...
The Sanjay Dutt trial inspired me to write something about punishment.
Why do we punish?
(Legal) Punishment is a legitimate threat system practiced by society with an intention to keep a social order intact.
The primary reasons for punishments are:
(a) rehabilitation and reform - this is a therapeutic approach to bring the offender into a moral state of mind. In other words, reform the criminal mind with therapy/education and make him a better person so that he/she is no longer harmful to the society,
(b) deterrence - stop someone from future wrong-doing, by giving severe punishment for the activity that is considered harmful to the society. It is commonly believed that when you punish one person for an offense, others in the society also learns from this and avoid doing similar offense/mistake that the offender did,
(c) retribution - this is like taking a revenge in "an eye for an eye" fashion. The focal point in this method of punishment is satisfying the hatred/resentment towards that criminal. The suffering caused on the punishee is considered "good", even if it doesn't have any positive results or effect on the society or punishee ,
(d) incarceration or incapacitation - in order to keep society safe, the criminal is jailed to make sure he/she makes no further direct contact (for a specific time period) with the society. This is practiced by life imprisonments or death sentences in cases of extreme offences.
Laws or ideas of punishment are integral parts of mostly all religions. Biblical religions, for example, have the concept of Lex talionis (retributive justice) with some variations between Judaism, Christian and Islam; while Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists philosophies subscribe to the laws of karma (cause and effect) which states that every action has a natural consequence - to put it simply, bad things will happen to bad people.
One thing we should keep in mind, when exercising any mode of punishment, is that the hallmark of a liberal society is to reform and grow, not to punish and take revenge.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
Chak De India - movie review
...
"Tamil aur Telugu mein kitna fark hai!" the cook (played by Javed Khan) tells an Andhra girl (hockey player) when she shrugs for being referred as Tamil. And she aptly replies "Utna hi, jitna ek Punjabi aur Bihari mein" and simply walks away without showing any anger or dislike.
Another girl from Manipur says she can't be happy for being treated like a guest in a country that is her own.
These and many more little things in this movie just blew me away. Never before in a Bollywood movie I have seen well portrayed characters from so many (so called) "remote parts" of India.
It's a really great achievement for the director Shimit Amin (who directed Ab Tak Chhappan for Ram Gopal Varma before) who had an ordinary, clichéd script on his hands but never in the movie you'll get a how-many-times-have-we-seen-this-before feeling (well, okay - except for few scenes.).
Once again, after Swades, Shahrukh Khan gives us a memorable performance. Unlike in most of his other movies, you see the "actor" Shahrukh Khan, not the "star" Shahrukh Khan. There were moments in the movie, when I was afraid that he was about to unleash his histrionics upon us - (Sattar minutes, for instance) but I am glad that he didn't, and his acting was convincing and well constrained throughout the movie. All girls acted very well too - they undertook three months of intensive hockey training and physiotherapy for this movie! Every player was characterized so well that feel a connection with them, you laugh with them, chuckle at their mischief and feel sad when they cry.
Background music by Salim-Suleiman was very appropriate and appealing ("Bad Bad Girls" rocked! "Maula Mere Le Le Meri Jaan" was touching). The songs are not “sung” or performed in the movie, you just hear them in the background - this is a welcoming change in Bollywood movies lately (Was Rang De Basanti a trend-setter here?).
I really liked Jaidip Sahni's dialogues and lyrics. In "Bad Bad Girls" - a line goes like this "Na Chhat pe bulayegi, na nange pair aayegi..." which reminds us of an antra from the classic song "Chupke chupke raat din" by Ghulam Ali -- Dopahar ki dhoop mein, mere bulaane ke liye, wo tera kothe pe, nenge paon aana yaad hai! This is another phenomenon I have noticed in some Bollywood movies lately - pop-culture references (like, Ek Chalis Ki Last Local had many of 'em).
Comparisons with other movies - especially Lagaan - are obvious. When Shahrukh Khan throws a challenge to the committee member and asks for a match between his team and men's team -- you can't deny the similarity with Lagaan (where Amir throws similar challenge to angrez). I can be wrong - but I don't think that even Shimit Amin and Jaideep Sahni (writer) are shy about their inspirations from Lagaan - one hint is that he used a same stereotypical character from Lagaan (Javed Khan) and another one is a common dialogue in both movies that refers to "Itihaas ke panne".
But who cares? I liked this movie as much as I liked Lagaan, if not more!
"Tamil aur Telugu mein kitna fark hai!" the cook (played by Javed Khan) tells an Andhra girl (hockey player) when she shrugs for being referred as Tamil. And she aptly replies "Utna hi, jitna ek Punjabi aur Bihari mein" and simply walks away without showing any anger or dislike.
Another girl from Manipur says she can't be happy for being treated like a guest in a country that is her own.
These and many more little things in this movie just blew me away. Never before in a Bollywood movie I have seen well portrayed characters from so many (so called) "remote parts" of India.
It's a really great achievement for the director Shimit Amin (who directed Ab Tak Chhappan for Ram Gopal Varma before) who had an ordinary, clichéd script on his hands but never in the movie you'll get a how-many-times-have-we-seen-this-before feeling (well, okay - except for few scenes.).
Once again, after Swades, Shahrukh Khan gives us a memorable performance. Unlike in most of his other movies, you see the "actor" Shahrukh Khan, not the "star" Shahrukh Khan. There were moments in the movie, when I was afraid that he was about to unleash his histrionics upon us - (Sattar minutes, for instance) but I am glad that he didn't, and his acting was convincing and well constrained throughout the movie. All girls acted very well too - they undertook three months of intensive hockey training and physiotherapy for this movie! Every player was characterized so well that feel a connection with them, you laugh with them, chuckle at their mischief and feel sad when they cry.
Background music by Salim-Suleiman was very appropriate and appealing ("Bad Bad Girls" rocked! "Maula Mere Le Le Meri Jaan" was touching). The songs are not “sung” or performed in the movie, you just hear them in the background - this is a welcoming change in Bollywood movies lately (Was Rang De Basanti a trend-setter here?).
I really liked Jaidip Sahni's dialogues and lyrics. In "Bad Bad Girls" - a line goes like this "Na Chhat pe bulayegi, na nange pair aayegi..." which reminds us of an antra from the classic song "Chupke chupke raat din" by Ghulam Ali -- Dopahar ki dhoop mein, mere bulaane ke liye, wo tera kothe pe, nenge paon aana yaad hai! This is another phenomenon I have noticed in some Bollywood movies lately - pop-culture references (like, Ek Chalis Ki Last Local had many of 'em).
Comparisons with other movies - especially Lagaan - are obvious. When Shahrukh Khan throws a challenge to the committee member and asks for a match between his team and men's team -- you can't deny the similarity with Lagaan (where Amir throws similar challenge to angrez). I can be wrong - but I don't think that even Shimit Amin and Jaideep Sahni (writer) are shy about their inspirations from Lagaan - one hint is that he used a same stereotypical character from Lagaan (Javed Khan) and another one is a common dialogue in both movies that refers to "Itihaas ke panne".
But who cares? I liked this movie as much as I liked Lagaan, if not more!
Monday, August 6, 2007
Gandhi My Father - movie review
..
It was, well, disappointing.
I went to see a masterpiece, and I came back with a feeling that my hopes on (a) first time director Firoz Abbas Khan, (b) first time producer Anil Kapoor, and (c) Akshaye Khanna who was given a challenging role for the first time, were awry and unnecessary.
The subject of this movie “The stormy relationship between Harilal and Gandhi”, “How the father of the nation could not become an ideal father of his own son”, or “To the nation, he was a father, but to his son, he was a father whom he never had” aroused me so much that I’ve been waiting to see this movie since the first day I watched the promos.
What a wonderful subject - almost wasted by below-average performances (especially by the pivotal characters), could-have-been-better direction, bad make-up (Gandhi’s ears kept changing its size!), stifling screenplay (too many unnecessary jumps between India and Africa), slow (at times almost somnolent) pace, and..well, execrable story-telling!
The emotional drama between Gandhi and Harilal was simply underplayed. Harilal’s character goes through many “mood swings”, but his emotional journey through all those sentiments is left somewhat unexplored. For example, when Harilal goes to Africa for the first time, leaving behind his pregnant wife, Gandhi doesn’t even show up at the port to pick him up, and we are not told how Harilal felt about it (of course, we can assume that he must have felt terrible, but it would have been interesting to see Harilal’s emotional reaction – did he feel angry? Or sad? Or being a little childish, did he feel abandoned?). Another example is Harilal’s conversion to Islam – which should have been more explanatory (By the way, here’s a link to Gandhi’s speech on Harilal’s conversion to Islam: http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0103/354.html.) .
It was difficult for me to grasp how a movie revolving around Gandhi’s life and his struggle for independence didn’t even cared to show other political leaders of that time period. Not that it was necessary for the story, but there are several public appearances of Gandhi (giving a speech, attending an evening-prayer, imprisonment at the Aga Khan palace etc.) where I was trying catch a glance of Nehru or Sardar. You only see them in those black-and-white footages which were overused throughout in the movie.
Gladly, not everything about this movie was bad! The cinematography (by David MacDonald) was sleek (the only complain I have is – there were too many close-up shots). Shefali Chaaya and Bhumika Chawla gave wonderful performances. Akshaye Khanna acted well in some scenes (like, the Sadma-style scene when he comes to the railway station to meet his mother). Production design was good. I liked how Feroz Shah captured many Gujarati traditional scenes – all the colorful costumes looked authentic and pleasant to the eyes. Background score by Piyush Kanojia was mesmerizing. (When Gandhi is talking to Kasturba about Harilal’s conversion, and tells her that Harilal and Abdullah means the same, you can hear “Ishwar Allah tero naam” in the background. Wonderful!) The irony between Gandhi’s attitude towards untouchables (urging society to accept them) and the denunciation of his own son (making him like an untouchable to the society) is also played masterfully.
I was glad that this movie stayed away from Gandhi-bashing when it came to the partition of India. Gandhi’s opinion about the partition (he was against the partition) is well proclaimed in the movie. (I just wanted to mention this here, because I know many people who hold Gandhi responsible for the partition).
The movie was also honest about Gandhi’s contribution to Harilal’s miserable life. Someone could have easily made a movie that blames Gandhi entirely for his elder son’s bad fate (that movie would have been titled: the Dark side of Gandhi!). But this is handled very nicely. Yes, Gandhi should have spent more time with his son (and family for that matter), he should have listened to Harilal’s aspirations to go to London and become a barrister, but (a) Harilal had some inherent likelihood to go ashtray in life (After all, not all his sons turned to liquor, prostitution and betrayals in business.), and (b) how he was always seen as Gandhi’s son also should have played a significant role in shaping his life. These two causes were depicted well in the movie.
I felt sorry for Harilal, and even more so, I felt sorry for Gandhi for not being able to save his son from his ill-fate (according to Gandhi, not being able to convey his message to Harial and Mohammed Ali Jeenha were two of his biggest failures in his life).
The movie is based on the novel Harilal Gandhi: A Life by Chandulal Bhagubhai Dalal.
It was, well, disappointing.
I went to see a masterpiece, and I came back with a feeling that my hopes on (a) first time director Firoz Abbas Khan, (b) first time producer Anil Kapoor, and (c) Akshaye Khanna who was given a challenging role for the first time, were awry and unnecessary.
The subject of this movie “The stormy relationship between Harilal and Gandhi”, “How the father of the nation could not become an ideal father of his own son”, or “To the nation, he was a father, but to his son, he was a father whom he never had” aroused me so much that I’ve been waiting to see this movie since the first day I watched the promos.
What a wonderful subject - almost wasted by below-average performances (especially by the pivotal characters), could-have-been-better direction, bad make-up (Gandhi’s ears kept changing its size!), stifling screenplay (too many unnecessary jumps between India and Africa), slow (at times almost somnolent) pace, and..well, execrable story-telling!
The emotional drama between Gandhi and Harilal was simply underplayed. Harilal’s character goes through many “mood swings”, but his emotional journey through all those sentiments is left somewhat unexplored. For example, when Harilal goes to Africa for the first time, leaving behind his pregnant wife, Gandhi doesn’t even show up at the port to pick him up, and we are not told how Harilal felt about it (of course, we can assume that he must have felt terrible, but it would have been interesting to see Harilal’s emotional reaction – did he feel angry? Or sad? Or being a little childish, did he feel abandoned?). Another example is Harilal’s conversion to Islam – which should have been more explanatory (By the way, here’s a link to Gandhi’s speech on Harilal’s conversion to Islam: http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0103/354.html.) .
It was difficult for me to grasp how a movie revolving around Gandhi’s life and his struggle for independence didn’t even cared to show other political leaders of that time period. Not that it was necessary for the story, but there are several public appearances of Gandhi (giving a speech, attending an evening-prayer, imprisonment at the Aga Khan palace etc.) where I was trying catch a glance of Nehru or Sardar. You only see them in those black-and-white footages which were overused throughout in the movie.
Gladly, not everything about this movie was bad! The cinematography (by David MacDonald) was sleek (the only complain I have is – there were too many close-up shots). Shefali Chaaya and Bhumika Chawla gave wonderful performances. Akshaye Khanna acted well in some scenes (like, the Sadma-style scene when he comes to the railway station to meet his mother). Production design was good. I liked how Feroz Shah captured many Gujarati traditional scenes – all the colorful costumes looked authentic and pleasant to the eyes. Background score by Piyush Kanojia was mesmerizing. (When Gandhi is talking to Kasturba about Harilal’s conversion, and tells her that Harilal and Abdullah means the same, you can hear “Ishwar Allah tero naam” in the background. Wonderful!) The irony between Gandhi’s attitude towards untouchables (urging society to accept them) and the denunciation of his own son (making him like an untouchable to the society) is also played masterfully.
I was glad that this movie stayed away from Gandhi-bashing when it came to the partition of India. Gandhi’s opinion about the partition (he was against the partition) is well proclaimed in the movie. (I just wanted to mention this here, because I know many people who hold Gandhi responsible for the partition).
The movie was also honest about Gandhi’s contribution to Harilal’s miserable life. Someone could have easily made a movie that blames Gandhi entirely for his elder son’s bad fate (that movie would have been titled: the Dark side of Gandhi!). But this is handled very nicely. Yes, Gandhi should have spent more time with his son (and family for that matter), he should have listened to Harilal’s aspirations to go to London and become a barrister, but (a) Harilal had some inherent likelihood to go ashtray in life (After all, not all his sons turned to liquor, prostitution and betrayals in business.), and (b) how he was always seen as Gandhi’s son also should have played a significant role in shaping his life. These two causes were depicted well in the movie.
I felt sorry for Harilal, and even more so, I felt sorry for Gandhi for not being able to save his son from his ill-fate (according to Gandhi, not being able to convey his message to Harial and Mohammed Ali Jeenha were two of his biggest failures in his life).
The movie is based on the novel Harilal Gandhi: A Life by Chandulal Bhagubhai Dalal.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
The Sanjay Dutt Verdict
.
Sanjay Dutt is sentenced for 6 years for buying and possessing ammunition from an associate of Mumbai Underworld don Dawood Ibrahim - this was allegedly linked with the main consignment that was used in the tragic 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts.
I personally think that this punishment is a little too harsh.
The minimum sentence for possessing illegal weapon is 5 years. And he already spent about a year and a half in jail after he was convicted several years ago. He has been on bail for many years now, and his conduct while on bail was impeccable without any violations. The imprisonment term could have been less than 6 years.
Sometimes, while trying to avoid being discriminatory against one group or person, one might end up discriminating against the other. The judge might just have ended up giving harsher punishment in order to send the correct message to junta that everyone is treated equal by the law.
However, many people tend to believe that Sanjay Dutt should have received even harsher punishment (or that he deserved 6 years in jail) based on a wrong assumption about his involvement with 93 blasts.
He was already acquitted of terrorism charges (under TADA) last November - because there was no material that proved his connection with the blasts. I am sure our justice department would have done their best to make sure he got punished if he was involved.
This time, Sajnjay Dutt was convicted, found guilty and got punished for illegal possession of weapons (which were never used, by the way) under Arms Act. He’s not a terrorist, and he’s not associated with any terrorism act (which, I think lot of people has difficulty understanding.)
From Times of India: [After giving out the sentence, Judge P D] Kode, however, said the crimes committed by Dutt and his friends [] were not "anti-social, ghastly, inhuman, immoral or pre-planned" and did not cause any harm to the general public.
Those words from revered judge should be kept in mind before we try to evaluate this verdict.
I am not at all suggesting that they should have let him go clean, I am not saying that he is innocent, I am not sympathizing with him due to his troubled past and popularity; I am just questioning the quantum of this punishment. Let's wait and see what SC has to say.
Having said that, considering the way justice is being meted out recently, we Indians should really feel proud of our judiciary system. Whether people agree with the verdict or not, their faith in the criminal justice system is slowly and steadily being restored for sure. Kudos to our judiciary system!
PS. Thinking about his previous Phoenix-like come-backs after a bunch of nightmarish events in his life (mother died of Cancer, drugs addiction, wife died of tumor, custody battle for her daughter, alleged involvement with Mumbai bomb-blasts, underworld connections, divorce with his second wife and so on...) I am sure Sanjay Dutt will come back vigorously after this setback too.
On a lighter note, consider the following song in the context of Sanjay Dutt's continuous struggle in his real life:
Ek kahani, khatam to dooji... shuroo ho gayee maamu!
How ironic!
Sanjay Dutt is sentenced for 6 years for buying and possessing ammunition from an associate of Mumbai Underworld don Dawood Ibrahim - this was allegedly linked with the main consignment that was used in the tragic 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts.
I personally think that this punishment is a little too harsh.
The minimum sentence for possessing illegal weapon is 5 years. And he already spent about a year and a half in jail after he was convicted several years ago. He has been on bail for many years now, and his conduct while on bail was impeccable without any violations. The imprisonment term could have been less than 6 years.
Sometimes, while trying to avoid being discriminatory against one group or person, one might end up discriminating against the other. The judge might just have ended up giving harsher punishment in order to send the correct message to junta that everyone is treated equal by the law.
However, many people tend to believe that Sanjay Dutt should have received even harsher punishment (or that he deserved 6 years in jail) based on a wrong assumption about his involvement with 93 blasts.
He was already acquitted of terrorism charges (under TADA) last November - because there was no material that proved his connection with the blasts. I am sure our justice department would have done their best to make sure he got punished if he was involved.
This time, Sajnjay Dutt was convicted, found guilty and got punished for illegal possession of weapons (which were never used, by the way) under Arms Act. He’s not a terrorist, and he’s not associated with any terrorism act (which, I think lot of people has difficulty understanding.)
From Times of India: [After giving out the sentence, Judge P D] Kode, however, said the crimes committed by Dutt and his friends [] were not "anti-social, ghastly, inhuman, immoral or pre-planned" and did not cause any harm to the general public.
Those words from revered judge should be kept in mind before we try to evaluate this verdict.
I am not at all suggesting that they should have let him go clean, I am not saying that he is innocent, I am not sympathizing with him due to his troubled past and popularity; I am just questioning the quantum of this punishment. Let's wait and see what SC has to say.
Having said that, considering the way justice is being meted out recently, we Indians should really feel proud of our judiciary system. Whether people agree with the verdict or not, their faith in the criminal justice system is slowly and steadily being restored for sure. Kudos to our judiciary system!
PS. Thinking about his previous Phoenix-like come-backs after a bunch of nightmarish events in his life (mother died of Cancer, drugs addiction, wife died of tumor, custody battle for her daughter, alleged involvement with Mumbai bomb-blasts, underworld connections, divorce with his second wife and so on...) I am sure Sanjay Dutt will come back vigorously after this setback too.
On a lighter note, consider the following song in the context of Sanjay Dutt's continuous struggle in his real life:
Ek kahani, khatam to dooji... shuroo ho gayee maamu!
How ironic!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)