Please remove the veil of ignorance!

Burqa City (Short Film; 2019)
Director: Fabrice Bracq

https://snewz.in/aamir-kirans-laapataa-
ladies-accused-of-copying-arabic-
film-burqa-city/425739/

After France banned the wearing of the burqa and niqab in public in 2010, a satirical 19-minute short film was produced. It is set in an unnamed town in the Middle East where all women are required to wear the full burqa and are not expected to speak. Every woman wears a black burqa.

Every lady is seen walking behind her husband, seen but not heard, simply shadowing quietly, even whispering when asked a question. The city is quite strict, not allowing ladies to wander alone. The moral police will arrest them when they are unaccompanied.

Against this background, a newly married loving couple goes shopping. After returning with their groceries, they head back to their car. Here, the owner of a Mercedes accuses the husband of denting his vehicle. A minor quarrel breaks out. In the confusion, the wives get into the wrong vehicles. 

Souleyman, the husband, to his horror, discovers that he has returned with the accuser's wife. Then, the comedy continues as he goes back to the grocery, reports to the police, and more misadventures follow. In fact, Souleyman's wife misinterpreted his instructions and entered the wrong car, while the other lady deliberately wanted to escape an abusive marriage. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H1EdybDSHc

This clip came to my attention when someone on social media said that replacing the burqa in 'Burqa City' with a ghoongat results in Lapaadaa Ladies (2023). Even before all these, in 1999, there was a feature film on Dordashan TV titled 'Ghoongat Ke Pat Khol', which tells a comedic tale of mixed-up brides. The storyline is eerily similar to 'Lapaadaa Ladies', featuring brides with crimson-hued veils (ghoongat), trains, and all. The film was directed by debutante director Anant Mahadevan. The original film can be viewed on YouTube. It does not require much intelligence to see that the entire storyline of 'Lappadaa Ladies' was lifted from the TV feature film 'Ghoongat Ke Pal Khol'. 

https://www.bollywoodshaadis.com/articles/laapataa-ladies-is-copied-
from-a-spanish-film-62215

The controversy surrounding these three films centred on the oppression of women. On one side, netizens loudly claim that 'Burqa City' is riddled with Islamophobia and opposes women's empowerment because women choose to dress as they do. On the other side, Hindus argue that, despite the progress made by Indian women, especially Hindu women, leftists and Bollywood attempt to depict rural Indian women in a dull and negative light.

The intriguing fact about the wearing of veils by Indians can be dated back to the period when Muslim forces infiltrated India. After conquering a city, the Muslim conquerors would ride on horseback, seizing their due loot, such as money and kafir women. Muslim women were kept out of reach. Non-Muslim women were considered war spoils. The Hindu women soon realised that by covering their heads, the horsemen would simply pass them by, mistaking them for one of their own. Consequently, every Hindu lady began covering her head to avoid the violent advances of the marauding invaders. In regions where their threat was less severe, like the south of the Vindhya Hills, there was no need to adopt a veil. There were no prancing horsemen, and South Indian women did not need to wear purdah or dupatta.

Kabir
https://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/
Poets/K/Kabir/index.html

'Ghoongat Ke Pat Khol' is a verse from India's highly esteemed 15th-century mystic poet, Kabir. He was a contemporary of Guru Nanak and is honoured by Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs alike. Born into a Muslim weaving family in Varanasi, he grew up learning about Hinduism from a Guru. His verses are even mentioned in the Grand Sahib. When he referenced this verse, he was signalling the need to lift one's veil of ignorance. Man must free himself from the five impediments (lust, anger, greed, attachment, and ego) that create the illusory veil obstructing his potential to appreciate the enchanting divine music of Life. 

“Do away with your veil ( illusion )

And you shall meet your beloved ( Divine lord )

The lord resides in every living Creature,

Why speak ill words against anyone?

Flaunt not this wealth and your Youth,

Deceptive is your Drum music that carries five notes.

Shake off not your hope,

Light a lamp within and illuminate

this Palace like vacant space.

In the Colourful Palace within,

You can meet your priceless beloved only

By perfecting the Skill of meditation.

Kabir says by this practice,

You attain supreme bliss

That keeps the inner music Chiming day and night.

(Kabir )

(Autar Mota 09.04.2014 )

 

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

The Iron Man of India

Sardar (1993)

Director: Ketan Mehta

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240879/

Sardar Vallabhai Patel is said to be the best Prime Minister India never had. Dubbed the Iron Man of India, a title given to him by Mountbatten, some believe he might have led India along a different path if he had been chosen as the first Prime Minister instead of Nehru.

It was 1946. World War II had just ended, leaving England to tend its wounds. It faced a huge bill to pay and had lost its dominance on the world stage. The sun had finally set on the British Empire. The Anglo-Saxon cousins across the Atlantic, the Americans, had come out on top, as shown by the Conference in Yalta. Managing the colonies had become an expensive undertaking. England had to cut its losses and relinquish control over the colonies. 

With that background, India had just formed its interim government. The Congress Party had recently won the elections. They were preparing to select the first Prime Minister of independent India. 

Maulana Azad, at that time, was the President of the Congress Party. He had been its leader since 1940. No elections were held since 1940 after the Party announced the 'Quit India' movement, and as a result, most, if not all, of its senior leaders were behind bars. Gandhi, as the senior member who commands profound respect from his members, expressed his displeasure with a leader seeking reelection. Azad withdrew his nomination for reelection as the President. 

Fifteen regional and state Congress committees were tasked with nominating their candidates. Twelve of these nominated Patel. Nehru got none, and the remaining three committees chose not to nominate anyone. 

Surprisingly, Gandhi vetoed their decision. He requested that Patel withdraw his candidacy and suggested the Cambridge-educated, modern-looking Nehru to become the Party President and Patel to be his Deputy. Being a 'respectful lieutenant' and showing his respect for Gandhi, Patel obliged. 

Gandhi believed the modern, forward-thinking Nehru would be a better choice than the traditional-thinking Patel. However, insiders suggest that it was probably Gandhi's fear that Nehru might cause trouble if he was not selected. The Congress might split, and the British could use that as an excuse to delay self-rule. 

Being the compassionate man Gandhi was towards the Muslim plight, he thought Patel, as the Prime Minister of India, would be harsh against Muslims. 

 

Nehru became the Prime Minister with Patel as his Deputy and Home Minister during the tumultuous times of newly independent India. With Pakistan being the albatross around India's neck and Patel and Nehru disagreeing on everything about the handling of Kashmir, it is a surprise how the Indian machinery remained intact. 

King Hari Singh initially aimed to remain independent, like Nepal and Bhutan. When Pakistani agents infiltrated Kashmir, Hari Singh abdicated to Jammu. He consented to accession to India. Nehru, contrary to Patel's suggestion, called in the United Nations and advocated for a plebiscite. Patel had wanted the Indian Army to march in. The result of this approach led to repeated unrest, two subsequent wars, and the latest confrontation. 

Junagadh, a princely state with a Hindu majority and no shared border with Pakistan, had a Muslim ruler determined to join Pakistan. His subjects revolted against him, and he abdicated in favour of Pakistan. With India's support, Junagadh was integrated into the State of Gujarat. 

Another state, quite distant from Pakistan, that wished to join the dominion was the landlocked state of Hyderabad. It was surrounded by regions under India's control. The Nizam, once the wealthiest man in the world, also ruled over a Hindu majority. Using his immense wealth, he managed to procure arms from Europe through British arms dealers, pre-Partition. The Nizam had deployed a paramilitary group, the Razakars, led by Qasim Razvi, to terrorise Hindu peasants into submission. Meanwhile, the Communists were also attempting to benefit from the situation. Patel, citing Nehru's departure as an excuse, used the nation's machinery to launch police action to forcibly annexe Hyderabad into the union.

Nehru and Patel's differences were challenged by a series of resignation letters, but they were softened by Gandhi's persuasion. Gandhi's assassination compelled these two leaders to collaborate until Patel's death.

 

In recognition of his contributions to India's political integration, the Statue of Unity, the tallest statue in the world, was erected in Gujarat.

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

The filth of the city?

The Asphalt Jungle (1955)

Director: John Huston

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
Category:The_Asphalt_Jungle_(film)

This is one of those movies where viewers do not get attached to any of the actors but rather enjoy the storyline, dialogue, and the nitty-gritty of how a crime is organised. This is way, way back before we had 'The Italian Job' and the like. 

Every character is vital in the film, yet none should overshadow the others. The main plot revolves around a heist, masterminded by Doc, a recently released model prisoner who devised a major diamond theft while working as a librarian during his incarceration. 

He approaches a small-time bookie, Cobby, with his plan. Doc needs money to pay the right men for the job. A seemingly wealthy lawyer, Emmerich, then arrives, promising to finance the operation and handle the loot. In reality, Emmerich is broke and plans to cheat the robbers out of the jewels to keep them for himself. 

The real reason people tuned in to watch this movie is Marilyn Monroe. She appears as Emmerich's ditsy mistress and may be the cause of Emmerich's poverty, as she is costly to keep. Monroe leaves a lasting impression on viewers and establishes herself as a true legendary performer here. Her sultry, naive 'damsel in distress' persona stands out in scenes where she has to lie for her master. 

A locksmith is hired, and a local thug named Dix is brought in. Dix is a disillusioned man who wears a perpetual frown. He is fed up with city living and yearns to return to the peaceful country life that he left behind for a better life in the city. Now, he sees the city as an indelible dirt that permanently stains the skin. In his bitterness, he fails to appreciate the love that his girlfriend, Doll, shows him.

The robbery proceeds as planned without a hitch, but the TNT used to break the safe detonates nearby alarms, alerting the police. The thieves escape with the merchandise, but not before a confrontation with a guard. One of the robbers is shot, but all three manage to flee in the pre-arranged getaway car. From that moment, it becomes a downward spiral as each one falls apart due to internal squabbles and police apprehension.

It is a very intense film. One can almost feel the heat and the filth that the city exudes. To the characters in the movie, breaking the law is normalised. The police are not friends, but people you need to be wary of. They have seen enough corrupt policemen. The film also features many memorable and classic lines.

Experience has taught me never to trust a policeman. Just when you think one's all right, he turns legit.

One way or another, we all work for our vice.

Home is where the money is.

Worth the while. 8/10. It went on to win many accolades and was selected for preservation in the US National Registry as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

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

This is something that happens!

Magnolia (1999)

Written & Directed: Paul Thomas Anderson

https://letterboxd.com/film/magnolia/

This is another bizarre and busy movie with multiple storylines unfolding simultaneously. One becomes breathless just keeping up with the flow. So many characters are embroiled in so many life issues and are caught in wrong life decisions that make one wonder how all the loose threads will be tied up. True enough, everything makes sense at the end. Like the instance that is mentioned in the opening scene, bizarre things sometimes happen.

In the opening scene, a man jumps down from the top of a 20-storey apartment building. During his fall, he passes by the apartment that he occupies with his parents. His parents are forever fighting. The mother often threatens the father with an unloaded gun. On that fateful day, however, the gun was loaded and it went off, missing the father by inches but hitting the son who happened by the apartment at that very instant when the weapon was discharged. It killed the son instantaneously, who would have saved him, as there were hoardings on the sixth floor which would have broken his fall. The parents were charged and convicted of murder. The son had earlier loaded the gun as he was fed up with the parents' frequent combative showdowns. Yes, these things sometimes can happen in the greater scheme of things.

The Complicated Plot
By Vagary at the English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6395902

On a random day in California, a policeman investigates an apartment for disturbing public peace to find a body. He goes to another apartment when neighbours complain about the noise.

A child prodigy takes part in a quiz (What Kids Do Know) show with an overbearing father breathing down his neck. The host of the show is a very sick man. He is having cancer, and his estranged daughter wants to have nothing to do with him as he may have abused her sexually. 

One of the early winners of the show, an ex-boy genius, is running around like a headless chicken, as he does not know what to do with his life.

The producer of the show is another dying man who is longing to patch up with his son, a fast-talking motivational guru. The producer's nurse tries to contact the estranged son to reunite them. 

The event that essentially concludes all conflict is when it rained frogs. Yes, it not only rains cats and dogs, but sometimes it rains frogs too. It is a known phenomenon when small aquatic creatures like fish and frogs are swept up in storms, travel miles, and fall from the sky through rain clouds. Many places in Britain, Hungary, Serbia, Japan and Uruguay have experienced this. This phenomenon may have Biblical significance, as mentioned in the Old Testament. God's wrath upon the Egyptians for enslaving the Israelites caused Him to infest the Nile with immeasurable numbers that they stank till the high heavens.

An interesting movie about growing pains, disappointments, family disputes, headaches, wandering of the mind, reconciliation and restitution.

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

A love song for a serial killer?

Moodu Pani (Tamil, மூடு பனி; 1980)
Screenplay & Direction: Balu Mahendra

The only time this movie is remembered is when the superhit song from its original soundtrack is played. And, mind you, this song is played at many functions. That super-duper hit song I am referring to is 'En Iniya Pon Nillave' (என் இனிய பொன் நிலாவே). It does not take much to recognise that song. A few seconds into its opening guitar sequence, it clicks. The song was composed by Illayaraja, also known as 'The Maestro' these days, as more music connoisseurs are realising that his compositions are complex and deserving of orchestral performances.

Like many of his compositions, this song can be regarded as another masterpiece. Although it might seem, at first glance, to be a Western piece featuring prominent guitar sounds and rhythm, it actually blends elements of Carnatic and Hindustani ragas. Naturally, flutes are a universal instrument. Indian musical experts state that this particular song is performed in Natabhairavi, a Carnatic raga. Apparently, two talas were employed in this song, one after the other, to express the discordant emotions conveyed in the scene. 

In the scene, the protagonist, a mentally disturbed man who grew up witnessing his mother repeatedly being abused by his father while keeping a mistress, develops an intense aversion to women, especially sex workers. A psychiatrist suggests that he should get married. When a girl he proposes to declines his advances, he turns into a kidnapper. He confines the woman in a bungalow to coerce her into submission. Realising that resistance is futile, she tries to put up a front in front of him. She pretends to show genuine interest in him while the kidnapper pours out his heart. Reflecting these emotions, the tune is designed to oscillate between creating an uneasy feeling and an outpouring of emotions; between anxiety and love.

The song is played in the minor chord (Aeolian scale) of melancholy, often associated with sadness and break-ups. There is inherent loneliness and despair in both parties. The girl had her intentions to escape her captor, and the man had his tumultuous emotions and bottled-up rage. This is not a happy love song. There is no jubilation. It is a glimpse into the mind of a madman. The melody and lyrics are not mere fillers to complement the film score but serve to reinforce the story and reveal what is not explicitly stated in the lines.

This is Illayaraja's 100th film, in which he composed the songs. It belongs to one of the rare genres of Tamil cinema—a psychological thriller written in the vein of Alfred Hitchcock's 'Psycho'. Like Norman Bates, the protagonist kills women and keeps the remains of his dead mother under the sheet. 

Here's a little trivia. The initial tune he submitted for this scene was 'Iniya Nila Pozhikirathu' (இனிய நிலா பொழிகிறது). However, it was rejected by the director because it sounded too cheerful and optimistic. This song was later utilised in another film, Payanangal Mudivatharvillai, which also became a hit song. Gangai Amaran, Illayaraja's brother, composed the lyrics, and KJ Yesudas lent his melodic voice to the final version.

Reference: Youtube: Oru Naal Pothuma Ep 186

Sad love song!

Hopeful love song!

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

Not illegal, just skirting the truth.

Illegal (1955)
Director: Lewis Allen

https://www.blu-ray.com/Illegal/331947/

I ended up watching this film after seeing Mariska Hargitay's documentary about her mother, Jayne Mansfield. This must be one of Jayne Mansfield's earlier films, in which she played a minor role.

It is observed that Mansfield's character reflects that of Marilyn Monroe in 'Asphalt Jungle', another noir film. From the beginning, viewers are given an impression of how the law can be so flexible that it can be bent to suit the perspectives of the articulate speaker and a clever lawyer. An innocent man is sentenced to death, only for the actual perpetrator to make a dying declaration. His confession arrived too late, as it could not prevent the execution. Even though everything was done legally, the reality was that an innocent person was dead.

Then, the said lawyer, who had won the case as the prosecuting officer, after going on a drinking binge, defends another man in court illegally when someone boasts that he is a professional boxer and cannot be defeated. The lawyer punches him with rolled-up coins under his clenched hand to make his point.

Lawyers often manipulate the law to serve their own interests. When the mentioned lawyer transitions into private practice, an accountant arrives at his office with a stash of money. He had misappropriated funds from his firm. Here, we see how the clever lawyer shields his client from prosecution while protecting the accountant's employers from the embarrassment of losing the client's money. He does all this not to uphold justice but to prioritise his personal gains. Above all, he ensures he receives his professional fees first. Therefore, a lawyer works for his own benefit, bending the law and the truth to suit himself and his client, but certainly not in pursuit of universal justice.

The story shows him becoming involved with the local mob. Ironically, he ends up working for, unwittingly, the same person he once despised as a prosecutor. The film highlights his theatrical antics in a different trial. His client is accused of poisoning someone and causing their death. To demonstrate that the supposed poison was harmless, the lawyer drinks the contents of the bottle displayed during the trial as Exhibit A. This casts doubt on the chemist's report to the court, allowing his client to evade conviction. What no one else knew was that the lawyer left during an expected recess, due to the uproar caused by his antics, to undergo stomach lavage and evacuate the poison from his system. 

So, when lawyers say that having adequate legal redress is a human right, what they really mean is that we should find a way to get you out. Nothing more, nothing less! Jayne Mansfield portrays a dumb blonde musician and mistress who gets tossed around like a ragdoll but rises to the occasion when her conscience pricks. 

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

The prick of the conscience?

Scarlet Street (1945)
Director: Fritz Lang

This film bears a striking resemblance to Lang's 1944 movie, 'The Woman at the Window' (1944). Not only are the lead actors identical, but the plot is also the same. Both stories depict a middle-aged married man engaging in an illicit liaison with another woman, a femme fatale. The 1944 version sought to avoid controversy through a subtle, cautionary ending—that it was all just a dream—and thus avoided the scrutiny of censors. The 1945 film attracted opposition from censorship boards in three states: New York, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. These boards believed it was their duty to censor films that were 'obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilegious' or whose screening 'would tend to corrupt morals or incite to crime.'

Edward G Robinson portrays the most uninteresting man in the world. Working as a cashier for 25 years with an impeccable record, Chris is trapped in a loveless marriage. Chris's wife, Adele, is a foul-mouthed woman who thinks Chris is a good-for-nothing. She lives in the memory of her first husband, a policeman who drowned trying to save someone. In reality, her first husband was a crooked policeman who was attempting to rob the drowning woman. He also faked his own death to escape his wife's loud mouth.

Chris rescues a pretty lady, Kitty, who is being harassed by a roadside thug. Chris believes the lady is in love with him and tries to start an affair with her. Chris has a hobby: he paints. Unbeknownst to him, his paintings are quite good. Long story short, Kitty and the thug are actually a couple. They try to cheat the love-struck Chris out of his paintings, and Kitty sells them as her own. After discovering he'd been duped, Chris gets into an argument and kills her. Kitty's boyfriend is framed for her death and eventually faces the gallows. Chris gets away free, but his conscience pricks him, and he soon becomes mad, wandering aimlessly without a job or a home.

The censors believed that Chris' not paying for his crime in the traditional sense was not seen as poetic justice. The fact that the police and the courts were condemning the wrong person did not cast the police in a positive light during a time when America was attempting to strengthen the police force.

An entertaining melodramatic film from the past where theatrics took precedence over natural acting, and morality codes dictated how stories were told. 

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

Don't talk to strangers?

The Woman In The Window (1944)

Director: Fritz Lang

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037469/

Whilst many of Fritz Lang's films, such as 'Metropolis' (1927), 'M' (1931), and 'The Big Heat' (1953), have gained cult status, 'The Woman In The Window' remains one of Lang's most unappreciated and underrated offerings. 

At the time, when the silver screen was viewed as the root of all evils, and with the strict enforcement of the Hays Code, films had to adhere to stringent moral guidelines. Storylines had to align with societal views on sex, violence, and religion. 

This film is a noir piece featuring what could be a femme fatale character and a middle-aged professor whose family has gone out of town for the long weekend. As the good Professor strolls to his gentlemen's club, he chances upon a beautiful portrait of a woman. As luck would have it, the subject appears in person. They chat, go for a drink, and before they know it, he is at her apartment for a nightcap. 

As anticipated, an unknown individual burst into the apartment, resulting in a scuffle. The intruder is subdued and subsequently dies. Faced with a deceased body and the dread of police investigations and the associated humiliation, they attempt to dispose of the body. 

The rest of the story involves a meticulous account of the Professor hiding his trail while the police poke their inquisitive noses in. Gradually, the audience begins to realise he may have been set up. The plot thickens as the Professor attempts to poison the policeman who is hot on his trail. Things heat up when... the Professor is roused from his forty winks. He had apparently dozed off on the settee of the gentlemen's club. Everything had been a dream. 

It appears that the story's ending was a turn-off for Lang's fans. Some termed it 'lame'. The producers must have thought that crafting a narrative involving hiding the body, dodging the police, killing off a policeman and getting away with murder might provoke a standoff with Hollywood's moral authorities. Hence, they toned it down a notch. Everything occurred in the Professor's dream. At the end of the film, the Professor seems to imply that one should not talk to strangers. 

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