skirt chasing habit.
The film is extremely draggy detailing all irrelevant detail including a full monty strip search of Depardieu in prison. After living in exile in Russia after tax problems in his native country France, perhaps he does not care much about French cinema and it is pay back time!
The French cinema has 'self censored' itself by not screening it in its theatres. The producers may have a hard time defending against the many legal suits that the Strauss-Kahn family is soon to file.