The Imitation Game: How the Bullies from your High School transferred to your Government

Alan Turing's biopic, The Imitation Game brought back memories of lunches eaten in quiet corners of busy classrooms, being the only one in class nobody sat next to, being the only audience as the rest of the class played in PT, being termed 'unsocial' by teachers and 'psycho' by classmates, basically being the odd-one out for a better part of academic life. 

Broadly speaking, Bullying, or Intimidation aims to humiliate an individual or group because of their 'perceived difference'. Aside from the fact that Turing was a genius, and socially awkward, the film primarily focuses on his feelings of persecution. A feeling that haunted him all through his life, the feeling of not belonging, of not being accepted in mainstream society, the very feeling that led to his untimely death.

As we leave high school, we believe the worst is behind us. That the world in front, the wonderful, positive world will finally treat us with the respect we deserve. That it won't look for every single chance to squash you like a bug. That you finally, will be a human being. That, you won't have to hide.

Surprise, surprise. The world, your new world, whether it be higher studies or your workplace, turns out to be exactly like your high school. Bullies everywhere. And if you are lucky to find someone like Joan Clarke who befriends you and guides you through your mistakes, you will be saved. At least, till the time the bullies don't find another reason to crucify you. Turing discovered the hard way that even though the War was over, his war wasn't.

And now, it wasn't just that he was socially awkward, it was something more: He was different. And isn't being different what bullies pick on? Doesn't it perplex you just a little that the stout kid who used to give you a wedgie every day on the school bus is now the local councillor? Or that your boss reminds you of the classmate who loved making fun of your flaws?

Hasn't that been the trajectory of our culture, electing bullies in powerful positions so they can feed on the insecurities of the marginalized?

The story of Alan Turing is a big blob of shame on our hero-worship fairy tales. It shows, just how far, we are ready to go to condemn and persecute those who think and act different. It doesn't matter how creative they are, if they have stopped wars or engaged in breakthrough scientific research. And the medium of discrimination, is really, just an excuse. If it's not religion, it's race. If not sex, it's sexual orientation. Sometimes, it's about not smiling much. At other times, smiling a little too much. Unlike Enigma, the reasons why those in positions of authority might like to bully you, is truly an enigma.

If you are different than the powerful few who like to call themselves 'majority', and are also socially awkward, then chances are, 9 out of 10 times you will be bullied. Most of us undergo this ritual in school, which gives some practice before professional life arrives with its golden promises. You think high school's all over when lo and behold, you are eating lunches alone again.

How to Combat Bullying?

1. Unity in Friendship- In school you might have been a loner. Just remember, in your adult life, you will have a larger number of minorities who, too, feel persecuted. Befriend them. We might like to hide when being bullied, but a better idea is to unite with like-minded individuals who are going through the same experience. Remember, bullies intimidate by alienating you, so the more people you have on your team, the better.

2. Speak Up- You can easily discern a bullied person from a non-bullied person in public. How? The bullied person never speaks up, in fact, he hardly speaks at all. And it is particularly, because of this trait that bullies think he's a rug, to be stepped on, over and over again.

This might be due to past experiences that the bullied person has faced. Perhaps, he tried speaking up and was humiliated and socially ostracized. Bullying injures your confidence and self-respect in ways no physical injury can. But this damage can be repaired through counselling. There is no shame in asking for help. It is more important to know that you are not alone and there are people who are there for you.

So, if counselling is what you need to be assertive, then get it. But it is essential to speak up. For now, you have no Headmaster to run to, rather he is the bully.

3. Understand the Nature of Bullying- Why is it that you are being bullied? Is it your sex, your race or religion? Is it because you are more competent or competitive? Understanding why you have been singled out is the key to understanding the nature of the bullies and what they hope to gain from intimidating you. Oftentimes, bullies are just insecure kids who are afraid or jealous of you. Find out their weakness, and the tables will soon be turned.

When governments or institutions bully common people, the reason is mostly politically or monetarily motivated. As said in 1, you need all the help you can get to combat bullying of this kind.

4. Understanding it is Mental, not Physical- One of the important aspects of Bullying is that it is MENTAL, although its expression, sometimes might be physical. All forms of bullying are intended to humiliate an individual and harm his self worth. It can be a mother-in-law bullying a daughter-in-law, a government bullying human rights activists, a corporate group bullying indigenous groups or, a senior colleague purposely humiliating a subordinate.

Bullying, or Intimidation, has been the most preferred weapon of choice of institutions and powerful individuals alike to exert control over apparently 'weaker' marginalized groups. This form of coercion, tragically, does not limit itself to criminal outfits; rather it is most prominent in areas of high legal authority. Alan Turing was a war hero, who refused to resort to lies or connections and was left alone in the face of a sham law. 

A posthumous pardon granted by the Queen did little in bringing him or his honour back to life. The contribution Great Britain made in winning the War was owed largely to this national hero, but his country failed to give him his due recognition or even, dignity. Alan Turing died, a misunderstood man, victim of a law that persecuted him because he was different. 

To that, we owe, every single man and woman ever bullied to be kind and empathetic to others. Remember that the next time you rudely treat a street hawker or your own student. You have no idea what they are going through. 

Evening Breeze

The warm evening breeze kissed me fondly, like the memories of first love. The leaves whispered restlessly as the streetlights muted to a dim glow. My heart began humming a distant melody. Evenings like these made me want to dance in the street, without a care in the world.

Then, three men sprang up from the corner of my set, and jumped up to pee by the side of a house. So much so for a romantic evening.

Divided We Fall

There is something about films made about the Nazi reign that attracts me. Divided We Fall is one such film. It is a 2000 Czech film by Jan Hřebejk. Not a usual critical Nazi movie, Divided We Fall, presents the comic side of things. Josef and Mari save their boss's son, the Jew David Wiener even though their neighbor Franta refuses to help him and calls the Nazi authorities. This same Franta spits on the wall when he sees Josef make merry with Nazi officials so as to avoid suspicion. He ironically becomes the representative of the Resistance when Soviet forces invade Czechoslovakia. It is he who calls Josef a traitor when he arrives to a Soviet official to get hold of a doctor for his pregnant wife. 


Horst, a Czech who has collaborated with the Germans, brings gifts to the house. He is interested in Marie and even tries to force her once, but in the end, he is the one who becomes her doctor. The Soviets have captured all the Germans and their supporters. Even the doctor is dead. So Josef saves Horst among all those captured, saying he is the only doctor there. The wife is extremely horrified when she sees Horst becoming her doctor even though he tried to rape her once. But it happens, the husband pleads with the wife to keep shut. Horst is saved because he protects the family from the Nazis by not giving away the fact that they are in fact hiding a Jew in their house.                                           




Tense situations are also brought out in the end when the stupidity of power changes are shown. A change of power only necessitates a change of the master and not the system. This is why, while in the first half of the movie, Josef had to hide David to save his family, in the later half too, he is about to be killed because he cannot produce David to prove his "hatred" of the Nazis. Truly comic. As a viewer you are left wondering whether an innocent and kind man as Josef will be shot because of some idiot despot, who is too engaged in bureaucracies to even judge the worth of a life. 



Like the Nazi official who proudly showed that the value of one Nazi is equal to a 100 Jew lives, the Soviet official, takes out his gun, because "anybody could have been branded a Jew to escape the proceedings against Nazism". Director Jan Hřebejk shows the irrationality behind war through this master stroke.


The film is full of grey shades. The husband cannot have a child. But the wife says she is pregnant to keep a Nazi officer from taking shelter in their house (Courtesy: Horst). The husband realizes the gravity of the problem and decides that the wife has to become pregnant somehow. Devout Marie refuses to sleep with another man, and Jew David is all too awestruck to sleep with Marie. He even tries to leave the room but Josef, the husband forces both of them into the same room and shuts it behind him. As the lights go dark behind him, one sees the pain in his eyes. Truly, desperate times call for desperate measures. 

As is the case with wartime movies, the camera plays as important a role as the script. Unity is the motto of the film. Throughout the movie we see, Nazi forces use the saying, "United We Stand". It's corollary, "Divided We Fall" then stands to unite the oppressed at a time of crisis. It is especially symbolic when at the end, Horst delivers the baby and every one, Nazi, Russian, Jew, Slav, Czech crowd the room and Horst says, "Our baby has been born". This in short, is the message of the film. 


Life thrives in the midst of all death and destruction. The final scene in the movie is that of Josef with his new born baby in a cradle walking amidst the ruins of his city. The Nazi official who lost his youngest son (the child had tried to run from battlefield and was shot by German officers themselves. This is why the Nazi official wanted to stay in Josef-Marie's house unknowing of the fact that they were hiding a Jew) is seen injured. On the paths of the destruction, Josef sees the faces of all those who died, right from the young boy to the many Jews. 

The name Josef-Marie is also symbolic. Joseph and Mary brought Jesus Christ into this world when death and destruction was prevailing everywhere. Jesus was not Joseph's son by blood but he was brought up by him. Similarly here, the baby girl is not Josef's daughter by blood, but she is connected with the whole community by a much deeper bond. 


She symbolizes life, hope, optimism; she is the light at the end of a dark tunnel. May be sometimes, your race is not important. May be sometimes, punishing the guilty is not important. May be sometimes, the name of the father is not important. May be, sometimes what you need is Forgiveness. A little respite, a little letting go... is all you need to stay united.. and to dream of a better future. 


For civilizations tormented by violent deaths, only revenge is not a solution. You need something to look forward too. The baby brings in this hope in  Jan Hřebejk's Divided We Fall. 


PS: This film is extremely contemporary in our present strife ridden scenario. The film shows how extremes nullify each other only to leave pout moderation. The "You are with us, or against us" philosophy can only bring death and destruction; we can only move forward if we understand the importance of really being together. 

PPS- Happy 64TH Independence Day.

X Men:First Class- Truly First Class?

If nowadays girls are never satisfied with their boyfriends, it is because of superhero films like X Men: First Class.How can you, I repeat, how can you positively be happy with one meager boyfriend when Hollywood productions present delicious crispy freshly baked men on your plate every morning? 


I have never been a fan of the X-Men movie series; I liked the cartoons more. In spite of these, I have ended up watching every single of the X-Men movies. I had no particular intention of watching this particular movie but I had heard much furor regarding it. So this morning, I picked up an umbrella (coz it's heavy rain here) and went to watch it on thirty minutes' notice. 


As I reclined on a comfortable sofa seat, I had no idea what I was getting into. The film begins with a snap shot of 1944 Poland, where the "mutative" powers of boy Eric Lensherr aka Magneto are first discovered. Then the film goes to another snapshot of boy Charles Xavier catching Raven stealing food in the night from their house. And you know, that a love story is about to progress soon. 


But then you are disappointed. Kevin Bacon, my favorite bad man makes an appearance as Sebastian Shaw. If you are a Bacon fan, it is bound to remind you of the same name he had in his super hit "superhero" movie, Hollow Man (http://sojournoflife.blogspot.com/2011/02/narcissism-and-hollow-man.html). Good that I finally learned the secret to Kevin's eternal youth, and no it is not the Fountain of Youth as Capn' Jack Sparrow might have thought, but his ability to control energy that has kept him young all these years! 

The movie quickly proceeds to a handsome Eric Lensherr now played by Michael Fassbender and a witty Charles played by James McAvoy. And it is from this point onward, that the whole story changes.


The story needless to say is fast paced, exactly as a superhero movie should be. Typical commercial Hollywood superhero movie for the kids. I don't understand the need for a U/A rating. Frankly a PG rating was enough. For my part, I expected to see at least some romantic scenes between Charles and Raven and was sorely disappointed. 


The movie takes a swift turn when the boys grow up, because all you can actually notice is how hot they are. Michael Fassbender is roughly handsome; his story works in his favor. The whole drama about "My Mommy was killed by the Nazis and I am here to kill the bad guys blah blah" will force you to have sympathy towards this lonely sad ruggedly handsome mutant!


Charles Xavier on the other hand played by James McAvoy is relatively the underdog, what with all the riches and the girls. Let's face it, audience sympathy towards the have not is always more as compared to the all-haves. You can't help but justify Eric's position. He respects women, quite unlike the highly revered Prof. Xavier who asks Raven to cover herself up when she shows up in her natural blue form. These are small instances in the film but they surely underline the way the viewer favors one character over another.


On top of that, Michael Fassbender is gorgeous. I mean how can someone so gorgeous and so lonely not get the sympathy, right, people? And well James Mc Avoy is tiny when compared to Eric's aura, stature or even physical appearance. 

I remember when I returned home from watching the movie, my mother asked me how it was. My reply was, "The guys are very good looking."


And frankly that's all I have to say about the movie. The action sequences are spectacular. Eric's background scenes and his and Charles's friendship would make you cry. As will Darwin's death. Rights from Hans to Alex, the young mutants are all extremely cute. The movie has got all the ingredients in the right amounts to make it a blockbuster. A particular action scene where Eric pulls a submarine off the depths of the ocean to the level of their flying plane is in particular most enthralling. 


But now let me come to what I liked in the movie the most. The one, the only: James McAvoy. He was the only one star I knew who was in the movie. The other stars are relatively unknown. It is because of James that I did not want to go for the movie. When his films are shown on TV, I change the channels. 


The character of Charles Xavier in this movie will take you by storm. He is nothing of the fatherly kind that we see in the other X men movies. Here Charles is a flirty smart-ass genius who loves to spend his free time going to parties and dating sexy women. A genius who can touch your hair and say exactly how mutated your genes are. Cheesy? Yes. But brilliant too. Not to mention Charles Exavier's sexy British accent. 


A witty guy like that, you would expect him to have at least a few love scenes, at least with his sexy childhood friend Raven played by Jennifer Lawrence. But of course, Prof. Xavier is too busy helping hot dudes like Eric Lensherr achieve their vengeance. Like you and I, he too is overcome by Michael's raw masculinity.

Enough words have been spared on the hotness of the X-Girls to deserve further mention. Jennifer Lawrence clearly steals the limelight because of her innocent yet seductive looks. I have no idea how any guy would be able to resist her unless, of course he was utterly gay. 


Moira MacTaggert, a CIA agent played by Rose Byrne shows great promise but of course Charles is too busy with his hot male friends to even notice her. He even erases her memory at the end (much like Men In Black style) so that she cannot say anything about him to the CIA officers. (Or was it to erase her memory of Charles's rendezvous with the other naive young mutants?) January Jones does her bit. I did not find her as scintillating as promised but she is okay. 


Music is great. In many portions even if the actions do not hold your fancy, you will flow on the high-flying wings of music. 


At any rate, there is no doubt to the fact that James McAvoy plays a Charles Xavier who you will love to hate. His cockiness, his intelligence is bound to sweep you off your feet. You are bound to ask yourself the question, How can anyone be so smart? How can anyone be so witty? How can anyone be so confident, so reassuring? Throughout the movie, he is the only positive force driving through. 


He is always trying to help everyone; be it the common people, Raven, Moira, the CIA or Eric. He is soft as compared to Eric; he cannot shoot him during a practice session even when Eric repeatedly asks him to. Raven is too confused and Eric is too hell bent on revenge to see the larger picture. James McAvoy takes the fatherly Charles Xavier and turns him into the neighboring popular genius kid. 

And his eyes. Those eyes that I love to hate. Mind you he is not conventionally good looking. He does not have the rough cut of his friend, Eric. He is not beautiful as Johnny Depp. But there is a softness, a warmth. There is also a tinge of something else. You know just by looking that this guy is not innocent. He is a charming boy next door, who probably kills small animals by night.


In a film, one of the characters once described chocolate as "Positively sinful". That is exactly what comes to my mind while writing about James's eyes. Positively Sinful. Like Chocolate. Something that you know you shouldn't have. Something which you know is wrong. Uncertainty. Unknown. The Path of Sin. Yes, those eyes can lead you to the path of sin. Yes, that is exactly why I hated him. I still do. I find his confidence, his impertinence utterly rude. His eyes, the same ones which made me change the channel after the first half of Atonement, invite you to danger. They are almost controlling, like that of Xavier's. Which is why James is the perfect guy to play this role. Nobody else could have done it. 

And when he looks at you with those deep blue eyes of his, there is no need for any telepathic powers. He owns you.Controls you, as if. So some like me feel it safer to steer clear of danger and avoid his intoxicating eyes. Eyes that can intoxicate you, eyes which are intoxicated, by you don't know what. 


Passion perhaps?


I was still thinking of James McAvoy and his deep blue eyes; wondering, wandering... What if? 

As I reached my house, I heard an unknown pungent smell. James. His name echoed my mind. I raced up the steps. What did I expect? 

I reached the landing slowly. There he was, standing in a filthy white worn out shirt, a guy of roughly seventeen-eighteen years, lean and shriveled, with an out-of-place thin mustache, who had come to deliver food. The pungent smell was of mutton along with sweat. 


"You have a funny sense of humor, God", I mused as I went inside. 

Saat Khoon Maaf

Imagine a situation where nothing thrives- no love, life, joy, hope or creation. Imagine spending your whole life in such a situation. Most of us would get mad. Most of us would give up hope. But not Suzanna Anne-Marie Johannes. She always wanted to live life on her own terms. She was not going to be helpless. If a problem arose, she was not going to run away from it, or even tackle it like ordinary people do. 


She was the femme-fatale. Her beauty masked the emptiness of her life. With her passion, she could have any man she wanted. And they came. With promises of hopes and dreams, they came. She didn't care for anything else. She was not bound by normal conventions of tradition or morality. Watching Saat Khoon Maaf then is not an exercise in conventional norms and conscience. 


The film is based on a short story by Ruskin Bond titled, "Suzanna's Seven Husbands". Ruskin Bond appears in the movie towards the end. The name Suzanna is striking. It is established right in the beginning of the movie that Suzanna is a Christian. I don't think a story like this could proceed if Suzanna hailed from any other religion. 

In a country like India, where millions of women are tortured by their husbands everyday and are taught to be docile wives, the character of Suzanna could only proceed if she hailed from a religion, which since it came from the West appeared to be relatively "progressive" and "open minded" as compared to the other dominant religions of Hinduism and Islam. Does this mean that Christian women do not get tortured in India? 


Of course they do. But when it comes to how Christianity was imported to India, we see that the British purposely employed Christianity to "civilize the natives". It is said that they were horrified by the kind of violation that natives subjected their women to and hence sought to "teach them better manners" through this religion. Another important tool which they used in this civilizing mission: that of English language. 


Over sixty years of independence and we are still hung up on both. Whether we overtly accept it or not, it becomes much easier for us to accept radical changes when they are primarily introduced through a Western system. Radical methods to combat daily problems too are therefore much easily acceptable when they come through a "broad minded medium" like that of Western education or religion or language.


The film quite predictably then is set in Post Independence era. Suzanna's father was one of the first generation English officers who married a Hindu woman. Vishal Bhardwarj gives us clips and occasional insights into the character's life but does not waste too much time on introduction. Coz he knows and he knows it well, that the audience needs to not lose its patience till the 7th murder; an arduous task. 


The movie therefore cuts right to the chase with the dominating patriarchal character of Neil Nitin Mukesh, who suffers from a deep insecurity of his manhood characterized by possessiveness for his wife; which leads him to break the head of his subordinate who does a close dance with Suzanna (with Neil's permission btw). Mukesh is awesome. There are no words to describe the fantastic way in which he portrayed the gruesomeness of the character. 

However Neil's character, much like those of the other male leads remain black and white. Their grey shades never come to light; or even if they do, the black almost always submerges the white. The reason for this is mainly the fact that the director did not want either of them to overshadow Suzanna. She is the heroine of this movie and cannot be shown in negative light.


One can rationalize the need of Suzanna to kill her first husband, Major Edwin Rodrigues then. But Bhardwaj  does not show the action (of murder) right then and there. For some peculiar reason he chooses to wait till the end of the movie when he shows Suzanna killing all her husbands, one by one. May be he wanted to surprise the audience with Suzanna's violent streak, but the viewer knows it all too well by then and cannot wait to get out!


The second husband stops making any sense whatsoever. More than that is the puzzling question of why a wife would want to kill a drug addict husband. His wanton lifestyle could be a source of concern, his dishonesty with songs could also be a source of concern. But Suzanna refuses to surrender for all of those flaws. 


Instead what really gets on to her is when he fails to give up drugs. I read somewhere that John Abraham was angry with Bhardwaj for not giving equal weight-age to his character as Priyanka in the film. Well, he should thank Bhardwarj for that. John manages to irritate not only Suzanna but also the audience with his flighty overacting. The viewer actually feels relieved when he is killed.

The third husband is interesting. A romantic poet by day, a sadist by night, Irrfan Khan acts his role to perfection. This is where Suzanna's darkness comes to full play. She loses her sanity completely. Her husband, Wasillulah Khan hits her and covers her with bruises to satisfy his perverse needs. Suzanna tries to cover the bruises up with makeup, and visits several dargahs and masjids praying for the end of this savagely behavior. 

But things only get worse. This is when one sees her sitting in front of the mirror wildly tearing apart her hair and laughing insanely. This is when the first traces of psychotic behavior are spotted in Suzanna. She always had a dark reverie but it is the torture of the third husband that makes her lose complete faith. With a vengeance, she decides to take revenge upon him; leading to his death. 


The fourth husband has been portrayed beautifully by Russian actor, Aleksandr Dyachenko. This is where the song, "Darling" is featured. This song has been influenced by a Russian folk song which is also played in the beginning. Rekha Bhardwaj lends her melodious voice to this striking number which captures the mood of the narrative very well. The name of the Russian spy is Nicolai Vronsky and Suzanna repeatedly refers to Anna Karenina where Anna falls in love with Vronsky outside of her marriage. 

In the novel, Anna gets suspicious that Vronsky is involved in relationships with other women and commits suicide. In the film however, as Anna (that's what Vronsky used to call Suzanna) murders her fourth husband when she finds out that he has a wife and children outside their marriage. Even though he tries to explain to her and give excuses, she refuses to listen. It seems even the director gets bored after this and rapidly shows the fifth and sixth murder sequences. 


He hardly wastes time to provide reasons behind the fifth murder. Annu Kapoor is there throughout the movie right from the second murder and does a great job of a sex maniac. Naseeruddin Shah plays the role of Dr. Madhusudan Tarafdar who manages to coax Suzanna to marry him in spite of her not wanting to get married any more. But when she finds out that he had planned to kill her one night, Suzanna gets scared and murders him too.

The choice of her last husband, notably has disappointed some and mesmerized others. I for once, was ecstatic, not by her choice but by being able to guess who she is marrying right by seeing the choice of her wedding gown. At last Suzanna finds peace. The viewer is just happy to be able to leave the hall without killing anyone or himself. 


It would have been much easier for me had Suzanna been a psycho. Frankly that would have simplified things down. But the fact that there is a reason behind her madness makes the viewers wary at first and weary later, to try to find out reasons behind her continuous killing. 


One can only attempt to find out the reason behind her rampage when one combines the toll of tortures of her previous husbands combined with her killing of them. Murder does not only kill the victim. It also leads to a death of a part of the murderer. Suzanna is no exception. Her patience slowly dies down where she does not hesitate to kill even at the slightest hindrance.

Can Saat Khoon Maaf be called a feminist film? Feminism is not only about the victory of women and the celebration of their independence. Feminism is also about bringing to life their untold miseries. Suzanna's life cannot represent the lives of myriad Indian women even if they have thought of killing their husbands at least once in their lives! However it does show the excruciating circumstances a free thinking and independent woman finds herself in. It stands to reason that the situation would have been different if it had been a man with seven wives. 


Suzanna brings to mind the character of Emma Bovary in Flaubert's masterpiece. Throughout her life, Emma hankers for the ideal lover and even engages in extramarital relationships but she never finds the One. Her desperation is transmitted into a financial crisis through which she is unable to get out. The only way she can save her honor is by committing suicide with poison. 


Suzanna does not commit suicide. The director takes a brave step in this regard. The easiest way would have been to kill her and make her a martyr.Instead he brings the film to a conclusion with Suzanna finding peace in her seventh husband. 

The cinematography of the film is exceptionally brilliant. In several scenes, the camera does not capture the whole of the characters but simply a part of their face; a part of their expression. In the scene where Suzanna realizes that her sixth husband was trying to kill her, we see only a fragment of her face reflecting from a mirror where Madhuda is shaving. 


The rest of the frame is cloudy with the focus on Madhuda's naked back where Suzanna spots the scratches which her attacker had faced the night before. The second last scene where Suzanna meets Arun for the last time is shown only through the facial expressions of Arun; the camera rarely follows the 65 year old Suzanna except when Arun turns to leave.

The movie has been strongly contextualized in terms of history. Major Edwin Rodriques, Suzanna's first husband is a proud fighter in the Blue Star Operation, that took place during Indira Gandhi's regime. I am doubtful about Jimmy Stetson's rockstar reception in India. How many rockstars were there in India during the late 80s and early 90s? 


Again the Russian spy is well situated in the era of India's nuclear program in the late 90s. While Dr. Madhusudan Tarafdar, her sixth husband is shown listening to the radio about the ongoing 26/11 attacks (that took place in 2008). 


Acting wise, Priyanka surpasses all. There are no words to describe the genius she upholds in this movie. The movie has bold dramatic scenes; subtlety is upheld not in terms of brevity of speech or manner but rather through an almost maniacal celebration of blood thirst. The color black comes to foreplay once and again.


The first time one sees Suzanna in black is when her father dies. That is the first scene where Suzanna comes into the movie. The narratorial voice of Arun (Vivaan Shah) says that his 'Saheb' liked this color a lot and slowly this color became her color. Every time Suzanna decides to murder a husband, the viewers see her in black. This is a recurrent motif throughout the seven husbands. Most of the crucial scenes are filmed in darkness, at night. When not in darkness, the shabby surroundings (seen in the murder of the sixth husband) bear witness to the solemnity of the film. 


The film does not allow the audience to rest in peace. While it starts on a speedy note, the Director does not build characters but jumps straight to the action. This is one reason why most of the characters appear shallow. Necessary time is not spent in building them up. As a result even Suzanna appears psychotic at times when she should normally have appeared reasonable. Annu Kapoor's death is shown as a matter-of-fact occurrence which Suzanna actually enjoys. 


Suzanna's partners in crime, namely Maggie Aunty (Usha Utthup), Ghalib Khan (Harish Khanna) and Goonga (Shashi Malviya) are shown to add fuel to her passion for hatred and blood thirst. They help her commit the murders when in normal instances one would expect well wishers to inspire her away from murder. 


Bhardwaj's excessive obsession for the plot does not allow these characters to grow, except a little bit of Goonga during the time of the first husband. The viewer is left wondering whether these characters are psychotic or are they dark too; at any rate the four form a deathly combo. 


This is baffling specially if you are trying to follow a linear method of reasoning while watching the movie. The death of husbands like John Abraham, Annu Kapoor and Naseeruddin Shah actually make you ask if their offences were too gruesome to not be forgiven. As stated earlier, Suzanna Anne-Marie Johannes is an enigma who cannot be grasped with common notions of morality and conscience. But the director could have done a better job of justifying her character. 


Vivaan Shah, the new found talent shocks everyone with his mature voice and acting skills. He is probably the only sane character in Suzanna's house, who keeps track of everything she does. He tries to make sense of Suzanna's turbulent nonsensical world. He loves her. 

It is not clear therefore why he refuses when Suzanna wants to give herself up to him. May be he did not want to lose the sanctity of their almost maternal relationship. May be he wanted to hold on to the noble idea he had of her. Or may be he was plain scared of getting killed too!


Whatever the reason be, after being refused by the person she trusts the most in her life, Suzanna goes into depression. And her last thread of conscience is lost. Vivaan Shah however manages to win hearts and appreciation. He probably surpasses all the male leads by his conviction and determination. One can proudly say that this youngster is here to stay. 


Saat Khoon Maaf cannot be judged through normal standards. This is an experimental genre and darker than Kaminey, which still had some entertainment quotient. I felt that Saat Khoon Maaf in the midst of providing bare dark facts somewhere loses out on the entertainment factor. However if you like a different style of film making and darkness, this movie is one to watch out for. 

Meghe Dhaka Tara- The Star in the Cloud Studded Sky

We were shown Meghe Dhaka Tara today as part of our course. Like most “Indian born American bred” youngsters, I too have an aversion to old movies, specially the black and white ones. I won’t get into any ‘good’ ‘bad’ judgment calls regarding this, it’s just the way I am. The few black and white Bangla films I have seen though were quite nice. The first B&W film that comes to mind in this respect is Sagarika starred by the eternally romantic pair Uttam Kumar and Suchitra Sen. I remember gasping at the end of the movie seeing the two stars embrace each other and saying to my Ma, “Wow Bangla films in that era were quite modern!” 

Another B&W film, a hot favorite among vintage cine-goers is Saptapadi. I saw the movie. I liked the first half. But I did not at all like the second half. I guess it was due to my different temperament and sensibility. I felt the movie had become too cloistered. Anyways I would not want to get into any debate regarding Saptapadi, regarded by Bangla cinema fans as the most outstanding piece of work by Uttam-Suchitra (with an equally outstanding performance by Utpal Dutta’s voiceover as Othello).

I had heard of Ritwik Ghatak before but never seen any of his movies. I had absolutely no idea of his filmmaking. In our recent tryst with the PWA and the IPTA, we were made to come face to face with the man himself. I had also heard of the film Meghe Dhaka Tara and Komal Gandhar before. Byas, oi porjontoi. It never occurred to me to watch those movies. It was therefore with a great deal of anticipation that I waited for Meghe Dhaka Tara to be screened for our course. 

After some initial disturbance, we finally got to watch the movie. Our course coordinator gave us a background of the movie from beforehand and asked us to look for tell tale signs in the movie; regarding the arrangement of shots, lighting, sound and symbols as well. So when I went to watch the movie I had a clear cut idea of how to approach it (otherwise I would have missed out a significant part).

 Thus began Meghe Dhaka Tara. I was overjoyed when I could spot the first symbol our Professor had said, the symbol of the tree. A large banyan (?) tree. It played an important role, she said. I was awe struck. Nita comes from the distant side of the tree, carrying a black umbrella and a train is shown going by. Such clarity, such simplicity. The tree I felt represented roots and shelter. The train on the other hand, a symbol of eternal journey signifying the thousands of refugee families that came from the other side of Bengal showed the rootlessness they suffered. The tree in the midst of nowhere was possibly trying to show the intensity and desperation with which these people were trying to find their roots in places cut off from their ‘motherland’.

Meghe Dhaka Tara- The Star in the Cloud Studded Skynd then the story progresses by means of several other symbols, vis-à-vis Nita’s torn sandals and her earrings and bangles. She is the sole bread earner of a refugee family. Her family consists of her father, her mother, two brothers and sister. Everybody in her family is busy in their lives. Probably the only person who understands her hardship is her father. Her mother shows some superficial concern in the beginning but her trauma of the lost heritage of her family (10 years they have been a refugee), makes her incapable of understanding her daughter’s pain. The only way she can communicate with her daughter is by arguing with her.

Her elder brother depends on her for money. Her younger brother and sister do not so much take cash from her as they demand new shoes and sarees. The motif of the shoe is very prominent. Nita wears torn sandals (or chappals?) but her elder brother has hardy shoes. In the middle of the movie when his shoes get torn, he wears the shoes of his younger brother (who has newly got a job). This brother then lashes out at his Dada. An immediate contrast is then established between the younger brother and the Nita.

Nita buys sports shoes for her younger brother but the moment he earns enough, he develops an ego. He still respects her superficially but looks down upon the elder brother who does not earn money. This motif of the younger- elder brother comes into play repeatedly. Ghatak does not only concentrate on Nita, even though she is the heroine. He is showing the trauma of an entire family; how Partition can break up even the most unified and intimate relationships. And unless it is a level headed person like Nita who keeps her family together, it becomes very difficult to keep calm in the midst of distress.

The best example of the fact that Ghatak is not concentrating only on his heroine but an entire community is best shown through the ending of the film. The film does not end with Nita’s earth shattering cry, “Dada ami kintu bachte cheyechilam” (Dada, but I wanted to live!), rather the scene of an ‘inconsequential’ girl similar to Nita who is going off to work. Nita’s elder brother watches her as her chappals get torn. It strikes him. She looks back at him, gives a smile and then walks away. So poignant! So brilliant! Ghatak like any other ordinary filmmaker could have ended with Nita’s despairing cry but it would not have served his purpose. He is not making a film to address an individual; he is addressing an entire community.

The way Partition forced young girls of conservative Bengali families to go out in search of bread is something largely unaddressed by popular culture. Over many years however, we find Bengali filmmakers trying to address the plight of women due to the Bengal partition. I remember seeing a film of Satyajit Ray (?) where Madhabi similarly goes out to work to earn money for her family. Her husband, played by Soumitra Chattopadhyay disproves it immensely; it hurts his masculine pride. But there is nothing much he can do about it. But this leads to tensions between them as the film progresses.

There are so many things that I would like to say about this movie. This girl who appears in the last scene reappears in two other scenes in the movie; once while conversing with Nita when she has decided to drop out of M.A final Year Exam to support her family. But I can’t remember the other time, sorry dear readers.

The plight of Nita is well put in the movie.  Her elder brother’s ego is hurt when he takes her money but she loves him madly. 

To her younger siblings she is a provider; they take everything she gives and yet expect more. How can one reason the anguish caused by her younger sister when she marries the man Nita loved? Further how can one explain the despair of Nita at hearing another woman’s bangles at Sanat’s (her fiancé) house? And still more when she receives the shock of her life when her younger sister comes to inform her matter-of-factly that she is marrying Sanatbabu? How can one rationalize this? I have no idea.

I can only come to the conclusion that perhaps Ritwik did not want to rationalize this. Girls like Nita were not the epitome of women in the age of Partition. They were the providers of the family, true but that was all they were. There is a recurrent song in the movie, about Goddess Uma going to her husband’s place. Nita loves hearing this song. 

The last time we hear the song is when she leaves the house on a rainy dark night to visit the chest sanatorium in Shillong where she is sent forever, as she is suffering from tuberculosis. No one wants her at home. Somewhere I felt that Nita and the many like her provided for their family but they could never become a part of their family. In the beginning we see, Sanat wants to marry Nita but she asks him to wait. Her mother later takes her to a corner and blatantly asks Nita what would happen if she married Sanat; who would take care of the family then?

How does one rationalize this? I do not wish to be judgmental. But in those times, the best parents could want for their daughters was to make them happy and beautiful and then marry them off. Nita’s mother’s plea to her not to get married and criticize her regarding her relationship with Sanat then immediately gives the viewer a jolt.

The elder-younger brother divide is also brought to the forefront wonderfully. Money can change people. Time, on the other hand, can also bring people’s fortunes down. So while the younger brother behaves rudely to his Dada when he asks him for money for a shave, the tables turn quickly. The younger brother is injured in the factory he works for and the elder brother achieves his dreams and becomes a famous singer. The tables turn quickly. Ghatak shows the shame he feels when the elder brother returns from Bombay, a successful singer.

This brother is now able to look down upon all those who criticized him once upon a time, saying he lived upon the alms of his sister. Sanat too takes monetary help from Nita. In a very interesting scene, Sanat is shown asking Nita to leave her work citing the reason, “When will your brother earn? Isn’t he the eldest son?” What’s ironic then is that Sanat himself does not earn and takes Nita’s help. Where is the difference between these two then?

Nita does not hesitate to provide money to either Sanat or her elder brother. She works, thrusts her hopes and aspirations down so that others can fulfill their dreams. Sanat’s dream of completing his research is left unfulfilled when Nita’s sister approaches him and advises him to choose the easy way out- “Get a good job, you have many at your disposal. Leave the mess you stay in, get a flat. And then marry a pretty girl”. And she blinks her eyes twice. Sanat is baffled.

Unlike Nita who would always ask him to choose a life of hardship, this beautiful girl was asking him to opt for the easy way out. How many of us have the grit and determination to keep on struggling, when we don’t even know whether we will achieve our dreams or not? Not everyone is Nita, whose sole dream is to see her family happy. She achieves that but at the cost of her “life”, her happiness. Sanat is no Nita. He gives up, opts for the high paying engineering job but soon loses interest. He starts missing his office. But he has a family now. His wife is pregnant.

The elder brother on the other hand, seems quite incapable throughout the initial half of the movie. Viewers have more expectations of Sanat than they have of the elder brother. But in the end, it is the elder brother who stays with his sister, who achieves his dreams. May be this is where he surpasses Sanat. Herein lies the difference. The underdog thrives. And the brilliant intellectual full of high flowing words fails to perform. I felt Ghatak was mocking the empty idealism of the day. When hunger strikes, principles lose their relevance.

Sanat’s wife is pregnant. She is Nita’s younger sister. This news is delivered to us at the time when the first symptoms of tuberculosis are displayed in Nita. A viewer watching the film for the first time (like me) will obviously expect that Nita will die and the child will be born- which will show the victory of life over death. We would expect Nita to come back in the form of the child. But of course, Ghatak being the master filmmaker never does that. His agenda is not to idolize Nita. He has no intention of glorifying the birth of a child either.

Here comes another spoiler (for all those who have not seen the movies yet). Nita does not die. She renders herself incapable (and therefore unproductive) of functioning due to tuberculosis. The baby is born. Nita is transferred to a chest hospital in Shillong (not by her family or Sanat but by her elder brother). Before leaving, her father who was her only strength during her struggling days repents hopelessly, “They do not want you any more. They can dream of two storey houses now. You have made them alive once more. But they do not want you in their dream house”.

Ritwik’s skepticism of the modern Bengali family shows through this instance. The child will play in the two storey house but Nita is not welcome there. Her room will be his play house. Surely a caring protective family cannot let their newborn child roam around a sick person like her! Ghatak mocks, he laughs at the superficiality of the family which shows double standards for its children.

Nita, like Goddess Uma (also known as Annapurna) is the eternal provider for her family; they worship her when she provides, they kick her out of her house when she fails to provide. But she never becomes a part of their house. Her father, the bread earner is the head of the family. Her mother, a homemaker, who talks of her troubles day and night (even when Nita’s marriage breaks), is a wanted member of the family. Her elder brother is scorned throughout the movie but even he achieves a place for himself when he earns money. Her younger brother, even though he hurts himself at a factory job is mollycoddled by the family as he is the youngest son. The sister is beautiful and after all, she was right in her place; she simply wanted to get married. The only odd one out is Nita.

She is young, beautiful, educated. She has a job. She could get married any day. But she is responsible for her family’s happiness, and like her sister or brothers, she does not search for her dreams. She makes her family, her dream. The ones who search for their own happiness live in glory; Nita loses her ‘life’ to search for her family’s happiness. So when they achieve their dreams, her utility wears out.

Of course there are a lot many possible readings of Meghe Dhaka Tara. These are the few fragmented readings I have attempted.

P.S: Nita’s heart wrenching cry, “Dada ami kintu banchte cheyechilam” in the open space of Shillong’s hills is a stark contrast to her brother’s discussion of what a spoilt brat his little nephew has become. The open space of the hills provides a vent to Nita’s voice, her cry; something which was never possible in the cloistered realms of her hut back in Kolkata. Ritwik does not show Nita’s death. Would it ever be possible for Nita to find a new meaning for her life? Where she will be really able to “live” her life on her own terms? We do not know.

Ritwik however does not allow us that Romantic freedom. Quickly he brings us back to Nita’s locality where we see a girl wearing a sari like her, walk to office with a torn chappal. The second time this girl appears in the movie (ahan, I remember it now) is when she walks down the field where Nita’s elder brother practices singing. He runs after her screaming, “Nita, poisha de, poisha de” (Nita give me money, give me money) only to find that she is some other girl. She smiles and movies away. 

He moves away ashamed and then bursts out laughing at his idiocy. The viewer can only gasp in horror at his nirlojjo behavior. But times turn as I have already pointed out, and he is the only one who is there when Nita needs someone the most.

P.P.S.: If there is one thing I have felt while watching this movie; it is that there are many Nitas around us still. They exist in the form of working girls, perhaps even our maids (even though their class position and education would be different). Till date middle class girls are not able to complete their education and work to provide for their family. I know of such women. Meghe Dhaka Tara has humbled me towards their contributions towards life and society. I only hope that they do not lose their “life” to help others live. 

In that way, Meghe Dhaka Tara in the midst of its pessimism tries to make the viewers aware of the worth of these working middle class girls. If even some of us change our attitude towards these women, most of who we see daily and are part of our lives and family, the goal of the film is achieved.