Vick and the teddy bear

Three weeks ago, most Americans didnt know who the candidates were for the presidential primaries (they still dont know) but almost everyone did seem to know that in some crazy place called Sudan, they had thrown a British teacher in jail for naming a teddy bear 'Mohammed' and were threatening to kill her. The hysteria was overwhelming. For a change, it wasnt only right wing nuts screaming their guts out at the grave injustice and the threat of Islamofascism that the incident represented, but nearly the entire spectrum of American punditry came out against it.

I always thought the reaction was misplaced and over the top, but didnt dare say it then for fear of being labelled a Sudan-apologist and being lynched. Tempers have cooled down now that Gillian Gibbons, the teacher in question, has been pardoned and released from jail prematurely. Of course, the judicial or political powers in Sudan had never threatened or hinted that they would execute her - it was demonstrating crowds who had demanded that. Thats like holding the United States responsible for every crazyass thing that Pat Robertson says!

I had two arguments against the outrage. Firstly, Gibbons should have known what the law and cultural sensibilities were before she decided to teach in a new place. Thats true for everyone working in a foreign country, but especially so for a teacher. Imagine the consequence if a teacher from Sudan (where corporal punishment of students is not outlawed, I think) got a teaching job in an American primary school, and started disciplining students the way she would back home. Of course, she would face professional dismissal, social scorn and legal action.

Secondly, many people have been aghast at the very fact that such senseless laws exist. Well, every country has some laws that would invite ridicule or scorn elsewhere, but getting worked up over them after you have been busted is hardly the way to go. Having the benefit (or drawback) of an outsider's perspective in America, I find that some pretty stupid laws exist here too.

Take the case of Michael Vick, the star quarterback of the Atlanta football team, who was sentenced to 23 months in jail for arranging dogfights and killing dogs. In a country that slaughters and eats millions of chicken, pigs, cows and god-knows-what-else annually, this outpouring of national grief and legal wrath on behalf of dogs seems outright ridiculous. Ever more so when the same society relishes the killing of animals for sport (so you didnt know that hunting is a favorite pastime in America?).

Gibbons got a pardon, was welcomed back to society, and surely has plenty of job offers (and may already have signed a book deal). Vick faces a certain suspension when he goes back to his job in the NFL, and possibly his career is doomed. He is now a cultural whipping boy and a icon of cruelty ("so ja munne, nahi to Michael Vick aa jayega"). Now thats what I call unfair.

Economic freedom index

The Cato Institute ranks the nations of the world on the basis of various dimensions of economic freedom, ranked on a scale of 10.

Click here to view an interactive map showing the ranking on the Cato website. (Tried to get a screenshot, unsuccessfully)

In 2007, the top five ranks were:

1. Hong Kong (Score - 8.9/10)
2. Singapore - 8.8
3. New Zealand - 8.5
4. Switzerland - 8.3
5. Canada - 8.1

Personally, I am surprised to see Canada there. My friends from the American right had me convinced that Canada was a socialist paradise :D

RealCinema: Omkara

I am a sucker for realism and detail in cinema. On the other hand, I love fantastic films. What turns me off, though, is the host of movies that lie in the middle which aspire to portray real life but with sub-real filmmaking skills or simply lack of intentions. Shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that I end up watching very few movies in sum, having had my fingers burnt too many times venturing out with movie lulled by false expectations.

The downside of avoiding movies en masse is, predictably, that a lot of the good stuff too slips through my half-hearted fingers. My complaint here is that there are very few or no sources out there to feed my fetish, i.e., point me right to the "real" movies. I patronise review-vendors like RottenTomatoes, but with little success. Make no mistake - there is plenty of fine cinema being produced, but its just not for me.

So here, in my own little corner of the world, I will post tips of any nuggets that I happen to stumble onto. I will gauge these by parameters that have been subconscious so far, so bear with me; essentially, the evaluation will be based on the richness of the reality and detail depicted in the movie. Here it rolls:

Omkara

Overall RealRating^TM : 8/10

Locations: 9/10
Wherever it was shot, the depiction of rural environs is superb in the movie. Especially when it comes from an industry where the norm is to produce a idealized, sterile, and unconvincing version of the Indian hinterland (eg, Lagaan). The detailing of locale is rich even otherwise. Pay special attention to one small sequence where an injured Ajay Devgan knocks on Kareena Kapoor's door and is tended by her. The house, with its elaborate name plate and stained walls, is a detailer's delight!

Casting: 9/10
Devgan, Naseerudding Shah and Co. all fit into their jobs perfectly. But the sweetest surprise comes from Saif Ali Khan and Kareena Kapoor. Saif, who plays a loathful goonda, looks uncannily real. Kareena doesn't have a "perfect" face from the standpoint of our contemporary sensibilities, but it is this very imperfection that makes her so real as Dolly in Omkara. The -1 in the rating is because of Bipasha Basu, who didnt quite fit in her role here.

Language: 9/10
I have no clue if the dialect/accent that most characters carry in the movie is authentic and where it is geographically sited, but it is obvious that someone has taken great pains to make sure it looks authentic! It is a far cry from the cookie-cutter gaon-ki-boli that most rural characters speak in Bollywood. The c- and b-words peppered through the movie add to the authenticity of the exchanges.

Political Realism: 10/10
This is not the first movie to highlight the power of students in UP (and consequently, national) politics or the prevalence of a gun-culture there. But it surely does a beautiful job of both...so much so, that some might be inclined to take is as an exageration, when it is not. During one of my past lives, I shared quarters with a young man from Varanasi (I think thats where Omkara is set, given the reference to "Mall Road" in one of the scenes with Oberoi and Basu) with an interesting past as a student "activist". With the same casualness as I talked about my pencils and calculators, he used to mention his 'samaan' (firearm) that he had, regretfully, used a bit too often during his student days.

Drawbacks: The couple of item numbers that blight the movie.

Endnote: I was trying to find where the film was actually set and googled it a bit. I ran into quiet a few reviews of the movie. Nearly all of them made a huuuuge deal of the fact that it is based on William Shakespeare's Othello. Fuckit, I say. There are some things that we need to grow out of...