Follow your heart?

A Hidden Life (English/German;2019)

Director: Terence Malick

This is one of the movies that kept my eyes locked on the screen even after the credits rolled. It presents a long-lasting quandary about divinity and our purpose on Earth.

Most movies that we see usually depict Germans as a whole of homogeneous block that unequivocally supports Hitler and what he was doing to uplift Germany from the clutches of hopelessness. For a change, the main character in this film actually stood against German nationalism in the Hitler style. A devout Christian and a conscientious objector to conscription into the Army, Franz Jägerstätter opposes Hitler's rhetoric of a superior race. In his everyday life, Franz is a simple farmer living happily on the hillside of Austrian country, minding his wife, three little daughters, and the unending farm work.

So when he is called to serve the Army and state his allegiance to Hitler by instituting the Nazi Salute, he naturally refuses. Franz is arrested and imprisoned. Before his arrest, the people in the village were already looking at Franz's family scornfully. After his arrest, his family was boycotted by everyone, save for some who gave support, albeit clandestinely.

In prison, Franz is verbally and physically abused and told to just utter his loyalty to Hitler and get scot-free. Franz stuck onto his guns like a divine decree and endured the gamut - insults and grieve. All through his incarceration, he has an internal struggle with whether what he is doing is the right thing. All these were recorded in Franz's written communication with his wife, Fani. They provide the basis for the film. Franz's soliloquy is echoed in the voiceovers. Franz was finally executed. The rest of the story tells the hardship Fani, their daughters, and Franz's mother endure in making a life for themselves.

The burning questions that went through my mind were these.

We are social animals and are somewhat skewed in our thinking to be in sync with the thought of the majority. Perhaps because we are all clueless about our real purpose on Earth, we grope along and clutch on straws. We try to convince ourselves that we are indeed doing the right by apeing others. We follow the powerful, the wealthy, and the elders as we feel they are more knowledgeable about things in the world. At the same time, we realise these people are mere mortals like us, equally ignorant of the right path. The leaders also have vested interests. Is it not helpful for a shepherd if his flock is abundant and well-fed? The scary part is that the shepherd would one day lead them to the slaughterhouse.

The almighty, omnipresent and omnipotent in all his wisdom through the Book of John, has wielded to his congregation, "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world, you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." (John 16:33).

Franz saw the events surrounding the war, the superiority of one race over the other, and saluting a man with these ideas as wrong. However, the verse in John convinced him that what he was doing was right, just as Jesus fought against the hypocrites in Judea. Just like the event on Cavalry Hill that changed the world, Franz was convinced that his resistance would have lasting impressions.

A man plants a mango tree, but the generations after him are the ones who reap the benefits the tree offers. They stop to rest under its shade and occasionally sink their teeth into the succulent fruit. Nobody turns around to thank or say a prayer to the planter of the tree. For all they are concerned, the tree just happened to be there! We should do things expecting returns. It is for the generation next.

We are responsible for our dependents if our actions affect those who will come after us. Franz has specific duties as a father, son, and husband on Earth. Is he relegating his duties by being an absent parent? His kids will grow up with the trauma of not having a father, the wife without a companion, and the mother with the ache of burying the son she delivered. Can Franz be so cocksure that he will indeed find his place in the promised land? Is he convinced that what he did was indeed what God wanted him to do? Guess we will never know!

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

A lie is a lie.

About Elly (Iranian; 2009)
Director: Asghar Farhadi

Sometimes, we think a white lie would not hurt. Along with the lie, we squeeze in a little mischief. We justify our lying by convincing ourselves that it is all good in the grander scheme of things.

Little do realise of its repercussions. To cover the embarrassment of one's untruth being discovered and maybe to uphold the white lie, there is a need for more untruths. The trouble with truth is that it has a funny way of showing up at all the wrong times.

The lattice of lies will eventually crumble. Unless the individual has perfected the art of the sleigh of hands, the bluff will fall flat.

To add insult to injury, God forbid if anything untoward happened, all the blame would fall squarely on the person who initiated the white lie and the good intentions!

This is precisely what happens in this story. Old classmates, three couples with their kids and another divorced classmate decided to spend a few days by the beach. Sepideh, who organised the rushed trip, decided to include her daughter's kindergarten teacher. She was hoping to match her to the divorced friend. As conservative as the society was, Sepireh chose to tell the caretaker of the beach bungalow as four couples, the fourth being the kindergarten teacher and the divorced classmate who were on their honeymoon.

With all the confusion of the children being all over the place and the adults running around organising things, a child runs to his father, trying to say that one of the kids is drowning. Panic ensues. Everyone goes looking for the child and is saved from drowning. The kindergarten teacher, the adult caring for the kids, cannot be found anywhere. Did she drown in trying to save the child? Did she run away from them after discovering that she is suited to the divorcee? Then, a man appears in the picture as the teacher's fiancé.

Sepideh soon realises her mistake when her bluff falls flat, especially when the police get involved, and the caretaker learns that the fourth couple is unmarried.

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

Jury on Trial?

Juror #2
Director: Clint Eastwood

Yet another big one from Clint Eastwood. This 94-year-old may have directed his last movie, but one can never say never. This one makes us think, as did his previous offerings, like 'Letters from Iwo Jima', 'Flags of Our Fathers', and 'Gran Torino'.

It is a courtroom drama along the lines of '12 Angry Men', where the moral decision of convicting a person of a serious crime is the mainstay. This film, however, goes one step further. One of the jurors, Juror #2, may have committed the murder in the case he is judging. On the day of the incident, the Juror witnessed the tussle between the accused and his girlfriend at a bar. The girlfriend was found dead later that night by a creek beside a road. The accused was seen following his girlfriend in his car. With his destructive anger management issues, he was naturally accused of having mortally wounded his girlfriend. 

The trouble is Juror #2 is a recovering alcoholic and was nursing the pain of losing a pair of twins a year previously. He was fighting his inner demons to resist the bottle again. Self-restraint allegedly won the day. As he left the bar, he drove the same country road as the other two. Just as the Juror bent to pick up his phone to answer a call from his wife, he felt a thud. He looked up and saw nothing except for a deer crossing sign. He checked his car for damage and moved on, assuming he had hit a running deer. 

Juror #2 slowly realises, as he sits through the case, and with sudden flashes of his accident from the same night in his mind, that he could be the killer instead of the accused. What was he to do? Resign from his post, which may turn investigations towards him. At a time when he is looking forward to being sober for so long and ushering in his soon-to-be-born child, the last thing he needs is to go to prison.

With all the evidence stacked against the accused, argued by a DA with political ambitions, the accused is sure to be incarcerated for the crime he did not commit. A moral dilemma ensues within the Juror. Should he ensure that the jury delivers a unanimous decision of guilty so he (the Juror) is off the hook? If a mistrial is declared when the jury cannot convict him, the police may have to investigate again, and the Juror's name may crop up.

Does the truth reveal itself in the end? If the truth is so powerful and can maintain balance, why must we defend it? Is it everyone's moral duty to protect the truth no matter what it may do to them and the people around them? In the same breath, we insist that many versions of the truth exist. Who determines which is true, anyway? Many versions of it seem right from their perspective. Have they not heard of the Rashomon effect? Sometimes, truth is watered down to preserve peace.

Still, we insist on a fair hearing and that everyone deserves to be adequately represented. And we realise that many guilty criminals, with the power of the best legal minds that money can buy behind them, get away scot-free through technicalities. The innocent, too, can be punished with overwhelming circumstantial evidence. When a notoriously bad person who had escaped convictions before is penalised for a crime he did not commit, we say that his crimes have finally caught up with him. We justify the wrongful conviction akin to a person who lives by the sword and dies by it. Are the lawyers less enthusiastic about defending such criminals, or is wealth the determinant?

Are you being dishonest by putting your self-interest above doing the right thing? After all, no man is an island. On the other hand, no innocent man should be punished for something he did not do. Some feel pressured to mete out instant justice. We take shortcuts and cut down on paperwork. We don blinkers to confirm our biases and refuse to see beyond our scope of vision.

When a miscarriage of justice happens right in front of your eyes, just how far would you go to right the wrong, especially when it involves an admission of guilt? With the admission of error, you must bear the brunt of losing face and position. 

There are no answers, only questions. The film ends on a cliffhanger, probably on purpose, so viewers can ponder it and draw conclusions. It brings viewers into serious discussions on truth, justice, morality, and guilt.

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

Any way the wind blows?

I have always wondered whether one should take sides in an argument when he is not the actually affected party. Being quite aware of Rashomon's effect of different perspectives on what actually transpired during an event, should anyone go all four barrels against the other just because one side is related to us?

We know we sometimes make our decisions rather prejudicially, guided by personal appearance, gender, common ethnicity or overt display of emotions by one aggrieved party, and the affected party is related to us. Still, when the push comes to the shove when our own kind is under the spotlight, where do you stand?

Is blood thicker than water, and do we support our flesh and blood no matter what? Do we drone down in support of loved ones, or do we go against the grain and take the side of where we think the truth lies?

What if the scandal happened within the family fold? Do we hush everything and sweep it under the rug? Still, there will come a time when a definite decision needs to be made. What do we do? Do we play two sides? Do we go with the flow to maintain peace or swim against the current to prove a point? What is the matter? Is something serious, something that could damage another's future or even criminal? Does protecting family honour supersede everything else?

*The Rashomon effect is a storytelling method in which the individuals involved give contradictory descriptions of the same event, thereby providing different perspectives and points of view of the same incident.

P.S. Tomorrow may rain, so I’ll follow the sun!🎶🎵©️

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

Things we may have to unlearn!

Malu apa bossku? Apparently, all the things I may have learnt from childhood may be wrong after all. Sometimes, I wonder whether I thought the wrong thing or may have been hoodwinked to believe obviously wrong things. Perhaps values changed while we were napping. I always assumed that when one loses any of his properties via public auction, he is said to have lost not only his wealth but also his dignity. The mark of a true man is his ability to acquire wealth and provide for his dependents; his inability to retain his finances is a colossal failure. At a time when pride was everything, abscondment and suicide were standard outlets. My legal eagle friends remain nonchalant about their clients or opponents declaring themselves bankrupt or their properties auctioned off. To them, that is a cost of doing business. Overlooking the inconveniences of bankruptcy, it remains a legitimate 'get out of jail' sort of card. Nothing Earth-shattering, they say, and definitely no shame. I remember a time in my childhood when two policemen came knocking at one of my neighbours' doors. The next thing I saw was my neighbour being escorted out with his hands at the back, handcuffed. My neighbour's mother was wailing, and the other neighbours on the flat floor were busy concocting their own theories of what had transpired before the arrest. Forget that they all had not an iota of clue of what the accused was in for. That left an indelible impression on the young me of how a clash with authorities would affect the people around me. Then came an epiphany. Great world leaders immortalised in our history books spent a big chunk of their lives behind bars. Gandhi was practically behind bars all through the Second World War. Mandela spent 27 years in solitary confinement on Robben Island and other prisons.

In my mind, that is how I thought ex-PM Najib's supporters looked at him when all the legal minds of the country decided that he was guilty of hoodwinking the people's money for whatever reasons. His supporters viewed him as a saviour wronged in a hostile environment when he claimed what was rightfully his. It did not matter that the leader took full responsibility for the duties shouldered upon him in the line of national duty or, like the ship's captain, was the last person to leave a sinking ship. In their eyes, he is a sacrificial lamb of a system supposed to protect him. Whichever way one sees it, their statement just becomes more and more pervasive.

"No, no," reassured the ex-PM's supporters. They insist he was just a pawn in an intricate political ploy to discredit him. "There is no reason to be ashamed, my boss!" (Malu apa Boss ku?) 

I was nurtured to believe that education is a sure way to succeed. Hence, as children, we were told that nothing was more important in life than sitting down and absorbing everything in the books to regurgitate at the appropriate times. Then, it dawned upon me. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Every bit of exposure maketh a boy a complete being. As I learnt from Steve Jobs's autobiography, everything one learns is useful somewhere in one's life. There were many roads to Rome. What is the truth?

Shakuni's temple in Kerala. Homage to his

determination to seek revenge against the

greatest empire of the land. Allegedly attained

moksha here.

Now, the world tells us that we were taken for a ride. All the so-called history taught to us was fraud by the voice of the victors who wanted to paint a favourable view of themselves. The truth was multifaceted. Only until the lion tells his side of the story will every tale glorify the hunter.

To put the cherry on the icing on my cake of confusion, lately, a scholar completely shattered the image of Shakuni, a character in Mahabharata. My understanding is that Shakuni was the villain of the whole tale. He allegedly had a special dice that helped him to cheat the Pandavas of their kingdom and humiliate their wife, Kunti. He walked with a limp that inspired a distasteful proverb in Tamil, which suggested that all handicapped people have evil in their hearts.

Now, they say that it is the Pandavas who instigated the situation. By nature, Shakuni was a skilled gamer. He had an abnormal gait but an able body with no handicap of any kind. Shakuni did not have a limp or had no trouble walking, running or even scaling high mountains. What he had was unbridled loyalty to his sister, Gandhari, and far-sightedness. Gandhari's father, with his kingdom in Afghanistan, had learned from his soothsayers that his daughter had a curse. Her astrological chart suggested her husband would die soon after marriage. So, the family got her married to a goat, which was quickly slaughtered to break the curse. Gandhari was then married off to the blind king of Hastinapura, Dhritrashtra. After discovering that Gandhari was technically a widow, Dhriashtra's father and brother sieged Gandhari's father's kingdom. They imprisoned the male members, who subsequently succumbed to their torture. The family was parsimonious with their food supply to ensure the youngest, Shakuni, thrived through the ordeal to avenge the Pandavas on a later date.

Shakuni later comes to live with his sister to protect her. The rest of what happened afterwards is left to our interpretation.

P.S. The aunties I was exposed to in my childhood did not filter much of what they thought of others. My mother was no different. They called a spade a spade and had no qualms about speaking their mind. Being politically correct was an alien concept. I have often heard my mother cursing people behind their backs for wronging her. She even cursed a handicapped lady who congenitally had an underdeveloped right leg as being as evil as Shakuni. That is when I heard her often mentioned in Tamil, implying that a limping person has a dirty heart!

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

The press feeds the public what they want, scoops!

Vadhandhi: The Fable of Velonie (Rumours; 2022)
Writer & Director: Andrew Louis

Everybody talks about wanting to know the truth. That the truth should prevail. That the truth will punish the wrongdoer. That the truth will eventually come out, sooner or later. There is a pressing need to discover the truth so that things can be put right so that man-made law can mete justice. Really?

Firstly, truth is a double-edged sword. One man's perspective of the truth can be another's blatant lie. Seeing is not believing. How often our senses have played tricks on us. So often, we have been convinced by suggestion. The police can tell that eyewitness accounts can only be believed so much. We are prejudiced by appearance, race, background and stereotyping.

Then some are so cocksure about something. Perhaps they have a vested interest or want to be in the limelight, to feel important. Maybe they like to steer the investigation the wrong way because they are involved somehow. 

Remember those who spin rumours just for the kick of it. They capture our sense of curiosity to yarn tales of lies and half-truths to spice up a tragedy. Maybe they are looking for clickbait. Little do they care how negatively it would affect the grieving or affected party.

In this age of breaking news, the press would go to all lengths, low down and dirty, to scoop out scandals to whet the viewer's appetites. There is a demand for these. As we increasingly become desensitised by gore and horror, the more demand for sensationalism. 

So when a pretty young thing is found strangulated at a film site, everyone gets curious. Everyone has their theory of what actually happened. The media is out to churn everything in the name of the public wanting to know. The police are on tenterhooks as pressure mounts to solve the case and find the perpetrator. In the meantime, the grieving party has to endure the hopelessness of losing a loved one, harassment of the press, accusatory fingers of the judging eyes and exposure of family wrongdoings that were kept under wraps for so long. The victim and her family are trialled in media from the public lens. In the meantime, fiction writers start their storytelling trade under the guise of wanting to discover the truth. At the same time, they do not fail to mention that their story is based on actual events. Just how much it is related to true events is where it gets blurred.

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

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow