Retelling of Ramayana?

The Monkey Man (2024)

Director: Dev Patel

At first look, one is forgiven for thinking it was going to be a non-cerebral offering with senseless violence, gore, pyrotechnics and stunts that defy science principles. On further viewing, one would assume there would be lots of Indian bashing, Hindu culture ridiculing and Modi shaming. It cannot be so wrong.

Far from it, this is also an attempt to retell the Ramayana story. In the Ramayana narration of events around 5000 BCE, King Rama was exiled for 14 years into the forest after political arm-twisting led by his stepmother. Raavan became the villain when Rama turned down Ravana's sister, Shurpanakha's sexual advancement. Her antics got her nose slashed off. Raavan kidnapped Rama's wife, Sita. Rama, in search of his missing wife, Sita, befriended Hanuman, and the rest is history, as written by Valmiki and others.

In the Ramayana, Rama and Hanuman are on the side of the truth, whereas Raavan, with his 10 branches of wisdom, assumes the protagonist role. However, this film version deliberately mixes up the roles of the hero and villain.

Monkey Man is a streetfighter who appears regularly at an underground no-holds-barred mixed martial arts fight scene for a measly stash of cash. He has a dark secret from his past for which a score must be settled.

In that town, there is a heartless businesswoman who basically controls all the vices around. The men in power support her activities—the police chief and his yeomen, the strongmen in town, the politicians, and the saffron-robed man of God.

The fighter, @ Bobby, @Kid, grew up as a tribal kid with his loving mother at the edge of the forest, but greedy businessmen ruthlessly burned their house to take over their land. His mother was lit alive by the police chief right in front of his eyes in his childhood - hence the need to avenge.

To build up the climax to the eventual destruction of the corrupt system, the audience is feasted to (or has to sit through, depending on your taste) minutes of swashbuckling and pumping of adrenaline done in the veins of 'Kill Bill', 'War of the Dogs' or any of the Hong Kong fast-paced kungfu movie fast-moving cameras. Actually, the action sequences are of high standards.

The way I see this movie is told is that of a modern tale of Ramayana. A leftist embroiled in anti-Hindu sentiments always looked at modern Rama as an intruder. He intruded on the forest, initially occupied by the Adivasis, to upset their equilibrium by invading their space and hunting their food. In a screwed-up way, in modern-day Ramayana, Ravana is not the lone villain but has joined forces with Rama. Symbolically, Rama is referred to as the safron-clad religious man. He is in cahoots with other branches of power. Allegorically, they are represented in the ten heads of Ravana.

So, Hanuman, as the last man standing, has to go rogue to defend his people. He is Bobby @ Kid, trying to right the wrong, undoing the sins of the religious leaders, tycoons, political leaders, the police and the whole cabal of oppressors of the marginalised.

At the end of the day, even though it was filmed in Batam, Indonesia, the whole show primarily aims to paint India as a lawless country. By repeatedly showing Hindu iconography in many of its frames, it tries to showcase Hindu culture as twisted. Everyone is corrupt, and there can be no redemption.

Is it a mere coincidence that its release is eerily in the year when India, the biggest democracy, is about to re-elect Modi for an unprecedented third time? Still, the movie has a high entertainment quotient and high-value production. It is highly recommended for the curious-minded who do not mind the occasional head-butting. (Or is it butthurt?)

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.

No perfect system!

Triangle of Sadness (2022)
Director: Ruben Östlund

This is a black comedy, a satire of modern society, sniggering at the changes society has been undergoing over the years. At different parts of the film, it shows us how we fit snuggly into our roles with only one purpose (or maybe two) in life - to usurp lots of money. Power will come rolling in with moolah.

It hints at how gender roles are reversed, with ladies earning more than men. Despite their demands for equal rights and equality, they conveniently use the 'damsel-in-distress' card and chivalry when it suits them. Sex is used as a bargaining chip.

We are told that beauty is on the inside, but seeing people making a fortune from their external appearances is illogical. The whole of show biz, the fashion industry and even influencers on social media are centred around aesthetics and exhibitionism to a certain degree. They do not bring anything 'value-added' to the table of human civilisational progress. Coincidentally, the movie's title refers to a medical term used by plastic surgeons to demarcate the area between the eyebrows that carry the 'worry wrinkle', which is treated with Botox.

The movie's second part showcases the opulence of the super-rich, their wasteful actions and their overindulgences in basic necessities of sustenance. Just being at the right place at the right time, their fortunes changed. With a little bit of quick thinking, they seized their opportunities and paved the path of the aristocracy for the next generation. In the film, a capitalist Russian hit a business 'landmine' when he packaged chicken droppings from his chicken farm into a mega fertiliser industry. Paradoxically, the cruise captain the characters travel on is a drunkard Communist American. Ironically, the American thinks capitalism is flawed, whilst the Russian says down with Communism.

We are shown how the crew on the Cruise, including the unseen and unheard workers in the engine room, cleaners and kitchen staff, literally break their backs to dance to the whims and fancies of every wealthy oligarch on board.

A side joke is about an elderly couple who made a fortune making grenades for third-world countries to bomb each other into pieces. Their characters were aptly named Winston and Clementine, with reference to the UK World War 2 Prime Minister and his beloved wife, of course. In a poetic justice style, they die when terrorists hurl a similar grenade at their ship.

In the final part of the movie, only a few people aboard survive the bomb blast and are marooned on a deserted island. Here, the role reverses. The pompous rich people have no survival skills. They have to live on the fishing and outdoor skills of a lowly Filipino housekeeping manager. Money is no more the equation here anymore. The Filipina tries to rule the roost with her knowledge of providing meals. The hierarchy is broken. Now, she tries to garner favour from her special status.

The ending is purposely left hanging. The real reason for this type of ending is precisely this. No system seems to be fair to all of mankind. An obviously top-down approach will create resentment. The people at the top will utilise whatever means available to them to stay there and to ensure similar lives for their offspring, no matter how dumb and uninitiated or lazy they are. True talent will be lost.

On the contrary, a genuinely equal system will not make the cut. There must be some kind of motivation for people to look forward to. Altruism, a good afterlife or some sort of existential reason will not sell. Pol Pot and Lenin tried and failed. The Money God will just do the trick. China, under Mao, preached true Communism and see what it brought them - famine, imprisonment and low morale. Once Deng Xaio Peng opened the country to capitalist practices, we saw China becoming a threat that even the poster child of capitalism, the USA, had to retaliate against. 

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

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow