A shocking cowardly act !

Shocked at this! Terrorism is always a cowardly act, but when they attack an educational institute and that too a conference venue, the cowardice becomes too much!

King Kong - Why this?

So I am back after a long break. Without going into any silly excuses, the break has been bigger than what I intended it to be. Though not many people seem to be missing my blog, I certainly missed my blog.

I saw King Kong recently and now have the urge to review it. Not because it was very good, but because my opinion seems to be so much different from the opinions I find elsewhere. I was quite easily getting bored in what is billed as a top commercial film for 2005. Actually I don’t expect much logic from a commercial (‘masala’) film. I only expect it to proceed in such a way (for example, move at a fast pace) so that we don’t notice the logical flaws, at least till the end of the movie. In my recent viewings, movies like Anniyan and Gilli fitted this quite well.

But King Kong was neither an absorbing masala movie, neither did it have an interesting story line. Of course, one thing I have to clarify is that I was never able to accept a gorilla expressing so much affection for a human (in such a short time) and even worse, the human reciprocating it! May if some one is able to accept it the movie would be more viewable. Nevertheless, I don’t find any excuse for showing a whole zoo of crazy creatures in the forest scenes in Skull island. Just because you have the power of computer graphics doesn’t mean that you have to overuse it like this! As every possible creature which fitted the imagination of the director comes on screen, we (myself and my friends) were laughing out at the action sequences, for otherwise we would have been nauseated by those animals.

I have jotted down some amusing and illogical things I found in the movie. Usually I don’t do this for a commercial movie, but in this I was able to find so many flaws even while watching the movie, that I thought I should put them down.

• Most of the characters in the movie (including King Kong) seem to be mad – they do extremely risky things, bordering on illogical. I can excuse the movie producer’s madness in going to a remote island as ambitiousness, but I find no excuse as to why the crew of the ship went into an unknown forest for just rescuing a girl, how he accepted to encounter a mighty gorilla with only Chloroform and some ropes and finally how the girl thinks that climbing to the top of Empire state building can save the gorilla.


• Every animal in the Skull island seems to be all set to fight until death! From my limited exposure to Discovery channel, my knowledge is that animals don’t hunt unless they are hungry and though they fight with each other over for instance a female, they rarely ever fight till death. But here we see two dinosaurs fighting to death with the King Kong over such a small prey like Ann. Of course the other thing I remembered when I saw the King Kong facing three dinosaurs was how it was exactly analogous to Rajinikanth (or any other mass hero) finishing of ten villains ;-)


• Back in New York the movie’s human hero (forgot his name!) directs King Kong to Ann in the very next scene after wondering why she is not present in the auditorium.

Apart from the above, I did find numerous logical flaws later. Of course the main flaw was that the movie was too lengthy. It could have easily been trimmed of by 30 minutes, mainly in scenes in the forest and also in scenes on the ship. One thing I liked about the movie was the way it started and showed the New York of depression era. The relation between King Kong and Ann though unbelievable was shown quite subtly and some sequences like the skating scene were quite good.

In summary, this is quite a mediocre movie with an unbelievable storyline, entertaining only if you are ready to tolerate a zoo of weird animals and be able to appreciate an extra-human (!) relationship. I really don’t understand why it is getting such good reviews – perhaps a majority of people fit the above description!

Personally, my last two movie outings have been a disaster despite having selected the movies. The last movie was Ghajini. Except for cute romance between Surya and Asin there was really nothing else in the movie. And just like how I feel King Kong misused and overused some good computer graphics, I felt Ghajini had misused and disused an excellent movie concept like Short term memory loss.

This was a post written in some urgency, but I have two posts pending for a long time, which I am putting down just so that I don’t forget to write them.

1. A review (or should I say an overview) of Tamil television serials.


2. A review of three excellent biographical Tamil movies Bharathi, Kamaraj, Iruvar.

A perfect movie?

A couple weeks earlier got a chance to watch Kudaikkul Mazhai, again. Surprisingly it was telecast in Sun TV (I have a big rant against Sun TV, but that would be later). Don’t know whether they wanted to have at least one recent good movie in their collection or bought it by plain mistake! Having started this topic, here is one complaint against Tamil channels – Why do all of them take a good three years or more after the release, to telecast Tamil movies? Especially, when Hindi channels seem to be airing the movies barely one year after the release date. Is it because of some archaic agreement by the movie makers or all the channels plain stupid?

Already I have digressed quite a bit. Returning to the movie in question, I had already reviewed it here. But just wanted to add some deserving praise for it. Because even the second time I saw it I couldn’t find any flaw in it. This is the most perfect (or the perfect?) movie I have seen (of course “Hey Ram” is still my favorite movie). Though perfection may appear to be an elusive goal, it is feasible if the task is very well defined. Which is what this film does – it takes a theme of how fragile a person’s psyche may be and how it should not be offended for fun – and portrays it to near perfection. The movie would appear weird in a first viewing, but the climax justifies the weirdness. In a second viewing, we can see that everything in the movie moves towards the climax.

Just like how a complex but beautiful mathematical proof proceeds by pulling along disparate elements with it to lead to a beautiful result which wouldn’t be possible without any of the constituent elements. Even if the proof is difficult to understand and result doesn’t seem important enough to warrant the hard work, the proof should nevertheless be appreciated for the beautiful way in which it evolves. There lies, in summary, my appreciation for the movie.

Appreciating "Hey Ram"

For quite some time now, “Hey Ram” has been my all-time favorite film. Of course, as I have not got the chance to watch (despite trying earnestly) many of the Tamil classics, this would mean that this is my favorite film from the 90s. However many seem very surprised when I say this. I know few people who like “Hey Ram”, but for most the film means either a confusing and intimidating film or a steamy film with intimate scenes between the lead actors or both. I guess the film is fairly well known (though may not be popular) in Tamil nadu (or should I say Chennai?), as interaction with my peers from there has revealed. However, surprisingly it seems to be little known to people outside Tamil nadu and I got only vague responses like “I guess the film is known for the smooches between Kamal and Rani”, when I tried to ask some people about it. For all I know, it may well have these, but that is not the point of the movie. It pains me when such a good (or great?) film is so unappreciated. Hence this attempt to take stock of what film tries to say, weigh it with all the criticism I know of and compare it with a well known and much more popular series of films – Mani Ratnam’s “Terrorism Trilogy”.

Review of the movie
A summary of the movie can be found in many places in the web, like here. I would tell whatever is necessary for this review. In short the film tells how a well educated, forward minded person becomes a terrorist and almost assassinates Gandhi before realizing the reality. There have been other films on terrorism and religious fundamentalism, but what I like in this movie is that it almost goes inside the psyche of a terrorist and examines why he becomes one, apart from showing how he realizes the truth.

Saket Ram (Kamal Hassan) is an archeologist working in Indus valley sites with his friends Amjad Khan (Shah Rukh Khan) and Lalwani (Saurabh Shukla), when Hindu – Muslim riots break out (during the time of partition). He returns immediately to Calcutta to join his wife Aparna (Rani Mukherji) and spends some happy time with her. However as riots break out in Calcutta, they are attacked by a Muslim mob and while he is tied into inaction, his wife is raped and killed. The intimate scenes between Kamal and Rani and the brutal rape scene are often criticized, but I feel both are important to show how much Saket is affected by this incident. In his fury Saket takes up arms and attacks and kills some Muslims until he regains his self. Later he comes into contact with a Hindu extremist – Sriram Abhyankar (Atul Kulkarni), a Tanjavur Marat. Totally broken he comes back to his home town (Sri Valli Puttur?) in Tamil nadu. Hardly before he returns to normality he is compelled into a second marriage with Maithili (Vasundhra Das), a typical Tamil Brahmin girl. This part of the film shows how he still suffers from the trauma of the events in Calcutta. Unable to forget the events he makes an emotional trip to Calcutta. Here he meets the Abhyankar again, who fuels his hatred towards Muslims and says that the root cause for this (Muslims enjoying privileges) is M.K.Gandhi.

Later he returns to his hometown and stays for sometime there. Now feeling quite stifled by his traditional family and needing a change he goes to Maharashtra(?) with his new wife. There he attends a party given by the Maharajah, who acts as the organizer for Hindu extremist activity. There, brainwashed and under the influence of alcohol he swears on his mission to kill Gandhi as he happens to be one of the two chosen persons to do this. The imagery in this part is a very beautiful one. It shows how confused he is under the influence of drugs. A drunk Saket rushes to have sex with his wife, just when seeing a sexy dance performance. Later he is shown to visualize her like the gun he just picked up before the Maharajah. This hints at how sex and violence are often outlets of suppressed emotions triggered by an event. Some symbolic scenes earlier in the party also show his guilt of having orphaned a young blind Muslim girl (by killing her father in Calcutta riots). The imagery later where he braves a strong wind when aiming with his gun seems to show the struggle between conscience and instinct of revenge. Immediately afterwards, the other chosen person to kill Gandhi – Abhyankar - is critically wounded in a Polo match and he extracts a promise from Saket that he would do the mission whenever told so.

Saket now returns to his hometown, but remains a disturbed man since he knows that he may have to complete his mission at any time. After some time, he receives a telegram, which says him to deal with Gandhi when he stays in Delhi. Saket leaves home without informing anyone and after renouncing worldly ties in Benares comes to Delhi to plot the assassination. It is here that an interesting diversion comes in. Saket goes to a Muslim dominated locality in Delhi to retrieve his gun, which he has misplaced. There he meets his old friend Amjad. After going to the soda factory to retrieve his gun, he confides to his friend of his mission. In the soda factory, because of his gun the Muslims there (who are also armed) consider him as their enemy. After a small fight he escapes from there. However, due to circumstances this leads to a Hindu – Muslim riot in that place. It is interesting to see that first Saket argues with Amjad against Muslims, but later in soda factory he begins to defend Muslims when he sees that it is the Hindus who keep fighting even after a peace offer was made. This event I think shows that there is no one side which is correct in religious riots and they arise because even small things (like Saket taking a gun there) can trigger a riot in a tense situation. The most touching scene of the film was when the police asks Amjad in his death bed to identify the man with the gun (who was Saket himself) who started all this and Amjad replies, holding Saket’s hand – “I only know Ram, my dear brother Ram” – meaning he still sees the real human behind Saket. Amjad dies because of the injuries in the fighting and this causes further guilt to Saket.

Later Saket’s in-law’s find him at Gandhi’s place and assuming he has come to serve Gandhi, introduce him to Gandhi. Further he becomes very familiar with Gandhi as he is hailed as a savior of Muslim community in the recent riots in Delhi. These scenes which show Gandhi are very interesting scenes in the movie. Kamal doesn’t take the easy way out by showing him as a holy person beyond question. In fact in one scene, Gandhi himself is shown to say that he is not a Mahatma. Later in another, he says he is helpless against these Hindu – Muslim riots and only thing he can do is to fast. This is more or less my stand on Gandhi – that he might have done normal mistakes of a human and it is wrong to glorify him as a perfect Mahatma or disparage him as a Hindu-hater or a cunning politician. As Kamal (or is it somebody else?) told in an interview “The greatness of Gandhi lies in the fact that, even if you remove all the halo and popular image from him and dissect him (his actions) to the core, he still comes out a better person than what we would have thought”.

Already disturbed by the riots he started in Delhi and after seeing that Gandhi did not deliberately try to harm anyone, Saket goes to confess to Gandhi – but its too late as Nathuram Godse has just killed Gandhi. Nasserudin Shah in his limited role gives an excellent performance as Gandhi. Shah Rukh does his cameo role quite well. The two heroines have little screen presence, but perform well.

Hence, the movie is a brave attempt which almost succeeds in dissecting the psyche of a terrorist and hence the heart of a terrorist movement. Even good, educated people become terrorists due to certain triggers in a volatile political situation. Hence to prevent terrorism (and religious fundamentalism) would be to maintain a stable and just political situation, with respect for other religions/groups. We should always try to address real inequalities in the society, since when there are not redressed they lead to terrorism. Also people should be made more aware of divisive forces which encourage terrorism. It also tells not to target the family/community of a terrorist – since he becomes one due to circumstances and may not have anything to do with his community.

Also there is one more layer to the movie, in that all this is shown in flashback as old Saket is being taken to the hospital but is stopped on the way because of riots in the anniversary of Babri masjid demolitions (Dec. 6th). As we relate with the story it is clear that we have not learnt from our mistakes - that religious fundamentalism and terrorism are self-defeating and endless exercises in terror. If we want to more interpretation we would always find more layers in this movie – like why the title is “Hey Ram” when Gandhi is not shown to be saying this during his death – whether it is directed towards the two ‘Ram’s in the movie and the real life Ram all of whom plotted to kill Gandhi; the naming of the Saket’s second wife as Mythili (other name for Sita) and quite few other things, but of course we never know whether the director intended this or not.

There are many other subtle things which reveal the meticulousness with which the movie was taken. Like the photo of Hitler in the Maharaja’s palace which shows the Nazi tilt of the then Hindu fundamentalists, postman hesitating to give the telegram directly to Kamal due to untouchability at that time in Tamilnadu, showing the then Maharaja’s hobbies like hunting and Polo etc. The same meticulousness also seems to present in the period sets. The background score by Illayaraja suits the mood of the movie. There are few full-fledged songs, but those that are present justify their presence and are quite good. Nee partha… song is a haunting one.

Criticisms:
I would try to analyze the most common criticisms of the movie that I am aware of.

• Kamal seems to be obsessed of himself and almost every scene has him. He hogs the screen presence.

I regard this to be the most stupid of all criticisms. It is the story of a man who becomes a terrorist – it is told in a biographical way. In fact I don’t remember a scene in which Kamal was not present – because it is the story as experienced by him. I was really surprised when I learn that a supposedly leading critic has dubbed the film as narcissistic – how can he have the same scale for all styles of film making?

• Too much of violence and sex.

I can’t really comment on this as I have seen the film only in television (a good 4-5 times, thanks to Sun TV). But even if it has these, it does seem to be justified for the theme. For me, anything in the film is OK as long as it gels with the story.

• Not easily understandable. Too many English & Hindi dialogs and sound quality is not too good.

I would agree to some extent with this. Though English and Hindi dialogs are required to keep things realistic, Kamal could’ve at least provided sub-titles. I really don’t get why he didn’t do so. Also the sound recording was done as live (on the shooting spot) recording – I don’t see the advantage with this and dialogs are less clear sometimes.

• Kamal has wasted good actors like Girish Karnad, Hema malini with small roles

I don’t get the point of this. Casting is director’s prerogative and as long as they act well we shouldn’t complain.

• Quite complex, symbolic and often multi-layered.

I would agree with this. In fact when I saw it first I understood only half of what I do now and I thought Saket was indeed going to kill Gandhi! It may not be the same for others, but for me it gives joy in understanding and putting together the pieces in such a work – as long as it is honest to itself. Also it quite questionable whether a movie with such a deep message can be made any simpler. If making it simple reduces the depth then it would become like many other mediocre movies.

• It is anti-Hindu/ anti-Muslim/ anit-Congress/ anti-RSS

The very fact is considered to be against so many interests should show that it doesn’t really support any of them. Of course parts of the movie are anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu but we shouldn’t judge a movie without watching it till the end. And of course the end justifies and imparts a strong message.

• Kamal doesn’t act well and appears stony faced thoughout.

I really can’t comment on this, as I think evaluation of acting is a very subjective thing. Yes he does remain quite stone faced – but anybody who is undergoing a serious struggle with his conscience may remain so (of course, some may not remain so and may show all the confusion or clarity in their face).

Comparison with Mani Ratnam’s “Terrorism Trilogy”

None of the films in the trilogy (Roja, Bombay and Uyire (Dil se)) really stand up to “Hey Ram” in the depth of the message or the way it is told. Only Roja comes closest though it is still very far away. Here are individual comments,

• Roja – This movie is quite good through out and in the end it gives the message of how even a terrorist can be reformed and made to see the truth. Of course this only shows the human side of a terrorist (something which “Hey Ram” also does) and this is hardly the method to solve it. Offers some insights into Kashmir Terrorism, but none very deep.


• Bombay – Certainly the worst of the trilogy. When somebody remarks to me that this is a good film on terrorism, I get irritated to no end. The film it self doesn’t offer any new insights into the Bombay riots, except that two rival religious leaders were fuelling it, which is quite well known. At least Mani Ratnam could’ve avoided the preachy climax – where Hindu and Muslim children join hands, just after a riot. How realistic is this? Anyway, what is the point – how is this going to solve terrorism? Endings like these encourage the thought that religious harmony will magically develop.


• Uyire (Dil Se) – A confusing movie in some ways and ‘poetic’ in some ways. At least Mani Ratnam doesn’t turn preachy here. It can be taken to show the ever present struggle between love (of all kinds) and terror and how sometimes even love can’t stop a terrorist. Quite a good one for this theme.

(If some of my readers are aware of really good contemporary films on such topics, do tell me.)

Hence my point that despite better in many ways then some of the most popular films in terrorism, this movie is sadly very un-appreciated and under rated.

A short story defends a novel !

What happens if a talented author’s popular and intriguing novel is criticized for its “lack of a clear moral”? Though I can’t comment on what other authors would have done, Gabriel Garcia Marquez counters the criticism through a short story - in his trademark magical realist and symbolic style, this story’s moral is “Why should a story have a (clear) moral?”

I must accept that I have taken the help of a commentary (second essay in the commentary is more relevant) in understanding this beautifully symbolic story. In fact it was because of reading this that I started reading the story. It was a part of my still unfinished collection of his short stories. As many of the thirty odd stories were rather like essays, I am yet to read even half of them. But this one story is enough reason to buy the book! Of course after reading the story I realized that commentary or no commentary, the symbolism was so strong that I would have got it after some time.

The novel in question is “One hundred years of solitude” and the short story is “A very old man with enormous wings” (and intriguingly subtitled “A tale for children”). It goes like this. An old man with big wings is suddenly found in a fishing hamlet. The people there initially think he is an angel, but he doesn’t possess any trait of an angel other than his wings – he is old and dirty, wings are broken, he speaks a language which no body understands and though he does some miracles they are rather weird (like making flowers to grow on a leper's wounds). However there is a general curiosity and people from nearby places visit him and the couple who found him become rich. Meanwhile, another strange thing happens in the village. A huge spider with the head of a girl arrives in the village. It is told that the girl was turned into a spider by a flash of lightning since she had disobeyed her parents and gone dancing all through the night. The girl speaks and tells her pitiable story and now people are more amused by the girl than by the old man. Quite soon nobody cares for the old man, including the couple who gained from him. Nobody thinks he is an angel because he doesn’t look like one. This is another theme in the story – what is stranger, an angel appearing or an angel which doesn’t look like an angel appearing? The story ends with the old man, after some years, suddenly growing his wings again and flying away.

Now you can try to guess the symbolism yourself before reading ahead. It shouldn’t be all that difficult since it is quite intended. If your interpretation is sufficiently different from what I have given below, do leave a comment.

The first obvious part is that the girl represents a story (or work of literature) which is very simple to understand and gives easy morals for everyone to understand. On the other hand the old man represents the artfully created, complex story (like “One hundred years of solitude”), that ultimately has more moral than a simplistic story but has to be understood with effort. Though this story speaks a language not easily understandable to people and has apparently weird morals, its nature (of being equivalent to that of an angel) can’t be questioned because of this – if the people had probed more than ignoring the old man they would have learnt more from a true angel. Also Marquez seems to say that the popularity of the book was due to a curiosity and not many understood it sincerely (something which I always doubted!). If I extend the symbolism even more, he seems to say that those who benefited most from the work (publishing houses?) have done nothing to study it seriously.

I have myself thought the lack of a clear moral to be a defect in the novel, but now I don’t feel strongly so, after realizing how important and relevant to real life some of the themes in the novel are. Though the latter points in the interpretation of symbolism may be a bit far-fetched, the former points are strongly implied. When I realized that this story was his defense symbolically, I couldn’t help being amazed at his intellectual prowess!

Two flawed decisions

This post has been long pending and I finally thought of writing it before it became outdated. It’s about two government decisions, both of which I think are shortsighted and flawed. The first one (and still openly debated one) is the central governments decision to ban smoking in movies. Of course I am not one of those freaks who demand total freedom of expression, but this is a different case altogether.

The first point is that movies are reflecting mostly only things which happen in the society. If we ban smoking in movies, it’s like pretending that there is no smoking in our society. By refusing to acknowledge the problem of prostitution, not only does it grow unabated but we are also in an unenviable position with regards to AIDS. I can’t stop myself from remembering Marquez’s quote on self-deception here. Of course when mass heroes smoke in a positive character, then it does promote some people to take up smoking. But there are other methods to prevent this from happening. Like making Censor laws more stringent and categorizing films more – but the censor system here seems so broke that I may as well write an entire blog post on it. But still reforming the Censor system would solve many other problems like excessive sleaze in many of today’s movies.

The problem with a ban on smoking is that it prevents even deliberately negative depiction of smoking, which in the absence of other positive promotions, would serve to reduce incidence of smoking. And of course, politicians may also come up with innovative ideas of banning other ‘bad’ things like drinking, rape, roberry etc. from movies which would make them totally divorced from reality. And of course these things existed even when there were no movies! Actually I can’t still believe one person’s ‘passion’ could convince the entire cabinet on this. Anbumani Ramadoss, the health minister, had told a few months ago in an interview to a Tamil magazine that there would be a ban on smoking, drinking in movies. Then I thought that he had also begun to talk like his father, but now I can scarcely believe that it has become a law. Nowadays it seems anything can become a law here, which leads me to the next topic.

Recently Jayalalitha ruled that entrance exam would no longer be conducted for admission to professional courses and also that the marks of the exam conducted this year won’t be considered for this year’s admissions. The last bit is too ridiculous for anyone even unfamiliar with the topic. This is since, if this is implemented it would be like wasting the time students spent on entrance exam preparations. Any decision like this need to be taken at least one year in advance. Since entrance exams have existed for the last 20 years or so, suddenly announcing this is like government breaking its promise given to the students regarding the mode of admission. Thankfully, the high court overturned this order and the supreme court has refused to stay high court’s order, as a result of which, Jayalaitha has finally conceded to do this year’s admissions by including entrance marks.

The following are the reasons why I feel the order doesn’t serve any useful purpose even in long term. The reason offered by government is that rural students would benefit from this, as they don’t have access to entrance exams coaching centers. Even assuming the last part is true (which should be itself studied), the following are my arguments –

• Let us say that the pattern of public examinations are not changed, i.e not made tougher. Then there are two problems –

• The current pattern of public exam tests more of rote learning and neat handwriting-drawing skills than intellectual skills. Even then, the marks are always very subjective, since the correctors can’t obviously read everything and also there would be some totaling mistakes. The entrance exams, on the other hand are computer corrected. This almost rules out totaling errors and questions also tend encourage more objective thinking.

• With the number of centums and multiple centums always increasing (I guess more than 300 students have centums in all subjects for engineering), it won’t be difficult to imagine a situation where the number of students getting centums in all relevant subjects would itself outnumber the seats in a particular prestigious college. This is in fact more applicable for medicine and even more for O.C (non backward caste) candidates. Introducing other things like marks of language subjects, age or past marks to break this often occurring tie would be height of nonsense. This inevitably leads to the next point.

• The government had already proposed to make the public exams more ‘objective’ and hence (though this is not told) more tougher. So what would happen if all the questions in the public exam were to be made objective – it would almost appear like the entrance exam! And of course we are told to believe that the well-oiled coaching machines in the cities won’t find a way to coach on this paper. Even reaching some kind of middle way solution would be making public exams more tougher making urban students with more coaching benefit from it.

In the end the government is not changing anything! And it is making things unnecessarily tough for CBSE and ICSE students, since they would not be able to attend this public exam (unlike the entrance exam). Obviously this is all done with the upcoming assembly polls in mind and that’s why all the parties are forced to ‘support’ this move.

The real pity in this is that two issues which require real debating (and not such hasty decisions) have been ignored here. One is to prevent the hassle of students writing multiple entrance exams. In fact, it would be good to standardize this even across the entire country. The other is to promote better methods of examinations where the creativity of students is tested along with their technical knowledge. This would be the one which would prevent the growth of coaching institutes. I think CBSE public exams test creativity quite a bit, but I have heard some students say that they are way too subjective. But at least we must look for a solution without escaping with rules like these.

Anniyan - a bit of everything!

Anniyan had all the usual flaws that I would find in a Shankar’s movie. Song sequences which have almost no connection with the story and use unnecessarily expensive gimmicks, noticeable lapses in logic and unnecessary drumming in of the message by what is usually a public appearance by the hero. Despite all this I should say I liked the movie as a whole.

Though this movie is thematically quite similar to his earlier vigilante movies (Gentleman, Mudhalvan and Indian) there is difference in the message he wants to convey. Instead of blaming it all on corruption and politicians, Shankar urges us to look at ourselves to see whether we are all law abiding citizens who do our work well. It is this message which is quite close to my heart. I have myself seen quite silly and irritating acts by people like spitting on the streets and always wondered why they do such avoidable acts. Shankar’s point that only such small individual mistakes lead to a huge mistake is one worthy of note. I guess there are very few movies which have tackled this kind of subject – “Unnal mudiyum thambi” is one I remember right away, though it tackled it in a completely different way. Vikram as “rules” Ramanujam seems to overplay a bit, but the rest of the movie is also based on this characterization.

Second thing I like in the movie is Vikram’s performance. He has got his best chance after Pithamagan and used it almost very well. (SPOILER WARNING – for the rest of the paragraph). Playing three totally different characters is always a challenge. He excels in this, especially in the two scenes where he continuously changes between the three characters. Many people (atleast in blogs) seemed to dislike Remo, but I think he was quite romantic – in fact I haven’t seen Vikram in such a totally romantic role. Another frequent complaint is that all these three characters are overplayed. I think the characterization is by itself in that way. Only because Ramanujam is such a rigid, un-emotive and physically timid person, there exists a real case for Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD). Another thing I like in the movie is the innovative way in which Shankar has used Garuda Purana mythology. Our directors need to involve more of our mythology or folklore while making thrillers, instead of just relying on overplayed sound effects (perhaps effect of seeing Kaal!). Of course Shankar seems to have used MPD to push in what would be otherwise unbelievable fight scenes. But still they, especially the one in the martial arts school, are quite amusing. And there are other lapses of logic like Anniyan who is a virtual personality arriving at a scheduled time to address people. But the pace of the movie is good enough that most won’t notice these.

The songs proved to be the biggest letdown of all. Of course I had heard that Harris Jayaraj’s music for this was no where as good as earlier Shankar movies (which were all done by AR. Rahman). Shankar has spoiled it more by not connecting the songs to the story. Suffice it to say that a fairly serious story with a message has all the five songs as romantic songs (except may be Kaadhal Yanai). Some songs had good music (like Kaadhal Yanai) and some had good (or amusing) picturization, but mostly they didn’t gel with each other or with the story. Also the heroine Sada doesn’t appear good in such exotic locales - she looks better in a simple dress. It is always irritating to see a director like Shankar not relying strong enough on his story and resorting to silly gimmicks in songs in the name of technological advancements. A frequent excuse is that movies (at least nowadays) should have some explicit commercial element, but I guess this has long been disproved with the success of directors like Selvaraghavan and Bala, where songs are blended with the movie (and I am only considering directors who have been consistently successful in box-office).

The climax was quite stylish, but at least I was expecting it. However it doesn’t gel very well with the main psychiatric concept behind the movie. There seems to be quite extreme opinions in the media and blogs about the movie, with some hailing it as great advance in Tamil movies and others saying that its nothing more than a recycling of Shankar’s earlier movies. I think it’s neither of them. On the whole, this is a very entertaining movie with a sugarcoated, but relevant message (though I believe that sugarcoating a message also reduces its effectiveness).

Comparing two pairs of movies

While idly looking through my blog I discovered that my last 6 posts were all book reviews or about books. Suddenly I realized that my blog was becoming too bookish for even myself and hence this post on few movies. I have seen quite few good old Tamil movies of late and wanted to comment on them, but that would be on a different post. Since I like comparing, I would comment on two pairs of films – similar in their themes, but starkly different in the way they were produced, one of them is ‘big’ and the other is ‘small’.

To keep the discussion as global as possible I would start with a recent Hindi movie – “Kaal”. Boasting some leading actors, good locations and a ‘different’ script this was, I guess, released with quite a lot of hype. But through out the movie I could only pity the technicians who had worked for the good locations, different camera angles and background score (which though too loud, would have been good if used properly) on essentially trying to prop up a weak story and screenplay. In fact, I feel that if all these technical elements were under played or at least limitedly used the movie would have been more tolerable. There was absolutely no scene in the movie which was truly terrifying and there was not even much thrill. Of course I didn’t know who the murderer was, but I didn’t care! And the ending was as insipid as it could be - a murder mystery conveniently blaming a ghost!

The sharp turning camera angles, the unnecessarily loud background score and the skimpily clad ladies (why do you wear such a dress in a forest - to get more mosquito bites?) were all constant irritations. It was the Hindi movie I was seeing after quite some time and I thoroughly regretted the choice. More irritating was that it was being hyped as a new generation Hindi movie! (I had felt the same about “Bhoot” though to a much lesser extent). The movie seems to have deservedly flopped in box office, proving that people can’t be cheated too much by glitz and glamour (of course they can be cheated to some extent, which is proved by the success of “big budget” masala movies).

Coming to this movie’s counterpart it is a relatively little known Tamil movie called “Whistle”. I saw this in television recently. I think it was released very normally and succeeded to some extent. Now I don’t claim this as a classic thriller movie. But it was thrilling and thrilling till the end. And it didn’t have to resort to stupid techniques like a ghost being a murderer (in fact this is ridiculed in the movie). Surprisingly, for all those who regard genre movies very highly, this wasn’t a pure thriller – but had a college group and romance as a background. I can’t comment much on the romance part since I missed something like first 30 minutes of the movie and anyway most of the characters were dead in the end! But it didn’t obstruct the thrill at all. The songs did spoil the thrill somewhat and at least two could have been cut down (there are also some nice and popular songs in the movie). But the last half an hour or so was totally focused and thrilling.

What I expect in a thriller movie is that the identity of the killer (or any aggressor) should be a surprise not easily guessable but still should be logically justifiable (match with all the clues in the movie). This was quite well done here, since any one person being killer would be too difficult here, two people are shown as killers. And their motive is justified by a rather chilling flashback, which also justifies the title and which reminds me of “Kudaikkul Mazhai”, but that is a digression. In “Kaal” this has no meaning since the aggressor is a ghost who can do anything! Sound effects are very well used in the movie, with something happening in silence producing the most shock. All the actors were new, but did seem to perform their roles well. The director(s) are JD-Jerry, faintly familiar, but I don’t recall how. In short, another “small” movie which wins hands down over a “big” movie.

My next comparison would be much more critical and may not be liked by many Shankar fans. It is between his movie, the over-hyped “Boys” (which did very average in the box office) and “Thullavatho Ilamai” (title is hard to translate literally, but one try is Springing youth), which was a relatively unknown film when released, but became a huge hit. Both are concerned about pangs of growing up, difficulties a set of youth face and the how they finally overcome all this. Both were accused as being almost soft porn movies. But there ends the similarity. Now I would like to exclude one factor from this comparison – sex in both these movies. Personally I believe that, sex is shown in a much more subtle and mature way in “Thullavatho Ilamai” than “Boys”, but this may be wrong since I saw the latter in theatre and the former in television.

“Boys” shows the travails faced by the youngsters when they run away from home, but finally they are heroes and hence triumph in a short time after facing all the hurdles. The love story here is quite silly, being based on such silly scenes like hero running naked in Anna salai for proving his love and earthquake helping the lovers to unite! But still they are the hero and heroine and must unite and live happily in the end. In short I feel it romanticizes infatuation as love and chance success as success gained by hard work. How many singers have come up so quickly in life and how many of us have such special talents like singing? Basing such things to show that a group of runaway teenagers are successful only shows the eagerness of the director to have a happy ending, even if it is unrealistic. I dislike Shankar’s movies mainly for these – in fact I would say “Indian” was the only good movie he has done. “Mudhalvan” and “Gentleman” are movies with a good theme but messed up throughout and in climax, respectively. The other three including “Boys” don’t even warrant a mention, as they have nothing more than an average movie.

In contrast “Thullavatho Ilamai” is starkly realistic. Here also youngsters run away from home and get to discover themselves and the world. But both these experiences are not pleasant, so they return back to their homes – and the movie effectively ends there. This also has lead pair who are initially friends, but due to their parents’ suspicion and due to their close stay when running away, have sex. But the movie clearly shows that this is the result of their momentary lust and hence they live as before when they return home. In fact to add emphasis it is shown that the boy, not wanting to face her, left the school and hasn’t met her since. And the rest of the youngsters stay in their homes and come up in life the hard way. In fact the climax of hero and heroine not meeting ever after surprised me, as I thought the climax of a commercially successful Tamil movie can’t be so realistic. On the down side, the movie happens to be a bit didactic with some messages for both parents and children (not that Boys didn’t have this). The movie blames the parents for most of the faults, but that is justifiable for the parents shown. Though it doesn’t have the glitz of “Boys”, it has a very good musical score by Yuvan Shankar Raja and of course direction and screenplay are most impressive of all. Kasturiraja is the director, though it is said that his son, Selvaraghavan, now a popular director played more than a helping hand in this. The lead pair was unknown then, but now Danush is a leading hero.

One reason for matured handling here could be that these youngsters are school final year students and are hence younger than even those shown in “Boys”. But even this can’t justify the totally unrealistic manner in which script is handled in “Boys”. As an aside, I finally confirmed that the beautiful song “Theenda Theenda” was in fact during love making of the lead pair. It was of course cut off in television, but I got the initial music in the scene. Without doubt, it is the most decent, subtle and pleasant song I have heard for a love making scene. No wonder that when I am asked as to what is wrong in showing sex and glamour in movies, my only refrain is to show them only when important to the story and in an enjoyable and not repelling manner.

There are some more movies on which I want to comment and I would list them down so that at least I can remember them – K.B’s “Arangettram” – though I didn’t see this fully, it was already bold enough to shake me, “Pagalil Oru Iravu” - a good climax, K.B’s “Sindhu Bairavi” – a good but controversial movie, Bharathiraja’s “Padhinaaru Vaidhinile” - a good movie worth its reputation as a classic. I am trying desperately to watch classics like “Nizhalgal”, “Oru Nadigai Nadagam Parkiraal”(An actress sees a play - what a title! It's self-referential!) and all Jayakanthan story movies, “Mogamul”, but I am not able to rent or even buy these VCDs or DVDs in Bangalore (or are they available in Chennai?). Can somebody help me please!!

More of "One hundred years of solitude"

These are some of the quotes that I like most in One Hundred Years of Solitude.

The opening line of the novel gives a teaser for the rest as it presents the past, present and future together in a single stream of thought.

“Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.”

This comes near the middle of the novel and its simply amusing. Though some people take this literally, i guess this is more of a sarcasm. (The character Carmeilia is mentioned only here in the entire novel)

"Carmelia Montiel, a twenty-year-old virgin, had just bathed in orange-blossom water and was strewing rosemary leaves on Pilar Ternera's bed when the shot rang out. Aureliano José had been destined to find with her the happiness that Amaranta had denied him, to have seven children, and to die in her arms of old age, but the bullet that entered his back and shattered his chest had been directed by a wrong interpretation of the cards."

This is a beautiful quote for just its imagery and of course leaves us with quite a bit to think.

“One winter night while the soup was boiling in the fireplace, he missed the heat of the back of his store, the buzzing of the sun on the dusty almond trees, the whistle of the train during the lethargy of siesta time, just as in Macondo he had missed the winter soup in the fireplace, the cries of the coffee vendor, and the fleeting larks of springtime. Upset by two nostalgias facing each other like two mirrors, he lost his marvelous sense of unreality and he ended up recommending to all of them that they leave Macondo, that they forget everything he had taught them about the world and the human heart, that they shit on Horace, and that wherever they might be they always remember that the past was a lie, that memory has no return, that every spring gone by could never be recovered, and that the wildest and most tenacious love was an ephemeral truth in the end.”

This quote is a vivid example of Magical realism used by the author. This may be symbolic too, but I haven’t found the symbolism yet!

“A trickle of blood came out under the door, crossed the living room, went out into the street, continued on in a straight line across the uneven terraces, went down steps and climbed over curbs, passed along the Street of the Turks, turned a corner to the right and another to the left, made a right angle at the Buendía house, went in under the closed door, crossed through the parlor, hugging the walls so as not to stain the rugs, went on to the other living room, made a wide curve to avoid the dining-room table, went along the porch with the begonias, and passed without being seen under Amaranta's chair as she gave an arithmetic lesson to Aureliano José, and went through the pantry and came out in the kitchen, where Úrsula was getting ready to crack thirty-six eggs to make bread.

"Holy Mother of God!" Úrsula shouted.”

This is from near the end of the novel which I like it for just its play of words –

“It was the last that remained of a past whose annihilation had not taken place because it was still in a process of annihilation, consuming itself from within, ending at every moment but never ending its ending.”

One hundred years of Solitude -Perplexing, yet enchanting

Perplexing, yet enchanting. This is how I can describe in a single line my view of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s magical realist classic “One hundred years of solitude”. I can either say that the novel is an over-ambitious, confusing work or that it would take me some more time to appreciate it fully. I feel both of it now, though more of the latter.

A summary can be found here. It tells about the founding of an imaginary remote Latin American town called Macondo, it growth and its decline and along with it the story of six generations of its founders – the Buendias. Jose Arcadio Buendia and his wife Ursula are the founders of the town. A very helpful family tree can be found here. More than magical realism the novel brims with symbolism. In fact it would be hard to find a main incident which is not magical realist or symbolic or both. It is generally felt that this is more understandable than Marquez’s “The Autumn of the patriarch” – but I differ. “The Autumn…” though much more difficult to get into, is much easier to understand then this novel with loads of symbolism. Of course if one wishes, they can consider this only as a story of a family, disregarding all the symbolism.

But on another level it becomes the story of the entire mankind. In fact it is quite interesting to find out the exact meaning of solitude in this novel. I feel that all the main characters in this novel (belonging to Buendia family) have a trait of solitude. In some reviews it is noted that Ursula, the matriarch of the family who lives to more than a hundred years, is an anti-solitude character. But I differ with this. Ursula is a pragmatic lady and involves herself in making the family financially secure. But she does little else. She leaves the bringing up of the children to her Indian servants and is not even aware of their growth. The following quote brings this out clearly (p. 55)-

“So busy was she in her prosperous enterprises that one afternoon she looked distractedly towards the courtyard while the Indian women helped her sweeten the dough and she saw two unknown and beautiful adolescent girls doing frame embroidery in the light of the sunset. They were Rebecca and Amarantha”

Hence this is also a kind of solitude – where one is so involved with material welfare, that they lose track of others feelings. Based on this I would say that solitude here means any state where one is oblivious of some of the happenings around them. That may be because one is too much engrossed in earning money (Ursula), involved in politics and work (Colonel Aureliano Buendia), obsessed with science (Jose Arcadio, the founder), two people obsessed with each other (Aureliano(II) and Amaranta Ursula), obsessed with social status (Fernanda del Carpio) or engrossed in the bitterness of past events (Amaranta and Meme).

Many confusing symbolisms reveal themselves after some thought. The unusual fertility of the farm animals of Aureliano Segundo and his concubine, Petra Cotes indicate the limitless resources available to one at youth. As they grow old, the fertility of the animals decreases. As they have squandered their riches of the youth they are doomed to suffer during old age, as Aureliano does. However there a few symbolisms which have not yielded to me yet, like the flying to sky of Remedios the beauty or the strange murder of Jose Arcadio (the second).

The novel also tries to symbolically tell the whole story of the mankind, but because of the same symbolism it is still quite confusing as to what it really tells. When the founders arrive at Macondo, it is a pristine place and “many things don’t have their names”. The only contact with the outside world is through gypsies – who bring some useful innovations to them. It is interesting that the innovations which are regarded as magic at this period appear again at a later time, but are then considered science. Marquez also notes that later group of gypsies parade technology as a entertainment rather as being useful to life. It is interesting to ponder on whether this rings a bell with the current direction of technological progress.

The town then gets embroiled in politics, as Colonel Aureliano organizes many revolutions against the central government (to which Macondo finally comes in contact with). The important turning point comes when a company decides to setup a banana plantation in the town. Initially it brings in a lot of progress but finally thousands of workers are massacred in a strike and as the banana company leaves the town, its decline begins. Despite his reportedly communist leanings, Marquez doesn’t seem to explicitly say that the banana company brought decline to Macondo. He notes the ‘prosperity’ brought in by the banana company and the decline when they withdraw from the town in a more or less neutral way. It is for us to decide whether the company is to be appreciated for bringing in some prosperity or accused for starting the decline from the height of the prosperity. And of course for us to decide whether the company stands as a metaphor for capitalism in today’s world.

The false ideologies in politics and the futility of war are clearly brought out. Here I found that Aureliano’s character became quite similar to the General in “The Autumn…” with Marquez using the concept of “Solitude of power” – but Aureliano recovers just in time.

Also Marquez stresses on the theme that Time moves in a circle. This is very obvious based on many things in the novel, like the inventions of gypsies appearing later as scientific inventions, Jose Arcadio Segundo fighting and remaining incognito like his grand-father Colonel Aureliano Buendia and incest between Aureliano Jose and Amaranta repeating itself more vigorously as that between Aureliano (the last) and Amaranta Ursula. In the novel also this is mentioned several times. The incessant repetition of names also hints at the circular nature. An interesting question is “If Time moves in circles then why does the town come to an end?” The novel itself provides the answer –

(p.402) "…the history of the family was a machine with unavoidable repetitions, a turning wheel that would have gone on spilling into eternity were it not for the progressive and irremediable wearing of the axle."

Thus Time moves in a spiral rather than a circle! A spiral which points towards the inevitable destruction, because when people repeat the same mistakes, the family is not as strong as before to deal with the mistakes.

The novel also has some puzzling things towards the end – the whole story of the Buendia family is foretold in the parchments written by the gypsy Melquiades. In fact the name of the novel comes from the fact that a hundred years after the parchments are written, it is interpreted. Then is the novel the same as these parchments? Not likely because the novel doesn’t have this beautiful and chilling epitaph of the parchments (pp. 420) –

“The first of the line is tied to a tree and the last is being eaten by the ants”.

Also a character with the name Gabriel Marquez (yes! with the same name), who is a friend of Aureliano (II) and descendant of a founding family, escapes from Macondo, just before it is destroyed. Is the whole story told through him?

Of course the last few pages of the novel happen to be the most puzzling. Especially the last sentence of the novel is as enigmatic as it is poetic –

“…because races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth”

How can a race (or a town) be in solitude? The explanation I used to think of before reading the novel fully was that, the town was remote and always separated from the rest of the world. However, Macondo becomes well connected to the world around the time the banana company comes and even during its decline is connected by a rail road – only that it’s forgotten by the rest of the world. Now I think, this solitude has the same meaning as the others in the novel. In some vague way, it refers to the people of the town not paying enough attention and not taking enough efforts for the survival of the town. They are too busy earning and enjoying during the times of the banana company and after it leaves are totally shattered and they too begin to leave or stay passively in the society.

In trying to understand this novel I tried reading a few reviews online (by noted literature study aid publishers) and they seemed to be as confused as me! Quite a few reviews I read were contradicting each other in interpreting some of the symbolisms. In fact one of them interpreted that from the vigorous mating between Aureliano Segundo and Petra Cotes, Marquez favors sexual promiscuity, whereas his treatment of the sexual passion between Amaranta Ursula and Aureliano (II) would have easily disproved this. I am aware that there are entire books on this novel, but I would still like my remaining questions to be answered more easily. They could also be answered if I was to read the novel once again, but though I have the interest for it I don’t seem to have the patience for it now.

Irrespective of whether you want to peal away the symbolisms or not, this novel is certainly a good read – touching, comical and revealing sometimes, but always puzzling.

Ponniyin Selvan - An engaging lesson in history!

This is another post after a long break in my blog. But still this was a pretty quick entry to write up. The post which is really long pending is my review on “One hundred years of solitude”. Apart from the novel itself being very dense with a lot of symbolism, I also have to hunt through it for quotes whose location I have forgotten – felt I should have made a note of quotes as I did for “The Fountainhead”.

Coming to this post’s topic, it is the review of the Tamil historical epic novel – Kalki’s “Ponniyin Selvan” (Son of Ponni (Ponni is a river)). I had heard about this book for quite some time – it is arguably the most widely read Tamil novel and though written about 50 years back, it is still very actively read among the current generation of Tamil readers. It deals about the events during the succession of the Chola emperor Parantaka Chola II (Sundara Chola) around 970 AD. It is really an epic novel in characterization and the length – it runs to an amazing 5 volumes and nearly 2200 pages (in a size slightly bigger than normal English novels!).

Though the novel is too big to summarize here, I would attempt a very short summary to the story. During this time, Cholas are the dominant force in the south and their empire stretches from Kanyakumari to the banks of river Krishna and east cost to the Nilgiris. Aditha Karikalan is the crown prince (leading the northern forces at Kanchi) for over three years now, as the health of the emperor gets worse. However, due to some reasons a section of Chola generals plan to bring Madhuranthakar, the younger cousin of the emperor to throne. Vandiyathevan, heir to a now defunct royal family, brings a message from the crown prince for the princess Kundavai and comes to know of this plan and is sent by her to Srilanka to where Karikalan’s younger brother Arulmozhi Varman is leading an armed invasion of the country. On the way, he meets the bewitching Nandhini who is the wife of Chola chief general Periya Pazhuvettarayar (who is aligned with Madhuranthakar) and unknown to her husband is involved with a group of Pandya conspirators who are plotting to destroy the Chola family. The novel builds on the relations between these main characters and many more characters who come in later and finally ends with the succession being resolved in a rather unusual manner.

There are many areas in which I feel that the book is top notch. Below are the few of those.

• Retaining the interest of the reader for this length is itself quite an achievement, for any novel of any genre and Kalki does this with ease. Though I could notice a bit of slowing down in parts 3 & 4, part 5 picks up with more interest than ever. And of course I never felt the story was being dragged (considering that this was first serialized in a Tamil magazine and noticing the current mega serials in T.V!).
• Most of the major characters are real historical characters and many of the incidents are also real incidents. The amount of research that has gone into this is spectacular. Kalki brings alive the Chola world before more than 1000 years, reveals to us ancient Tamil culture and rule and all this without compromising much on historical truths! It seems he has only capitalized on the fuzzy areas of history to makes his own characters and incidents.
• The amazing depth in characterization. All the characters in the novel are truly multi dimensional and in fact nobody is portrayed as a villain! Kalki shows the fallibility and the prowess of all characters, except perhaps Arulmozhi. Here too, he shows that it is Arulmozhi’s nature that he is very gentle and obedient to elders, so this also seems quite realistic. In fact the novel seems to have two equally important heroes, Arulmozhi and Vandhiyathevan. Though the story is named after Arulmozhi (whose other name is Ponniyin Selvan), the narration starts, ends and mostly proceeds through with Vandhiyathevan. There are varied kinds of romances in the story from the matured love between Kundavai and Vandhiyatevan to the mad love of Manimekalai to Vandhiyathevan. This is one of the best, if not the best novel I have read as far as characterization goes.
• Kalki’s style of writing. In this story of betrayals, revenge, love and murder, Kalki succeeds in keeping a gentle undercurrent of humor mainly through the characters of Azhvarkhadiyan and Vandhiyathevan. He also turns the prose enjoyably poetic in quite a few places. And of course there are quite a few songs and poems, some of his own and some culled out from classic Tamil texts. Most touching among these were the song by Poonkuzhazhi (which appears quite a few times in the novel) –

“Alaikadalthaan oyindhirukka

Agakadalthaan ponguvathen?....”

(When the sea of waves is silent, why is the sea of my heart turbulent?)

And the love song of Manimekalai.

Also he handles the narration almost continuously for over 6 months, which is quite difficult to do. He achieves this by focusing the story at some place and then goes back and forth a little in time. Though this doesn’t make the narration non-linear, the effect was quite different.

• Kalki includes so much of historical information that this almost becomes like a historical text! Though the story is about the Chola dynasty which has been flourishing for about 100 years, Kalki takes pains to illustrate the history of earlier Cholas and also the history of some Chola general’s dynasties. He also deals quite a bit on the religion, culture and even food habits of the time! In particular he shows the Saiva – Vaishnava dichotomy in Hinduism very clearly. He also maintains the tone of the novel very objective. Whether it’s dispelling myths of Kollivaipisasu (a form of ghost) or discussing atheism and religious theism at one stretch, this is about the most liberal a historical novel can get!

No doubt the novel rekindles the interest in Tamil history, literature and culture among the people in the current generation and is hence a hot favorite even now. I have personally seen copies of this book getting sold out in a book exhibition when copies of most other novels were still available. In spite of all these, I feel the novel could have been better in some ways. These are not flaws, but I feel the novel could have been even better (though many may not agree with me). I feel the difference especially when comparing this with my other favorite historical novel, The Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet. This novel tells about the English history from about 1123 to 1174 AD. I feel the following points are worth noting –

• The novel seems to be almost obsessed with happenings in royal household. Most of the major characters are royal characters and even the few exceptions like Poonkuzhazhi and Senthan Amuthan are highlighted only when they interact with the royal family. This is of course not a flaw, but I feel that to reflect more on practical values one could have focused on some commoners. This is where I like the “The Pillars…” more, since it shows a few commoners as the main characters and through them illustrates a range of values. Though this novel also illustrates few values like good governance, true love, generosity I feel it lacks the full range of values as done in “The Pillars…”.
• I personally like an epic novel to span a large time, like 50 years for “The Pillars”. I feel this shows the real nature of the characters as they age and take on more responsibilities and change. However this novel stretches only for about 8 months. Though Kalki tells some history about each character and ends with a note on the future of the main characters, this still doesn’t have the same effect.
• (Spoilers here!) I can’t fully appreciate the climax of the novel, which is the sacrifice done by Arulmozhi – relinquishing the throne to (new) Madhurantakar. At least if he had relinquished it to old Madhurantakar it could be called a sacrifice, since old Madhurantakar wanted the throne badly. But in the climax, when every one wants him to be the emperor, Arulmozhi almost forces new Madhurantakar to be the emperor. This seems more of a shrewd move, of freeing himself for his long wanted expeditions, than a sacrifice to me! Of course, as I have learnt from some articles in Ponniyin Selvan e-group, history could be actually different here, as it is mentioned in some engraving that the Madhurantakar who was crowned as Utthama Chola “wanted” the throne.

To summarize, this is an excellent read for anyone who is even slightly interested in Tamil / Indian history. For a non-Tamil reader there is a complete English translation available here. It seems to be quite a faithful translation of the original.This novel is ideal to be made into a two part or three part movie. It seems the cost is deterring people who wanted to film it, but it's nevertheless a pity that this hasn't been made into a movie. Though there is a related movie by name Raja Raja Cholan, it deals with his life after coronation and it seems to be more of fiction than history.

[Note on history: For those who haven’t found this out already, the novel’s hero Arulmozhi is later crowned as Rajaraja Cholan. He and his son Rajendra Cholan expanded the Chola Empire far and wide by conducting successful expeditions to various places like Srilanka, Bengal, Myanmar, Malaya peninsula, Sumatra and came to be known as one of the greatest emperors in south Indian history. He also built the famous Thanjavur Big temple and later built a new capital for Cholas – Gangaikondacholapuram, consecrated with water from the Ganges. The Cholas flourished for nearly another 300 years, creating a Golden age for Tamil literature and culture, until they finally fell to the resurgent Pandyas by about 1279 AD]

"Brave new world" and our future

So I am back after a long break (longer then what I intended it to be) and I decided to relieve myself of a long pending post, by putting into words some rather abstract ideas in my mind. This post will be primarily concerned with reviewing and interpreting Aldous Huxley’s The brave new world. When I first started with the novel I thought it was a science fiction. Yes, it has a lot of elements in a science fiction novel, but it is much beyond that. It is a prophecy on our society and as it happens to be quite accurate it is also a grave warning for our future. It is extra-ordinarily prophetic considering that it was written in 1930s.

The novel presents a future society (nearly 600 years into future) which is on the surface a utopian society. Everybody (well, nearly everybody) is happy, there is no violence of any kind and society is very stable. But just below the surface it presents quite a few horrors – everybody is happy because they are not allowed to think of anything beyond their day-to-day work. After their work, to divert them they have unlimited sex, since there is no family setup and anybody can and should mate with everyone else in the society. They also have feelies for more divertion, which seem to be horribly close to the current movies with virtual reality added. They have pretty sophisticated sports which are our simple sports adapted to use a heavy amount of machinery to encourage consumerism. And of course if nothing of this is of any use, then they take soma – the drug which relieves them from reality. So this is how they remain “happy”. Their Happiness is not by a quest and oneness with Truth, but by denying the existence of Truth and refusing to search for it. To maintain this social order all the babies are raised in bottles fed with nutrition (since there are no mothers) and also there is a strict classification of people into classes – alpha, beta, gamma, delta and epsilon and into some sub-classes like alpha plus. Each class is to do a specific kind of work like intellectual work for alpha. And they can do only that, since they are psychologically taught so from childhood and some enzymes are used to restrict their functionality. In fact the alphas are only one who can “think”. Cloning is also used widely, though Huxley uses a different terminology for that, and in the lower classes many hundreds of people are from the same clone (since that helps preserve social order more). The novel then shows how somebody who comes from a civilization like us (the savage), feels in this kind of a world.

Now this is only some piece of fiction and why should we bother about it? Because our society (especially the western society) is quite close in some aspects to it. The family structure has degraded and sexual promiscuity is an ever increasing and accepted part of our society. Entertainment and media is increasingly being looked at as a way to ‘escape’ from reality. The use of drugs has been increasing and media promoted consumerism means we consume more than we ever did, even if don’t know what to do with the waste material generated. And worse I am also able to figure out how the society may be lead in the same direction. So here is my theory. Whatever appears below is only my interpretation of the novel.

The novel is unique that unlike many other dystopian novels (like “1984”), the society has elements of socialism and capitalism. As a socialist totalitarianism, the government scrutinizes all media and scientific research, so that no “truth” is revealed. Also there is total lack of individuality and a lot of collectivism. But there are unmistakable capitalistic traits like use of mass-production, consumerism and of course other things that I have mentioned above. As a result of these socialistic traits of the novel it is difficult to imagine how such a society can result from a society like ours, though I think I have the answer for this. The answer also lies in the novel, in the final chapters of the wonderful dialogue between the savage and the world controller. The world controller explains that the quest for truth and beauty (science and art) must be controlled to reach a state of happiness. He remarks at a point

(The world controller to the savage)

“It's curious," …"to read what people in the time of Our Ford used to write about scientific progress. They seemed to have imagined that it could be allowed to go on indefinitely, regardless of everything else. Knowledge was the highest good, truth the supreme value; all the rest was secondary and subordinate. True, ideas were beginning to change even then. Our Ford himself did a great deal to shift the emphasis from truth and beauty to comfort and happiness. Mass production demanded the shift. … Still, in spite of everything, unrestricted scientific research was still permitted. People still went on talking about truth and beauty as though they were the sovereign goods. Right up to the time of the Nine Years' War. That made them change their tune all right. What's the point of truth or beauty or knowledge when the anthrax bombs are popping all around you? That was when science first began to be controlled–after the Nine Years' War.”

(Emphasis by italics original, by bold mine)

Even in this short extract there are many interesting things. Huxley indicates that industrialization caused the shift from the truth to comfort. This of course supports my theory. But I don’t agree that “in spite of everything unrestricted scientific research was permitted”. We agree to carry out research in areas where we don’t know how to handle the outcome (like in human cloning, for instance), not only because we want to search for truth – but we have powerful corporations who have put or ready to put in millions of dollars in it and hence lobby for it. Industrialization makes us search ruthlessly, heartlessly for at least a part of the “truth” which is profitable to the industries, at least in the short term. Huxley makes a slight jump now, talking about the Nine Year’s war. He doesn’t explain anywhere how unrestricted scientific research leads to the war. That is for us to make out – and given the current global situation we are one of the best equipped to do it since sometime in history. Unrestricted research and their unrestricted use has produced nuclear weapons and only now we are discovering how close the two superpowers of the world were, to using it during the cold war. We refuse to stop the unrestricted use of our environment, despite threats of global warming and umpteen other hazards. What I mean here is that our world is increasingly becoming unstable. It may be either due to increasing threat of terrorist’s attacks and its reactions which can lead to a situation like the Nine Year’s war – or it may be just the instability in our environment which may finally boomerang on us.

Now my theory is that when such a thing happens, the (surviving) human kind’s reactions would be over-cautious, which would be to strictly regulate all forms of art and science. And of course to prevent us from being aware that they are being regulated the vices of our capitalistic society come in handy – escapist entertainment, unrestricted sexual promiscuity, mindless consumerism and its endless “innovations” and free use of drugs. Now my theory explains logically how our society can progress to society as depicted in the novel.

What can we do to avoid this? Huxley doesn’t directly answer this question. In fact in some places, he hints that he has lost hope with this society and a society as depicted in the novel is the only possibility for human kind to survive. Now I won’t be so pessimistic. I still think we can do something, but time may be soon running out. We should not think of technology as an end in itself - scientific research, at least in some areas should be restricted and its use even more restricted. We also need to fully rethink (though we are already doing this partly) the basis of our industrialization and define the line between need and greed. Mindless consumerism results in over-consumption and this should not be allowed to prevent a sustained use our environment. In short instead of creating an unsustainable paradise for the elite of the present generation, we should create a sustainable living place for all the people of the next several generations. The above may not be easily implementable suggestions, but that alone can’t undermine their correctness.

Many may disregard this as a paranoid conspiracy theory, but using the reasoning I followed this does seem to be a distinct possibility and we need to prepared for it. I would be eager to debate on any flaws in my reasoning or even otherwise about this post.

My commentary ends here. The following is an interesting quote from the novel, which talks of relevance of god in the “brave new world”. This and previous quote was got from the full text version of novel at http://www.huxley.net/bnw/. Chapters 16 & 17 form the crux of the work and can be read even by itself.

"Quite so. I'll read you one of the things he did dream of in a moment. Meanwhile, listen to what this old Arch-Community-Songster said." He opened the book at the place marked by a slip of paper and began to read. "'We are not our own any more than what we possess is our own. We did not make ourselves, we cannot be supreme over ourselves. We are not our own masters. We are God's property. Is it not our happiness thus to view the matter? Is it any happiness or any comfort, to consider that we are our own? It may be thought so by the young and prosperous. These may think it a great thing to have everything, as they suppose, their own way–to depend on no one–to have to think of nothing out of sight, to be without the irksomeness of continual acknowledgment, continual prayer, continual reference of what they do to the will of another. But as time goes on, they, as all men, will find that independence was not made for man–that it is an unnatural state–will do for a while, but will not carry us on safely to the end …'" Mustapha Mond paused, put down the first book and, picking up the other, turned over the pages. "Take this, for example," he said, and in his deep voice once more began to read: "'A man grows old; he feels in himself that radical sense of weakness, of listlessness, of discomfort, which accompanies the advance of age; and, feeling thus, imagines himself merely sick, lulling his fears with the notion that this distressing condition is due to some particular cause, from which, as from an illness, he hopes to recover. Vain imaginings! That sickness is old age; and a horrible disease it is. They say that it is the fear of death and of what comes after death that makes men turn to religion as they advance in years. But my own experience has given me the conviction that, quite apart from any such terrors or imaginings, the religious sentiment tends to develop as we grow older; to develop because, as the passions grow calm, as the fancy and sensibilities are less excited and less excitable, our reason becomes less troubled in its working, less obscured by the images, desires and distractions, in which it used to be absorbed; whereupon God emerges as from behind a cloud; our soul feels, sees, turns towards the source of all light; turns naturally and inevitably; for now that all that gave to the world of sensations its life and charms has begun to leak away from us, now that phenomenal existence is no more bolstered up by impressions from within or from without, we feel the need to lean on something that abides, something that will never play us false–a reality, an absolute and everlasting truth. Yes, we inevitably turn to God; for this religious sentiment is of its nature so pure, so delightful to the soul that experiences it, that it makes up to us for all our other losses.'" Mustapha Mond shut the book and leaned back in his chair. "One of the numerous things in heaven and earth that these philosophers didn't dream about was this" (he waved his hand), "us, the modern world. 'You can only be independent of God while you've got youth and prosperity; independence won't take you safely to the end.' Well, we've now got youth and prosperity right up to the end. What follows? Evidently, that we can be independent of God. 'The religious sentiment will compensate us for all our losses.' But there aren't any losses for us to compensate; religious sentiment is superfluous. And why should we go hunting for a substitute for youthful desires, when youthful desires never fail? A substitute for distractions, when we go on enjoying all the old fooleries to the very last? What need have we of repose when our minds and bodies continue to delight in activity? of consolation, when we have soma? of something immovable, when there is the social order?"

"Then you think there is no God?"

"No, I think there quite probably is one."

"Then why? …"

Mustapha Mond checked him. "But he manifests himself in different ways to different men. In premodern times he manifested himself as the being that's described in these books. Now …"

"How does he manifest himself now?" asked the Savage.

"Well, he manifests himself as an absence; as though he weren't there at all."