A full circle?

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Decided to give this classic movie another shot after the recent turn of events in Jerusalem. Every group seems to be trying to garner some brownie point from the clash. Something that arose as a real estate and enforcement issue has now snowballed to another intifada of sorts. The interesting thing that caught my eye is some faction's labelling of Erdogan as Palestine's saviour and the call for him to re-establish the Ottoman Empire.

If we remember well, the Ottoman was labelled as the sick of Europe towards the end of the 19th century. The Arabs were planning a revolt that appeared to go nowhere. Since the Turkish (Ottoman Empire) were aligned with the Germans in WW1, the British felt it made military sense to support the Arabs to fight the Turks. The Arabs always felt superior to the Turks as the Prophet was an Arab whilst the Turkish ancestors were originally barbaric nomads who embraced Islam. 

Ottoman Empire c.1900

The Middle East then was as tumultuous as it is now, with each tribe factions wanting to control water wells (not oil wells; petroleum was not discovered yet) and territory. TE Lawrence, an archaeologist, a paper pusher and a lieutenant in the British Army stationed in Cairo, wanted a piece of the action in the field. So he joined the Bedouins to be the military advisor to Prince Faisal of Mecca. He crossed the Jordanian deserts to help them defeat the Ottoman Army, bomb their strategic railway line and march all the way to Damascus. All these occurred circa 1917, during World War 1. All the while, the British and the French were busy carving up the whole of the Middle East for themselves.

Peter O'Toole and Omar Shariff
(Lawrence and Shariff Ali)

The experience in the desert war front and the doublespeak of the Army may have proved too much for Lawrence to stomach. Much of what is narrated in this story is based on his book, 'The Seven Pillars of Wisdom'. There are many controversies about the TE Lawrence character. Many historians disagree about the accuracy of the facts depicted. He is said to be narcissistic who tend to self-aggrandise. He is plagued with a traumatic upbringing. He was born out of wedlock to a nobleman. Two of his siblings were casualties of WW1, and it affected him deeply. TE Lawrence was doing espionage works for the British Army and is said to be doing it even after his 'Lawrence of Arabia' stint.

Back home, he enrolled in the Air Force under a pseudonym. But, some wonder whether this fascination with going under various surname, which he had done later, had something to do with his own 'borrowed' surname.

Lawrence of Arabia's path (1916-18)

There is a dispute about his sexuality. Many of his Arabs helpers were not mere companions or guides. Their relationship is said to be mere platonic. Nevertheless, the LGBT community place him as a gay icon. Many Arabs would like to believe that Lawrence was so mesmerised by the Arab culture and the Islamic religion that he dressed like an Arab and began quoting the Koran. But, perhaps, he was just an opportunist, working in cahoots with the Imperial forces to cheat the Arabs blind.

Coming to the news that amused me. So, it looks like the Arabs, after being oppressed and illtreated for more than 500 years by the Turks under the Ottoman Empire, need the Turks' help to free themselves (Palestinians are Arabs) from a common enemy, Jews.

But then it does not compute. With so many denominations within the religion and each proclaiming to be holier than the other as well as calling for each others' head, I wonder how long they would stick on to fight the common enemy before they pull the trigger against each other? The Arabs feel superior to the other Muslims because the Prophet was an Arab; the Persians place themselves above the Arabs with their long civilisation to back them up. The Turks with their Mongol ancestry are one notch lower than them. All of them look at the Africans as slaves and Asians as lesser beings.

Turkish media’s ‘Palestinian activist’:
‘Erdogan, come liberate Palestine.
Come establish the Ottoman Empire again.’

Another thing that fascinated me whilst watching this movie was the aversion that the Arab tribes had against each other. In this movie, we witness the blatant killing of a traveller of low social standing for drinking water off a well belonging to a nobleman. And I guess things have not changed much since then. And the audacity of the world to equate caste discrimination as synonymous to Hindu culture only. The want to dominate is universal.

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

We are losing our leaves

The Father (2020)

The good die young, they say. So we look sentimentally at the 'Club 27' and bemoan their premature departure from the world of music; we lament the loss of many of their yet composed pieces. We remember them forever as the spirited and creative maestros they were. But, on the other hand, we abhor the many who had obviously overstayed their welcome; a particular nonagenarian two-time ex-Prime Minister comes to mind. It seems the longer we seem to stay alive, the further we get away from the public likeability scale. 

Perhaps we tolerate the old because of fear of what would become of us. In the hope of hope, we think all the good deeds will somehow be recorded and duly reciprocated by the Universe! Maybe, we are struggling to stay afloat in this Ocean of Life that we are looking for support in what we are doing. With the wisdom of having traversed similar paths, we secretly wish that they would give a nod of approval to our actions. 

Jim Morrison, Amy Winehouse and Kurt Cobain 

27 club (has at least 10 members)

We have fond recollections of young relatives, of children who succumbed to ailments way before their time. We remember the charming smile, their pranks and good times spent together. But, unfortunately, it is not the same of a sick relative who demanded de has to endure terminal care of a protracted. Despite all the good times they had offered in their happier, somehow, the memory that lingers in our minds is the latter days of pain and suffering. That, unfortunately, seems to be the first image of them that comes to mind. 

We are familiar with movies highlighting the trials and tribulations of the caregiver or the mess that the person with a mental disorder goes through. Unlike the rest, this movie tells the narrative from the point of the sufferer. As confusing as the orientation to time, space and person can be to a person afflicted with dementia, we, the audience, also get unsettled by the linearity of the story. It keeps flip-flopping, the scenes appear repeated, the background keeps changing, and we cannot really pin down who the bad person. Actually, there are none. Everybody is merely playing their part.

We soon realise that the main character just wants to cling to what he sees as reality, convincing himself that he is not off his rockers, that his judgement is right, and he has everything under control. Despite all the abuses hurled upon her, his daughter feels that caring for her father and sacrificing all her personal desires and ambition is the most filial thing to do. 

Some like to believe that these lost opportunities and the serving are just unsettled business transactions from another lifetime that needed to be completed. Ageing is just like the shedding of leaves of a passing season. Just like a tree that sheds its blades in autumn to go into hibernation before springing out new shoots, old age and passing are inevitable. We 'pass away' into the annals of time. In Tamil, a dead person 'becomes time' - 'காலம் ஆனார்'. 

[P.S. The octogenarian Anthony Hopkin won an Oscar for Best Actor for his role in this movie].

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

Toxic miscarriage of justice?

Roe v Wade (2021)

This movie is often described as the worst film made in 2021 so far. It must surely be a showcase for lousy storytelling, novice acting, and horrible script all put together. Sometimes, we wonder which direction the movie is going, pro-life or pro-choice? 

This offering is made by the people who feel the country was hoodwinked by Planned Parenthood in believing that the decision to give women the right over the reproductive function was what the government wanted. The Planned Parenthood's link to Margaret Singer and her work in eugenics and the 'Negro project' (and even Klu Klax Klan as the film suggest) meant that the foundation's intentions are subversive. It is said to have enticed medical practitioners and social workers with fake statistics and media to influence public sentiments. The prime advocate of abortion on demand was a gynaecologist Bernard Nathanson, who allegedly changed the whole pro-abortion issue into a money-making endeavour, later apparently repented and started championing an anti-abortion stance.

The film, however, gives a good background of the events surrounding the Supreme Court and the thinking of the 1973 landmark case. A Texan lady, Norma McCorvey, referred to as Jane Roe in her trials to maintain anonymity, was advised to put up an injunction, through her lawyers, to terminate her pregnancy. Norma had a troubled childhood and had had frequent run-ins with the law, even at the age of ten. Married at 16, only to discover that her partner was left with a baby and a drinking problem, her mother adopted her baby. A second partner came around, and a second baby ensued but was given up for adoption. She had her third unplanned pregnancy when she was 21 in 1969. She allegedly made a false claim that she was raped by a black man to demand a termination as it seems it was permissible by Texan law. She lost on paperwork, but the lawyers decided to get the case heard in the US Supreme Court with the backing of Planned Parenthood.

The times were changing. The social fabric and the place of women were evolving. From a position of playing second fiddle to men, the two world wars had shown that the women's role in society was equally as important as that of men. Hence, it became logical to demand equal rights, and they viewed reproduction as something that held them back from exploring their full potentials. The thinking was that 'one who controls reproduction controls her future. 

With this background and the change of the Supreme Court judges (after Nixon's appointment), the law was passed. 

Interestingly, both Dr Nathanson and Norma McCovey later became devout Catholics and fought for anti-abortion lobbyists.

Week 3: Embryonic stage

By no means, the question of abortion on demand has been resolved by the Roe v Wade case. (Wade is the name of the Public Prosecutor assigned to McCorvey's case). Legal minds still argue about Roe v Wade. It brings on the question of patient privacy and the place of the unborn child as a living entity demanding rights itself.

Scholars have been debating when life actually starts for centuries and still not come to a definite conclusion. For example, is it at Day 14 of conception when differentiation to trigeminal layers occurs? Or is it at the commencement of heartbeat or fetal movements?

All these academic stuff are well and fine to determine the path for the human race to follow, but in reality, in the ground, the public Joe has to handle the day-to-day dealing with more mouths to feed than they actually can. The funny thing about nature is that the people who can ill afford to have children are bestowed (or cursed) with generous gifts from the Stork. So poverty and multiparity are directly linked. How about rape as a justification to terminate a pregnancy? Are we going to lose the next Steve Jobs or Albert Einstein here?

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

Will love keep us together, forever?

Minari ('Water Celery' American-Korean, English; 2021)

Written and Directed: Lee Isaac Chung

Most immigrants stories harbour melodrama which relies so heavily on wanting to play the victim card. They often portray their hosts as dysfunctional and that the pathetic immigrants are bullied and blamed for things that are no fault of theirs. Well, this one is different.

They left their motherland because it was too complicated there. Life in their newfound land is no leisure cruise either, they soon discover. Spending hours looking at chicken backside for the onerous task of chicken sexing is not cerebrally stimulating, but it pays the bill. When Jacob decides to move from California to the Ozark Land (Arkansas) for farming, his wife, Monica, thinks he is bonkers. With a young teenage girl to groom and a 'hole in the heart' stricken tween boy who needs regular medical attention, Monica is sceptical of the whole endeavour's success. Maternal Grandma, Soonja, is summoned from Korea to help to mind the kids. Herein starts a problem. The kids do not look at Soonja as Grandma material. She does not speak English and does not tell stories.

Monica, the religious of the two, hopes to find solace in the church and its congregants. Their first attendance proved an inconvenience as they could not fit into the mostly white crowd. Jacob getting along with his farming with the help of a war veteran, Paul, who himself is pretty fanatical with his religiosity.

Jacob feels that all life challenges can be met with sheer human intelligence, whereas his wife believes that God's grace guides us. So, when drought hits the land and he cannot get customers for his produce, the couple has to make tough decisions about their marriage.

Are decisions in a marriage a compromise? Is love strong enough an anchor to steer the metaphorical family ship through the storm? Can traditional teachings and intangible beliefs provide a bedrock in bringing everyone together to weather hurdles in life?

A sober, slow-moving movie tackles many immigrants' issues in a subtle, unhurried and non-condescending way.

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

It is the journey.

Harold and Maude (1971)

Some look at life as full of doom and gloom, as a purposeless one. Whichever path one takes, we know what the final destination is, and the path leading to it can be paved with shrapnel and pain. Nietzschean and many existentialist philosophers perpetuate this idea. On the other end of the spectrum, others whose sole purpose of life is to savour the joy of being born as a human being push it to the tilt. They view the boon of birth as a gift on a platter to enjoy with no boundaries.

The truth must be lying somewhere in between - between nihilism and hedonism. There must be a purpose in our existence, perhaps to somehow leave a tiny mark of legacy, no matter how small, in a small way to propel our loved ones, family or community forward. A community, hence a country, is, after all, is made of subunits of families. So, improvements in families will sequentially propel the human race forward. 

We should probably get our cues about life from the words of the Stoics and Epicureans. In their minds, we have only this one life to do what we can whilst finding pleasure within all of the aches and pains it has to offer.

This 1971 film, made at the end of the time of flower power, must have been an assessment of the liberal care-free perception of society versus the traditional convention-abiding outlook of the community. It was a satire of society we live in, which involves 'groupthink' as determined by authoritative figures - religion, psychology, family, military.

This cult-following offering recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. It is a dark comedy about a death-obsessed 19-year-old young man who falls in love with a happy-go-lucky 80-year old lady. Yes, 80 years old.  Harold, brought up in a privileged background by a narcissistic single mother, grows bored with life. He is preoccupied with death and religiously attends funerals, even of unknown people, just to be closer to death. He has a warped sense of humour, sometimes faking himself hanging or cutting off his own limb. His mother's attempts at keeping him entertained with gifts and new girlfriends proved futile.

So Harold found himself quite at home with a chance meeting with Maude at a random funeral. Her care-less attitude and total disregard for the rule of law excited him. Their little escapade turned out to be a sort of coming-of-age phase for Harold as Maude shows him all the small things that make one appreciate the reason for living. Harold looks at funerals as the final destination we are all edging to as Maude looked at them as a moment to reflect the time of their existence. I guess the film's message is to accept death as an essential and inevitable recurring process that regenerates life.

The memorable scene in this movie is the one in a field of daisies. Maude said she would like to change to a sunflower most of all as they are so tall and simple. Harold replied that he would like to be one of the daises because "they are all alike". Maude turned to Harold and explained that they are not.  

"Some are smaller, some are fatter. Some grow to the left, some to the right. Some even have lost some petals. All kinds of observable differences". Harold could suddenly see the truth in her observation. The camera pans way back to show that Harold and Maude were standing in a graveyard. The gravestones were identical to the daises in one perspective. Even though the stones were all carved to look similar, they signify different lives lived - happy, sad, abrupt, or long. But the ending, the final destination, nevertheless, is the same.

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

Towards the Happy Moron and Human 2.0

Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Power: 5 Battlegrounds.

Author: Rajiv Malhotra

Look at God and His invention from a philosophical angle. God created all beings, including Man. From a simpleminded simpleton, he evolved to develop a brain complex enough to tap the secrets of the Universe. His intelligence found new frontiers and was able to create and modify new lifeforms. Pretty soon, Man thinks he is better than God. He sometimes thinks God/Universe does not exist. Man is the centre of the Universe, and everything revolves around him.

In self-discovery and expansion of human intellectual capacities, he discovered artificial intelligence (AI). From a tool to aid Man in his day-to-day mundane and repetitive jobs - help him around the house and then help in factories, AI slowly began, through Man's astute observation, that many of our actions and problem can be broken down into algorithms. 

Over time, these algorithms were created for AI to be creative and responsive independently. The point of no return must have been reached when the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov in a game of chess. Many modern AI programmes are said to have come close to passing the Turing test, the instance when machine response is indistinguishable from a human's. 

Creative artistic compositions and even emotive responses have been broken down into algorithms. So, for example, AI can compose music pieces and paintings.

Will there come a time when consciousness be broken down into algorithms? What happens after that mirrors the many scenarios of innumerable dystopian sci-fi movies. AI does not need its inventors and can work independently and against its creators. Man will be redundant, an annoyance or irrelevant enough to be disposed of. 

That is the course of things. AI is here to stay. The author looks at five areas (which he refers to as battlegrounds) that may need intervention by the powers that be. The mentioned areas are economics, geopolitics, loss of agency or psychological control of the public, metaphysics of consciousness and human capital.

There is a palpable fear that the rapid replacement of jobs by AI. Even though historically, industrialisation did cut jobs, this time around, the loss of employment could be too fast and too widespread. The disparity between the haves and have-nots will be more prominent as the middle-class shrinks.

Geopolitical dealings will hit a more extensive frontier. If previously, the loss of human lives was the impediment for nations to go to war, with AI and fighter machines, the only thing that would prevent them is the ability to finance wars. Countries with more enormous AI-based military-industrial complexes will likely rule the world.

As most of us are aware now, the internet and social media have turned us into automatons. Our personal information is public domain. We had willingly signed off our right to privacy. Like dogs in dog shows, we are easy pacified with serotonin-inducing likes and approvals in our comfortable echo chambers. Virtual reality and augmented reality devices, wearables and implants will put us in a constant state of psychedelic euphoria. Our social behaviour is analysed and gamified to influence us to dance to the tunes of the webmasters.

Augmented Reality glasses

It seems that everything can be coded. Scientists have algorithms for everything, including possibly our consciousness. The average human being would be a moron as all thinking processes can be outsourced to AIs, which would be essentially Human 2.0.

The world will be divided into two categories - the 1% of the elite God-like mega-rich larger-than-life entrepreneurs and the rest being the masses who have to be servants and consumers to the institutions of the 1%.  

With the future so dim, we probably would not need shades. Perhaps just VR, AR glasses or Google goggles.

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

What if Jesus returns?

Nenjam Marapathilai (நெஞ்சம் மறப்பதில்லை, The heart never forgets; Tamil; 2021)
Story and Director: Selvaraghavan

This film may not resonate with the average Kollywood movie-goer. It is supposed a thriller, a ghost story with corpses, gore and blood, but it is plentiful with hidden messages and symbolism. It is for the viewers to connect the dots and draw their own conclusions.

A casual viewer would surmise the whole offering as a poorly made horror flick with poor VFX about an orphan, Mariam, from a Church taking up a childminder's job in a dysfunctional family. The man of the house is a two-faced eccentric tyrant, Ramasamy @ Ramsay. He is married to his bosses' daughter and is under her thumb. He appears to courteous to everyone, but beneath his pleasant demeanour, evil lurks. 

Long story short, the minder is gang-raped by Ramsay and his servants, killed and buried in the large home compound. Mariam comes back as a spirit to avenge her bizarre death.

In an interview, the director, who also wrote the story, asserts that it is a good versus evil story. In the form of a servant, Jesus comes to Earth to fight Satan, who is in the form of Ramsay. Along the way, the iconic representations of biblical events - Jesus carrying the Cross, Mary with infant Jesus, fish, bread, representation of angels and many more.

From the dialogue, one can make out the story takes a whack on the whole of human civilisation; Indian culture of needing the safeguard reputation, turning a blind eye to injustice, blatant disregard to decency, class discrimination and more. It seems that evil is more prevalent than good. People in power dictate terms, and the weak follow blindly without agency. The agency bestowed with the responsibility of upholding justice is flawed and corrupt. People can get away with murder and joke about it. Maintaining prestige and social stigma are more valuable than human lives. Money can buy everything, even love and care.

The dialogue gives a sense of deja vu. Then it hits you. There are plenty of references to dialogues from Sivaji Ganesan's movies. There is even a song from one of the movies he acted in -' Enga Mama' -'Chelakkiligalam Palliley'. The message the writer probably conveys is that the devil wears Prada and appears suave as well charitable. However, political leaders are not altruistic, there are only worried about the next elections' result and dancing to the party line's tune.

What I want to know is why Ramsay, aka Satan himself, is portrayed in a Hindu home where Durga Devi Stotram is heard in the background? Is there another veiled message there? Ramsay is the contraction of Ramasamy - Lord Rama!

This director has a penchant for naming his movie after pre-existing ones. Actually, in 1963, legendary filmmaker C V Sridhar directed 'Nenjam Marapathilai'. If the former was about unfulfilled love and reincarnation, the latter, in a way, is about the same. Jesus coming back to Earth to resolve an unsettled score. But then, reincarnation in Christianity? The scriptwriter would probably invoke their creative licences to squeeze more creative juices. And Jesus in the form of a lady?

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