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.

Of hopes, dreams, obsessions and nightmare...

Judy (2019)

When the mythical Pandora Box finally opened, all the evil virtues flew out, leaving only hope. Well, one can assume that when everything is gone, and one is down and out, there is always hope for one to start over. 

But then, conversely, one could ask why hope is there in the first place among unsavoury traits like jealousy and gluttony. Is it that sometimes, even hope gives a false sense of surety that masks the situation of the ground? Could hope, after the initial useful jumpstart progress to some kind of obsession? The dream to excel becomes so essential that one forgets to slumber. One needs to sleep to dream but then what ensues is just a nightmare when several self-defeating means are deployed to hope against hope to keep the dream, which is now only a delusion, alive. 

‘Judy’ is the story of a child prodigy, Judy Garland, at the tail end of her sad life. Coming from a showbiz family, she and her two sisters were in a vaudeville called Gumm Sisters. Judy skyrocketed to stardom at an early age. (who doesn’t know Dorothy Gale in Wizard of Oz?).  In the dog eat dog world of Hollywood, staying afloat is no easy feat. Drugs and intoxicants, which kept her stay relevant through the years, finally reared their ugly heads in her later years. With poor business management, bad life choices and spiralling legal fees, Judy had to fight a losing battle to win custody of her two children. 

Her labile temperament and frequent absences from shows made it even more problematic. 

I thought Rene Zellweger gave a stellar performance as a 40-something Judy as she tried to redeem herself as a singer in the London clubs before her demise due to barbiturate overdose.  

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

Unfinished work on Earth?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)

You grow up focussing on all the unsavoury traits in the elders around you and promise yourself never to emulate. Hold behold, you grow up and do the exact same things that you found offensive and did not want to do in the first place.  You turn out to be the same person you despise.

People around you realise that, but not you. You become angry when you are reminded of the fact. You carry the anger throughout your life, burning yourself in the inside.

When you realise your shortcoming, life becomes beautiful, it seems, according to the encounter between Mr Rogers (Fred Rogers of 'Mister Rogers' Neighborhood' fame) and an Esquire journalist, Lloyd Vogel.

The said interview took place in 1998 with Tom Junod and his Esquire article became the basis of the movie. The screenwriters took the liberty to spice up the story and hence renamed the reporter.

At the time of the interview, Mr Rogers was already a household name. American children grew with him in the living room, telling them about the difficult facts of life like war, death, race, being handicapped and bullying. He was the then Oprah of the day for children and had all their difficult questions answered.


Vogel, a cynical man, is bogged down with his own issues. Growing up without a father who left him and his sister when their mother fell ill, he has an axe to grind when the father returns with his wife that he left his mother for. The journalist, a young father, cannot connect with his wife and his young daughter.

©The Atlantic

Vogel cannot believe a person as perfect as depicted in the TV show can exist in real life. His series built a strong friendship that lasted a lifetime.

In 2018, there was a documentary out showcasing the work done by Fred Rogers in WQED studios and later PBS to stimulate pre-school children awareness. Ordained as a Presbyterian minister, he found satisfaction working with child psychologists and emphasising long lost qualities like patience, reflection and 'silence in a noisy world'. Despite being a man of the Church, he found it more appropriate like impart the teachings of Book not by overt external representations, like donning the collar or mentioning God's fame. He preached via actions, listening and music. He is an accomplished pianist and a lifelong swimmer. 

Towards the end of life, he became progressively depressed, conflicted and angry. Perhaps he felt that his life's work had come to zilch after the 911 incident, the increasing hatred and inclusiveness among people. He was also accused of promoting the 'entitled' generation as his mantra is to make every child feel special. His inclusiveness of treating everyone alike earned him the label of promoting deviant sexual orientation as his co-star turned out to be gay.

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

The Fourth Estate has vested interest

Richard Jewell (2019)
Director: Clint Eastwood

The press and the print media are often referred to as the 'Fourth Estate' or 'Fourth Power' for a reason. It is supposed to act as an extension of the arms of governance after the legislation, execution and the judiciary branch of Government of rule via indirect public influence. 

It traditionally played the role of the eye of the public to create a check and balance system of the ruling Government. Over the years, we have noticed that it is no longer working towards the well-being of the common man, but rather have the welfare of the financiers at heart. With financiers having vested interest in how a piece of particular news should be presented, the truth is somehow lost in the rabble-rousing. The same message can be displayed by different stations leaving totally different impressions on the public.

So, leave to the public to assess what is right and which is fake, you say. History has proven time and again that people are fickle-minded. Like Pavlov's dog, they can be easily conditioned by their masters. Their opinion changes anywhere the wind blows. With access to social media to opine their two-cents worth literally at their fingertips, arranging a trial by media is an easy task.

The question of exposing too much 'truth' to the public domain and having a trial by media has been popping quite rampantly in Malaysia after the change of Government. Traditionally, in Malaysia, the Fourth Estate has been functioning more like a Fourth Branch of the Government, working well as a propaganda machine of the ruling Government. The old Government is feeling the heat as many of their shenanigans out in the open. They cry foul citing loss of sovereignty of the nation as we go on a rampage washing dirty linen in public. 

One thing people forget is that foreign investors come to our country not because we are trustworthy and virtuous. They come here precisely for the opposite reasons. Our leaders are easy to be bought over, and everything has a price.

The modern society talks about the need for a free press and freedom of information. The film shows one of the dangers of the unabated flow of information.

Richard Jewell is a timid man who lives with his mother and goes on by working as a security officer. It was 1996 and Atlanta was hosting the Centennial Olympics. During the tour of his duty as a security helper in a stadium, he notices an unattended bag. He alerted the police officers who confirmed that it contained a bomb. Jewell helped to evacuate the public from danger, prevent a catastrophe. He is hailed as a hero, and his pictures are plastered on all newspaper. Three days later, everything takes a 180-degree turn. He is reported to be a possible prime suspect as the bomber in the bombing. News leaks that FBI thought that Jewell fit the profile of a lone attacker - single white male, living with his mother, fascinated with guns who clamours a law enforcement career.

The rest of the movie is to shows the humiliation, public scrutiny and trial by media that Jewell and his mother endure. Under the name of national security and the thirst for the round-the-clock instant information, people's life is turned topsy-turvy.

The film created controversy when it suggested that the journalist, Kathy Scruggs, who leaked the information about the FBI investigations on Jewell being the possible suspect obtained it by providing sexual favours.

The saga affected Jewell and Scruggs profoundly. Both had premature deaths. Jewell succumbed to heart ailments, and Scruggs went on to be bogged with depression. She died on morphine overdose. The possibility of suicide was also considered.

Jewell's name did get cleared by FBI after all. In his time, he sued many newspapers and news networks including CNN. He got a fat compensation but, it seems, the bulk of it went to the lawyers' fees. 

That is the bane of modern living - create a molehill out of nothing, make a big deal out of it, talk about principle and doing the 'right' thing but basically doing nothing but create a whole lot of mess. In comes the lawyers (or maybe bankers too) as the knights in shining armours.  They prolong the confusion, build up anxiety and leave with a load of money, giving the impression of saving the day. To those affected, nothing really changes.

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

Should I stay or should I go now?

For Sama (Arabic: من أجل سما‎ ‘min ajl sama‘)
(Syrian Documentary; 2019)

Recently I read of a young mother with her 4-month old infant participating in a civil objection against CAA and NRC at Shaheen Bhag in Southern Delhi. Soon after being in Delhi for a couple of days, the child fell ill and succumbed to pneumonia at the protest grounds. The mother said in a TV interview that she was not saddened by the demise. In fact, she felt proud that her son gave his life for the future of the country. Deep inside, she must be feeling like 'Mother India'. Given another chance, she would do it all over again.

Now, would you call that bad parenting or patriotism?

This is the same question the maker of the documentary 'For Sama' seems to be asking. Waad Al-Kateab, who started filming her life experiences as a university student in Aleppo, realised that her country, Syria, was slowly plunging into civil war. She started getting involved with students' resistance front against Bashar Al-Assad. As from 2011, as the violence by ruling regime against civilians escalated, she had to make a decision whether to stay and fight a good fight or escape the country. She opted to stay back. She soon met a similar-minded doctor Hamza, who made his personal mission to remain to treat the victims of the unrest. Waad continued filming her day-to-day events and sent it to Channel 4 of the BBC for broadcast.

Aleppo: Before and After Bombing pics
©boredpanda.com

Hamza and Waad decided to tie the knot despite the constant bombardment and destruction around them. All through her filming, she kept asking herself whether what she was doing was correct. The uncertainty became more acute as her daughter, Sama, for whom this documentary is dedicated, was born. She often wondered if she was ruining her daughter's future or depriving her of opportunities for a brighter future by her (Waad's) inactions.

All through the presentation, viewers are served with dead bodies, death and rubbles of what used to be buildings. Hamza, who ran make-shift hospitals with necessary facilities to treat victims, was bombed by Assad's and Russian bombers.

Finally, in 2015, Hamza, Sama and a pregnant Waad made a dash to Turkey as refugees. They eventually settled in the UK but has plans to return to Syria once normality returns.

When the comfort zone is rocked, what should one do? Should he run away from the offending agent or stand his ground and fight for his place that his ancestors had set foot, developed and attached their root deeply into the ground? Is it easier to maintain the peace and look elsewhere peace of mind? Anyway, discrimination, inequality and injustice are there all over the world. Deep inside, we are all entirely self-centred. Should we just mind our business, give a damn about others but just care for our loved ones?

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

It never ends!

Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (2013)
Author: Stephen C. Meyer

Alert: For Mature Readers Only

Discretion Advised

What triggered to look into this book was Zakir Naik's emotional argument with a self-professed atheist who was born Muslim on the theory of Evolution. The atheist challenged the rejection of Darwin's theory in Islam. The discourse went personal as Dr Naik started questioning the seeker's basic understanding of science and its terminologies. Then on, it became farcical, and the session had to be terminated. It was harbouring on diabolical issues like whether the theory of gravity was a mere theory or a fact and how scientific facts differ from theories.

A paragraph in sciencemag.org succinctly summarises the journey a scientist goes through in his thirst to know the truth. The intentions are nevertheless always altruistic, but sometimes personal agendas come in the way. They cherrypick what they want to see to prove their assertions. The beauty of it all is all these are subject to debates and changes as more information is obtained with newer instruments being their disposal.

The power of scientific reasoning derives from the complex interplay between the desire to know, the ability to reason, and the ability to evaluate ideas with data. As scientists, we have learned how to make ideas dance with reality, and we expect them to be transformed in the process. We typically add to what we already know, often showing along the way that old ideas are incomplete or, occasionally, wrong. And so we collectively build an understanding of the world that is accurate, reliable, and useful. 

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1344.1

In the greater scheme of the genesis of life on Earth, there was an era named Cambrian explosion. It is said organisms before this time were very rudimentary in morphology and function (beginning 4.6 billion years ago). Fossils from the Cambrian era (541 million years ago) are complex and have morphed into multiple phyla. The point the author is highlighting is that these changes are too profound for it to happen by mere chance. Subtle changes in genetic take a mighty long time and are gradual to perfect. Many significant alterations in DNA sequence and protein productions lead to lethal outcomes anyway.

To produce a groundbreaking change in archetypal design, pure random mutation is not sufficient. The presence of intelligent design is required, according to the author.

It is a point to note that when Darwin proposed his theory, the knowledge about Mendelian trait of inheritance and of DNA was not at his disposal. All he was offering was that organisms morph to adapt and to survive in an environment that only caters for the fittest.

Many of the theories proposed by Neo-Darwinists who have incorporated state of the art knowledge and suggestions do not satisfy the author. He tries to show that approaches like Punctuated Equilibrium (with rapid changes in speciation), trans-generational epigenetic inheritance and Shapiro's Natural Genetic Engineering do not nullify the need for an intelligent designer.

It is clear that when he means an intelligent designer, he says God, but a cheeky atheist like Richard Dawkins would ask, who designed the Designer? Meyer challenges that if gravity can be accepted as a scientific fact, why not the concept of intelligent design? Scientists, however, look at it as a lazy way of throwing in the towel. The likes of conservative thinkers see it as an opportunity to legitimatise the concept of God in science and start teaching Biblical Creations in schools as a scientific fact.

The Cambrian seas teemed with new types of 

animal, such as the predator Anomalocaris (centre)

© John Sibbick/Natural History Museum

Cross-referencing with other science-related websites is a revelation. At the beginning of times, lifeforms were simple self-sufficient ones. They divided by simple division, and the oceanic oxygen concentration was extremely low. With the marginal increase in oxygen concentration in the oceans, cells, which mainly thrived in an anaerobic environment, found aerobic respiration more efficient. Organisms became bigger. For sustenance, for the first time, the concept of preys and predators came forth. Living beings developed exoskeletons and other means of survival.

The beauty of science is that it can be challenged but supported with equally thought-provoking pieces of evidence. Admittedly, Man's knowledge is limited, but our desire to entertain new thoughts and ideas is a single fact that managed to springboard our species as the de facto leader of the planet. Or is it because He created us in his mould?

https://www.nature.com/news/what-sparked-the-cambrian-explosion-1.19379
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1344.1

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

Fight till the last man standing!

1917 (2019)
Director: Sam Mendes

The story is written by Sam Mendes based on what his grandfather told him. Mendes' grandfather was a soldier in the Trench War, and this offering is in his honour for his heroic act of treading through the dangers of the enemy-line and the perils of Nature to pass over a piece of vital information to the advancing army. His deed indeed saved the day and many fellow comrades.

I am a little perplexed. On the one hand, I am taught that violence is the primitive way of settling an issue. Violence can never solve any problems but instead, create new ones. An eye for an eye leaves the whole blind, they say. Yet in the same breath, the same people proclaim that turning the other cheek is stupidity.

All through our civilisation, war has been part and parcel of our evolution. With each significant catastrophe that we go through, the human race seems to go up one notch in terms of scientific achievement. War propels the world forward. War stimulates the economy, and the desire to dominate is one thing that gives pride. We form tribes and fall in line under a piece of cloth to provide us with a sense of pride to uphold. 

In a war, we say, everyone loses but yet, we are ever ready to justify the mother of all battles to end wars. We know where it led us.

The promise of wealth and power is good enough reason for us to get up in the morning and plunge ourselves into the conveyer belt that would send us all to the hole of destruction. We repeatedly justify our resort to extinction as a means to settle scores by putting the blame on Nature. Even our Universe is rough in its actions. Scorching expulsions of magma, destructive clash of meteorites, earth-shattering movements of tectonic plates and extremes of temperatures proves that the world is no pleasure cruise.

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