When they were kings!

Jalal Uddin al-Afghani (1839-97)

Imagine you are living in the late 19th century, and you have been brought up in an Orthodox Islamic environment. How would you, through an ultra-Islamic lens, look at the world around you?

You have read and been told that within the century after its introduction, the influence of Islam was seen in all four corners of the world. India was run over by a series of opulent dynasties upon dynasties of flamboyant Islamic rulers. In the 18th century, India was the wealthiest nation in the world. Islamic traders had introduced the religion to the shores where they traded.

After defeating the Crusaders, the Islamic rulers steadfastly asserted Allah's law on Earth. At its pinnacle, the Ottoman Empire controlled most of southeastern Europe to the gates of Vienna, the Balkans, Ukraine, parts of the Middle East and North Africa. 

Al-Afghani saw the time that passed as the most glorious days of Islam. Right in front of his eyes, he saw the reign of leaders who use Islam as their selling point slowly crumbling. The British were making inroads into dismantling the wealthiest Muslim Empire. The Ottomans were getting sicker by the day with ineffective leaders and widespread unholy practices. The schisms within the fold also made it easier for its enemies to hoodwink them, using their weaknesses to their benefit. 

Just who is this Al-Afghani? How is he of relevance today? 

Jalal al-Din al-Afghani was an elusive character and a wanderer who was either embraced or shooed by the countries in which he sojourned at different times of his life. Probably born to a Shiite family in Persia, Afghanis insist he was born in Afghanistan. At 18, he was in India and performed his Haj soon afterwards. He became a scholar of religion and would be called upon to impart his knowledge. He went to Iran, Turkey, Egypt and the United Kingdom. His idea of modernisation without Westernisation was popular among the masses but not with elites and clerics. He promoted being meagre, which did not excite the leaders. He suggested a pan-Islamic movement and is said to be the first Modern Muslim who used the shield of Islam in his political appeal.

He had his hand in France, Russia, and India and left a long trail of people who were angry with him. At one time, he was even inducted into Freemasonry. Flitting between his Shiite background and Sunni knowledge, he still failed to unite both denominations. At one time, he gave a scathing opposition to Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution' but later rescinded that animals do evolve but can never be human.

He died of mandibular cancer in 1897 but remains a prominent figure amongst Muslim scholars who like to see the so-called golden era of Islam make a comeback here on Earth. Unity within
the ummah, he never achieved, but at least when it comes to threats to their own kind, they flock together. Like a swarm of bees, seemingly buzzing around haphazardly, perhaps appearing to bump into each other, they fall into formation to protect their hive.

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

Beware of glitz of the limelight!

Blonde (2022)
Director: Andrew Dominic

Films are just that - Maya, all illusions. All of us are lured to the charm of Maya. Some lose time and focus on it. Others even lose their health, future and life in the celluloid make-believe world. The Mafia that controls Hollywood (or Bollywood, for that matter) has had its hands almost since its inception. The Mafia-controlled group of moviemakers and studio owners, Walt Disney included) dictated which stories the world should consume. They started controlling the narrative on what is deemed justice, what is evil and even what is morality.

The paymasters also micro-manage the lives of actors and actresses. They exert a monopoly over film production and distribution of movies by buying movie theatres. 

The private lives of movie players, as they were referred to in the early years of movies, were not confidential. In the early years, viewers were not keen to know about actors. It was the stories that mattered. They were the domain of these very same people. They decided who should remain in the minds of the gullible public and who is sellable. They send paparazzi to eateries they arranged to create a buzz when there were none. 

Many actors were married off to boost their careers, not because of love. Ironically, the whole dream of films is based on love, but they mock the entire thing. Some were even caught in sham marriages when the actors were gay.

So it is unsurprising that Hollywood absorbed a mentally unstable person like Marilyn Monroe to build a dreamgirl persona around her. At least, this is what this new film about Monroe seems to propagate.

With the liberty of licence of creativity, the filmmakers have made Marilyn not only a dumb blonde but a highly mentally unstable prima donna with a drug problem at that. In most scenes, a dazed Marilyn sails through life under the influence of booze or barbiturates. 

Brought up by a single schizophrenic mother, Norma Jean Mortenson is seen to be exposed to many life-threatening situations. Her mother tried to drown her once. During a raging forest fire, her mother is seen driving towards the fire in search of a non-existent Marilyn's father.

The 7-Year Itch

Marilyn was cared for by her mother's friend but later went into foster care when child sexual molestation was discovered. At 16, she got into a marriage which ended disastrously fast. Throughout her childhood, Marilyn was fed with the idea that her father was a wealthy movie star whose identity could not be revealed for some reason. Her fixation with wanting to connect with her father continues to adulthood. She marries much older men and calls them daddy in search of a father figure she never had.

As an adult, Marilyn knows she is the product of an unwanted pregnancy from an affair. The thought that she may have been aborted even before birth haunts her. During her own multiple induced abortion and an inevitable miscarriage, she hallucinates being in communication with her fetuses. We are made aware that her agents arranged her many terminations of pregnancy. 

To drive home the idea that this whole movie is mainly a figment of the author's imagination is the account of a pervasive sexual threesome between Marilyn and the sons of Charlie Chaplin and Edward G Robinson. In real life, they may just have been passing acquaintances. For the record, there were no such exposê in the tabloids. Neither sons of these dozens were reported to be homosexuals. 

We all know about Marilyn's rendition of the 'Happy Birthday, Mr President' song to JFK. They were rumoured to be engaged in a raunchy prolonged love affair, which resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. Here, it is depicted like a doe-eyed call girl - tyrannical master dynamics. Critics of this movie were quick to point this out amongst the bent truths in this movie.

In all accounts, this NC-17 certificate offering is nothing more than eye candy bordering on pornography. There are way too many scenes involving full nudity than the storyline demands. An emotional outpour will drive home the sadness irrespective of whether the player is fully attired or is the full monty. 

Being a Netflix film, I wonder how consumers will enforce the NC-17 rule. Perhaps, the wokes who determine what is suitable for human entertainment consumption assume That watching porn is wholesome family entertainment. Thumbs down 👎

The movie probably painted Marilyn Monroe in a terrible light. She is portrayed as an immature girl with severe developmental issues going through life on a leash, looking for love and compassion in all the wrong places, muttering 'daddy, daddy...!' Her achievements are unfortunately lost in translation.

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

Elvis has left the building!

Elvis (Disney +; 2022)
Director: Baz Luhrmann

Elvis experts generally agree Baz Luhrmann's depiction is sprinkled generously with artistic licence and liberal truth-bending. It can be said that the movie was made to appease the woke generation and to rebrand Elvis to the newer generation who had not heard of the King of Rock and Roll. The message behind the movie was that Elvis Presley appropriated black music and the real heroes of rock and roll were the numerous black legends who never had their moments under the spotlight because of the bigoted attitude of the people then.

In reality, Elvis did sound like a black singer. Growing up in the deep south, he drew inspiration from the black gospel church and helped popularise rock and roll music.

The narration of the whole story is from the point of view of Elvis' notorious long-time manager, Colonel Tom Parker. Colonel Parker is a shady character who had allegedly illegally immigrated from Netherland and was not a colonel. He, however, had a short stint in the US Army. Apparently, one of the reasons he opposed Elvis' international tours was that Parker did not have or could not get a passport. He later went on to be convicted of defrauding the Presley estates.

Austin Butler plays the King.

The film went on to take artistic liberty to paint a rather cosy relationship between Elvis and some of the black singers of his time. In particular, it implies that BB King and the King (of Rock and Roll) had a first name kind of a relationship. In modern times, it would be akin to having him on his speed dial. Purists insist that the closest they came together was probably being caught in a photograph together.

The film tries to paint the idea that the public perception of black culture was that of decadence. That a white boy singing in the tune of a black voice was akin to promoting the black style of living amongst the whites. In reality, however, just 30 years previously, the nation was hailing the Harlem Renaissance. This New York City neighbourhood went on to become a Black Cultural mecca to showcase the golden age in African American culture, manifesting in music, stage performance and art.

Tom Hanks as Col. Tom Parker

Elvis' trademark of gyration of hips was viewed as a big crime and kicked a lot of dirt in his days. It was discussed extensively in the dailies. Somewhat erroneously, the movie seems to imply that Elvis volunteered to be enlisted in the US Army as pro quid quo against incarceration for lewd acts in public. It seems that Elvis was drafted, and Parker encouraged this to paint the image of Elvis as an all-American regular guy.

Life is never easy, even for the King of Rock and Roll. Coming from n underprivileged background, the stigma refuses to go away. His brand of music was referred to hillbilly music by a newspaper. Elvis' father, a truck driver with whom Elvis was not really close, had a criminal record and was perhaps easily manipulated by the Colonel for self-interest. Elvis' mother, with whom Elvis had a strong bond, died relatively early in his career. His stint in the Army, it seems, gravely depressed her. She feared losing him, just like how she had lost Elvis' twin at birth.

The stress of being in showbiz obviously had its toll on Elvis. The razzmatazz of fame added strain to his marriage. His philandering ways broke down his marriage. He had to resort to a cocktail of prescription drugs to keep up with the gruelling challenges. This combination of polypharmacy gave him bad constipation, and he succumbed to a myocardial infarct during straining at the toilet.

The Colonel was only interested in making money, it seems. Elvis rebelled by cutting deals with other new agents with new ideas and political statements, but the Colonel was having none of those. He had a stronghold on Elvis' affairs. His later stints at Vegas were apparently to offset Parker's gambling debts. Elvis' last years saw him a lonely man, barely alive, working hard to satiate the appetite of loyal fans.

The higher they rise, the harder they fall.

Problem with biopics...

Thalavii (தலைவி,  Female Leader, Tamil, 2021)

That is the problem with biopics, primarily if the script covers a big chunk of their lifetimes. In the desire to capture as much of the story as possible, the filmmakers will lose much and not do justice to the legacy they intended to show in the first place. It may end up as a documentary instead. So many things keep happening that it appears like a speeding bus. We notice neither the destination of the bus nor the passengers seated it. 

No one is saying, but it is as plain as day that this biography is of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, J Jayalalitha. This is also another problem in Tamil Nadu, where people are equally maniacal about their movie stars as they are with their political leaders. Hence, the scriptwriters walk on eggshells to ensure the storyline does not hurt the sentiments of viewers at the expense of messy court cases and the burning of screening halls. They are careful not to delve too deeply into something too controversial. 

The movie starts on a suspenseful note. It recollects an unpleasant event that happened in the Tamil Nadu State Assembly in 1989. During a heated argument between the ruling and opposition, a melee broke out. It ended with Jaya, the opposition leader, being humiliated and disrobed of her saree. Humiliated, she vowed never to enter the august house unless and until she had been elected as the ruling leader. Quoting the scene in Mahabharata where Draupadi had the same fate, Jaya reminded her enemies of the outcome of the Kaurava clan. She challenged them that she is indeed Draupadi who will rise from the ashes.

From then on, the camera rolls back to 1965 when Jaya is just a doe-eyed young cocky reluctant actress who just entered the studio at her mother's insistence. In comes the larger than life MJR (who is none other than MGR). The story's first half is about their romantic liaison but is careful not to portray Jaya as a home-wrecker. They wanted to cover so much ground that everything becomes wishy-washy, all touch and go, lacking depth. 

After much drama, in which MGR supporters complain that their leader was a lame duck and Jaya initiated everything, we see Jaya playing politics in Delhi, with Indra Gandhi and Rajeev Gandhi. Karunanidhi (portrayed as Karuna) is painted as a greedy, power-hungry leader whose only redeeming point is his oratory skills. 

The producers skillfully ended the story by 1991 when Jaya stepped into the Tamil Nadu State Assembly again as the Chief Minister. They probably did not want to stir the multiple corruption allegations, court cases and imprisonment that came later on.

One cannot help but compare this movie to the miniseries 'Queen', which tells the life and times of Jayalalitha. Perhaps that is how biopics should be narrated in multiple episodes miniseries. If one wants to make a movie instead, it should focus on a particularly momentous event in the life of so and so and delve deep into the crannies. Only then we would do justice to the icon and impress upon the viewer his legacy.

The main actors gave impressive impressions of MGR (Arvind Swamy), Jayalalitha (Kangana Ranaut), Karunanithi (Naseer) and Veerapa (MGR's PA, acted by Samudrakani). Of course, the whole film is about Ranaut and her zest to picturise a lady leader who made Indian ladies proud and convinced the average Indian lady that they are no pushovers in a male-dominated field.

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

We built this country!

Some stories I have told and some that I haven't

Author: VC George (2021)

The powers that be wants us to believe their narrative. They assert that their concocted tale of how history happened keeps true to the natural chain of events. They create a smokescreen to justify the turn of events to explain social strata's current status and how social justice should be. 

Our history likes to paint Indian immigration to the peninsula as a single wave of settlement. With a single stroke of ink, they put all Indian in the same basket. That they were brought in the colonial masters as indentured labour (a milder wording for bonded slaves) to milk out not only the juices of rubber trees but also the milk the wealth of the nation. It was no coincidence that the Malay Peninsular was referred to as "Swarnabhumi" (Land of Gold). In the same breath, these keepers of Nation history declare that the British never really colonised us. They were just administrators. 

Sorry to burst your echo chamber, purveyors of fairy tales. Indians were sailing the seven seas even way before the Malaccan Sultanate, often quoted as the spark of Malay identity. The Malabari Indians even showed Francis Light the route Pulo Pinang, the island they had been frequenting for so long. How many of us know the Malaccan Sultanate kingmaker, Tun Perak, was of Indian extract? But then so was the despotic and corrupt Tun Mutahir, an Indian Muslim. On the royalty side, Raja Kasim who was summoned to the throne after Raja Muhammad's knifing fiasco had a mother who was Indian.

The Indians who reached here were traders and master boat builders in the early part of the country's history. Indian sojourners then sauntered in later at the end of the 19th century, equipped with the best of what English education could offer. They arrived at the behest of the colonial masters to help out in the day-to-day administrative work of a cash cow of a nation that paid for half of the Englishmen's extravagances back in their Motherland. 

Unlike other European colonialists who hurriedly left their posts in a hurry in total pandemonium, the British actually left Malaya with a comprehensive post-independence roadmap. They cast in stone the Constitution and the citizens' charter to ensure equality for all.

Somewhere along the way, this arrangement was hijacked. Politicians with self-serving agendas and a blank cheque for eternal power decided to use what they learnt from George Orwell and Joseph Goebbels to good use. They rewrote as they saw fit.  They knew that he who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. They understood that they can create the illusion of truth by repeating a lie often enough to become the truth. 

They try to say that the indentured Indian labourer got immersed in estate life only to be torn about in the quagmire as the British planters left their plantations and the new owners decided to cash out. The Indian poor were forgotten in the greater scheme of things. Lost of job, home and wanting of skills drove them to the wild side of society, a world of crime and subsequently justified police brutality.

That is why we need more books like these - to tell the contribution of different communities to what was one time expected to emerge as one of emerging Asia's Tigers.  Sadly, the other sibling cubs have all gone places. We are left alone as the sick and wounded feline without a roar and probably needing crutches soon. 

VC George, a 90 years old retired Court of Appeal judge, tell us his life and times growing up in Klang in pre-WW2 Malaya all through his journey into adulthood and his illustrious career. He (Honourable, Lord or just George) has inked his narration in 100 short notes, which tend to end up with an unexpected twist or a witty footnote. This man was there in the flesh during the nation's birth, just like the many others referred to as pendatang (newcomers, just off the boat). These wrongly called pendatangs are the very people who helped to produce enviable students of international calibre, established medical facilities that transformed our health services to be at par with international standards, founded research centres and universities, and gave dignity to august Halls of Justice in the country.  

A good read. It is filled with many anecdotes and 'one liners'. It tells of a time when people would take jokes in a good spirit and not be offended or raise a big hue and cry, claiming victimisation. 

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

Victim or participant?

Queen (Web series, S1, E1-11, Tamil; 2019)
MX Player

It is no secret. Even though there is a declaration at the beginning of each episode that its story is a work of fiction and that any resemblance to anyone living or dead is purely coincidental, it is as plain as day. There is no doubt that this web series is a fictionalised version of the former Chief Minister's life and times and a one-time highest-grossing actress in the Southern cinema, J Jayalalitha.

The give away signs are the characteristic vermilion pottu with a vertical extension, the similarity in the protagonist's familial and educational backgrounds, the fact that the 'Queen' aka Shakthi Sheshadri was a state top scorer like Jayalalitha and that both were of Brahmin ancestry. It does not take much imagination to realise that GM Ravichandran (GMR) is a plagiarisation of MG Ramachandran (MGR). The story is told as flashbacks from an interview which is reminiscent of the classic bare-it-all interaction between the former First Lady of Tamil Nadu and host Simi Garewal.

'Rendezvous with Simi Garewal'

Besides being a googling session to differentiate between fact and fiction, the programme also delves into the philosophical outlook of problems of poverty, single motherhood, the man-eat-man world of acting, the dog-eat-dog world of politics, the patriarchal control of society, the manipulative nature of politicians, mental illness, women empowerment and many more.

The actress who needs no introduction in the Tamil cinema, Ramya Krishnan (or Neelampuri of Padayappa fame), assumes the iconic leader's role. 

Parents try to impose and restrict for wanting to provide the best and avert mistakes that they had encountered and wish had known better. The free-spirited children look at it as clipping the wings, restricting the freedom to explore their full potential. The parents look at their kids as the guidance-seeking that toddlers that they once were. In the children's eyes, the parents are forever that 35-year old who is out to destroy their 'fun'. 

 We have often heard that it is a man's world and how, despite all the works by the bra-burning feminists since the 60s, the fairer sex is still trampled upon.  On the other hand, many females play the victim card and charm to participate and springboard up the ladder using the same system they refer to as toxic, masculine toxicity.

An engaging web series with good nostalgia feel, a good guessing game and profound thoughts on life.

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

People will keep saying something!

Sanju (Hindi; 2018)

That is the problem with modern living. With the plethora of information at their disposal, people think they have everything they need to know at their fingertips. With this knowledge, they believe they are in the best place to make a balanced decision. True, in most situations, the various angles of looking at an issue are laid bare for scrutiny. In other cases, however, the news is generated to keep the writer relevant, so that the publications stay forever in the limelight.

A case in hand is the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in the management of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 infections. Keyboard warriors who before this did not know the difference between a bacteria and virus can now rattle out the pros and cons of each modality of treatment. Equipped with the little knowledge gained from anecdotal studies, they are quick to bring down institutions that have been handing down management guidelines for decades.

They immerse in meaningless banters over social media trying to prove a well-organised world conspiracy to dupe the human race. No matter how much counter-arguments are raised against their assertions, they stand steadfast defending their conviction as if that is their last mission on Earth. As if their ranting is going to change the way how doctors are going to manage their patients. Doctors and nurses have to follow specific clinical practice guidelines when they attend to their patients.  They cannot just modify their approach based on what they had read on WhatsApp.

This movie is a biopic of famous Bollywood actor, Sanjay Dutt, son of Bollywood's thespians, Sunil Dutt and Nargis. Growing up under the spotlight of prowling reporters and parental expectations must have been hard for a young Sanjay Dutt. All the affluence, wrong friends, and partying could not have helped either. Early in his life, he was already trapped in the world various addictive intoxicants - he ticks all the boxes in a questionnaire in a rehab clinic! And the number of girls in his life - some with tragic ends. I was surprised that the often his tabloid-gossiped affairs with Madhuri Dixit was not mentioned in the film.

The show focuses primarily on his substance abuse, his relationship with his parents, and his protracted brush with the law. It was around the time of widespread riots surrounding the destruction of the Babri mosque in 1993. Sanjay Dutt was charged under the  Terror and Destructive Prevention Act for possessing firearms which were linked to the underworld networks and the Bombay bombing. Ranbir Kapoor gives a sterling performance of Dutt, complete with gait, mannerisms and tics.

The presentation may be viewed as a public relation attempt to paint Dutt's  (?whitewashed) version of the turn of events surrounding his arrest. He blames the fiasco solely on the press. He accused the media of accusing in a subtle way and insinuating in the most creative way to influence public opinions. Every day, to keep the gap between paid advertisements relevant, the media moguls employ cocksure self-proclaimed super experts on the most mundane field of expertise to rant repeatedly their undisputable error-free decrees on cable channels in an undisguised stage called trial-by-media. Before the respective lawyers register their cases with the courts, the public opinion is already made. They are the judge and jury. When they become the executioners, that is when all hell will break loose.

The take-home message here is that people will always keep saying something. It is just noise. We should not take it personally. They are just feeding the public's appetite. It is their rice bowl. 

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

We want to dominate

Ford vs Ferrari (2019)

The Ford Motor Company is said to be masters in taking up challenges. In its giant plant, Willow Plant with its one-mile-long assembling line, the company managed to produce B-24 Liberator bombers at the rate of one plane per hour. This was their contribution to the World War 2 efforts to liberate the American soil and their European cousins from tyranny. The company established a reputation for themselves as "the arsenal of democracy" by transforming their production lines to make aeroplanes, tanks and trucks for the armies that defeated Adolf Hitler. They were a pioneer of sorts as women worked in the assembly line and were paid equal wages with men. It, wittingly or unwittingly, to also become "the arsenal of fascism." for its substantial business deals in Nazi Germany. But that is another story for another time.

By the end of WW2, Henry Ford's grandson, Henry Ford II had taken over Ford Motors. He adopted an aggressive business style. When his bid to buy over Ferrari met a dead end, he went ballistic. He made his personal mission to show his dominance in the motor industry.

In the early sixties, Ferrari was overrunning the racing tracks. For six years, back to back, from 1960 to 1965, it won the Le Mans 24 hours endurance race. 

Ford II, through his agents, went on a headhunt to recruit the best racers to beat Ferrari in Le Mans and show them who the boss was. That is where this film fits in. It narrates the story of two American racers - Ken Miles and Carroll Shelby- in a dramatic twist which saw Ford Motor Company finish the Le Man Race in a podium finish.

This film is not just a run-of-mill offering that depicts the expected David vs Goliath scenario where David comes out tops despite all the disadvantages, and everybody is happy. It offers much more than that. The characters are rich. The chemistry between Miles, a war veteran British émigré who is a lowly mechanic because of his short fuse, and Shelby, a sports car salesman who himself was a race winner, is phenomenal.

What makes it more interesting is the controversy surrounding the final outcome of the race and the mystery surrounding Miles' crash during practice at the end of the film.

They say jealousy and greed are unfavourable traits. Clearly, this is not always the case. Many innovative inventions and groundbreaking feats have been achieved through our rapacious desire to dominate and tower over our fellow brothers. 

For background on the history behind the story, see https://time.com/5730536/ford-v-ferrari-true-story/.

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