"An Inconvenient Truth." For whom?

With much trepidation I viewed "An Inconvenient Truth". Alas, my fears were unfounded since most of what I saw, was already known to me. My apprehension about being confronted with an unknown or/and harsh reality were put to rest. Strangely enough, I didn't find myself happy about that; after all I had rid myself of a fear, an apprehension had been dealt with. What was it that tugged at my conscience and wouldn't let me breathe a sigh of relief? Why couldn't I simply say, " I finally watched "An Inconvenient Truth", and I'm not all shaken up because of it." It could be due to one of two reasons: one that the content of the documentary was not 'earth shattering' as I'd expected it to be, and second, given that I was mostly familiar with the content presented, why was I then not able to simply walk away from it. What was the dilemma brewing within me?

I gave this confusion much thought, and also chewed upon my pondering for quite a while after which I came up with some findings that were rather untoward. The 'truth' of the film is 'inconvenient' only to some. Most of the world is not even aware of the truth because they have more urgent things on their minds; like their next meal! They are totally consumed by their struggle to survive. Consequently, they are oblivious of Gore's 'truth' and the need to know it; convenient or otherwise. Then there are some that recognize the 'truth', and also find it 'inconvenient'; as a result, are doing whatever little they can do to appease their environment-friendly-conscience: cleaning up a river bed, using paper bags, recycling plastic.... Needless to say, their efforts are not making the cut.

Then, there are those to whom the truth is crystal clear but not inconvenient: in fact, this truth facilitates their cause. Giant multinationals, and the influential people who sit on its management boards are more than aware of Gore's truth, and find it most convenient and profitable because it pays for their million dollar salaries. Did these people watch the film? In all likelihood they did; to be able to say they did when making pleasantries with golf buddies in a country club!

What was Al Gore's purpose while making this documentary? If it was to inform the masses, then I'm not so sure he succeeded. The ordinary man did not perhaps see his documentary because ordinary people don't pay eight odd dollars to watch graphs and tables on the big screen! Gore would have been better off making a movie along the lines of "Blood Diamond" or "The Constant Gardner" because that would have at least brought to light the cause that he's fighting for. "Blood Diamond" for example, was an all out action movie, but it did make ordinary people cognizant of the inhuman ways in which diamonds are mined in Sierra Leone. "The Constant Gardner", on the other hand, was more of an adventure cum suspense movie with some captivating photography, and that movie did inform the masses about the unethical drug trials being carried out by multinational pharmaceutical companies in poor African countries. Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" definitely had an all important message to convey, but did the message get conveyed? How far and how clear?

Why didn't Al Gore write a book instead or go on a lecture circuit to spread his message? Why did he choose film as a medium to propagate a cause so urgent and so important, and especially since the life of our planet depends on it?

Children of Men - An Apocalypse or A Second Coming?

I wonder how I missed this movie on the big screen! Alfonso Cuaron's 'Children of Men' had me completely spellbound, just as Alejandro González Iñárritu's, "Babel" and Guilermo del Toro's, "Pan's Labyrinth" did. Might just be a coincidence, but three of the best movies I've seen this last year have come from artists of Mexican origin. What's even stranger is that the three have plans of making a movie together!

Alfonso Cuaron's "Children of Men" presents a dystopia, Britain in the year 2027, mourning the death of its youngest citizen, an eighteen year old! The world's womb has been barren for the last eighteen years, and humanity is watching itself edge toward its extinction. Excessive pollution has resulted in infertility across the globe and man is left without an heir to home the earth. How then does he go about his business of living as the most intelligent species on the planet; one that knows how to survive despite all odds!

Alfonso Cuaron's Britain also suffers from another serious malady, a seriously fragmented population comprising of the government supporters, the rebels, the activists, and the refugees; a majority of who are living in subhuman conditions amid horrific violence, some in refugee camps that bring an Abu Gharaib and a Guantanamo Bay to mind. The country is flooded by immigrants who have now become targets of a government that wants them out.

This dual hell, is in fact Alfonso Cuaron's dystopia, one that is dangling between an assured apocalypse and a dormant and dubious hope. The nightmare for the refugees is relentless, as is the curse of infertility, but somehow fledgling faith forages and finds anchor in the refugee Kee's womb. Apparently, there is still some hope for humanity! Does Cuarno make good of it, or does he make heavy the blanket of gloom that lies heavy on a people lacking the will to live?

The movie is based on P. D. James novel of the same name published in 1992. I haven't read the novel, but Cuarno's movie makes me want to read it. Clive Owen as a reawakened activist is impressive, as is Kee playing the pregnant refugee. The plot and the setting, though futuristic, could as well have a current day existence. It is the plausibility of its situation that makes "Children of Men " so terrifying and a must-see. A dystopia no doubt, yet, Cuarno leaves the audience hopeful with a silhouette of "The Human Project" emerging on the horizon. What will we make of this fledgling hope? That is the question that Cuarno wants the audience to carry out of the theater, and so I did!

The Travails of Womanhood!

As if it weren't enough that the fashion world in the west keeps such a tight scrutiny and an even tighter tape on the body measurements of the female, now we have the Iranians keeping watch on how much an Iranian woman clothes herself! Why won't the world let women decide what they wish to do with their bodies? It is preposterous that even in the most developed nations of the world the woman adheres to what the male deems beautiful and attractive. Why are we then shocked that this week in Tehran, "Thousands of women have been cautioned by police over their dress, some have been obliged to sign statements that they will do better in the future, and some face court cases against them."

For decades the likes of Calvin Klein and Lauren have dictated the standards for female beauty, and that has resulted in various eating disorders among women across the western hemisphere; bolemia and anorexia being the two most rampant. Ailments such as these, have long term impact on the female constitution, and often prevent women from motherhood. In places such as Japan where the growth rate is already negative, trends such as the aforementioned can wreak havoc on the population. Besides the physical damage, these stringent measures for what's beautiful also affects how young women feel about themselves. A teenager who is unable to fit into a size four shuns the mirror and her friends; becomes a recluse confined within the four walls of her room, simply because she believes she's 'fat', and fears rejection by her peer group!

In the light of this scenario, the US, or any other European country for that matter, has no reason to be so condescending about what is happening in Tehran today. People living in glass houses ought not to throw stones! The Iranians are but mandating the female garb; we are tampering with the female body! As for the women themselves…one wonders whether the female of the species has a backbone after all, or else there’s a masochistic gene in her that makes her a suppliant victim.

Earth Day 2007

Save the Earth

I am old.
Been there since time eternal.
Mother of all species.
Respected, revered, restored, and reaped
in times forgotten. But now..
eroded, evacuated, embedded, and raped;
Droughts and earthquakes are worries no more.

Darfur, Iraq, Israel, and Hiroshima,
All but parts of me.
Dented and cracked irreparably.
I cry, weep, hurt, yell, and scream.
Divided, amputated, suffocated, and mutilated,
searching a lebensraum
in my very own universe.
while my progeny tightens my noose.

On Truth and Lies; with due apologies to Harry G. Frankfurt

Calling a spade a spade does often get people in deep trouble, and could cost you some friends as well. However, the pleasure and peace that unloading a truth brings, simply by articulating it, is tremendous! Whether the end justifies the means, is the question.

Is speaking ones mind synonymous with being abrasive? Is the truth always bitter? Does being liked entail telling lies or at least half truths? Are being liked and speaking the truth mutually exclusive of each other?

Would President Bush be liked if he were to speak the truth that going to Iraq was a mistake?
Did Clinton's lying about his association or the lack thereof with Monica Lewinsky keep him in good stead with his fans? The answer to both of these questions is a very obvious, "No". Then, is it fair to conclude that telling the truth does not necessarily redeem you or place you in good light; just as the telling of lies does not guarantee loss of friends or a falling in people's eyes. In that case neither the speaking of truth or the telling of lies should be the preferred code of conduct. Thus your life can be a bunch of lies splattered with some truths every now and again, and you'll be in good company! However, this is what Harry J Frankfurt (author of "On Bullshit" and "On Truth") has to say about truth: ' Recognizing truth requires selflessness. You have to leave yourself out of it so you can find out the way things are in themselves, not the way they look to you, or how you feel about them or how you would like them to be.' That is an impossible asking so would anyone even attempt it!

A friend captured the Manhattan skyline on two different occasions but from the same vantage point; both the pictures present the Manhattan skyline. This is obviously a photographer's articulation of a reality he perceives, and he's fortunate that he doesn't have to justify the difference or have to decide which of the two is the preferred one.



However, if you were asked to choose which one of the two pictures you preferred, how and what would you decide?

Mira Nair's "The Namesake" - An Identity Entrapped?

"What's in a name?" Apparently plenty, according to Mira Nair's movie, "The Namesake". A name for Indians is apparently a hope, an expectation, perhaps a trap, even a blessing; something which connects the past with the present. However, what happens when this connect goes unrecognized or unacknowledged by an individual? The Namesake explores the conflict that arises when immigrant Indian parents presume or perhaps hope that their children, born outside of India, recognize this connect. Nair is not breaking new ground making a movie around a theme that presents the conflict of values between two generations in an immigrant Indian family. I am told that in recent years there have been innumerable films coming out of Bollywood (in Hindi) that explore this theme. Mira Nair has portrayed an Indian immigrant's struggle to hold on to what he deems represents his identity (in this case his name) in a foreign land. However, a non Indian audience may not be as sensitive to some of the cultural nuances presented in the movie that contribute significantly to the understanding of the conflict; like taking off ones shoes when entering a home, the process of selecting a name for the newly born, the son having to shave off his hair after the death of the father. All these events have a deeper meaning than the one that a western audience may take from it.

Who did Mira Nair have in mind as her audience when she made the film? Will ' The Namesake' have the same impact and invoke the same empathy in India as it did in the hearts of all immigrant Indians in the USA? Which makes me wonder if this is a nation specific conflict, one lacking universal appeal. If indeed it is, then would Ms. Nair have been better off making her movie a Bollywood presentation?

The movie is based on Jhumpa Lahiri's novel, The Namesake. Ms. Lahiri is a Pulitzer Prizewinning novelist from India who is renowned for her short stories. I read her novel, The Namesake, a couple of years ago, and it did not make an impact. The writer introduced and abandoned some very strong points of interest; for example the reference to Gogol, and his story 'The Overcoat'. For some reason Ms. Lahiri did not elaborate upon why the father chooses to call his son Gogol. As a reader I felt cheated, even mislead after I finished reading the novel.

Despite all of the above, the movie is definitely worth watching for the outstanding performances by the three main characters; the father (Irfan), the mother (Tabu), and the son (Kal Penn) who put up some heart-rending scenes that had me all choked up a couple of times during the movie. Irfan especially, playing the role of a father who though a man of few words says it all with his abrupt body language, did an excellent job.

MRI - Another torturous procedure for Breast Cancer?.

The American Cancer Society came out with some new directives regarding the early detection of breast cancer. These directives that apply to about a million women in the United States alone, though beneficial, are not clearly targeted, may not be accessible to all, may create unnecessary panic, and may not be viable at this time.

An MRI costs anywhere from $2000/- to $ 4000/- . In order for you to get one your primary physician has to prescribe it (only if you've tested positive for BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation), your insurance has to cover it (only if you fall in the 'high risk' category), and a medical facility has to schedule it (could be a long wait). Given all these obstacles, and the fact that there is bound to be panic after the American Cancer Society directives, it is worrisome to know that we don't have enough medical facilities or the required personnel to handle the sudden influx of patients needing an MRI.

The mammogram though a great detector test for Breast Cancer, is also a source of anxiety and pain to millions of women. With the new directives, women will now be undergoing yet another test under the MRI and that'll mean another excruciating wait for its results!

Longevity of life I guess, but at what cost! What about the 'quality of life'?!

Khalilzad, the New US representative at the UN - A facelift?

John Bolton who did not get confirmed as the US representative to the UN last year will now make way for a new US representative, Khalmai Khalilzad who is currently serving as the US Ambassador to Iraq. Khalilzad has also been the special envoy for the US President to Afghanistan and was responsible for organizing the Afghan opposition against the Taliban.

Richard Haass, President on the Council of Foreign Affairs, when asked about Khalilzad this morning on NPR, pointed out that Khalilzad would be different from the brusque Bolton, who often clashed with his counterparts at the UN. Khalilzad, on the other hand, would work from within, and would not rile up things as his unconfirmed predecessor did.

The interview with Haass was enlightening in many ways. It did not just throw light on Khalil zad, the new US Representative to the UN, but it also informed me on the role of a US Representative to the UN. That the representative would debate, design, and uphold the UN policy, and would try to get his own government aboard on it as well. The foreign policy of the US would not affect the UN Representative's decisions or his actions. In the light of this enlightenment, what Haass said next, made me sit up and wonder. He said that Zad, as the new US representative would now first have to focus on 'fashioning an international consensus against Iran' that poses a nuclear threat, then focus on the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and next keep up the pressure in Lebanon so that the Syrians don't get off the hook. My concern is that if a diplomat as eminent as Haass starts second guessing what a UN representative would do, and then devalues human life while prioritizing UN actions, then there is little hope left! The genocide in Darfur is "ongoing"; there are hundreds dying there as we speak! The threat of Iran may be imminent, but it is still only a threat, and keeping the pressure in Lebanon to keep Syria in check but reeks of US foreign policy.

Khalilzad as a 'fresh base' at the UN will have to do some 'damage control' after Bolton, but hopefully he is not a stooge of the US foreign policy makers trying to wring some arm at the UN. To quote Woody Allen, just as Haass did, "90% of life is about showing up;" However, one hopes Khalilzad is not ''showing up' in 'wolf garb!'