Mere coincidences?

The Eyes of Darkness (1981)
Author: Dean Koontz (aka Leigh Nichols)

This book has been making its rounds recently after the current outbreak of the feared novel coronavirus Covid19. The excitement (paranoia) grew as it was mentioned that the said virus was developed as an experimental bug in a research facility in Wuhan, China. On top of that, the virus in the book is reported to have a 100% mortality rate. The hysteria reached a feverish pitch as more pictures allegedly coming out clandestinely from there dropping like flies after contracting the disease.

This story is a simple one narrating the tale of a grieving divorced young mother. She lost her son during his school trip accident. Even a year after his demise, she had not really got over him. She kept seeing him around town. Many unexplained events made her conclude that her child was somehow trying to contact her telepathically or via telekinesis. 

With her newfound love interest and a lot of help from her gifted son who is still alive in captivity,(surprise!), they discover a secret government facility and their secret experimentation with a killer bug.

There are some interesting facts about this book. The writer, a prolific one, wrote under many pseudonyms - Leigh Nichols when he wrote this 1981 novel. In the original edition, the biological agent was produced in a Russian lab, named 'Gorki-400', probably after Gorky Park in Moscow. 

There was a reprint in 2008. By the time the Iron Curtain had fallen, and it was not thrilling to put Russians as the villains. The events surrounding 1989 Tiananmen Square made China the perfect bogeyman. Hence, 'Gorki-400' became 'Wuhan-400'. The rogue scientist Ilya Poparipov became Li Chen.

People are questioning whether the mention of a biological weapon arising from Wuhan from a nearby laboratory is mere coincidence or is there something more that is present in this interplay?

There have been many instances when such a fluke event happened. Think 1912 Titanic and its disastrous maiden voyage and you have 1898 Morgan Robertson's novel 'The Wreck of Futility', renamed 'The Wreck of Titan'. The book chillingly describes many striking similarities between the ill-fated ocean liner, Titanic and the ship in the novel, Futility (a disastrous name, if you ask me). Of course, as conspiracy theorists would go, the company that managed the Titanic was running at a loss and got their inspiration to make insurance claims from this book.

Then there are Jules Verne's many classic novels - '20,000 leagues under the sea', 'Around the world in 80 days', 'In the year 2889' and 'From Earth to the Moon'. This Father of Fiction sitting in the cosy chair of the late 19th century could conjure up devices that are of highly complexed inventions. Captain Nemo had his electric submarine, which was a reality more than a century later. His other novels spoke of helicopters, hologram, newscasts, video conferencing and space suits. Can you imagine, he even mentioned solar sails for interplanetary travels, which are only theoretically possible even in this age and time?

Are these people clairvoyants? Are they endowed with some kind of extra-sensory precognition that can tap events from an alternate universe or foresee events of the future? Perhaps, like Ramanujan, mathematician extraordinaire, they just attuned their brain wavelengths to the correct frequency to pick up information from the Master Intellect that controls every nook and corner of the Universe. 

Do their works form a template for other great minds to work on a prototype or perhaps improve their ideas? 

Did Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek implant the idea of creating such designs like iPad, Flip phone, BlueTooth headset, command-obeying Siri, Flat TV panels, communication badges, hand-held Universal translators or Google Glass? Or was it is just part of human's general technological evolution? If that is the case, in no time, teleportation will be a reality. 

Hey, what do you know, successful teleportations of information on computer chips have been reported through quantum entanglement in laboratory conditions.

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

Does the shepherd really have his flock's interest at heart?

We were told to surrender to the care of the shepherd. We should trust him unconditionally, for he has your best interest at heart. He is selfless and would not call it a day until the last sheep is accounted for. He would not harm his flock. Every member of the herd, small or big, meaty or skinny, young or old, is equally important to him. He will not rest his head until every member is safe and sound. So we were told. And it made perfect sense then. Pack your worries, fold it and give it for safekeeping with the shepherd. He would guide us through, and we would be safe. We will be saved.

Now that we have crossed the hurdles, we become conceited. We think all these successes are our efforts, ours alone. 

When we are told of the good shepherd and their noble intentions, we ask them to think of the true nature of his plan. He has no altruistic purpose. His sole aim to fatten his pack. Every sheep lost is lost revenue. His seemingly caring attitude is merely to fatten us to prepare us for the slaughter. Just like a 'mother hen' grooming a tender spring chicken for the profession, we were just being marinated for the grill. 

We can be the occasion sheep that wanders away, that may be mauled by predators or that he wants us to believe. We may be discarded as a recalcitrant, be abandoned as an insensible loss. Are our actions somehow going to turn the status quo on its back?

The majority find it easier just to follow the pack. It is too much hard work to think. Searching for the truth is too laborious.

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

Bite the bullet or shoot it?

Bombshell (2019)

They tell you it is right to speak up. How long are you going to be trampled upon? Where is your dignity? It is a matter of principle. You can be the change that you want the world to be. We will back you all the way. So you take the difficult first step. You bite the bullet, stand through the embarrassment, convincing yourself that you are doing it for the greater good. You persevere, you fight a good fight and find yourself drained of your finances. The friends who promised you to stay through thick and thin now become sparse.

You proved your case. Your victimisation is proven. You should be happy, but then you have a bitter after-taste. Your image is tarnished. You will forever be frowned upon as a trouble rouser. You are a liability for peaceful coexistence. Somehow you get a feeling that others (read the purveyor of law and order, it seems) who benefitted most. They screamed for justice even though their methods remained much to be desired.

You stand alone, but you soldier on telling yourself that your action may rub and alert others in the same shoe.

This film, based on actual events, tells about a time in 2016 when an anchorwoman with Fox TV, Gretchen Carlson, decided to spill the beans on her Head, Roger Ailes. Soon many other female presenters came forward with accusations of sexual harassment against Ailes. Events like these spread like wildfire to other parts of the world. Many up and coming artistes came out with their bad experiences as part of the #Metoo movement.

Sometimes, I wonder if this is the proper way to expose overt discriminations. It leads to animosity, negativity, and it creates a toxic paranoid working environment. Sexual harassment, even though allegations may be proven, it is enough to tarnish the image of the alleged perpetrator. Any publicity is good publicity for the accuser.
I know a lawyer who once advised his client to sue his doctor. It was not because he had a strong case against the medical management of the client. He just wanted to disturb to ruin the doctor's routine for the client was upset that his diagnosis was unfavourable to him. Legal proceedings, which are notoriously lengthy and fraud with delays, was a sure way to turn the doctor's timetable topsy-turvy. 

Norwell Roberts ©BBC

That reminds me of a Norwell Roberts of 1967 London Metropolitan Police who is often hailed as the first black policeman in Britain. Actually, John Kent was the first black officer in the 19th century UK.
In the heady times of the mid-1960s, as a public relations exercise, Britain decided to recruit coloured police constables. Norwell Roberts who applied for a joke got called in. From the word go, Roberts had to endure systemic racism from his colleagues and superiors. He experienced verbal abuse and overt discrimination, even from the lay public. The officer never once complained. He was powerless to act and did not get any positive support from his top guns. He could have highlighted his plight in the media as it was closely watching the force and their efforts to make it multicultural, but he did not. 

There was a time when he was called 'Judas' when he was part of the force that resisted anti-apartheid protestors in London.

After retiring as Detective Sergeant with the CID and receiving the Queen's medal for long service, he has this much to say. Nobody should be subjected to the type of treatment that he underwent, ever. Roberts likes to believe that his resilience made more blacks to be interested in the force. If he had gone on a rant after the initial hardship, he would probably not reached the level that he had attained.

Bite the bullet or fill it up in the barrel?

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

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.