A makeover?

The War of the Roses(1989)
Directed by: Danny DeVito

Watching this movie again after 30 years gives a different perspective to this movie altogether. In the first viewing, the message I remember taking back was that divorces are nasty affairs. Period. Now, it opens a different perspective of what is going through the minds of each of the involved parties as they execute each move to prosecute and subsequently persecute their significant other. 

For those in the dark about this movie, it came about at a time when the trio of Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner and Danny DeVito was riding high after their super-duper blockbusters' Romancing the Stone' and its sequel' Jewel of the Nile'.

The original 'War of the Roses' refers to the feud between factions of English Nobel houses which were eyeing the English throne in the Middle Ages. In this film, however, the war is between the Man and Wife of the Rose family.

It starts with a law student, Oliver, meeting Barbara, a gymnast, at an auction site. It was love at first sight, and they hooked up. They marry, have two kids and prosper together as Oliver's career goes from strength to strength. Over the years, Oliver had become a hotshot lawyer, and Barbara manages the kids and the home. Life was blissful when in melodious lyrics of 'Obladi Oblada' Progressively, Barbara starts feeling that she is just playing second fiddle to the whole set-up. Oliver seems to be doing all the intelligent, correct, and appropriate things whilst she remains socially awkward and not-so-intelligent. Rift builds up.

All the while, Oliver left all the managing of the domestic front to his wife while he concentrated on his role as the provider. He brought the cash, and she managed diligently. He thought everybody cared for each other playing their respective roles for the betterment of everyone in the Rose family. So, sixteen years of his marriage, when he was admitted for a suspected myocardial infarct, he was flabbergasted. Oliver thought he was going to die, but Barbara did not even show concern. She was more engrossed in her newly-found interest in catering. The children were already gone to college. One thing led to another, and Barbara finally admits that the loving feeling is gone. She wants a divorce. In comes the negotiations and the legal wrangle over the possession of the family home. Both parties feel they had invested too much in the house to just give it up just like that. The fight to own the house becomes so explosive and personal until they end up hanging on the chandelier in the phenomenal final scene of the movie, both refusing to give up ownership.

Till death do you apart?
Not stopping just at the kitchen sink. 

How did it end up like this? Snap out of it. This is reality. Eternal love and till death brings us apart only happens in the dreamer's make-believe world. Fairy tales do not tell what happens after the last page that says, "...and they lived happily forever and ever!' Biochemical excitations that spark at the spring of youth fizzles with advancing age in declining virility and altered life priorities. These changes differ between individuals. Rift occurs, and existential crisis may ensue.

Perhaps in man, this midlife crisis may manifest in acts of flamboyance- buying a flashy sports car, renewed interests in new hobbies or even seeking a trophy wife or mistress are sure give away tell-tale signs. In others, maybe, it is an existential crisis- a validation of sorts of their existence. They may re-evaluate all they had done in their life and realise that they had sacrificed too much for others' well-being and forgot their own in the process. They would have found solace in helicoptering their children. But they had overgrown their nest and want to fly solo. Again they feel disposed. They may delve into spirituality to improve their standings in Life 2.0 or dive head-on into something new, away from all their previous commitments. A revolution or just for the kick of it? What the heck. 

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

Not what our forefathers had in their minds!

Paradise Lost.
Mahathir & The End of Hope

Author: Dennis Ignatius

The writings were on the wall all the while. Our past leaders, Tunku, Tun Dr Ismail and Hussein Onn, saw through it all. We were just living in a wishful dream. A leopard never changes its spots. Mahathir's ideology never ever changed from the time he penned the 'Malay Dilemma'.

After reigning 22 years at the helm with an iron fist and burning a big hole in the national coffers, he left the country with a screwed up education system, a twisted judicial system and a lethargically bloated civil service.

His departure from PM'ship saw a slew of candidates who never really got Mahathir's nod of approval. He ran down his own choice of candidates. Just 10 years after his tenure, the country made the headlines for all the wrong reasons. It saw its Prime Minister embroiled in the most extensive business fraud.

A critique of Najib and the way UMNO was turning, Mahathir formed an unholy allegiance with his former arch-nemesis, Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Kit Siang. The citizens bought his story of a man trying to correct the wrong that he had done. From the word go, after his unexpected win at the GE14, Mahathir was an unhappy man. His Machiavellian mind went overdrive trying to outsmart his partners in his multi-ethnic unity government. On the sly, he double-crossed them. His sole intention was to have an all Malay government to carry his ultra-Malay nationalistic agenda. For Mahathir, Malaysia is for Malays. The other people who fought for the country and toiled their life away for the nation are still immigrants, irrespective of the number of generations their family had lived in Malaysia.

An Illustration from John Milton's
17th-century poem 'Paradise Lost'
about Adam and Eve losing their
place in Paradise (Garden of Eden)
due to Satan's nefarious act.

In his rapaciousness to fulfil his vision of restoring Malay hegemony, he sold the country's soul to Islamist elements who have permeated all administration levels: defence, education, judiciary, civil service, and the rest. In his rush to correct the economic imbalance between ethnicities, he and his band of 'visionaries' chose mediocrity over substance to cosmetically paint a rosy picture of equity.

The first thing he did after being offered the position of PM for the second time, he chaired the Malay Dignity Congress, contradicting himself on his promise of being the leader of all, irrespective of race and religion. He kept mum when India demanded Zakir Naik, a wanted criminal accused the world over for his terrorist-inciting speeches but defended his decision to keep him stay put in Malaysia. This, he did despite grouses from his own citizens.

The final hay that broke the camel's back came in the form of backdoor manoeuvring called Sheraton-gate. It becomes clear that, even though Mahathir claims ignorance, the whole steering is towards a Malay-controlled government that puts non-Malays as second-class yeomen. Mahathir had the trust of all its citizens to put things in order, but he took everybody for a ride.

The country has gone to the dogs. Barks of nonsensical rhetorics means nothing as the nation marches to glorify the absurd and put buffoons on the pedestal. Have we reached the point of no return as more and more of our young and daring minds who dare to question the status quo pack their bags and leave for greener pastures?

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

With all at your disposal!

Dial 100  (Hindi; 2021)
Written & Direction: Rensil D'Silva

A few days after the news broke out that a particular member of the Khan clan was apprehended for drugs-related activities, an ardent follower asked about my opinion about the whole brouhaha. It was early into the bust, I opined that the long arm of the law should be left to spread its tentacles and take its due process.

Almost a month into the arrest, nothing seems to be moving. Aryan Khan, who was in a rave party on a yacht, is still incarcerated and denied bail. I feel sad for this 23-year-old son of Bollywood's ambassador to the world.

Many prominent figures have done worse things and had gone off on bail, awaiting trial; why not him? Is it because of the stardom that the family enjoyed and that they may have ruffled a few feathers along the way?

The officer heading the investigation is no pushover. He is a celebrated civil servant who excelled in whichever department he is attached to. He even had a run with SRK when SRK failed to declare excess baggage at an airport. This news hit the headline, and the superstar had to cough out substantial fines.

Is Khan junior being made a scapegoat here? This harsh law against drug possession was tabled in the late '60s at the height of the hippy era when people used to take a pill to sleep and another to stay awake. It was feared then that the human race would be wiped out by the end of the 20th century at the rate drugs were a menace that punitive actions deemed necessary. Unfortunately, under the guise of protecting its citizens, it also gave the powers-that-be immense clout to detain (fix) its citizen with the minuscule amount of stash. 

Rightly or wrongly, certain 'developed countries' are easing their grip on drug laws. Recreational drugs for personal consumption has been legalised. Perhaps there is a big Pharma market by medicalising weed and psychedelics.

On the parents' side, the Khans have a moral duty to protect their fallen Khan. Maybe it is the 'selfish gene', but they are within their rights to fight tooth and nail to avert detention, let it be with charm, influence or money.

That brings in nicely to the theme of this 2021 Zee produced Hindi drama. Manoj Vajpayee, still reprising his 'Family Man' role here. He appears as a police emergency hotline respondent, Senior Inspector Nikhil Sood. If talking to distressed callers and cooling them down is not enough, he must weather the storm at his domestic front. His 17-year-old son, his only child, is up to his tricks again. His mother complains that he constantly keeps late nights. Just a year previously, he had entangled himself with a drug distribution ring, and Sood had to use his clout to get him scot-free. 

In the meantime, a mysterious caller keeps bugging him during his night duty. She alleges that she has a gun and wants to kill herself. The caller actually lost her son in a hit-and-run automobile accident. The driver, a rich man's son, was high on drugs, supplied by Sood's son. The caller (and her husband) has a score to settle - to see how the Soods squirm as she shoots their only son, just as she had lost hers. She devised an elaborate tit-for-tat plan to trap Sood's son and the driver of the car.

The movie is quite dramatic but has many holes in its plot. Some viewers complained that the storyline is predictable (maybe not the ending, though). Vajpayee is typecast in a role he has done many times before - a police officer who can dictate to the whole precinct but has no control over his family.

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

Any news is good news?

Trial by Media (6-episodes, Documentary; 2020)
Netflix

There was a time when jury members were told to abstain from consuming news from the newspaper, radio or TV to not influence their decisions. These days, however, this is no longer possible. One does not consume news; news consumes you. One can run, but he cannot hide; information finds you through every crack of the system; smart devices being the easiest.

Just look at how everyone has an opinion on how Covid should be managed. Everybody is cocksure where it came from, which drugs are effective and how effective vaccinations are. 

In the post-truth world, it seems that every individual forms an opinion on everything based on the validation they get online. Birds of the same feather flock together to steamroll their agenda. We can see how particular narratives are just gate-crashed, no matter the actual situation at the ground level. The confusing situation in Afghanistan that the country is left in is testimony to this. Then there is the ever confusing ground situation in India, a country surrounded by vultures waiting to pounce upon and destroy the biggest democracy of the world.

Jonathan Schmitz

This six-episode documentary tries to determine how media, the mainstream media, influences public opinion, perhaps the judicial system and its verdicts. At the end of all shows, viewers do not get answers to this, but they do get a rough idea of how media uses these cases to stir interest amongst the people. In some cases, the accused used the media to portray his squeaky clean image of themselves. The press has also moved into the courts via Court TV. 

The first episode is about the unscrupulous nature of TV, specifically Trash TV. Programmes like 'The Jerry Springer Show', 'Jeremy Kyle', 'Keeping up with the Kardashians' will be a few examples of these. In 1995, during 'The Jenny Jones Show', a neighbour, Scott Amedure, expressed his gay crush to Jonathan Schmitz. Jonathan had thought that another neighbour, a lady who invited him to the show, was going to confess her love. The whole faux pas was quite embarrassing to Jonathan. He took it in good spirits at that time, but Jonathan shot him dead with a shotgun the next day. 

Jonathan was charged and convicted for second-degree murder, and, guess what, the whole court debacle was screened live on 'Court TV'. Coincidentally, or perhaps not coincidentally, both 'Court TV' shows and 'The Jenny Jones Show' were owned by the parent company, Warner Brothers (WB). So WB had it good both ways, benefiting from the murder and filming the trial as well.

The victim's family, the Amedure, decided to sue the TV producers for recklessness and negligence. However, the TV company got away scot-free after an appeal to the grieving family's initial compensation award.

Bernard Goetz

The following case piqued the interest of the Nation again. In 1984, in the notorious crime-rich New York, a subway commuter, Bernard Goetz, shot four black boys in a subway rail. The shooter alleged it was in self-defence after being mugged. That incident sparked fueled a nationwide debate about safety on the streets of New York and other US cities generally. Goetz's case started vigilante groups that patrolled the streets to prevent urban crimes. The question of legal limits of self-defence was discussed. Is it alright to shoot once or twice to protect oneself? The NRA then worked on loosening gun laws in New York for protection. A quadriplegic victim even pressed a civil suit against Goetz for damages and was awarded $43million. Goetz was declared bankrupt.

Crime in New York saw a decline in the 1990s with new mayors and massive cleaning of the police department. It did come at a cost. Stringent policing meant there were that there was the occasional collateral damage. 

Amadou Diallo

In 1999, an African immigrant, a 23-year-old Guinean named Amadou Diallo, was shot 41 times by four New York plainclothes policemen in The Bronx. He was unarmed, with no criminal record and had come to the USA to taste a little bite at the Big Apple. Sadly he was shot down like a rabid dog. This spurred the talk of racial profiling and discrimination. Diallo's mother flew down and, together with civil rights icons like Al Sharpton, kicked up a big storm to seek justice. Sadly, nothing happened. The trial was held at a primarily different white county and mostly white juries to acquit the accused. 

Richard Scrushy

Richard Scrushy developed a world-class healthcare company from scratch in the backwaters of Birmingham, Alabama and made it to the Fortune 500. Before long, he was accused of money laundering, racketeering, money laundering, etcetera. About this time, he started an evangelical TV and went into a full religious mode. Interestingly he was active in the black Church. It is said his idea was to influence the local papers and juries to return a favourable result in his complicated and retracted court cases.

The following case is another new milestone for the media. It was the first time a rape trial was televised. Even though they had made some ground rules on maintaining the victim's anonymity and the sensitivities of the times, all hell broke loose when it came to execution. The victim's name was mentioned in full when the charge sheet was read, making the camera hound down at the victim's family home. In 1983, Cheryl Araujo, 21, a mother of two, stopped at a local bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts, to buy a pack of cigarettes when she was raped by four and witnessed by others who never stopped the crime.

The case began a national debate. As the accused were of Portuguese immigrants, there was an enormous backlash to the established fishing community of Portuguese descent. They were charged with harbouring illegal immigrants. The victim was also put on trial by the media. Her behaviour and morals were questioned. Victim blaming was apparent. It challenged the place of media in protecting personal privacy, finding newsworthiness and press freedom. The accused spent time in prison. The whole humiliation left Aroujo a wreck. She left for Miami but died at the age of 25 in a motor vehicle accident.

Rod Blagojevich

Rod Blagojevich is a second-generation Yugoslavian who climbed swiftly, with the support of his wife's political family background, to become Illinois Governor in 2002. Soon into the second reelection, he was accused of selling a Senate seat. He was impeached and was indicted by a federal grand jury. All through in between his trials and appeals, he was appearing on TV, expressing his views and basically leading the public perception in his favour. Even after his indictment, he pleaded his case on Fox TV. Surprise, surprise, Fox TV, which is said to be a Republic Party mouthpiece, tweaked the interest of President Trump to offer a Presidential pardon. Coincidentally, before Blagojevich's appointment to Governorship, he had appeared in Trump's 'The Apprentice'. It goes without saying that it is nice to have friends in high places, and it is invaluable to have the media on your side, especially when you are in trouble.

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

A mistake is a mistake.

Netrikann (Third Eye, Tamil; 2021)

By placing thilak/pottu/kumkum on one's forehead, one is constantly reminded that they should look beyond the mirage of Maya and seek to look inwardly beyond physicality. The sensory eyes are outward-oriented, whilst the third eye sees the nature of oneself and his existence. It helps to distinguish what is right and what is wrong. As the legend goes, the sensory eyes are influenced by lust, ego, and the twirl of our past births (kama and karma).

Logical precision can easily be distorted whilst perfect clarity arises only when the inner vision, called the third eye, opens up. 

Some say that the third eye corresponds to the pineal gland, which histologically looks like embryonic lateral eyes. As early as the ancient Egyptian era, the pineal gland gained its unique status as the bridge between the physical and ethereal worlds. The sketch of the Eye of Horus corresponds to the anatomical placement of the pineal gland in the brain.

The pineal gland is a photo-neuro-endocrine gland. It secretes melatonin which controls sleep and sexual maturity, serotonin which controls mental wellbeing and minute amounts of DMT (N, N, dimethyltryptamine), a psychotropic substance that evokes psychic phenomena. Many cultures in South America include DMT infused tea as a ritual of worship. There was a Supreme Court case in New Mexico in 2005 which had to decide whether a small congregation should be allowed to worship with the said hallucinogenic tea. 

The pineal gland also helps to set diurnal and circadian rhythms in the body. As mentioned by Swami Vivekanda in 1899 in Chicago about neuroplasticity, specific Shiva worshipping techniques are said to increase blood flow and neural connexions around this gland. This would subsequently alter all its functionalities as desired. It is an eye of wisdom that provides us with the faculty to distinguish what is right and wrong.

It is said that there was a debate in the royal courts of King Pandiya one day. The Royal Poet Nakeeran admonished a poem that claimed a lady's mane is naturally fragrant. Nakeeran insists that it is hair tonic and care that does the trick. An unkempt hair of a slave would not. Unknownbest to Nakeera that the phrase was penned by Lord Shiva himself. When challenged by Siva on this, the fearless Nakkeran is said to have said, "A mistake is a mistake even if you are God (One with the Third Eye). [Netrikkan thirappinum kuttram kuttrame] It has somehow become the rebel yell of the oppressed against the powers-that-be.

The title 'Netrikann' has its origin from this phrase; that a wrong is a wrong, no amount of rhetorics can justify otherwise. Back in 1981, there was a Rajnikanth-starred movie with a similar name. In that movie, a son confronts his father for his skirt-chasing habit. A wrong is a wrong even if your father does it. 

Netrikann (2021) tells about an impotent gynaecologist who finds sexual prowess through violence and ends up kidnapping his young unmarried patients who turn up at his clinic for termination of pregnancy. Somehow, the protagonist of the film, a blind Nayanthara, resembles the gynaecologist's wife, and he has a score to settle with her. The gist of the movie is how a blind police officer defeats a serial killer. A blind police lady also has her own issues to handle with. She is blaming herself for getting her brother killed in a jeep she was driving.

This 2021 film is based on a Korean movie made in 2011 named 'Blind'. The story is the same, but the Tamil version is more thorough, with ample space for dramatisation. Enjoyable, though 3.5/5.

P.S. With so much stupidity exuded by our politicians these days via their statements, we should behave like Nakeeran. We should develop the fortitude to chide idiocy every time it shows up. A mistake is a mistake, even it is done by the One with The Third Eye.

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

The story behind the unkindest cut!

Lorena (4-part Documentary, 2019)
Amazon Prime.

All this while, Bobbitt' case, in my mind, was about slicing off a part of body-part quite dear to the heart of a man by a wife scorned. More often than not, Bobbitt's name is invoked in jocular, tongue-in-cheek conversations rather than anything serious. The truth of the matter is that this case bares open the hypocrisy of a society that considers itself advanced. It also exposes the nation's fixation on sex and how the community uses people's misery for personal gain.  It reveals the various deficiencies in the American law about domestic violence and women empowerment.

At that time in June 1993, when Lorena Bobbitt, a 23-year-old Ecuadorian immigrant, in an apparent fit of rage, sliced off her husband's penis and threw it into a field, I never really got the whole picture of what actually caused the entire fiasco. The media was also biased in painting a picture of a deranged woman of South American descent acting in an un-American way rather than the drama surrounding the whole debacle.

Lorena came to the USA with a student visa, met John Wayne Bobbitt, a US Marine, and got married. She was 20, he, 22. Just a few weeks into their marriage, John Wayne started becoming abusive towards his timid wife. There were even accusations of marital rape and bodily harm. John had left the Marines, and Lorena was the sole breadwinner, working as a nail salon artiste. The torture went on, with multiple police reports and counselling until the fateful day.

John had come home drunk. He forced himself upon her and performed anal sex against her wishes. She sliced his organ with an 8-inch kitchen knife after the act.

After much real-life medical drama, John's organ was successfully reattached.

All the media excitement started after that. Some women's rights activists thought the incident could lead to more awareness of domestic violence. Instead, the case became a tabloid sensation and fodder for comedians. Media publicists represented both parties. TV coverage was a rage. Even small-time entrepreneurs in Manassas, Virginia, made a killing selling memorabilia and T-shirts. Manassas, a sleepy satellite town to Washington DC, became alive with reporters.

One person's misery is another person's 

source of income. T-shirts bearing this

wordings were found sold outside

 the courthouse of Bobbitt's trial.

The Bobbitts were subjected to two trials. The first one was the accusation of marital rape. Because of the technicalities of law in the State of Virginia, John was acquitted. In the second case of Lorena's assault on John, things became complicated. It became a case of 'he says' versus 'she says' as John denied being physically abusive but instead accused Lorena of being the aggressor. Luckily, the previous police intervention and John's friends and neighbours' admission of seeing his darker side helped. 

The jury had a tough time deciding whether Lorena's assault was pre-meditated or due to temporary insanity, as there was a lapse between the abuse and the assault. Finally, the jury agreed that an irresistible impulse occurred after years of abuse and pent-up anger. She escaped imprisonment but spent 45 days in a hospital for mental assessment.

Both the Bobbitts' lives followed different trajectories. Lorena stayed on, became an American citizen, had a child with a new partner in 2006 and became a sort of a feminine icon against domestic abuse. She runs a charity organisation that creates awareness of domestic violence. John, however, spiralled down the rabbit hole of decadence. He became a porn star, got a disastrous penile extension and had a few brushes with the law for battery and theft. Despite all the publicity stunts and job opportunities, he became bankrupt.

Abducted, raped, burnt and
dumped into a pond by
a British police officer
in March 2021.

Whatever was said and done, the people who had the last laugh were the media people. They used the whole imbroglio to their advantage, laughing all the way to the bank. Despite all the ugly prejudices that this case highlighted to the world, almost 30 years on, the world is still fighting the same issues about gender equality, spousal abuse and media frenzy about bedroom issues.

(PS. Isn't it funny that the media is quick to highlight and discredit Eastern cultures when it comes to women empowerment and societal discrimination against ladies? The recent turn of events in the UK has shown that even women there are vulnerable to random killings by unknown assailants for no apparent reason. Women in the USA are not far behind living in fear of domestic violence and brutal beatings.)

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

Cannot have the cake and eat it?

Now that I am getting older, naturally, people think that the School of Hard Knocks would have knocked some wisdom in the thick skull of mine, and they approach me for advice.

One of the questions asked to him in my capacity as 'Dear Thelma' or 'Auntie Agony' is about an interpersonal relationship. Why is it difficult to achieve life ambitions? I have so many things that I want to attain in my lifetime, but family life is pulling me down. My partner does not share the same fire that I breathe. The offsprings wear me down, dragging me together into a cesspool of hopelessness. Is there no relief from all these, they ask me. 

I am no self-help guru by any imagination, so I try to dodge the question. "You know that is a very profound question. Philosophers for aeons have been trying to find that answer." 

In fact, during Adi Sankara's travels from Kerala to the four corners of India, he had various debates with sages of other schools of philosophy. Adi Shankara, who hails from the School of Non-Dualism (Advaitha Vedantha), liked to engage in intellectual discourses wherever he went. In one such travel, he had the privilege of debating with Vandana Mishra, a proponent of the ritualistic part of Veda (Purva Mimamsa School of Hindu Philosophy, and his wife, Ubhaya Bharathi in Mahismati, Bihar or maybe Madhya Pradesh. 

They had protracted month-long discussions about the superiority of knowledge over rituals in gaining an understanding of life. Shankara also believed that to understand life and attain liberation, one must be celibate, whereas Mandana and Ubhaya felt householder duties (i.e. conjugal obligations) needed to be also performed. Rituals can bring forth bliss.

Six Systems of Indian Philosophy 

Ubhaya was the Sankara's choice of the umpire in their debates. When her husband was defeated, she continued debating. Even though she started asking about sensual pleasure sensations and emotional intimacies, the brahmachari still managed to reply via his yogic powers. Both Mandana and Ubhaya became Shankara's followers.

It was agreed not everyone can attain moksha by leading a hermit's life. It only works for some. The others have to go through the whole gamut of trappings of life, its up and down, and to set motion the circle of life.

See around us. Some sacrifice certain pleasures to achieve other ambitions. As Peter's Principle dictates, we can scale only as high as our incompetence. We should know our limits. We cannot eat the cake and still enjoy staring at it.

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