A Pakistani first?

Joyland (Urdu; 2022)

Director: Saim Sadiq

Quite surprised to see a movie with LGBTQ themes like this coming out from a country like Pakistan. Just to remind ourselves, this is a country that thought breaking away from India would be a good idea so as not to be thumped down by Hindu tyranny. The pioneers wanted to build a secular nation where Muslims could live undisturbed by heathens. As we know, they finally succumbed to the pressures of the holy men and a desperate leader who wanted to cement his powers indefinitely.  He declared the country an Islamic nation, and Islamic teachings would then play an instrumental role in the country's governance.

From then on, it spiralled down the rabbit hole of hopelessness and is currently running around like a dance monkey, trying to get handouts just to pay interest on their mounting loans. The gap between the haves and have-nots is worlds apart. So are the living conditions and the women's empowerment. For a country that had had a female Prime Minister before, it is puzzling that a large section of the community has to bear the brunt of patriarchy. The country is poor, but not the generals and the people linked to the Army. Some enjoy the fruits of owning property overseas and the pleasures forbidden in a system they are trying to uphold in their own nation.

This is a story about a domineering father, his two sons, and their respective wives. They all live under the same roof with a clearly defined hierarchy. The father decides everything. The wife of the elder of the two sons goes into labour to deliver their third daughter. The family were expecting a boy and is naturally disappointed. The second son is jobless, while his wife is a beautician. They have not decided whether to start their family.

The second son, Haider,  gets a job as a backup dancer in a troupe led by a transgender person. They start an intimate relationship. Along the way, Haider's wife gets pregnant with a baby girl, but she kills herself.

It is quite a gripping movie, interesting and keeps its viewers guessing the direction of the story. It went on to secure many accolades, including being the first Pakistani film to be shortlisted for the Academy Awards and to premiere at the Cannes Film Festival. But we know it made it there because of the subject matter, which the West sees as progressive. And, of course, it was initially banned in Pakistan, but later allowed after objectionable scenes were cut.

It is funny that in the protagonist's family, patriarchy is followed so tightly. The male members decide, and the females just follow without batting an eyelid. The males order and the females follow without a squel. However, when a transgender rules the roost, like the troupe, she toes the line. Nobody disobeys. Even the most macho of the group falls in line. The transgender character is very aggressive and busy. She has no qualms about being explicit and resorting to profanities. She uses her physical charm to lure men and the testosterone given by nature to exert her prowess. She can do it because she defies the social norms.

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

div style="text-align: center;">

Violence, the necessary evil?

Sun Tzu

A couple was asked how they maintained peace in their household. The husband replied, "we clearly demarcate our respective scope of duties. My wife would handle the smaller issues like what to cook, where to get groceries, and how to balance the household budget." 

I, on the other hand, am left to deal with larger issues, such as peace agreements in Gaza, airport security, and the world's geopolitical strategies. In that way, we do not cross paths. There is peace within the family. 

My secondary school friends, mostly males, seem to have taken the cue from the couple mentioned above. In the WhatsApp group they share, they are quite fierce about condemning one side's perceived cruelty and justifying the other's right to defend themselves during discussions on unrest in the Middle East. Another member would respond by saying violence can never be justified. An eye for an eye would only leave the whole world blind. 

Another wise guy retorted that it is idiotic to subscribe to Jesus' idea of turning the other cheek. Many current commentators are quite certain that it was not Gandhi's passive resistance or satyagraha, which he began in 1907, that led to India’s independence in 1947. They argue that the Royal Indian Navy revolt in February 1946, sparked by the trial of captured Bose's Indian National Army (INA) prisoners of war in Delhi, was the real catalyst. The threat of thousands of sailors mutinying against the colonial authorities terrified the oppressors. Meanwhile, the Indians, left uninformed by the British media about resistance from locally recruited soldiers, suddenly became highly motivated.

Similarly, a select group of individuals in my WhatsApp group support the actions taken by the Palestinians against what they perceive as Israeli oppression. They justify Hamas's stance on 'teaching the Zionists a lesson'. They oppose turning the other cheek, preferring instead to strike the offending hand before it lands a second blow. The former might argue that doing so would make the whole world blind, not to mention the hardships it would cause. They often quote Sun Tzu, who said, 'In war, no one wins,' suggesting that wars should be avoided. In reality, Sun Tzu did not promote abstaining from war. Instead, he advocated using diplomacy, strategies, and intelligence—well before conflict arises—to prevent direct confrontation and bloodshed. 

Justifying Nathuram Godse's violent decision to kill Gandhi, a lifelong advocate of violence, he argued there is a moral duty to resist and overpower an enemy by force. Godse cited examples of Rama and his men fighting Ravana, as well as young Krishna overpowering the tyrant Kansa. History is filled with violence. For one era to end and another to begin, Nature marks it with violence; whether it is the Big Bang, the start of Kaliyuga, or even the extinction of the dinosaurs. 

In that manner, the discussion continued without reaching any conclusions. Everyone clung to the topic until it reached a lull. Then somebody would suddenly go off topic, and at that point, everyone would have another subject to discuss. 

And believe you me, my friends are all Jacks of All Trades who would never admit to being Masters of None. In conclusion, they have simply become very opinionated armchair geopolitical critics who could only stir up a storm in a teacup.

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

div style="text-align: center;">

A hidden family secret!

My Mom Jayne (2025)

Produced and Directed: Marishka Hargitay

https://www.hbo.com/movies/my-mom-jayne-a-film-by-mariska-hargitay

I thought it would be one of those soap operas about a daughter losing her mother too soon and how she had an incomplete life growing up without her mother. True, it covers all of that, but it also encompasses much more.

To begin, this documentary was presented by Mariska Hargitay, who is closely associated with the long-running TV police procedural drama 'Law & Order: SVU'. (For Mike Myers fans, she is also remembered in 'The Love Guru' as Myers' obsession).

Mariska Hargitay is the daughter of Jayne Mansfield, the sultry star of 1960s Hollywood, and her second husband, Mickey Hargitay, a Hungarian-born bodybuilder. Jayne was married three times and had a few affairs in between. In 1967, she was killed in a car accident when the vehicle she was travelling in collided with the back of a truck. She was accompanied by three of her children and her solicitor, with whom she was dating. The crash was severe, with the car sliced at the top as it went under the truck, leading to rumours that Mansfield was decapitated. She was not. The children, including Mariska, who were travelling with her, survived. The three adults lost their lives. It is believed that after their tragic accident, Americans made it compulsory for tractor-trailers to be fitted with 'Mansfield Bars', underride guards designed to prevent cars from sliding underneath in collisions.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/11/story-behind-
infamous-sophia-loren-jayne-mansfield-photo

By that time, Jayne was already divorced from her second husband, Mickey Hargitay, as well as her third husband. Mickey and his new wife took in all the children as their own. Mariska was especially close to her father, Mickey. Mariska, the fourth child, was three when her mother died and naturally has no recollection of the times spent with her mother. Because of the press's constant gossip, rumours, and vilification of Jayne Mansfield's life and accident, Mickey forbade the children from reading anything about their mother. Any information Mariska received about their mother was through her elder sister (#1), who was fourteen years her senior.

 

Mariska revealed a secret she had kept close to her heart for 30 years in this documentary. That is indeed what draws the crowd to the show. When she was 25, she was invited by a Jayne Mansfield fan to view his collection of pictures. It was here that she was aware of the circulating rumour that Mariska could be Nelson Sardelli's daughter. During the tail-end of Mansfield's marriage to Mickey, she was having an open affair with a stage entertainer. Their affair ended soon after she became pregnant, and she returned to Mickey. 

https://koolfmabilene.com/the-story-behind-these-safety-
bars-on-semi-trucks-ties-into-a-famous-actress/

Hariska met Sardelli, and finally, the cat was out of the bag. Sardelli was indeed the father, and Mickey filled in the gap. The rest of the documentary is about an outpouring of emotions upon meeting a lost father, appreciating the magnanimity of Hargitay, and trying to understand the mind of her mother, who has gone through a lot, juggling motherhood with succeeding as a successful, yet somewhat stereotypical, blonde on screen. For the record, Mansfield was no dumb blonde. She is said to have an IQ of between 149 and 163. She could also play the violin and the piano at a high performance level.

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

In God's Army?

Incendies (Great Blaze, French, English, Arabic; 2010)

Director: Dennis Villenue

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1255953/

This film has garnered numerous awards and is widely regarded as one of Denis Villeneuve's greatest directorial achievements. It is a compelling film that not only unveils the brutality of wars and conflicts driven by beliefs but also depicts the trauma that ordinary people suffer and often carry to their graves. 

Like the mother in this film, who escaped civil war in the Middle East (probably Lebanon) and spent her final years bitter, she had a strained relationship with her only remaining relatives, her twin adult children.

When her appointed trustee, her former employer, reads out her will, the mother has outlined certain conditions. For the first time in their lives, they learn of the existence of a half-brother in their mother's country of origin. The children are tasked with delivering two letters, one to their half-brother and another to their father. Reluctantly, the children undertake a journey to the Middle East. After navigating a country torn apart by civil war along religious lines, they compile a composite sketch of their mother, illustrating what she endured as a teenager. Her first love with a Muslim boy was opposed and led to her family's disapproval. She had a child out of wedlock, who was left behind when she left her home.

She tried to improve herself through education, but a civil war disrupted all her efforts. Embroiled in the underground student movement, she went on to assassinate a radical Muslim leader. She was imprisoned, tortured, and raped. Her village was bombed, and her illegitimate child ended up in an orphanage. The child was recruited as a child soldier by the Muslim rebel group. What happens at the end will leave a bitter aftertaste. There's nothing obscene about the whole thing. Such events often occur during wars and civil unrest. Moral fibre and basic decency are lost. Rape, looting, and senseless killings happen when a society is broken. Moreover, when perpetrators carry out their acts in the name of God, they believe it is justified, as God is marching alongside them.

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

Act your age!

Under Suspicion (2000)

Director: Stephen Hopkins

https://www.primevideo.com/-/tr/detail/Under-Suspicion/
0FJXXG5CM6WBS4GW9UT054Z0GW

This is another character-driven film featuring two Hollywood heavyweights, Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman. The setting is straightforward. A prominent tax attorney is fully prepared to deliver an important speech at a fundraising event. He is called in for what was meant to be a brief questioning by the local police chief. However, the interview becomes increasingly convoluted. The tax attorney's personal life is laid bare and scrutinised. It becomes so intense that it drains both parties, and the questioning turns into an interrogation. The situation escalates to such a degree that the tax attorney is charged with the murder of two young prostitutes. 

His wife is called in for a separate interview, which further reveals intimate bedroom secrets and close family confidences. The tension escalates dramatically. The tax attorney ultimately confesses to murdering both young girls. Just then, a police officer barges in to announce that the real culprit was caught 'in the act'!

The thought that crossed my mind concerns self-realisation. There is a time and place for everything. Life opens a window of opportunity, but unfortunately, it remains open for only a short duration. We must seize it within that time frame, after which the same window may be closed to someone else. We are not welcome there. In fact, we are told it is utterly wrong.

The protagonist in this film had a healthy attraction to girls during his adolescent years. Perhaps due to his ambition to improve his economic situation or establish his career, romantic relationships were set aside. He dedicated all his efforts to advancing in his career and social standing. Life moved on around him. 

He suddenly cannot return to the dating scene years later and pick up where he left off, pursuing the same adolescent girl he had once been interested in. This is entirely wrong. The protagonist discovered this the hard way. As time passed, along with empowerment and education, things changed. 

One will be in big trouble if they don't act their age. Realise your age and realise that some kind of decorum is expected of you.

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

Normalising woke culture?

Kadhalikka Neramillai (No time to love,  காதலிக்க நேரமில்லை;  Tamil, 2025)

Director: Kiruthiga Udhayanidhi

https://www.moneycontrol.com/entertainment/kadhalikka-neramillai-ott-release-
when-and-where-to-watch-this-romantic-drama-starring-jayam-ravi-a
nd-nithiya-menon-article-12936421.html

It would have been just another Netflix recommendation that I would have ignored. Having such an unoriginal name, which had been used before, did not excite me. For the ignoramus, in 1964, the Tamil cinema was taken back by Sridhar's superhit. Its psychedelic, picturesque Eastman moment came to be defined as Tamil cinema's first rom-com. The hit song. 'Visvanathan, velai vendum!' became to be sung as the voice of defiance of the oppressed.

My interest was piqued when a YouTuber of a channel I follow went into a tirade trying to tear down Netflix and its moviemakers for thinking out of such a crass movie. Other Tamil movie reviewers were kind to the movie, praising it for its modern approach to storytelling and refreshing filmmaking. They probably did not want to offend the First Family of Tamil Nadu, as the ruling CM's family is involved in the film's direction, production and distribution. My YouTuber accused Netflix and the producers of trying to tear down every fibre of decency and threaten to destroy the Indian way of life. The prescribed Indian or Tamil way of living, where a female is supposed to follow specific rules regarding sex, weddings and patriarchal lead, is torn down.

The movie starts with a rebellious daughter, Shriya, working as an architect in Chennai, asking her mother how sure she was that her unmarried daughter was still a virgin. The mother almost faints whilst the father ducks down, avoiding the confrontation that ensued. 

To put things in order, it is a story about a daughter who plans to migrate to the US after a civil marriage with her 4-year-old boyfriend and obtains her visa. One day, after returning from work earlier than usual, she finds her husband in bed with her best friend. She annuls her wedding.

The 1964 version

In another town, Bangalore, another architect, Sid, is all set to engage his model girlfriend. After a minor misunderstanding, the fiancée decides not to turn up. As is often the case, he goes on bedding beaux one after another for revenge. 

Meanwhile, Shriya realises that her biological clock is ticking away and wants a baby as soon as possible. What does she do? She goes straight for donor insemination. And guess whose sperm she receives? Don't ask how, but she receives Sid's from another state. Sid had once accompanied his gay friend to donate his sperm for future use. Sid does the same. This gay friend reappears later to marry his partner. This became a point of contention for the commentator as if the film is normalising gay weddings in India. For the record, while the third gender is recognised in Indian law, gay weddings are not. 

The purists also have issues with the casual portrayal of alcohol consumption by both sexes and across all layers of society. The familial decorum, such as the parent-child barrier often observed in traditional Indian families, seems to have disappeared. Single parenting is depicted as the most natural thing. It is trying to shove in the Woke's gender agenda. 

Most Indian movies end with all the characters agreeing that the Indian way of life is supreme as if to resolve all the issues. No, not here. The protagonist decides to live with the sperm donor as her live-in partner. 

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

The ever complex Rubik's cube of life?

Recently, I caught an obituary announcement on social media. An old working senior had passed on. Even though my interaction with that person was short, it left an unpleasant aftertaste. From his demeanour, I learnt how not to disrespect my subordinates. This person was so vile in his comments during high-level meetings that my boss would ask me or one of my colleagues to accompany him for moral support. His scoldings were so personal that they bordered on testing my department's competence and even intelligence.

Everyone let out an air of relief when he was transferred for a promotion. Why a person of such arrogance should be rewarded was the million-dollar question. But then, we were glad that our problem was somebody else's. That was the last I heard of him until the fateful announcement.

There it was, the photograph of him with a toothful smile on his face, innocence oozing down his face, and religious symbols below it. It was his obituary announcement. Under that, a long list of his friends and relatives left touching comments. The impression that I got was that he must have left such an indelible mark in their lives. Then there were comments about how good a father, an uncle and a resource person he had been.

We tend to forget that doctors, engineers, shopkeepers, labourers, and security guards are not defined by the uniform or outfit they don. Outside their regular working hours, they are expected to assume other roles—a parent, a comedian, a musician, or a marathon runner. They may suck at their daytime job, but that does not render them beyond reprieve. There is an alternate universe for them.

That incident reminded me of the life and times of Babur, the brutal founder of the Mughal dynasty. A great conqueror he was, he never liked India. He thought that Indians were uncultured and their land was unimpressive compared to Afghanistan. He wanted their wealth, though.

In 1530, his Humayun fell hopelessly sick. The royal physicians gave up. Babur summoned the Sufi priests. They suggested that Babur should sacrifice something very dear to him. Somebody suggested that the Kohinoor (or some other precious stones, unclear) be given away. The trouble is the diamond belonged to Humayun, not Babur. So it was not his to give away. Instead, Babur circumambulated Humayun's bed three times, recited a prayer to Allah to take his life in exchange for his son's, cried out and fell sick to die three months later.*

There are these multifaceted views of an individual. What we see are representations of part of the picture.

*https://www.srichinmoylibrary.com/me-8

Sri Chinmoy, The Moghul Emperors, Agni Press, 2001

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

Till death do us part?

Over the past few years, a couple of my childhood friends had the misfortune of having lost their spouses to cancer. One of them fought the deadly disease tooth and nail, but unfortunately, after three long years, the disease got the better of her. He lost the good fight. My devastated friend went awol for an entire year, deciding that solitaire was the best remedy for a broken heart. The societal expectation for the grieved to open up his emotions and replay them like a broken record was not for him. 

One year after her demise, at 60, he introduced his new other half to the world. Conversations and felicitations on his plunge revealed that it was a necessary indulgence for him. Even though his children were married and he was a grandfather three times over, he felt the need for intimate touch and passion. He is a happy man. The memory of his old wife is very much alive, and he will cherish them till the end of time.

Another friend with a couple of late teenage, young adult daughters, lost his wife after a long tiring battle with ovarian malignancy. Still reeling from the loss, he was still not out of the woods yet when I spoke to him six months after her demise. He still felt her presence around the house, and his mind kept playing, reminiscing the good times, playing back obscure events in their wedded bliss to miss her more. 

I slowly introduced the idea of finding a replacement to fill the void; he asserted that he was pretty sure. At that juncture, he only wanted to spend the rest of his years living in dear memory of his duly departed. He feels complete without a need to build a new one. 

Out of curiosity, I enquired from another dear childhood buddy whose wife is hearty, healthy, and kicking. Heaven forbids, if his partner were to die, what would he do? Is remarriage on the plate? Without batting an eyelid, he said he would envisage himself taking a new partner. It is not as much for physical gratification but for social interaction and communication. He felt that was necessary for healthy mental health. 

Yet, when posed with a similar question, another pessimistic realist friend viewed his one stint in matrimony as enough to last his whole lifetime. Gone are the days when intimacy and husband-wife interaction played a pivotal role in his daily life. He had started enjoying the company of he and himself, exploring new frontiers to expand his knowledge and experience. He guesses that his wife is in the same boat, too. Over the years, embroiled in the hard knocks of life, they grew apart, from being co-dependent to interdependent to independent, sometimes contradictory just for the kick of it, able to stand alone to face the music. 

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