I don't take my knowledge of English movies too seriously. I am at best a casual watcher and at worst a nominal self appointed analyst/critic.
There isn't a particular genre of movies that i have an affinity for. Yes i love comedies and spoofs. Action thrillers are great. Sometimes dramas are fine.Sci-Fis are great if made well. Can't say that about all Sci-Fis though.Romantics ... mmm.. not sure.
But four Hollywood movies which shook me from my core and which affected me for some time were 1] Pulp Fiction 2]Godfather I and II 3] Shwashank's Redemption and 4] JFK. And not necessarily in that order.
Pulp Fiction for its "casual" violence and style, Godfather off course for its grand setting and almost intoxicating story line, Shwashank's.. for its brilliant ending and JFK for its absolute commitment to details.I have not seen a movie script more glued to details than JFK. It was an epic made to depict a monumental event in the American history. That Oliver Stone would have walked a very tight rope making that movie shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
I am not sure if many republicans would have hated that movie. If you make efforts to separate the movie's political overtones, you get , what i should call a Master-Piece.The story is based on Kennedy's murder and follow up on its investigation. Its a period movie based in the 60s.The film is an essay on how the vigour and dedication of one man and his team of associates can rise above the highest powers. For me nothing symbolizes this film's excellence more than Kevin Costner's closing speech to the Jury. It was spotless. Almost impeccable work of fine acting. You just stop and listen to this man speak, endlessly.
Apart from Costner's acting, the Director's brilliance in gradually building up the story and along with that the emotion, is an education in film-making itself.Writes a critic."The subject matter is incredibly controversial and subjective but Stone's delivers it with such emotion and raw power that his alternate myth to the Warren Report seems factual."
The movie is also a salute to this nation's true democracy. A democracy where a politically uncomfortable film is allowed to not only be produced but released without hiccups even during the rule of the government which is at odds with the movie's views. In India especially, politically incorrect movies have little or no place at all.
(A point in case, "Aandhi"-which was banned)
When Americans talk of liberty and freedom of speech they mean it. But in some ways the movie's story tells a paradoxical situation regarding exactly that. That is , freedom of views.
Kennedy was a liberal at heart. He had already made enemies within the CIA because of his diametrically opposite views apart from others,on Cuban Missile issue and racial tolerance. His views were not in synch with the higher ups in the most feared Intelligence office of the world.
As the movie shows at the start, Kennedy had it coming.
Kennedy had snatched an improbable victory in elections. He with his wife had grown into iconic figures in a very short span of time. The Kennedy's symbolized power,glamour and style for the 60s America which was flushed with money and power.The Kennedy's lifestyle, their hollywood connections, their good looks was what would qualify as the "talk of the country".
The conservatives surely were'nt impressed. And Kennedy might have 'crossed the line' a few times on a few issues for CIA to take the extreme step of eliminating him. (The movie without naming CIA, makes it more than obvious that CIA was behind his murder).
The best part of the movie is that it is very subtle in its presentation. There's an understated aggression but the blame is not squarely pushed in CIA's direction. A lot of questions are kept hanging intentionally, i feel, to keep the viewer in state of perennial intrigue.
But as i mentioned earlier, Costner's closing speech is a class act. An act of a helpless lawyer who is too small to fight a huge system by himself. Costner looses the case, but makes the point. He does not loose without a fight and thats what the movie is all about. That Costner is going to loose the case is known all along, but his effectual verbal advocacy of what he stands for and case itself is the movie's highlight.
JFK for me remains a collector's item. I have seen this movie a couple of times and may watch it some more times (probably when it flashes back on the cable). I haven't seen Kevin Costner's other movies except for "Bull Durham". But doesn't matter. JFK proves his acting credentials way beyond anybody's doubt.
All in all, JFK takes the cake for story-telling and presentation. If you got 5 hours to spare on a week-end, one of the ways to use it would be to get this DVD. You won't be sorry.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Friday, September 23, 2005
O'Reilly has some explaination to do
Phil Donnahue stumped Bill O'Reilly totally on the anti-war debate on "The Factor" program, day before yesterday.
When he asked O'Reilly - "whether he will send his own kids to die" for the Iraq war, Bill lost his cool and what followed was not what we can call a Television debate. It turned into an acrimonious name calling, free-for-all cacophony.
To start with, the question itself was not correct. How can Bill decide whether to send his children for war or not? In a country where the child leaves his house as soon as he is a teenager , how much control does the Father really have on his sons/daughters career decision?
Bill's best answer could have been - "If he wishes to go i won't stop him. But i cannot force him or for that matter anyone to go for war". That would have been the best answer. This would have taken some steam out from Donnahue's verbal onslaught.
Anyways Bill lost it yesterday. He has tried to do some post-match anyalsis on his column at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170223,00.html
Not convinced Bill !
When he asked O'Reilly - "whether he will send his own kids to die" for the Iraq war, Bill lost his cool and what followed was not what we can call a Television debate. It turned into an acrimonious name calling, free-for-all cacophony.
To start with, the question itself was not correct. How can Bill decide whether to send his children for war or not? In a country where the child leaves his house as soon as he is a teenager , how much control does the Father really have on his sons/daughters career decision?
Bill's best answer could have been - "If he wishes to go i won't stop him. But i cannot force him or for that matter anyone to go for war". That would have been the best answer. This would have taken some steam out from Donnahue's verbal onslaught.
Anyways Bill lost it yesterday. He has tried to do some post-match anyalsis on his column at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170223,00.html
Not convinced Bill !
Sycophancy Unlimited
And you thought only Jim Carrey was crazeeeee...
Some 300 Congress workers in Tamil Nadu to show their unflinching loyalty towards the Gandhi family have tattooed Rahul Gandhi's name on their hands.
The reason being - ""Sonia Gandhi is our supreme leader, but Rahul represents emerging youth leadership of the country. That is why we have tattooed his name".
Oh my Gawd!!! The emerging leader ? The Supreme leader ?
God ? How do these people live with themselves ? Ain't this really sickening?
You even have temples of leaders. (I guess J Jayalalitha has a temple in her name).
What is wrong with these chaps ?
I dread the day this college drop out, stinking rich and good-for-nothing Gandhi becomes the PM; who by the way has nothing to show for his credentials other than Venezulean/Columbian girlfriends.
When will just being born in a powerful family be enough for any one to become PM? When will we have a PM who has earned his position by his hard work, talent and leadership qualities?
With His Highness Mr. Rahul G waiting in the wings to take his "rightful" place as the PM of the nation, it seems unlikey for atleast next decade or so.
Anyways read on for more nausea at http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/23tattoo.htm?q=np&file=.htm
Some 300 Congress workers in Tamil Nadu to show their unflinching loyalty towards the Gandhi family have tattooed Rahul Gandhi's name on their hands.
The reason being - ""Sonia Gandhi is our supreme leader, but Rahul represents emerging youth leadership of the country. That is why we have tattooed his name".
Oh my Gawd!!! The emerging leader ? The Supreme leader ?
God ? How do these people live with themselves ? Ain't this really sickening?
You even have temples of leaders. (I guess J Jayalalitha has a temple in her name).
What is wrong with these chaps ?
I dread the day this college drop out, stinking rich and good-for-nothing Gandhi becomes the PM; who by the way has nothing to show for his credentials other than Venezulean/Columbian girlfriends.
When will just being born in a powerful family be enough for any one to become PM? When will we have a PM who has earned his position by his hard work, talent and leadership qualities?
With His Highness Mr. Rahul G waiting in the wings to take his "rightful" place as the PM of the nation, it seems unlikey for atleast next decade or so.
Anyways read on for more nausea at http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/23tattoo.htm?q=np&file=.htm
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Aryans who never invaded
Before i begin, i must confess that i have not been a very good student of biology. I almost hated that subject in my schooling days; so much so that after my Xth grade the moment i got a choice of excluding it from my courseware, i gladly took that option.
Hence when i read a paper by Dr. Chandrakant Panse titled - "DNA, genetics and population dynamics", i kinda found it tough in relating to the excruciatingly difficult jargons and "chromosomal" language so to speak.
But what really intrigued me about his paper - (which i found from Rajeev Srinivasan's blog) was the title. The relationship between genetics and population dynamics.
Since our childhood we have been taught the 'Aryan Invasion Theory'. Lets call it AIT. Lot of proponents of AIT use the colour of skin analogy to back their argument. It is often claimed that people who reside in the North of the country and are "fairer" in complexion than their southern counterparts have Aryans as their ancestors. Also we have been made to believe by the proponents of AIT that the people from south who are a little darker in complexion have their roots in their Dravidian legacy.
Obviously this theory was first proposed by the British historians (for their own reasons) and later lapped up by their Indian counter-parts without much ado. This AIT theory went unchallenged for so long that it became a part of the regular history syllabus in our school books. (Ramola Thapar and her ilk and the other "famous" historians of our country still continue to breathe this theory down our necks)
One of the important thing to note of AIT was that it was never a theory based on any scientific finding. It was never really backed up by any concrete evidence. It was more of a hypothesis and conclusions were loosely based on the probability of some Europeans having travelled to India thousands of years ago via the north gate.
I have read three papers in recent past which debunk the Aryan theory. If not categorically; atleast provide a counter argument and much more rational argument against the AIT.
Thankfully bio-technology has made great strides in the human DNA and genetics to come up with some really solid propositions on population dynamics.
The first paper/article on this subject that caught my eyes was the one by Subash Kak on rediff.com. (Subhash Kak is a professor at Louisiana State University. He is also a commentator par excellence and his columns routinely appear on rediff.com)
http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/08kak.htm
Professor Kak goes on to say in this article ...
[..] in recent years, the work of archaeologists and historians of science concluded that there is no material evidence for any large scale migrations into India over the period of 4500 to 800 BC [..]
...thus debunking the Aryan theory at the very root. But more importantly he refers to Oxford University scholar Stephen Oppenheimer's theory and book - The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey out of Africa (New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2003),
[..]recent advances in studies of mitochondrial DNA, inherited through the mother, and Y chromosomes, inherited by males from the father; Oppenheimer makes the case that whereas Africa is the cradle of all mankind; India is the cradle of all non-African peoples. [..]
Oppenheimer makes some "extraordinary conclusions" according to the author that are more interesting when you read the article completely.
In author's own words... [..] This synthesis of genetic evidence makes it possible to understand the divide between the north and the south Indian languages. It appears that the Dravidian languages are more ancient, and the Aryan languages evolved in India over thousands of years before migrations took them to central Asia and westward to Europe. The proto-Dravidian languages had also, through the ocean route, reached northeast Asia, explaining the connections between the Dravidian family and the Korean and the Japanese [..]
There was a second article that i read that again threw some light on this subject, and the link to which i lost. It appeared in NYTimes recently. I still have the link but it does not work. (It is lost in the NYTimes archive)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/science/13migrate.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1116180255-HCwNSux1xetEdoSaH/eLpA&pagewanted=print
Basically this is what the article wrote...
[..]The geneticists say there was only one migration of modern humans out of Africa; that it took a southern route to India,Southeast Asia [..]
[..]
Because these events occurred in the last Ice Age, when Europe was at first too cold for human habitation, the researchers say, it was populated only later, not directly from Africa but as an offshoot of the southern migration. The people of this offshoot would presumably have trekked back through the lands that are now India and Iran to reach the Near East and Europe.
The findings depend on analysis of mitochondrial DNA, a type of genetic material inherited solely through the female line.
They are reported today in Science by a team of geneticists led by Dr. Vincent Macaulay of the University of Glasgow.
[..]
In effect telling us that the reverse of Aryan theory was true and more likely.
And finally Dr. Chandrakant Panse's paper recently presented at the Third Annual Human Empowerment Conference at Houston, Texas between Sept. 16 to 18, 2005
Dr. Panse says "Science now conclusively rejects any notion of any Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent."
He goes on to say that.."Extensive sequencing and statistical analysis of a part of mtDNA which has sustained mutations (the mitochondrial hypervariable region I, HVR I), from reasonable sample sizes, has shown that certain sequences dominant in Europe are uncommon in India, and when found, are almost equally divided amongst the North and South Indians. Conversely,there are sequences common to both the North and South Indians which are uncommon in Europe"
He concludes with this.
"The stark lack of similarities in the gene pools of the Indian subcontinent and Europe, vividly evident in the mtDNA and the MHC complex, destroys any Aryan invasion notions, and confirms the genetic uniformity of peoples of the Indian subcontinent."
His presentation is based yet again on the mtDNA based research referred earlier and the full text of that research can be found at http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/13/7/1607
All the three articles comprehensively undermine the AIT. All the three are based on pure science and very limited probability.
It will take time for Indians to grown on this new concept; soaked as we are in the Aryan Invasion Theory.
As for the colour of the skin, well, I have seen some very fair coloured south Indians and some very dark coloured North Indians. And as they say color is only skin deep.It should certainly be. The "skin colour" argument for backing the Aryan Theory is really very fickle, even idiotic so to say.
Whenever a new theory gains currency the people who follow old school get a little uncomfortable. A classic example being that of Galelio.Galileo was put under house arrest for coming up with the Copernican System (Sun is at the center and other planets revolve around it) more than five centuries ago.
The great progress being made in Bio-Technologies will certainly go a long way in once and for all shutting up the Romila Thapar factory of lies.
Hence when i read a paper by Dr. Chandrakant Panse titled - "DNA, genetics and population dynamics", i kinda found it tough in relating to the excruciatingly difficult jargons and "chromosomal" language so to speak.
But what really intrigued me about his paper - (which i found from Rajeev Srinivasan's blog) was the title. The relationship between genetics and population dynamics.
Since our childhood we have been taught the 'Aryan Invasion Theory'. Lets call it AIT. Lot of proponents of AIT use the colour of skin analogy to back their argument. It is often claimed that people who reside in the North of the country and are "fairer" in complexion than their southern counterparts have Aryans as their ancestors. Also we have been made to believe by the proponents of AIT that the people from south who are a little darker in complexion have their roots in their Dravidian legacy.
Obviously this theory was first proposed by the British historians (for their own reasons) and later lapped up by their Indian counter-parts without much ado. This AIT theory went unchallenged for so long that it became a part of the regular history syllabus in our school books. (Ramola Thapar and her ilk and the other "famous" historians of our country still continue to breathe this theory down our necks)
One of the important thing to note of AIT was that it was never a theory based on any scientific finding. It was never really backed up by any concrete evidence. It was more of a hypothesis and conclusions were loosely based on the probability of some Europeans having travelled to India thousands of years ago via the north gate.
I have read three papers in recent past which debunk the Aryan theory. If not categorically; atleast provide a counter argument and much more rational argument against the AIT.
Thankfully bio-technology has made great strides in the human DNA and genetics to come up with some really solid propositions on population dynamics.
The first paper/article on this subject that caught my eyes was the one by Subash Kak on rediff.com. (Subhash Kak is a professor at Louisiana State University. He is also a commentator par excellence and his columns routinely appear on rediff.com)
http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/08kak.htm
Professor Kak goes on to say in this article ...
[..] in recent years, the work of archaeologists and historians of science concluded that there is no material evidence for any large scale migrations into India over the period of 4500 to 800 BC [..]
...thus debunking the Aryan theory at the very root. But more importantly he refers to Oxford University scholar Stephen Oppenheimer's theory and book - The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey out of Africa (New York: Carroll and Graf Publishers, 2003),
[..]recent advances in studies of mitochondrial DNA, inherited through the mother, and Y chromosomes, inherited by males from the father; Oppenheimer makes the case that whereas Africa is the cradle of all mankind; India is the cradle of all non-African peoples. [..]
Oppenheimer makes some "extraordinary conclusions" according to the author that are more interesting when you read the article completely.
In author's own words... [..] This synthesis of genetic evidence makes it possible to understand the divide between the north and the south Indian languages. It appears that the Dravidian languages are more ancient, and the Aryan languages evolved in India over thousands of years before migrations took them to central Asia and westward to Europe. The proto-Dravidian languages had also, through the ocean route, reached northeast Asia, explaining the connections between the Dravidian family and the Korean and the Japanese [..]
There was a second article that i read that again threw some light on this subject, and the link to which i lost. It appeared in NYTimes recently. I still have the link but it does not work. (It is lost in the NYTimes archive)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/science/13migrate.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1116180255-HCwNSux1xetEdoSaH/eLpA&pagewanted=print
Basically this is what the article wrote...
[..]The geneticists say there was only one migration of modern humans out of Africa; that it took a southern route to India,Southeast Asia [..]
[..]
Because these events occurred in the last Ice Age, when Europe was at first too cold for human habitation, the researchers say, it was populated only later, not directly from Africa but as an offshoot of the southern migration. The people of this offshoot would presumably have trekked back through the lands that are now India and Iran to reach the Near East and Europe.
The findings depend on analysis of mitochondrial DNA, a type of genetic material inherited solely through the female line.
They are reported today in Science by a team of geneticists led by Dr. Vincent Macaulay of the University of Glasgow.
[..]
In effect telling us that the reverse of Aryan theory was true and more likely.
And finally Dr. Chandrakant Panse's paper recently presented at the Third Annual Human Empowerment Conference at Houston, Texas between Sept. 16 to 18, 2005
Dr. Panse says "Science now conclusively rejects any notion of any Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent."
He goes on to say that.."Extensive sequencing and statistical analysis of a part of mtDNA which has sustained mutations (the mitochondrial hypervariable region I, HVR I), from reasonable sample sizes, has shown that certain sequences dominant in Europe are uncommon in India, and when found, are almost equally divided amongst the North and South Indians. Conversely,there are sequences common to both the North and South Indians which are uncommon in Europe"
He concludes with this.
"The stark lack of similarities in the gene pools of the Indian subcontinent and Europe, vividly evident in the mtDNA and the MHC complex, destroys any Aryan invasion notions, and confirms the genetic uniformity of peoples of the Indian subcontinent."
His presentation is based yet again on the mtDNA based research referred earlier and the full text of that research can be found at http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/13/7/1607
All the three articles comprehensively undermine the AIT. All the three are based on pure science and very limited probability.
It will take time for Indians to grown on this new concept; soaked as we are in the Aryan Invasion Theory.
As for the colour of the skin, well, I have seen some very fair coloured south Indians and some very dark coloured North Indians. And as they say color is only skin deep.It should certainly be. The "skin colour" argument for backing the Aryan Theory is really very fickle, even idiotic so to say.
Whenever a new theory gains currency the people who follow old school get a little uncomfortable. A classic example being that of Galelio.Galileo was put under house arrest for coming up with the Copernican System (Sun is at the center and other planets revolve around it) more than five centuries ago.
The great progress being made in Bio-Technologies will certainly go a long way in once and for all shutting up the Romila Thapar factory of lies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)