Watching the 81st Annual Academy Awards, I had the surreal feeling that I was actually watching a Bollywood production. Forty-three-year old Musical prodigy and composer Alla Rakha (A. R.) Rahman took two Oscars for best original score and best original song - Jai Ho - in Slumdog Millionaire. When the Kodak Theater resonated to Rahman’s song and the fluid movement of Indian dancers, you knew that Bollywood had taken Hollywood by storm. Yes, yes, I know that the director and producer of Slumdog are Englishmen, but it’s a quintessential Indian tale of hope and love and redemption, and it is Rahman’s score and song that propels the story.
This modest man of enormous talent also stole the show when he said in his acceptance speech: "All my life I've had a choice of hate and love. I chose love and I'm here. God bless." What a stirring message to a troubled world!
Rahman was born in 1966 to a Hindu family but at the age of 21 converted to Sufism, a mystical form of Islam. He described his conversion as "a long process. I was really intrigued by the Sufi thing and had gone very deeply into it, putting aside three hours every day to learn Arabic. I was drawn to Sufism because they have no regulation, no rules, no distinction between Hindu and Muslim."
Before Rahman, only two other Indians had won Oscars: costume designer Bhanu Athaiya for Gandhi in 1982 and master filmmaker Satyajit Ray for lifetime achievement in 1992.
I saw Slumdog when it opened in theatres in San Jose, California, on November 26 last year. On that very day, Mumbai was attacked by Muslim terrorists and the bustling metropolis was gripped by fear and despair. But as the dust settled, the city reasserted itself with quiet resolve and dignity. Most heart-warming was the response by the Muslims of Mumbai. Thousands of them - men, women and children – took to the streets to denounce the terrorists. "We disown and denounce all those who kill in the name of jihad. Terrorists are fascists and enemies of Muslims as Islam doesn't preach killing of innocents," said poet-lyricist Javed Akhtar.
As of today, bodies of nine Pakistani Muslim terrorists lie in a Mumbai hospital morgue because the Indian Muslim community has refused to bury them in its cemetery.
I welcomed Slumdog’s eight Oscars with gratitude to its creators. That its Muslim music director won two Oscars signified for me, in some undefinable way, the victory of moderates over extremists, of sanity over insanity.
Tonight, when parties are being held all over Oscar’s host city, the city being toasted around the world for its moxie is not Los Angeles but Mumbai.
P.S. A day after A.R. Rahman won Oscars for his song and score, Interscope's A&M Records released a pop version of his winning song "Jai Ho (You Are My Destiny)" in English, sung by Nicole Scherzinger of the Pussycat Dolls. It was produced by Ron Fair, chairman of Interscope's Records division. Fair will fly to Chennai (Rahman's hometown) this summer to collaborate with the composer. "He is one of the world's great living composers in any medium," said Fair. "If I could have a little bit of time with A.R. Rahman, it would be like a master class."
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Brad Pitt Deserves the Best Actor Oscar
Brad Pitt is the most underrated actor in the world, and he has only his looks to blame. After all, how can someone known to millions of movie fans for his, well, face, excel in acting? But that’s what he does, in movies after movies (Babel, to name just one), and yet the Academy of Motion Pictures looks the other way when Pitt delivers. It’s the same reason why Tom Cruise was denied the “Best Actor in a Supporting Role” Oscar in 2000 for for his performance in Magnolia. Cruise displayed skills far more subtle and poignant than Michael Caine in The Cider House Rules, yet it was the veteran actor who won. Caine was honest about his award: "I'm a survivor, that's what they gave it to me for."
But this year, Pitt has been nominated for the Best Actor award for his role in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. (In 1995, he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Twelve Monkeys but the Oscar went rightly to Kevin Spacey for his performance in The Usual Suspects). And the odds are against him this year too for getting the nod from the high priests of the Academy. The favorite to win is Mickey Rourke for his gritty performance in The Wrestler.
The case for Rourke is compelling. First, his acting in Wrestler was brilliant, no question about it. Second, the story also reflects Rourke’s personal odyssey, a gifted actor with self-destructive tendencies who almost lost it but managed to stage a stirring comeback. Who cannot identify with that? Who can resist such redemption?
Yet, if we separate the personal from the public, we have to conclude that Pitt’s performance in Button is superior to Rourke’s in Wrestler. Pitt’s material, based on the short story by Scott Fitzgerald about a man who ages backwards, is more difficult. Very few actors could have pulled it off without reducing the role to a caricature. Whether it is feeling the first pangs of love, fidelity or loss, or roaming Siddharta-like in India to find himself, or staring kismet in the face, or coming to terms with life's cruelty and grace, Pitt transcends acting and transports us to a wondrous realm. For the first time, I realized in my guts what “willing suspension of disbelief” meant watching Pitt portray his magic on the screen.
I hope Brad Pitt wins the Best Actor Oscar this year. If that happens, years from now, we will fondly remember the 81st Annual Academy Awards for its own rare performance of justice.
But this year, Pitt has been nominated for the Best Actor award for his role in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. (In 1995, he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Twelve Monkeys but the Oscar went rightly to Kevin Spacey for his performance in The Usual Suspects). And the odds are against him this year too for getting the nod from the high priests of the Academy. The favorite to win is Mickey Rourke for his gritty performance in The Wrestler.
The case for Rourke is compelling. First, his acting in Wrestler was brilliant, no question about it. Second, the story also reflects Rourke’s personal odyssey, a gifted actor with self-destructive tendencies who almost lost it but managed to stage a stirring comeback. Who cannot identify with that? Who can resist such redemption?
Yet, if we separate the personal from the public, we have to conclude that Pitt’s performance in Button is superior to Rourke’s in Wrestler. Pitt’s material, based on the short story by Scott Fitzgerald about a man who ages backwards, is more difficult. Very few actors could have pulled it off without reducing the role to a caricature. Whether it is feeling the first pangs of love, fidelity or loss, or roaming Siddharta-like in India to find himself, or staring kismet in the face, or coming to terms with life's cruelty and grace, Pitt transcends acting and transports us to a wondrous realm. For the first time, I realized in my guts what “willing suspension of disbelief” meant watching Pitt portray his magic on the screen.
I hope Brad Pitt wins the Best Actor Oscar this year. If that happens, years from now, we will fondly remember the 81st Annual Academy Awards for its own rare performance of justice.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Good Food
Food has become the ultimate fashion statement. We are now more concerned about what we eat than what we wear.
One of the sanest voices in food matters belongs to Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." That’s his succinct advice to those who want to enjoy their food and be healthy as well.
Pollan distinguishes between food and food products. Food represents health and wholesomeness, food products don't. How to tell one from the other, given that 17,000 new food products are introduced in the West every year, gets more difficult every day. "Don't eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food," advises Pollan. "Mom knows best" will not work because moms are as confused as the rest of us. That's why "we have to go back a couple of generations, to a time before the advent of the modern food products." Carrots and spinach and apples and bread and cucumber are food but Breakfast-Cereal Bars and Go-Gurt are not. Pollan alerts us to the insidious power of the modern food industry. Walking down supermarket aisles, the average shopper is tempted by food products with fancy names, shiny wrappings and outrageous health claims. If health is the goal, we have to resist those temptations.
The goal of the American food industry for a century has been to increase quantity and reduce prices, not to improve quality, observes Pollan. Better food costs more, so the wise alternative is to pay more and eat less. "Not everyone can afford to eat well in America, which is shameful," acknowledges Pollan, "but most of us can." At less than 10 percent of their income (the current economic meltdown has increased this percentage for families throughout America), Americans spend less on food than citizens of any other nation. Paying more for food grown in good soils will not only contribute to the health of the eater by reducing exposure to pesticides but also to the health of those growing the food and those "who live downstream, and downwind, of the farms where it is grown." There is also strong evidence that "Calorie restriction" improves health and prevents a host of diseases.
A plant-based diet is rich in antioxidants, fiber and Omega-3s and contains fewer Calories than a meat-based diet. A plant-based diet is clearly a healthier choice. "Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he advised treating meat more as a flavoring than a food."
The larger point Pollan makes is that we have taken the joy out of eating. Reductionist science, the rise of "nutritionism" and the culture of fast food have made us forget that food is not only fuel but also communion. Food is pleasure and family and friends. It is memory and hope and continuity of traditions. Food is our connection to the web of life around us. Is there a way to bring back these sensibilities into our frenzied lives? "Cook," recommends Pollan. "And if you can, plant a garden."
I try to follow the advice of people like Pollan and, to some extent, succeed. My problem occurs during the weekends, particularly on Saturdays. That’s when my weekday regimen falls apart as I indulge in korma, biryani, kabab, tandoori and assorted sweet dishes in the endless cycle of invitations among the Bangladeshi Diaspora in California’s Silicon Valley. I feel guilty and vow never to repeat until, of course, the following weekend. Making up for dietary lapses with vigorous exercise five days a week does little to remove the pangs of my conscience. One of these days, though, I intend to come clean and it will only be good, tasty, wholesome food all week long, week after week.
One of the sanest voices in food matters belongs to Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." That’s his succinct advice to those who want to enjoy their food and be healthy as well.
Pollan distinguishes between food and food products. Food represents health and wholesomeness, food products don't. How to tell one from the other, given that 17,000 new food products are introduced in the West every year, gets more difficult every day. "Don't eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food," advises Pollan. "Mom knows best" will not work because moms are as confused as the rest of us. That's why "we have to go back a couple of generations, to a time before the advent of the modern food products." Carrots and spinach and apples and bread and cucumber are food but Breakfast-Cereal Bars and Go-Gurt are not. Pollan alerts us to the insidious power of the modern food industry. Walking down supermarket aisles, the average shopper is tempted by food products with fancy names, shiny wrappings and outrageous health claims. If health is the goal, we have to resist those temptations.
The goal of the American food industry for a century has been to increase quantity and reduce prices, not to improve quality, observes Pollan. Better food costs more, so the wise alternative is to pay more and eat less. "Not everyone can afford to eat well in America, which is shameful," acknowledges Pollan, "but most of us can." At less than 10 percent of their income (the current economic meltdown has increased this percentage for families throughout America), Americans spend less on food than citizens of any other nation. Paying more for food grown in good soils will not only contribute to the health of the eater by reducing exposure to pesticides but also to the health of those growing the food and those "who live downstream, and downwind, of the farms where it is grown." There is also strong evidence that "Calorie restriction" improves health and prevents a host of diseases.
A plant-based diet is rich in antioxidants, fiber and Omega-3s and contains fewer Calories than a meat-based diet. A plant-based diet is clearly a healthier choice. "Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he advised treating meat more as a flavoring than a food."
The larger point Pollan makes is that we have taken the joy out of eating. Reductionist science, the rise of "nutritionism" and the culture of fast food have made us forget that food is not only fuel but also communion. Food is pleasure and family and friends. It is memory and hope and continuity of traditions. Food is our connection to the web of life around us. Is there a way to bring back these sensibilities into our frenzied lives? "Cook," recommends Pollan. "And if you can, plant a garden."
I try to follow the advice of people like Pollan and, to some extent, succeed. My problem occurs during the weekends, particularly on Saturdays. That’s when my weekday regimen falls apart as I indulge in korma, biryani, kabab, tandoori and assorted sweet dishes in the endless cycle of invitations among the Bangladeshi Diaspora in California’s Silicon Valley. I feel guilty and vow never to repeat until, of course, the following weekend. Making up for dietary lapses with vigorous exercise five days a week does little to remove the pangs of my conscience. One of these days, though, I intend to come clean and it will only be good, tasty, wholesome food all week long, week after week.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Respecting Darwin
Charles Darwin was born 200 years ago today in Shrewsbury, England. At the age of 22, the budding naturalist sailed on the HMS Beagle to collect, observe and study the flora and the fauna of South America and the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador. (The home page of Google today shows an artist's rendition of the Islands). Returning home after 5 years, he pored over his notes and specimens with a scientist’s obsession. Twenty years of research, experiment and synthesis later, accompanied by prolonged periods of doubt and moral dilemma, Darwin published “On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation for Favoured Races in the struggle for Life” in 1859. (Consider this curious coincidence: Newton, the preeminent scientist of the eighteenth century, waited for twenty years before publishing Principia. Darwin, the preeminent scientist of the nineteenth century, waited for twenty years before publishing his seminal findings. Another coincidence: Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were both born on 12 February, 1809).
"Origin of Species" revolutionized our understanding of life on earth, its astonishing diversity and our place in it. Evolution by natural selection is the unifying theory of the life sciences. Advances in genetics and DNA, of which Darwin had no knowledge, continues to confirm his theory by revealing the physical basis of evolution. That all living beings, including humans, have evolved from a common ancestor, with natural selection as the driving force, is an idea whose scientific truth becomes more evident with each new discovery in the field.
But an artificial war has raged since Darwin proposed his theory 150 years ago. It’s the war between science and religion, reason and faith. Many scientists and secularists use Darwin’s theory to assert that there is no God since, as they see it, “everything” is a product of chance. Many people of faith reject Darwin because his theory runs counter to a literal reading of sacred texts and because, as they see it, it deprives life of meaning and purpose. Reductionists insist that life and its mysteries can be explained by the laws of physics, while literalists insist that the earth is a few thousand years old and everything was created as is.
Both sides are wrong, of course. On the question of heaven and hell and eternal life after death, Darwin had this to say: "The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect … Every man must judge for himself, between conflicting vague probabilities." Darwin was humble enough to recognize that his theory of evolution was silent on the question of meaning and purpose and the existence of a Divine Being. He did not reach this conclusion to pacify his devout wife Emma, the clergy or his religious-minded friends. He reached his conclusion as a scientist would, that those questions were simply beyond the scope of his theory.
There are renowned scientists (Nobel Laureate Charles Townes, to name one) who are ardent believers. They regard the confluence of science and religion as being inevitable. Likewise, there are many theologians who find undeniable truth in the theory of evolution. They agree with Galileo who said: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect, has intended us to forgo their use.”
Most of us are neither scientists nor theologians. Those who believe that the theory of evolution is proof that the universe is devoid of divine content, well, that’s their belief, their "leap of unfaith." For those (I think a majority) who believe, on the other hand, that the theory of evolution is not the whole story, that there is a transcendent power that guides our destiny, they should be perfectly comfortable in saying so. We owe at least that much to Darwin.
"Origin of Species" revolutionized our understanding of life on earth, its astonishing diversity and our place in it. Evolution by natural selection is the unifying theory of the life sciences. Advances in genetics and DNA, of which Darwin had no knowledge, continues to confirm his theory by revealing the physical basis of evolution. That all living beings, including humans, have evolved from a common ancestor, with natural selection as the driving force, is an idea whose scientific truth becomes more evident with each new discovery in the field.
But an artificial war has raged since Darwin proposed his theory 150 years ago. It’s the war between science and religion, reason and faith. Many scientists and secularists use Darwin’s theory to assert that there is no God since, as they see it, “everything” is a product of chance. Many people of faith reject Darwin because his theory runs counter to a literal reading of sacred texts and because, as they see it, it deprives life of meaning and purpose. Reductionists insist that life and its mysteries can be explained by the laws of physics, while literalists insist that the earth is a few thousand years old and everything was created as is.
Both sides are wrong, of course. On the question of heaven and hell and eternal life after death, Darwin had this to say: "The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect … Every man must judge for himself, between conflicting vague probabilities." Darwin was humble enough to recognize that his theory of evolution was silent on the question of meaning and purpose and the existence of a Divine Being. He did not reach this conclusion to pacify his devout wife Emma, the clergy or his religious-minded friends. He reached his conclusion as a scientist would, that those questions were simply beyond the scope of his theory.
There are renowned scientists (Nobel Laureate Charles Townes, to name one) who are ardent believers. They regard the confluence of science and religion as being inevitable. Likewise, there are many theologians who find undeniable truth in the theory of evolution. They agree with Galileo who said: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect, has intended us to forgo their use.”
Most of us are neither scientists nor theologians. Those who believe that the theory of evolution is proof that the universe is devoid of divine content, well, that’s their belief, their "leap of unfaith." For those (I think a majority) who believe, on the other hand, that the theory of evolution is not the whole story, that there is a transcendent power that guides our destiny, they should be perfectly comfortable in saying so. We owe at least that much to Darwin.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Stretching the Earth's Resilience
Day temperatures reached the 70s in San Jose, California, in mid-January. This is supposed to be winter, with the parched land needing copious amount of rain, and although the balmy weather feels wonderful, the third consecutive drought looms for the state. We have had about 50% of the rain normal for this time of the year. (4.06 inches so far; normal is 7.89 inches). Sierra Nevada, the 400-mile-long mountain range made famous by John Muir’s “Range of Light” reverential musings, has a snowpack only 60% deep compared to what it should be. California’s January sunshine may be redolent of paradise but I cannot shake off thoughts of snakes lurking in the garden.
Today it is in the high 60s as I write. City officials are warning of water rationing. The hills and valleys of the San Francisco Bay Area are green but already brown patches are showing. They suggest the sorrow of teenage brides withering under harsh reality without ever blooming. Patches of yellow mustard show up here and there but where have the orange poppies gone?
Is the unusually high January temperatures a sign of global warming? The Midwest is reeling under record snowfall. It’s bitterly cold in the east coast. Rain is incessant in the Pacific Northwest. What can explain this anomaly, this wild fluctuations in weather conditions that get more pronounced every year? Something is happening to our planet. We are probably stretching its resilience to the breaking point.
I wake up about an hour before dawn. Until last year, I used to hear the cooing of a dove in the ash tree in my front yard toward the end of February. That was my sweetest reminder that spring had arrived before vernal equinox in March. But this year I heard the dove on January 29. I began hearing its mournful music regularly every morning thereafter. Spring isn’t silent as Rachel Carson feared it would be, but certainly it arrives early, early, early!
The night sky removes the sadness I feel at the increasingly ephemeral nature of winter and spring. On the same day that the dove began to coo for the first time this season, I saw in the evening a most stirring sight: Venus shining gloriously above a three-day old moon. The following night the two celestial bodies traded their positions. The night after, the moon separated even further from the evening star as it gained weight and steadily climbed the sky. The sight of stars blooming in the garden of the sky all night long is profoundly moving. The anxiety of mortgage payments, unfulfilled dreams, even intimations of a fragile earth, fade away, replaced by a joy that comes from knowing that I am not alone but is woven into the fabric of this vast, mysterious universe.
Today it is in the high 60s as I write. City officials are warning of water rationing. The hills and valleys of the San Francisco Bay Area are green but already brown patches are showing. They suggest the sorrow of teenage brides withering under harsh reality without ever blooming. Patches of yellow mustard show up here and there but where have the orange poppies gone?
Is the unusually high January temperatures a sign of global warming? The Midwest is reeling under record snowfall. It’s bitterly cold in the east coast. Rain is incessant in the Pacific Northwest. What can explain this anomaly, this wild fluctuations in weather conditions that get more pronounced every year? Something is happening to our planet. We are probably stretching its resilience to the breaking point.
I wake up about an hour before dawn. Until last year, I used to hear the cooing of a dove in the ash tree in my front yard toward the end of February. That was my sweetest reminder that spring had arrived before vernal equinox in March. But this year I heard the dove on January 29. I began hearing its mournful music regularly every morning thereafter. Spring isn’t silent as Rachel Carson feared it would be, but certainly it arrives early, early, early!
The night sky removes the sadness I feel at the increasingly ephemeral nature of winter and spring. On the same day that the dove began to coo for the first time this season, I saw in the evening a most stirring sight: Venus shining gloriously above a three-day old moon. The following night the two celestial bodies traded their positions. The night after, the moon separated even further from the evening star as it gained weight and steadily climbed the sky. The sight of stars blooming in the garden of the sky all night long is profoundly moving. The anxiety of mortgage payments, unfulfilled dreams, even intimations of a fragile earth, fade away, replaced by a joy that comes from knowing that I am not alone but is woven into the fabric of this vast, mysterious universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)