I am sure we all agree how retarded the rulers of Afghanistan have been.
But what caught my notice the other day raises the levels of retardedness to an new high.
This is a real life story that happened in the Kabul zoo in 1993. Despite the funny sad way that it played out, it is a story that has all the nuances of a successful motion picture.
Without doubt, Afghanistan has had a turbulent history, starting off as one of the pioneers of art and exquisiteness and ending up as mere rubble in the hands of the Taliban. One of those places of noteworthy interest gone into ruins in their hands has been the Kabul Zoo.
What began in 1979, as a slow decimation by the occassional rockets during the civil war, become an unmindful killing spree of all animals when the Mujahideens took over. However, it was soon pointed out to them that Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) was an adorer of animals and would have scorned on any cruelty towards them.
And so, for the time being the Afghan soldiers let the animals be.
But in 1993, an Afghan soldier (who for lack of appropriate words, can only be described as a prick), wanted to prove his courage to the fellow soldiers. He climbed into the cage of Kabul Zoo's most famous inhabitant -
Marjan the lion.
The prick made his way to Marjan's lioness, Chucha and in an attempt at foolish bravado, tickled her belly. He then turned to wave at his friends.
It turned out to be the last thing he ever did.
Lions, unlike the soldiers, have integrity. They will not sit around when their loved ones are attacked. Marjan pounced upon the stupid prick and tore him to bits. He was dead in minutes. I can only assume that the rest of the prick's friends panicked, went around in circles and finally scattered like a bunch of flies.
This is where the story should have ended. Unfortunately in real life, even true bravery has repercussions.
The prick had a brother who returned the next day to take revenge. He threw a grenade into Marjan's cage. The lion, assuming it was food and not really understanding the vengeful malice that lies at the heart of men jumped upon the grenade.
In the explosion that followed, Marjan the lion, lost an eye, had its face badly mutilated and jagged ends of shrapnel pierced in its jaws and mouth.
In the battle of man against beast, man had won. He was after all, a beast armed with weapons.
And yet all wasn't lost.
At the time of the explosion, there was a photojournalist called Swen Conrad in the same zoo who witnessed the entire incident. He did something remarkable - Something that instills faith in humanity and insists to our goodness that all is not lost.
He ran into the cage and assisted in restraining Marjan the lion and provided first aid. Curiously, the lion seemed to understand that this stranger was helping it. It did not resist much.
After first aid and further treatment, the lion, though partially blinded managed to live for another 11 years till 2002. It is said that the man who threw the grenade is still serving time.
I was wondering what it really takes for a blogger to accrue an interested and
persevering audience.
For one, I guess the quality of work matters. When your ideas and views are beautifully illustrated, people definitely begin to notice. But what really keeps them coming back must be a dedicated effort by the blogger.
I have read the same about music
(Click here). Even a popular band needs to keep itself relevant.
Linkin Park, is the example in this case, which keeps coming up with remixed/live albums (I believe the expression is "tide-overs"), to cover up the gap between two consequent releases. The buzz word, henceforth is consistent reminders.
Enough said about that. But on a similar thought, when I googled the term "famous blogger", I came up with this image.
Beautifully illustrated, eh?
It took me twenty five years of living and one and half years of dillydallying in the United States to finally develop an interest in politics.
Immersed in the wonders of New York City night life, the discussions of movies and their intricacies, listening to a lot of music (I mean a hell lot), college work (when it was forced upon me) and writing just for the heck of putting words on paper (or blogosphere, to be precise), I was suddenly introduced to a wave of awareness that hit all around me. For the first time, college going kids were interested in what was happening in America.
The interests seemed to mainly stem from the fact that the Presidential elections were here. For the first time, the college educated kids found a man, who fit the bill of a real savior. There was something about his articulate, no nonsense sort of attitude, that seemed to inspire confidence. A black man, who became the Dark horse of the Democrat party, and whom slowly, every began to trust and love.
After eight years of a Bush administration, people had finally had enough of the bullshit. And McCain, the republican candidate, despite a few uninspired ideas of his own, seemed to promise a rehash of the Bush administration. He was a war veteran, yes. But he was old and caught up in his ways. And after the debacle at Iraq, a republican administration was the last thing Americans wanted.
And so, all eyes fell on the Democrats. There was Hillary, a former first lady, getting the most number of brownie points for a commendable health plan, was one of the forerunners. The first lady who was running for the white house. She had a firm following with the women of the country. It was almost sexist for a man to vote against her. And then, we heard about Obama. The first Black democrat nominee. Between the two of them, they had both sexism and racism covered.
These and other issues were covered not just by CNN, but more importantly by Comedy Central. Politics is always ugly, and many things were said about each other, even within the boundaries of the democrat party, and Comedy central made it their mission to highlight these.
Politics is also a dreary subject. And not everyone has the enthusiasm to dig into election manifestos and dwelve into the intricacies of good or bad of a politician. This was where Comedy Central came into play. Two men, who are by far, the funniest smart men, took it as a mission to bring American politics to the layman. And they were, for the most part, straightforward.
The first of these men was
Jon Stewart.
Jon Stewart is an American comedian who took over the role of a political satirist, when he began hosting
The Daily Show in 1999. Jon Stewart, in his own inimitable style, brings the week's news interlaced with humor and sarcasm. Although Jon Stewart is quoted as saying that he has no political agenda, and his show is mainly aimed at "shnicks and giggles", he has often addressed several serious issues in the show. Jon Stewart often feigns lack of intelligence in his show, and pretends to be slow. The ploy works brilliantly, specially when politicians come up on the show, and forced to explain their actions.
One of the major beefs that Stewart seems to have, is with biased News Networks. Like Fox news. There is very often a reference to how Fox news gives us both sides of the story - both the President's side, and the vice president's side. In a much publicized exchange with a former CNN host, Tucker Carlson, on the show "Crossfire", Jon Stewart criticizes some of the theatretics of television journalism, and pleads with them to stop "hurting America".
As an after effect of that appearance, CNN was forced to scratch the show from television.
Even before Stewart started hosting The Daily Show, there was another man who began as a small segment correspondent on the show. He filled in as the "new guy" in 1997. The name stayed on, as a joke well over two years. This was Stephen Colbert. Colbert, unlike Jon Stewart, worked on perfecting a character far fetched from himself. He changed the pronounciation of his name for this character, going from Colbert ( as in "burt") to Col-bear (like the animal) .
In 2005, Colbert started hosting a new show called
The Colbert Report, a direct parody of a Fox News show called The O'Riley Factor. Colbert plays a narcisstic, ignorant and opinionated News Broadcaster. Off the show, he is said to have described the character as "a fool who has spent a lot of his life playing not the fool".
With a style that includes a big dose of irony and playing deadpan, he coined the term, "Truthiness", - the feeling of knowing something intuitively with no regard to logic or facts.
The two men together are performing a reality check on American Politics. As 2008 drew to a close, every night on their shows, they featured mockeries of both Obama and McCain. Their rules were simple. If you bullshit, they expose your bullshit and laugh at you.
Politics, like I said before is ugly. And in the heat of the 2008 presidential elections, mud was slung in all directions. Obama was said to have an Islamic background. He was linked with a man with terrorist affliations. But on weekday nights, Colbert and Stewart exposed these allegations for what they were. Just allegations. What the republicans did not realize however, was that their choice for Vice President candidate was going to blow up in their face.
Sarah Palin became McCain's biggest mistake.
Comedy Central had a field day with Sarah Palin, as anyone even remotely connected with the world would know. Tina Fey (From Saturday Night Live) became America's sweetheart with her portrayal of Sarah Palin
All she had to do was dress up like Palin and talk without making any sense. Obama spoke sensibly for the most part, and it worked to his favor.
2008 was famous not only for having the first Black president. It was also the year in which a group of comedy shows swung the popular vote.
When Obama was elected, Stewart was asked if he would now be left without a job.
"Only if it's less preposterous", Stewart replied.
In the aftermath of the elections, the financial meltdown happened rapidly. Obama struggled with coming to terms with the mistakes of the previous government. With the system crumbling, Obama who had once appeared to be a charismatic orator, now looked like a man making lofty promises.
The future is uncertain, and the new president is yet to prove his mettle. But Colbert and Stewart, America's true heroes, ridiculed whenever there was lack of action. As America faces its biggest disaster yet, these men are on television four nights week, doing their respective shows and providing America with both humor and perspective.
And as I watch them night after night, there are a few thoughts that strike me.
I see how a dedicated team of writers and comedians are working to provide a better insight against biased television networks like Fox news. And I cannot help wondering if the same is not possible in India.
Why can't there be a show that brings awareness with a tinge of humor?
I realize for instance, that there is no country without corruption. The only difference is that in a capitalistic country like America, corruption lies in the higher levels of the society. Similarly, there is no country without crazy people. For every Pramod Muthalik in India, there is a Glenn Beck in the United States.
How then are people like Jon Stewart able to actively ridicule their stupidity?
I guess one reason is they are inspired. We have a host of talented people in our country. Amateur writers who do their share on blogs. I guess what our country really needs is more people to take an initiative. We don't need a Mumbai terror attack or the beating up of girls in a Manglore pub to come to put a check on insanity. On a longer run, what we require is active participation in the television media. Being a country of many languages, it becomes essential to expose bullshit on many platforms, to even poor people in villages.
And what better way of getting their attention, than with humor?
In my urge to discover new music, I have been listening unashamedly. Some of the artists I have chanced upon recently include Fleet Foxes, Yeasayer, Neutral Milk Hotel, Black Lips and Death Cab for a Cutie.
While they are undoubtedly very listen-able, there is an extent to which I am able to connect with this music.
After spending days trying to make palaver with these bands, I have come up with an analogy that good music is a lot like coca-cola in green bottles.
They don't make it anymore.
I was stating this opinion to a friend when he retorted that I am too close minded when it comes to music. I compare everything to Zeppelin and Floyd.
"Yes, I do", I replied. Because Zeppelin and Floyd are my music gods. They made the sort of music that gets me high. I don't expect everything to be that great. Or even in the same league. But when it comes to music, I have a definition of "Class". For me, the highest standard is Zeppelin and Floyd, and anything that comes remotely close, is good.
I guess music is the sort of thing you must be passionate about. Good music can set you free. That's probably the reason why people carry the attitude of their music - be it the aggression of heavy metal, the gothness of Death Metal or the slackness of Classic Rock. When it is something you really love, you form strong opinions of what is real music. I, indeed, am one of those people who has a strong opinion on music. I usually make up mind about what is a true creative attempt. And what is pretentious.
As a consequence, it is sometimes difficult for me to understand people who can listen to any kind of music. And even if I do make that effort, I cannot help wondering if it isn't at the least necessary to have an idea of what you are passionate about? Having that teensy little thing you love more than everything else?
It is good to be passionate about things. Be it music. Or movies. Or even a philosophy. I guess what I am trying to say is, one has to really love a form of art.
It is a beautiful way to live.
"Paraskavedekatriaphobia". That should, without doubt be the longest and weirdest word in English. Okay, before you start your protest and come up with some technicalmumbojumbosortofweirdcoined word that proves the exact opposite of my statement, lemme instead said that the word
at the least, refers to the day with the unluckiest of all associations.
Friday the Thirteenth. The day the world decides to unanimously make bad things happen for everybody.
Superstition, by default, seems to be a touchy subject.
One can dismiss it offhandedly, humbugging it (just like Mr. Scrooge humbugged Marley's ghost, and what good did it do for him anyway?), but they tend to linger at some surface of your mind, at least momentarily.
For though you might be a practical person for all purposes, an ardent deleter of chain mails that claim you will die in fourteen hours, if you don't forward it, and reveling in triumph when live beyond the same time frame, there might be other superstitions more difficult to ignore.
Let's say, for instance, that a black cat crosses your path. What do you do? Sometimes, you might walk on anyway, determined to prove, that a cat is, after all, just a cat.
But what if you had a life deciding exam? Or a career making meeting. If you, for instance, could take a different path and avoid the possibility of inviting bad luck. Doesn't it seem a worthwhile effort?
I don't know the answer to that. What I do know though, is about a stray black cat in my neighborhood back home, which nobody feeds, though it's white sister(cat) gets all the benefits of food wastes. Racism is predominant towards animals too, apparently.
Fear of Friday the thirteenth comes from fear of the number thirteen.
The fear seems to be a complex and intrinsically inbred one, considering that elevators in multi storey technologically advanced buildings in the United States never seem to have a 13th floor. Instead, that particular floor is called "Club". And yet, doesn't it strike you as odd, that a bar called "13th floor", located on the same said number, in Bangalore is doing splendidly, and providing a good view of the city to all its faithful visitors.
Getting back to Friday the 13th, I guess it's one of those days that has had a bad luck story attached to it. We will have to live with that. And despite the fact that fewer accidents, or fire, happen on this day compared to the rest of the year (considering how people are preventatively more careful), it is a day, that is going to remain in history as a feared day.
Well I don't care. Not really. I guess.
However, I am going to spend the day doing insignificant things like writing this post.
No point risking bad luck by doing something important, eh?
This review is for you, if you have watched it, and are wondering if the movie was brilliant and flawless. Watching three hours of non stop sensory overload, can often leave you unable to make an unbiased judgment, making you wonder if it really was that amazing.
Or was there a tiny little "hard to point your finger at” thing that was wrong with it?
I am an avid Batman fan, who has been devouring the Frank Miller graphic novels that depict the grim and gritty side of the dark Knight. I have followed the tidbits and stories on Dark Knight for over a year. Batman Begins marked the beginning of one of the most amazing "ordinary superhero movie" ever witnessed. Four years later, as I stepped into the hall, and awaited the beginning of this new movie, the excitement was almost palpable.
I was not disappointed. The movie had enough chills and sadistic pleasures to keep me hooked and unable to look away from the screen for the most parts. And yet, when the credits rolled, I had a queer feeling, as though something wasn't entirely right.
For one, the movie was too long. There was too much happening at every given instant, which almost made it difficult to grasp. But later, when I thought about what the movie could have avoided, I realized that one of its drawbacks was dwelling into too many story plots simultaneously. We follow the joker through a long, and sometimes cumbersome car chase, which except for that final brilliant (and much publicized) truck sequence, was nothing great. We have been lead to believe that the joker is a man who attacks psychologically, and is not physically strong. This is portrayed eloquently in the interrogation scene. The joker is clumsy and weak. Which made the car chase sequence look like the sort of thing they were forced to put in. It was an action movie. It was a cliché they could not avoid. Henceforth, it become one of the most boring sequences in an otherwise splendid movie. I remember because, I caught myself yawning.
Also considering how Joker is the arch nemesis of Batman - the yang to the Dark Ying, the absolute bad guy, Two Face pales by comparison. No doubt, the make up and graphics are grotesque and excellently done. But we just are not able to believe that he is capable of the menace that Joker manages to exude. Similarly, I just could not believe that Two Face was that bad. The directors have somehow failed to bring the transition between his characters. If i remember the comic books, the disaster drove Two Face insane, making him dependent on the coin even for small decisions.
The real trouble if you ask me, was bringing in a new villain in the last half hour of the movie. One that made the joker's final confrontation with Batman seem a little unsatisfying. I kept expecting them to show Joker one last time. He didn't die, did he? Yes, I do understand how Joker is the arch nemesis, and its Batman's great burden that he can never kill Joker, and they are back at it time and again...but Ledger is dead. We know he won't return. So we, as audience wanted an ultimatum. Not a dangling loose end and definitely not a dangling loose joker from a building top.
Enough with the criticism. I am Batman fan. A son of batman, if you wanna call me (ref: Frank Miller). I loved the style. I loved the bat pod, the first robbery sequence, Joker's pencil disappearing trick, the flick of his tongue, the little line about Joker completing Batman, the other line about joker being the dog that chases the car and not knowing what to do if it catches the car...
Dark Knight was about Heath Ledger. Sadly, we wanted more of him. It JUST WASN'T ENOUGH! Batman as always was his sporting best, the flight sequences were brilliant, Caine and Freeman had the best lines apart from Ledger. Aaron Eckhart did a great job as Harvey Dent, though I did feel that Two-Face lacked character. I expected the sort of chill Javier Bardem inspired in No country for old men, when he tosses the coin. Instead, Two-Face's tosses were merely just passably interesting. Oh, I must really commend the Nolan brothers for doing away with the only female lead, and in such a sudden and scary way. I almost couldn't believe it.
Enough has been spoken about Ledger. I do not want to be repetitive. Clearly, his lines were the best. But more important was his body language and sequences, which were to say the least, eccentric. Kudos to Nolan for a good script, something that could give Ledger an opportunity for such a mind blowing performance. He sparkles in every scene, and we only wish there was much more of him.
A word on Bale. As Batman, he is the best ever. As Bruce Wayne, he does excel in a few scenes. But were those scenes requiring Bruce Wayne driving around in his Lamborghini necessary at all? In the quest to make The Joker the most remarkable villain ever, some of the dilemmas that made Batman the Dark Knight are never questioned. Batman Begins did such a good job of bringing in the character. Why leave him like hanging like a prop actor in this one?
Some of these sequences could no doubt be shortened. Batman could have been given some character and Two Face could've been the surprise element, AFTER a somewhat more definite end to JOKER, and the movie would have been a tad more awesome.Background score was brilliant. The scenes involving Joker, just before he mutilates someone, or pops a psychological question, are well, horrifying. I was almost squirming in my seat.
Over all a brilliant movie. A landmark Batman film, that ends on the right note, ready to jump headlong into the next phase of Batman's life. I only hope it doesn't take four more years! Long Live the Batman franchise. Long live Nolan fraternity. RIP ledger.
