Equality, an unachievable dream?

City Of God (Malayalam, 2011)
Director: Lilo Jose Pullissery 

This film may mean different things to different people. Some may look at characters from four stories getting intertwined in the course of their lives. The storyteller tells the story in flashbacks and hyperlinks that finally paint a composite picture.

Basically, it can be divided into two main stories; one involving an immigrant Tamil unskilled workers in Kochin and their daily dealings, the other related to a group of rich and famous concerning an up and coming actress, her entourage and a tiff with a particular developer over a piece of land.  When we look closely, both parties are no different from each other; they consume alcohol, indulge in carnal pleasures putting aside social mores, and are involved in criminal activities.

The affluent side somehow can do their unkosher pursuits without invoking too much fanfare with their affluence. Somehow the wheel of justice and enforcement can be wrapped around their fingers with their wealth and influence. They can literally get away with murder. They are no paragons of virtue, not much different from their economically-challenged counterpart.

However, the whole might of the enforcement befalls upon the non-wealthy. To top it up, their social behaviours are closely scrutinised by the community itself. Morality restrictions are clamped upon them. The name of God and ancestral traditions are used towards this end. It seems that chastity laws only apply to the disadvantaged, not the well-heeled. 

(P.S. Not to be confused with the Brazilian 2002 movie 'City of God' about brutal gang wars in Rio de Janeiro's poor neighbourhoods. It seems everyone thinks their country is chosen by God. Keralites refer to their state as God's own country whilst Rio de Janeiro has the mammoth soapstone structure of Christ the Redeemer overlooking its city.)

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

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

It is a zoo out there!

Oh, dear, oh, dear!

First, there were the vultures, perched high up on the branch waiting patiently for their preys to fall. Their spirits rise with every heaving of the chest, hoping that that would be the last. Is the soul protected by the soaring eagles seen way up in the skies? Even as the body is failing, the spirit is clinging and refuses to go.

Even as the remains remain warm, White Rabbit is already scurrying around, muttering, "Oh dear, oh dear. I'm late for an important date!" peeking at the watch ever so often. The Mad Hatter is not needed, but he likes to think that he is indispensable.

Are the hyenas' scream decibels too loud for comfort? Mourners want a time of peace to reflect, not hear noises that evoke madness.

Minesweeper

Then came the owls with their eyes opened so vast that they scrutinise every shortcoming and scrouge source material for their next gossip session. With stereoscopic vision and 360° movement of the cervical region, they manage to recce every nook and corner like a minesweeper.

Also present are the almost unnoticeable storks that stand quietly by the corner in a deep thinker's pose. They seem invisible, practically camouflaged with the background, unflinching and disappearing as quietly as they moved in.

Buridan's Ass

The ostriches would not want to see any of these. They are content with burying their heads in the sand, convincing themselves that everything will pass. Like an albatross, the guilt of the whole preceding events is wrapped around some people's necks.

Almost forgotten are the philosopher asses who are quick to whip out philosophical pearls of wisdom. They peruse the exhibited cadaver and highlight the futility of life. They remind that the departed remain a pale shadow of her flamboyant self with all the juices of life sapped dry. They lecture on how we, the living, scream for recognition, pride and inflate our egos with hedonistic desires. 

Seeing with complex eyes?

Like a student of Camus or Nietsche, they paint a nihilistic purpose of life and plead for humility and simplicity. Even before the listeners can digest the gist of the speech, these same mules start arguing that they are right and throwing the weights around to show who is the boss! So much for walking the talk.

I just rest idly like a fly on the wall. I fancy looking at myself like a mysterious lizard who play dead and listen intently to the conversations. Sometimes I think it is quietly mocking the speakers by periodically clicking at the end of the sentences. And the humans respond as if they had received a divine nod of approval.

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

A full circle

Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Documentary; 2019) 

 Based on the book written by Thomas Piketty.

We started in the pre-Industrial Revolution with a significant disparity between the haves and have nots. Under the feudal system, there were the extremely wealthy landowners and the dirt poor peasants. The inequality between the two was phenomenal. The poor simply cannot work their way to become rich. It is humanly impossible. One has to be born with a silver spoon to own capital. Alternatively, one has to be married into one, like in the many fairytales and novels of the yesteryears. 1% of the world population owned 70% of the world's wealth.

The divide between the affluent and the impoverished became more apparent. This triggered the exodus of people from Europe to newer lands like Australia and the USA and took them over. The emigrants replicated their master's strategy of wealth acquisition. They used slaves, a form of movable property, as collateral and capital to generate more land and wealth.

When machines rolled in during the Industrial Revolution, people were just replaced, creating the same kind of impoverished people as they had before. Businesses flourished. Mass production of goods by machines needed a market. Fashion designing, haute culture, gift-giving, splurging during festivities was popularised. Businessmen accumulate wealth.

Nationalism reeked in as inequality reared its ugly head. People forgot about their poverty and stood steadfast behind the banner of nationhood. Industries fanned this by churning out weapons and starting military competition amongst nations to start wars. Now the elites are also the one who controls the narrative at the international level. Again, the same schism morphed between the rich and the poor, the 1% owning 70% of the wealth.

The world wars that came about were actually equalisers that jolted the inequality. Capitalism was held accountable for the catastrophe. It seems that on the cusp of death, humanity appeared more critical. Everyone is equal in fear of death. In rolled in heavy State involvement in nation-building. Cradle-to-tomb benefits were handed out to societies. The working class and women demand their place in society. For the first time in human history, an individual could climb up the social ladder through education and hard work.

Anti-capitalist protesters - St Paul's Cathedral, London, 2011. 
Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images Europe

Actually, during the wars, capital was only marginally lost. Some were used to finance the war, whilst some were retrieved later. With the euphoria of peace and the push to spur economies, many manoeuvres were put into place to help big corporations be in the role of what the aristocrats used to fill.
Resentment grew again. Wage did not expand in proportion to the increased cost of living. The increase in union strikes and demand for entitlement did not help either. Labour was no longer an asset but the expense of doing business. The welfare state was just too costly.

We are now in a world where greed is good. The poor are handout loans for which they are not creditworthy. The lust for luxurious, opulent and decadent lifestyles lure the ill-prepared to dream of the impossible to plunge them into more misery than mired in. On the other hand, the wealthy has the four corners of the world to hide their treasures. Using creative accounting and the intelligent use of international off-shore banking, 85% of the world's wealth is just floating around without generating any benefit to the needy.
On the other hand, it generates more income for them. Tax evasion manoeuvres are helped via cash-strapped tax havens in banana republics. The problem with these havens is that their local populace does not benefit from these transactions. They remain poor. They do not have to fear economic downturns as history has shown that bail-outs can be arranged.

Relationship between per capita national income
 and the degree of inequality in income distribution

Capitalism started out unequal, flattened inequality 

for much of the 20th century, but is now headed back

towards Dickensian levels of inequality worldwide.

Only 15% of the world wealth is spent to create a beneficial trickle-down effect to the not-so-wealthy 99%. The 'baby boomers' had it good. With the post-war prosperity and ability to acquire wealth, they can enjoy the fruit of their labour in their twilight years if they had done so. Meanwhile, the Millenials has it bad. With the rung of the social ladder getting wider and having had to finance their own education, they may spend their whole life in debt. They may not afford to own a roof over their head like their predecessors. The gig economy that they find satisfying puts them in a precarious position. They are not provided with a safety net against accidents, sickness and opportunity for holidays.
The author suggests that there should be a comprehensive tax revision. The ultra-rich needed to be taxed progressively the more they earn. Invasion of taxes by clandestine methods needs to be looked into. As inherited wealth will dominate wealth made form a lifetime's labour by an exorbitant margin, he propose an inheritance tax. His argument is that one cannot start the game of life with different terms, the have and have nots. His analogy is a game of monopoly of two players where one player starts the game with more money and has the chance to play with two dices. He will pass 'Go' more times and buy more properties and earlier in the game, hence collecting more rent. Well, one can say this is a Marxist or leftist view of the distribution of wealth.

A friend once told me this. Even if all the world's wealth is equally divided among the world's inhabitants right to the last penny, creating an ideal egalitarian society, we just have to give ten years. After ten years, wealth distribution and inequality will revert to their previous pattern. Some people are just good with money. Others have different priorities. One glaring thing that is not taken into all these systems is the human innard qualities. As quoted by Gandhi, the Earth has everything to fill our needs, but not our greed.

History has shown that everything in life happens cyclically. Man will create an economic model. It will be a good, best thing since forever. Then slowly, one by one, its shortcomings will surface. Then more. Suddenly it will be the worst thing Man ever thought of. Then more calls for reform, a revolution maybe. A new system will be proposed - the best thing since sliced bread. And the cycle will continue.

Whatever said and done, the idea of utopia on Earth is a piped dream. The dream of eternal fairness and equality is as real as seeing a pink unicorn. Even the Universe is not kind to its dwellers. They have to endure thunders, typhoons, volcanic eruptions and asteroid collisions and their devastating effects. The presence of a large middle class is essential to form a buffer between the haves and have nots, to narrow the division in wealth inequality. Transformation and modification will happen, but we will keep on looking for the ideal elusive economic model.

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

Do the crime, do the time!

Nail Polish (Hindi; 2021)

In ancient China, India and Egypt, only the wealthy and royalty were allowed to don nail polish. It was a symbol of their status - the ability to show a set of clean fingernails, indicative that they have servants to do their dirty job.

When nail polish came to Europe, it was looked upon as a way to hide their dirty fingernails. Ill health, undernutrition and occupational hazards left them with ugly cuticles. Symbolically, the film's title, 'Nail Polish', refers to the shield we use to hide our inner ugliness. We also blanket our deficiencies and sadness by putting up a front to deal with the stress of meeting daily battles with a smiling face.

Court dramas just become more convoluted with movies of this nature. In a typical Bollywood show, the courts are often portrayed like cockfights or medieval marketplaces where horse-trading is being conducted. Everyone will be yelling on top of their voice. The decorum would be an unfamiliar word, and the judge would be a pusillanimous figure only fit to bang the gravel and utter 'proceed' or 'objection overruled' as story warrants. Not this one; it was a refreshing story with pleasing airbrushed scenery to the drape outdoors we are used to. The characters are not two-dimensional, but all carry their baggage and inner demons with them.

Veer Singh (a talented Manav Kaul) is a well-liked sports coach, a do-gooder and an ex-serviceman. When the burnt bodies of immigrant children were found, his name crops up as the suspect and is tried. 

A high flying legal eagle, Sid Jaisingh (Arjun Rampal, after a hiatus) with political ambitions is assigned probably to increase his chances of climbing the party ladder, to defend him pro bono. Sid seems to have issues with his deceased father, probably have to fit into his shoes. We get glimpses of his failed relationship.

The presiding judge put up a majestic posture of composure, but in actual fact, he is terribly upset with his alcoholic wife and her unwinnable battle with the bottle. He soon realises that this case is no open and shut case. During his stint in the army, the accused let a life of an assassin, opposite of his current civilian life. Suddenly, this mild-mannered man is no ordinary man but a killer machine.

Things get complicated when Veer gets assaulted in jail in prison politics and sustains a severe head injury. His physical wound recovers, but he seems to have a different personality. Veer says he is a lady and starts giving a new narrative about her past life. The rest of the story is told in a relatively sober tone without much melodrama.

At the end of the show, the dilemma is whether it is ethically appropriate to punish a person who is now is different from his old self, i.e. before the assault. It is the mind that commits the crime; can the human being be blamed? What makes the person a human? Is it the physical body or the mental faculty? Is the accused using the psychological exclusion clause to 'nail polish' himself from the crimes he committed?

A riveting, thought-provoking court drama worth the time spent.

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

We, the people?

Grapes of Wrath (1940)
Director: John Ford
A novel by John Steinbeck

A typical scene in a big establishment when a crisis looms. When a patient is discharged from a hospital and has to speak to somebody who has the authority to give a discount, he will be given a runaround. Nobody has the power to approve that slash in the bill. It is always about the system, or the management has to decide. Who is managing, they may ask? Nobody can give a straight answer as a management team is not one person, and his job his not permanent. Even the CEO has to safeguard his career - too much of a discount-and may lose his job. Same with a big establishment like a bank. Even the bank manager emphasises with his loyal customers, his hands are tight. He has to toe the line of stock-owners and continue squeezing the debtor for dues. 

All the big establishments invoke the fear of the weight of powers that be upon the weak. The elites and powerful side of the society are constantly rubbing shoulder with the authority and the corporations. This unholy alliance creates a deep fissure in the community, as the haves and have-nots fleet further and further away from each other. In times of calamities, this becomes apparent; the effective use of all the resources upon their disposal to pounce upon the poor ensures that the rich continue enjoying their living style. 

If history has taught us anything, we realise that the widening of economic prowess is a perfect recipe for a revolution. When they feel powerless against a perceived autocratic system, people will raise their working tools in solidarity to fight back. We saw it in the French and Bolshevik revolutions. Hunger is a potent trigger to change the course of history.

Logically, we should soon be seeing the effects of a year of Covid-induced lockdown. Civil servants continued receiving whilst the self-employed had to tighten their belts with loss of income and the inconveniences of multiple Government restrictive policies.

After the initial euphoria of the end of WW1, the world plunged into an economic depression in 1929. The weather was also against their side for the Joad family in Oklahoma. The family has to leave their farmland as the bank pressures them for outstanding payments. The family with other Okies (Oklahomans) leave their Dust Bowl State for California in their rickety truck, together with Tom, who had just been out of prison. After enduring a treacherous journey, they soon discover that California is no promised land. There is starvation, oppression by the authorities, bullying by employers and police's unholy union, and restrictions on personal liberties. 

John Steinbeck's 1939 novel is a Pulitzer-winning classic with much Reds undertone and is used as reading in many American schools. He went on to win the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1962 for that work. The book is a stark reminder that the subject matter discussed can be topical at any period. The poor will always remain impoverished despite advances in science, technology, and economic leaps and bounds. The rich and those in power will always devise ways to keep them under their thumbs. New laws will be instituted, taxes will be adjusted to accommodate the rich and novel ideas will prop up to entice the downtrodden to dance to the big conglomerates' tune.

The title 'The Grapes of Wrath' may have a Biblical reference. In the Book of Revelation, an angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the clusters from the vine of the world, and threw them into the great winepress of the wrath of God [14:19-20]. Grapes, when pressed, will morph into a divine and spirited drink. Hence, when the workers are oppressed for too long, they would rise to wreak justice upon greedy and self-serving landowners and bankers. The filmmakers had to modify the storyline to not arouse legislators' curiosity when Hollywood was mainly targeted for subtly spreading communist's sentiments.

The phrase 'grapes of wrath' also appears in Julia Ward's composition of 1861 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic', a famous American patriotic song.

Roman Charity: Pero secretly breastfeeds her father,
Cimon who is sentenced to death by starvation
Peter Paul Rubens

The word 'Okies' in the 1930s was a derogatory word of sorts. It denoted westward-bound white migrant agricultural workers from cotton-growing states from the east. In 1937, California brought in the 'Anti Okie Law' to make it illegal to bring in any destitute person. It was later revoked as unconstitutional.

Not everyone in the USA, especially the Californians, took in kindly to Steinbeck's book. The idea of Americans treating their own kind with so much scorn and cruelty was too repulsive. The idea of our cooperative type of setup like the one in a communist/socialist nation instead of American democracy in solving the poors' misery was offensive. To top it all, the book presents a character who performs an act of Roman Charity. She nurses a sick and starving man.

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

Needs image enhancement

Infidel (2020)
Written, Directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh. 

They say this film reinforces the stereotype of people who profess the Islamic faith. It paints all people from Iran and the Middle East with the same brush that they are all terrorists. It compartmentalises all of them as closet sympathisers of sleeping cells. It assumes that they are all wolves in sheep's clothing. It is accused of propagating Islamophobia and accentuates the divide that the world plunging further into.  

Even though their new hosts have offered a hand of friendship and accepted them to share their prosperity, the newcomers still hold their allegiance to the former countries, the countries that they destroyed and the nation that become too toxic for them to inhabit. The problem is that the newcomers all have a common bond that unites them to ruin their newfound land, religion's brotherhood. 

The problem is that there is an image problem. A peaceful religion must be seen to be as one. More public relation works are wanting in making this a reality.

This problem of allegiance has been recurring all through the 20th century. There is discordance on whether to bow to the umbrella of nationhood or kneel to the universal camaraderie of religion. It happened during the khilafat movement and is happening now. There is a propensity to play victimhood and collude with the aggressor against the majority, citing the majority's conspiracy. 

This film tells the story (based on a true story, it seems) of a Christian preacher-blogger with a CIA wife who is a guest of Egypt. He is to attend faith dialogues to bridge the divide between Christians and Muslims in that conservative country. In a TV interview, he goes overboard with his discussion. His speech was construed as proselytising the Muslims and kidnapped by Hizbullah terrorists backed by the Iranian Government. The main reason for his abduction was that back home in the USA, the preacher is accused by his American-Iranian business-partner to have squealed to the CIA about subversive anti-national pursuits.

An average movie that can be given a miss. 3/5.

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

Storm in a teacup?

Sins (Indian-English; 2005)

Director: Vinod Pande

Vinod Pande had been a screenwriter, director, broadcaster in his own right. And he is still at it. He had been the centre of attraction, sometimes for the wrong reasons. This 2005 film, done in English, set in God's own country, created a lot of hoopla in its days. Despite its adult listing by the Indian film board, the public was still livid as it painted a Roman Catholic clergyman as an abusive adulterer.

Against the background of idyllic Kerala beaches and countryside, a priest gives a student nurse a ride who was late for her examinations. What a ride it turned out to be. Little recommendations here and help there to help the nurse in her studies and employment turned into a torrid affair. Despite being an open secret, the preacher climbed the ladder of the priesthood and later became a Bishop. To appease the incessant public chatter, the parish arranged for a yeoman to marry her.

The situation became bizarre as the priest becomes suspicious that the nurse had fallen for the mock husband. He becomes abusive. The nurse does indeed see the tender side of her husband and plot an escape hatch. The plan gets ugly as the cleric, in return, plans an elaborate intent to harm her. She (with her unborn child) is killed, and the disgraced priest is convicted and sentenced to death by hanging.

It is supposed to be based on a true story. But, so what? People do not enjoy being critiqued, and the lowest point being highlighted. They rather hear the achievement than their embarrassments, but not as much as other people's lowest ebb.

The public's disgruntle on this film not just about the abysmal portrayal of a holy man and the total disregard of their religious sensitivities, but also because of the bold exposure of the female anatomy, relatively to what the Indian public was used to. The producers rebutted, showing that the film is classified as an adult film; hence it is a choice. The filmmakers would like to showcase the cinematography's beauty, the display of changing human emotions, and the destructive nature of forbidden love.

Anyway, the movie had its due screening, and the directors went on to make other movies. It may have just been a storm in a teacup. So did the leading stars.

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