Tragic Life Story of Amy Winehouse

 

I came across this documentary or movie ‘Amy’ (2015) and I watched it while skipping portions along the way. It shows the life story of English singer Amy Winehouse using archive footage and narrations by herself and her friends and family.

Amy Winehouse was born in England to Jewish parents in 1983. Her parents were not rich and they had later divorced. She was brilliant in music and took it up as career. She mentions that she had taken up music in order to be able to express the problems she faced (in her mind). Along the way, she started struggling with drugs abuse. She was in and out of “rehab”. She married a man who also used to do drugs and later he divorced her. She also made songs depicting her real-life events, like going to rehab or breakups or divorce. Her albums “Rehab” and “Back to Black” were massive hits. Her health kept deteriorating due to the drugs and unhealthy lifestyle she was living and in the end, she was warned by doctors to stop it or else she would die. She stopped drugs but took on alcohol and one day, she died of alcohol poisoning. Sometime before her death, she had gone on a live performance but did not sing and just sat on the stage, ruining the show for the production company and the audience. It can be understood that her final accidental death was a buildup of the things happening in her life up to that point. At the time she died, she was only 28.

The documentary film shows her life in a very personal manner and viewers can only sympathize with her. But at one point, I noticed that she told the reasons for her mental problems as: “Then she said her dad leaving her mum was what caused this, and her not really seeing her dad.” That was the beginning of her mental problems which drove her towards drugs.

At the same time, if we look at the lives of movie stars, singers or creative people, it seems as if a lot of them, if not most, indulge in drugs. It is common sense that drugs are “addictive” and once a person starts it, feels compelled to keep going on. At one point, when Amy Winehouse won Grammy Awards, she went backstage and told her friend that “all this (winning) does not seem as enjoyable without drugs”. That clearly showed the threat she was facing. From what I have read or seen in movies, creative people get a kind of extra boost to their creativity and imagination when they are drunk or on drugs, and that is what they seek whenever they feel out of ideas or inspiration. But, they need to think if it is really worth it. We all think too highly of our own creations and talent, but the fact is that this world is too bigger than us. If we do not create music, people will find something else to listen to. While our own unique creative contributions are important, but at what cost? This is why, talent is a double-edged sword and success is a great destroyer. 

Once you achieve what you wanted to, it does not feel same anymore. Then, you want more. And to keep seeking newer heights is a path of self-destruction in a way. 

To be so talented and then dying at such an early age can only be called tragic. While her music will remain forever, her life should be remembered as part of an anti-drugs and anti-alcohol narrative for young generations to come. Her mistakes were human and she was not incorrigible. I wish she was able to sort out her life before it was too late. 

Here is a portion of her handwritten song, as shown in this film: 

- Rahul Tiwary

P.S.: After writing this, I just realized that today is Amy Winehouse’s birthday. I had seen this documentary many days ago but got chance to write this piece only today. What a coincidence.

A Pinching Game

At times pictures make us stop and reflect, and hence it is an experience to watch poignant photographs. I was checking this article on Rediff about Mukesh Parpiani’s photographs. The article features many thoughtful pictures, though most of those are of celebrities and I could not get why. After a while I reached a place where I saw the below photograph with caption: 

As it says, this poor woman pinched her child (perhaps her own child) to make it cry, in order to gain PM Indira Gandhi’s attention. What was this woman thinking?

Indira ji was certainly not carrying a big purse with loads of money which she could give to these women. Or is it that the woman hoped she would become emotional seeing a child cry and announce a large sum of compensation for these people? Since these were riot-victims, of course Indira ji would have seen them in bad condition, she would also have seen some child really injured or really crying. What was the need for this woman to make her own child suffer? I think, most probably, the woman was uneducated and did not think much before doing it. She just used a common “trick” which she would have used at other places as well. I mean, I do not think she would have pinched the child first time or only time here in front of the PM. She did not necessarily “plan” it or expected anything serious “in return”. Perhaps her hands just did what they were programmed to do in such situations. And it is so sad to imagine.

Unfortunately, I was able to recall an incident after seeing above picture. When my daughter had come to my place after about 2 years, there was a boy who was with my in-law’s, working as a house help. He used to carry the baby in his arms most of the time. One evening, when I asked him to hand over the baby daughter to me, he tried to hand her over to me and before doing it, he pinched her and she suddenly cried. I scolded him about why did he do that and he denied doing it. But I had noticed that my daughter had cried even while she was in his arms and before she touched mine, and hence I had no doubts that he had pinched her. I scolded and warned the boy to never do that again. How could the boy who took care of her for two years be so cruel that he would pinch her to make her cry and hence not go into the arms of her father? Are all feelings, ethics, morality and sensibility limited to educated and rich people and do these people from lower section of society have no heart at all? I would not like to believe that. But the incident did prove to me that utter cruelty exists in this world and if people can pinch babies to make them cry in order to gain some petty political advantage, they could do worse things someday.

Such episodes disturb us and we may feel like losing hope in humanity. But these are also reminders that life is not only roses but also about thorns, and how much lucky we were to have safe and abuse-free childhood.

- Rahul Tiwary 

Aparajito by Satyajit Ray

 

Aparajito (The Unvanquished) is a 1956 Bengali film written directed by Satyajit Ray (1921–1992). It is adapted from the first half of Bibhutibhushan Bannerjee's novel Aparajito. The story as well as movie is one of the best I have ever watched.

In the story, a poor Brahmin family: a man, his wife and only son move from their village in Bengal to Varanasi where the man starts working as priest on the Ganga ghat. They are very poor, although the boy goes to school. Satyajit Ray has captured the images or old Varanasi so well that we are transported into that age and that place along with the camera. Then, the man catches fever and quickly dies. This episode is shown in such a touching manner that it has become a masterpiece. The man did not have enough money, so he did not want to call a doctor. He made some home medicine which makes him better. But next day, he goes to Ganga ghat for a bath, much to displeasure of his wife who would rather have him rest. While returning, he falls sick again. Before dying, he asks for Ganga jal and dies after having a sip. During his sickness of a few days, he does not complain, he does not curse his poverty, he does not call for any help. He showed a complete acceptance of his fate and his death, which was beyond imagination. I know movies and literature sometimes romanticizes death, but the manner in which Satyajit Ray has shown it, is unparalleled.

Now, even before her husband died, a neighbor tries to take benefit of the woman, whom she scares away. Then she works as a housemaid in some rich person’s home. But looking at the situation of her son Appu who keeps wandering here and there, she decides to rather return to her village in Bengal.

Once in village, the boy shows good talent in studies and after a few year when he is in teen age, he is sent to Calcutta where he studies in college during the day time and works at a printing press during the night to cover his expenses. His struggles are also shown in the movie, although the boy does not speak much and hence there is a kind of impending silence on the screen.

But after Appu moved to Calcutta, his mother becomes all alone. There is a very touching episode when Appu visits village for 4 days and she asks him to stay for one more day, but he decides to go. Later, he leaves the train, returns home and just goes to sleep.

But later on, as he struggles to cope up with the city life and his studies, he stops visiting village. His mother becomes sick, writes him letters but he declines to visit village. In the end, his mother stops asking him to come visit her, gets sick and dies. Appu gets a letter from a relative, visits the village, cries upon finding that she is gone and has already been cremated. But when a old man (relative) asks him to stay in the village for a few days and complete the last rites, he says that he would do it in Calcutta itself and leaves. This last climax stuns the viewers and this is also where a magic moment is created by Ray.

Here are a few pictures from the beginning of the movie.

This is one of the masterpieces that I am fortunate to watch.

- Rahul Tiwary

A Lover Boy

 

The title of this blog post is not to offend anyone. I am just describing an incident as it happened.

On a train journey, I came across a Muslim boy sitting on the opposite berth. He must be in his early 20s, had full beard of at least 20 cm (quite long for his age), and wore white salwar kameej like a lot of traditional Muslim men do. At first glance he looked like a regular guy. But on second look, there was something weird: in the name of luggage, he had carried only a red backpack which was also mostly empty. A “red” backpack did not go well with his looks! But I guessed that he could have loaned it from some friend, as a possible explanation.

The boy offered namaj right on his top berth with full yoga-like poses twice in the day – once in the morning and once in evening. After offering evening namaj, he started making some phone calls. I noticed his calls after a while, since he was talking for over an hour.

He was talking to some girl and she told him about some of her hobby or interest, and then he told her, “Now I am coming to know about your hobbies and how wasteful those are. It was much better if you could develop a hobby in namaj (Muslim prayers)”. It was weird. How could he call offering prayers as hobby? Anyways. After a while I noticed that he had been making one call after another. And then it went interesting when I paid a bit of attention.

It became clear that he was calling only girls and talking from the point of view of courtship before marriage. It seemed as if his marriage proposal was in progress with all those girls. And many of the girls were sisters of his friends, because he often talked about their brothers as his friends. And whenever the girl on the other side of phone told about some other girl, he would ask, “which number of sister she is – i.e. how many sisters she has?” It was clear that he was “expanding” his knowledge of girls in his target group.

He talked to one girl addressing her as “tum”, to another with “tu” and then with one girl he talked calling her “aap”, with full respect. He talked to one girl in Bhojpuri, one girl in very fluent Maithli and then many girls in Hindi. This guy was a James Bond!

The last call he made was really interesting. The girl on the other side of the phone told him that she considered him as a “bhai” (brother). Then he said, “If you considered me as brother, then why did not you come to meet me when I went to your home that day? What is wrong in meeting your brother?” I felt sick listening to this cunning guy.

Then, he asked the girl that she could stay at his parents’ home when she had to appear for some exam. She asked about how did his home look like. And he replied, “My house is not as good as yours, but you will feel nice there.” He said it in such a loving and polite way that it impressed me. He was playing with the girls' minds. Then, the girl said that she was not comfortable staying in a house which had other males. He replied, “There are no males in my house! Only my father is there, my younger brothers are there and my sisters are there. You will not feel bad there; there are no males there.” So, according to him, his father and brothers did not count as “males”? It seemed that his answers or arguments were not good enough - but he added a last sentence as assertion which was really convincing. For example, "my house is not as good as yours" was a weak argument, but he added, "but you will feel nice there" as a gimmick. Similarly, he counted the number of males in his house but in the end said, "there are no males in my house", as a gimmick. I think all frauds and cheats use certain techniques to trap and play their victims and perhaps this was his trick. He might have learnt that people did not remember our full answers but always remembered the last few words, so may be had devised such a trick. Otherwise, his contradicting statements did not make any sense to me. I could also notice that he mentioned both brothers and sisters in “plural”, indicating a large family. In the end, he told the girl that his mother will be calling her tomorrow, to ask her to stay at their house when she has to appear in her exams. 

I know that I found this guy interesting also because I have never had a girlfriend of my own, and hence I would have certain curiosity about such guys and their ‘charming’ ways. And I would also accept that I saw a Muslim “lover boy” like him for the first time. I have seen enough ‘road-Romeos’ in public places, but never a Muslim guy, whom I thought were better behaved and did not make girlfriends. Perhaps with mobile phones as a ‘game changer’, such boys are thriving even among traditional Muslim families.

Anyways, all said and done, it was an interesting experience to have. The last memory I had of him was when I thought that he was like "Musafir Ali" of the web series Ray (played by Manoj Bajpayee). 

- Rahul Tiwary

Our Women Ministers: What their ‘Bindi’ Tell Us

 

Today is Late Sushma Swaraj’s death anniversary (punya tithi). A stalwart in Indian politics, she does not need introduction. But one thing that stood out of her was that everyone could “relate” to her! People saw her as “one of own”. It was because of her work and views, but also because of her personality. She sported a prominent ‘bindi’ on her forehead.

Sushma Swaraj always put bindi - mark of Hindu women and sindoor - mark of married women in India.

Now, recently our govt has expanded the cabinet and made many first-time ministers who are women. We now have 11 female ministers. There was a very popular picture shared by the ministers soon after the oath taking ceremony. 

I tried to spot how many of these ministers are sporting bindi and sindoor, just out of curiosity.

I find that Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman sports a very small, dot like bindi, and does not sport sindoor most of the time. She is married and has one child. 

On the other hand, minister Anupriya Patel almost never sports either bindi or sindoor, despite being married. Anupriya Patel is younger, and perhaps this explains. Many women these days are ashamed of putting bindi and sindoor. Some say that it is due to the influence of Missionary schools who discourage these signs of local religion.

Meenakshi Lekhi at times appears in Bindi and at times does not. And she seldom applies sindoor, at least that is what I can see in the pictures. She is married to Aman Lekhi, a senior advocate in Supreme Court.

Minister Annapurna Devi is a widow and hence she can be seen so as per the local custom among Hindus. Her husband Late Ramesh Prasad Yadav was Minister in RJD’s Rabri Devi Government of Bihar and she entered politics after her husband's untimely demise.

Minister Pratima Bhoumik has never married and hence she appears so. Do you know that she is the first politician from the state of Tripura to join Union Cabinet? Our current government has strong focus on giving voice to the areas who have been under-represented in the past and a strong North East policy. Pratima Bhoumik is popularly known as ‘didi’ (elder sister) in Tripura. 

Minister Shobha Karandlaje is never married but applies bindi which is alright since unmarried women can apply ‘bindi’. She is a prominent politician from Karnataka. 

Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti is of course never married; and she uses a religious mark (tilak) on her forehead. She comes from a small village in Uttar Pradesh and we should be proud of her presence in the cabinet.

I find that all other women ministers do apply ‘bindi’ and many also use ‘sindoor’ (though not all). 

Dr. Bharati Pravin Pawar is a politician from Nashik in Maharashtra. She is also an MBBS doctor by education and used to work as a medical practitioner. She is the daughter in law of former minister Arjun Tulshiram Pawar. 

Mrs. Darshana Jardosh is from Surat, Gujarat. She won her election with a historic margin of 533190 votes which is the highest lead by any woman MP in Indian Electoral History after Indira Gandhi 

Mrs. Renuka Singh Saruta is from Chhattisgarh and minister of state of Tribal Affairs. 

And I suppose Mrs. Smriti Irani needs no introduction. 

As a conclusion, at an overall level I can see that our ministers have used the ‘bindi’ more often but ‘sindoor’ less often. 

The popularity of 'bindi' may be because it is very convenient to use - most women use a plastic bindi which has a glue on the backside. Though traditionally women used a bindi created with some home recipe. Sindoor may look inconvenient because there is a chance to 'mess it up' by touching and it would spread on the forehead. But there are some variants, e.g. one comes in a sticky paste format, which can be used even by women who are busy at work. 

There is no shame in showing the mark of being married. Keeping a traditional look only makes us looks better, confident and comfortable with ourselves. And when it comes to public fields like "politics", it plays a role like no other. Sushma Swaraj did not keep bindi and sindoor for any political gesture, but it did help her relate to the common masses more. 

This exercise was not to shame anyone for their choice of appearance. It was just a  leisurely research and reality check on the use of popular cultural symbols. We also got to know our ministers better through this exercise. We all should strive for a society which is not ashamed to keep the harmless traditions and marks of our culture intact in our daily life. And when it comes to culture, women excel in it more than men. 

- Rahul Tiwary 

“Ham to nahi dekhe hain”

Kiddo’s grandmother called him and after the initial first couple of months, there was a gap of about 5 years. He was informed that “daadi” (grandmother) was on phone. He picked up the phone and what he said in first sentence, floored me.

He said, “ham to nahi dekhe hain” (But I have not seen you yet). He said it in such an innocent manner and without any malice from the adult world. Well, it is true that he had not seen her from the time he remembers things around him. Normally, when we talk to someone over phone, the caller’s mental image comes in front of our eyes while we talk. But if we have never met the other person, we adults still try to make a bit of an image, based on the voice, tone and mannerism. But, how could a 5-year-old kid make a mental image of his grandmother when he never met her? That is why, the first thing he said was, “I have never met you!” It was so honest and so touching.

He talked nicely. And when asked about his mother, he said, “Wo duty jaati hai aur fir aati hai.” (She goes to work and comes back later). For the kid, mother going out of home and returning to home, both were “events” worth remembering. Normally, if same question is asked to a grownup person, one can just say, “she goes”. But, the kid had to mention both the going and the coming, because both were very significant events for him.

Children are ancient sages in disguise.

- Rahul Tiwary

Vijay Mallya Unseen Pictures from Younger Days

Source: ‘Bad Boys Billionaires: India’. Really liked the “King of Good Times” episode.

I still wish he returns to India, faces trial, returns all the money owed to the banks, and clears most of the bad name he earned in recent years. That will be a twist and ‘happy ending’ most movies won’t have.

- Rahul Tiwary 

Some Movie Moments and Dialogues

 

“An immature man wants to die nobly for a cause” ('Sun Dogs')

“I mean, travel is overrated.” (Sun Dogs)

“Without the glasses, you are not even ugly”. (from the Talented Mr. Ripley. This was said to Mat Damon, whom I had already noticed got a not handsome face.)

“It is better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all” (‘Framing John DeLorean’)

“It is excellent to have a Giant’s strength… But it is tyrannous to use it like a Giant.” (quote from William Shakespeare)

“Street slang is an increasingly valid form of expression.” (from ‘Clueless’)

“Nobody would suspect us. We are women.” (‘Red Joan’)

“I used to think art was just bourgeois decadence, but…” (‘It’s kind of a funny story’)

“They are communists. Else why would they come at night?” (‘The Lady in the Van’)

“Pride goes before a fall.”

“Fortune favours fools, and success is the father of regret.” (from ‘A Fortunate Man’)

- Rahul Tiwary

Amrapali of Vaishali and Ajatshatru of Magadh

 

Long back during school days, I had read a book from my grandfather’s book collection, whose title I have forgotten now. But, most probably, it was वैशाली की नगरवधू (‘Vaishali Ki Nagar Vadhu’), by Acharya Chatursen. I remember some pages from the book now. Then, I happened to find this movie Amrapali (1966) on Netflix and watched it. They have done a great job by converting the movie it in color now.

At the beginning of the movie, the map of India is shown. Whenever I see this map, I get goosebumps. We have been often taught that India was but a set of small kingdoms in history. So what? Time to time, some great kings used to unify all areas into their great kingdoms. In those days, means of communication were very difficult and it was almost impossible to have large kingdoms. Still, we had kingdoms like Magadh (Present day Bihar) which was huge.

The main character of the movie is Ajatshatru, played by Sunil Dutt. Ajatashatru (492 to 460 BCE) was a king of the Haryanka dynasty of Magadha in East India (present day Bihar). He was the son of King Bimbisara and was a contemporary of both Mahavira and Gautama Buddha. He fought a war against Vajji, ruled by the Lichchhavis, and conquered the republic of Vesali. The city of Pataliputra was formed by by Ajatashatru. Ajatashatru followed policies of conquest and expansion. He defeated his neighbours including the king of Kosala. Ajatashatru occupied Kashi and captured the smaller kingdoms. Magadha under Ajatashatru became the most powerful kingdom in North India.

The movie begins with a war scene. The war scenes are very well shot, given that those days there were not many technologies available. There was a whole row of elephants involved in the war. It must have been challenging to shoot the war sequence without any injuries.

The movie shows a few novelties. Ajatshatru was fighting multiple soldiers single handedly, rotating his sword in the manner in which they have shown Bajirao Peshwa doing it in the recent movie Bajirao Mastani.

The chariot had this weapon, which was also shown in the famous movie Bahubali! I read that Ajatshatru is the inventor of two weapons used in war: the rathamusala (scythed chariot) and the mahashilakantaka (engine to eject big stones).

Using these machines, they were throwing rolls of fire on the enemy army. This has been shown in so many Hollywood movies too.

 Now coming to Vaishali. Vaishali which is near present day Muzaffarpur in Bihar, is known to have one of the most ancient democracies. It is called world’s first Republic.

The movie shows Vyjayanthi Mala in the role of Amrapali. She has given an immortal performance in the movie. Not for a moment she appears as an actress; it seems we are seeing real Amrapali. 

Amrapali is the Chief Dancer of Vaishali. When Ajatshatru, the king of Magadh attacks Vaishali, she asks her friend to bring his head to her as a gift. Amrapali is known to have developed one of the strongest bonds of patriotism.

Ajatshatru falls in love with Amrapali. He says, “An emperor is also a human being”, justifying his love for a dancer who was below his status. 

Ajatshatru attacks Vaishali in order to save and marry Amrapali.

People accuse Amrapali of treachery and she is publicly shamed. To my surprise, this was very similar to Game of Throne’s “Walk of Shame” except its nudity and vulgarity.

Ajatshatru comes to meet Amrapali. Look at the excellent set that is shown in the background. They made this in 1966!

Amrapali is devastated that her kingdom was destroyed indirectly because of her! Look at the dialogues, those are so powerful. She accuses Ajatshatru of murdering so many women just for one woman! So powerful.

 

Ajatshatru is devastated at seeing only hatred in Amrapali despite the fact that he defeated Vaishali’s army only to save Amrapali’s life. She can’t tolerate “hatred” in her eyes and Sunil Dutt has given such a touching performance. He says, “Do not look at me with so much hatred”. It was such a touching moment. The cruelest thing in this world is for a lover to receive hatred in return for his love.

Sunil Dutt and Vyjayanthimala have given an immortal performance. This movie and this story will remain in the classic pieces of arts and literature from India.

Blessed to have watched it.

- Rahul Tiwary