Beware what you catch!

I can hear her words still reverberating in my ears like she said it yesterday. To catch a  big fish, always put a small fry on the hook. All through my childhood, this is the mantra that Amma preached upon us. She was unapologetic about her views about the nuns in the convent school that my sisters went to. Even though she was the one who insisted that my sisters should go to a missionary school, she was always sceptical about their true intentions. She told my sisters to learn what the teachers taught but not what the nuns preached. She was clear about that. In her mind, the school gave good education, for the other stuff, thank you very much.

Whenever someone offers you a handout, be wary. Amma would always remind us that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything carries a piece of baggage. In simple terms, we grew up distrusting altruistic intention, minding only for ourselves. Maybe, these teachings helped us to pull ourselves by our bootstraps to greater heights.

As we matured and our inner eyes opened, we thought maybe the human race survive all this while because of our altruistic acts, not just each individual's zest to survive. The strong had to hold out a helping hand to guide the weak. For that, we have charity bodies, NGOs and religious institutions.  

All that Amma had said came echoing back to me after so many decades when Bill Gates, the once-richest man in the world, announced that he was donating half of his property to charity and was sacrificing his life and soul in solving Africa's food and health problems once and all.  

Soon enough, the truth was revealed. At the heights of the Wuhan virus pandemic and the desperate dearth of vaccines in everybody mind, someone suggested that the patency for vaccines should be lifted. It was thought more vaccine makers can increase production to make it available to the masses, the rich and poor alike. But, much to everybody's surprise, Mr Gates opposed the idea citing fear of a drop in the quality of vaccines produced. In my eyes, it sounds like a drop in income rather than quality control.

Even closer to home, our leaders are not at all interested in getting all its citizens vaccinated. The tussle is not in procuring vaccines, but which brand to use, whose proxy companies would get the lion's share of the bargain and what is it for them. Nobody is bothered about the lay people's welfare. Even individual states which procure vaccines via donations are restricted from using, citing licencing and legal mumbo jumbo as the issue. Again, the bottom line is ringgits and sens. If their intentions are so clear, are they worried? No, they are so thick-skinned that nothing can hurt them. Come next election, they would create another ruckus to garner sympathy votes.

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

See you at the end of the road!

Nomadland (2020)
Director, Screenplay, Co-producer: Chloè Zhao

Maybe we never forgot our roots. Even though we decided to become farmers, stay put in one place and hope to gain strength through numbers (i.e. living in communities), we simply could not shake off our desires to wander and be close to Nature. As cavemen and hunter-gatherers, we were doing the same thing. We were awed by the things around us. We wanted to experience them and to know all about the fantastic things that we saw and felt. Who built them? When were these made?  Like an excited child, we yearned for answers. And we are still doing them today. 

At one time, we were told it is what it is. Do not ask too many questions of which answers you will not understand. It is beyond your comprehension, they would say. Nah, read these scriptures; everything is there. With science, it appears that this mindset is changing. People started asking questions and more question. Apparently, there were more questions than answers the more people asked. Curiosity piqued. Obviously, the books did not have all the answer. It seems that people need to feel to experience. They needed to spread their wings. The desire to travel is rekindled.

Much like a physical journey, our life journey gives us pockets of experiences. Every visual gratification, every smell, every touch, every feeling is an experience of its own. In life, we would encounter many sweet-bitter events. All these pockets of experiences form a composite picture of what we can say 'our life'.

'Nomadland' can be viewed as a cerebral movie that tries to look at two things that seem essential to the American public - homelessness and the zest to find the meaning of life. In a way, this film combines both topics. 

Chloè Zhao

Many townships that had experienced boomtown for decades are now in real danger of being wiped off the USA map. The industries and factories which formed the rock bed of their existence have suddenly lost their competitiveness. Many of the work had been outsourced to third world countries. Town dwellers had to find employment elsewhere. One such town in this story is Empire in Nevada. Fern, the protagonist, is one of the last people to leave this town after its Gypsum plant shuts down, and her husband dies. She sells her belongings to invest in a van to travel, see the world, and seek employment. 

In the course of her journey, she meets many fellow travellers who consider themselves 'nomads', making trying to escape the restrictive lives that they were leading or to cut loose of the melancholy that suffocate them. 

Perhaps by being out in the open amongst the gargantuan structures and mighty forces of nature, all our troubles seem insignificant. To the vast expanse of the Universe, we, as individuals, are irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. We are nothing, so are what we perceive as our unsolvable miseries.

Chloè Zhao has the enviable reputation of being the first woman of colour and the second woman to win the coveted 'Best Director' award at the Oscars. But, unfortunately, her native country, China, had censored all of her, the 2021 Oscar, as well as her acceptance. This is in response to her caustic remark about China in a 2013 interview. She had described China as a 'place where there are lies everywhere'.

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

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.