Despite *Jackson et al's once again coming up with the goods and delivering upon their usual promise of **unequivocal genius, it would be quite remiss to give the film a clean slate, a no-holds-barred endorsement. The creators of The Hobbit movie #1 are, after all is said and done, mere mortals as the rest of us, so let's not ever seek to pretend otherwise. My main gripes, grizzles and grumbles? Many and varied, naturally enough, but principally the adaptation's inauthenticity in realistically portraying, and thus convincingly depicting, the ***relative battle-hardiness of The Hobbit's respective good guys and villains. In this regard I'll cite some of the most glaring and grating and at times jarring inconsistencies and incongruities observed, if only in the interests of that all too underrated and lowly esteemed, seemingly quaint and apparently antiquated notion of fair play and balance. So as not to give even a skerrick of the impression of having viewed the movie with a pair of - one of my now two sets of - rose-tinted 3D glasses, seeing it as an unmitigated world of wonders. (*Let's not, as so many do, almost invariably overlook the other genii intimately involved in the making of these Tolkien film adaptations, especially the likes of Philippa Boyens, Fran Walsh, and Richard Taylor and his Weta Workshop team. **As my (1988) Chambers Concise Dictionary has it, meaning: 'unambiguous; explicit; clear and emphatic.' ***A commonly enough undertaken device of cinematic reinvention, admittedly, in order to maintain the popularly-accepted and welcome notion of the forces of good ever, or at least ultimately, triumphing over the forces of evil. Nonetheless a device by its very nature complicit in duplicity, in upholding fictions we wish to believe in rather than the realities better describing things as we actually tend to experience them - not to be too cynical.about matters. Though personally I actually subscribe to such a notion - of good ultimately, cosmically, 'winning out' over evil - I'm simply pointing out that upon this earthly plane things don't always seem that way, much less tend to play to that sort of script.)
So let's begin with the main character, Bilbo Baggins, brilliantly and determinedly, despite innumerable obstacles, cast by Sir Peter himself, and consummately executed by Martin Freeman. An eminently successful characterization, even unexpectedly acknowledged as such - if ever so sparingly, seeking to damn with faint praise - by one of the film's most trenchant New Zealand critics, he of National Radio's Matinee Idol infamy, nay notoriety, Simon Morris. Notwithstanding this sterling, well-nigh impeccable performance by Freeman, the filmmakers - in order presumably to tie together one very important ****'loose end', i.e. Thorin's deeply suspicious attitude towards and distrust of Bilbo, with their necessary, and literary-accurate, eventual reconciliation - take extreme licence to bend the parameters of credulity both to and well beyond the bounds of credibility in one major instance. This is the depiction in the film's final battle scene, and indeed penultimate scene overall, of the hobbit bravely sallying forth at the very last moment to rescue Thorin, when Azog the Goblin Chieftain and his gang of wolves drive the dwarf crew literally to the edge of a precipice. Not only is such bravery, however noble and well-intentioned, foolhardy in the extreme, the outcome of such - instant death and destruction by Azog & co - is so self-evident that Tolkien doubtless never even envisaged such a prospect much less included it in his story. Perhaps J R R knew something?(****Though actually in the book this relationship is fraught, deteriorating - in the extreme - once again, much later on in the story, and their 'friendship' can only be described as an on-again, off-again affair, a professional collegiality and camaraderie rather than one based upon any sense of 'fair dinkum' mateship.)
Alongside this portrayal, in the selfsame scene - a scene taking believability to new levels - we witness trees, flimsy enough in and of themselves, and scarcely sturdy enough to hold such heavy-set *****dwarfs much less a bunch of 'em in each tree, bending well beyond breaking point, to the nth degree and all the rest. And yet these admirable specimens of flora manage to somehow maintain their weighty and unwieldy cargo of passengers - otherwise long-since jettisoned 'over the edge' and into a literal abyss of despair, death and destruction - even when they are mercilessly assailed in no uncertain fashion, time and time again, by a veritable juggernaut of large, powerful and skilful beasts of malevolence on a mission of annihilation at any cost. Now really folks. Otherwise, as I said, an excellent, essentially flawless, even unsurpassable Hobbit-depiction by Freeman, capturing the nuances of Bilbo's character and moreover his extremely complex relationships with his fellow adventurers. Yes, he's definitely the star of this new show, no question about it. (*****Ever Tolkien's preferred spelling for our (English) 'dwarves', though sometimes also 'dwarfs'.)
Which isn't to suggest the performances by others such as Thorin aren't masterful also, but it's all a matter of degree. Although I would also contend, once again, that the rendering of the film's chief villains, be they Azog, the Goblin-King under the Mountain, or the three trolls - Bert, William and Tom - are equally unsurpassed. However the story's Arch-Enemy, Smaug the Dragon himself, makes his (highly premature but understandable) entrance into the film in such a way as to seriously strain credibility; though I would likewise argue - solely with the benefit, however, of a second and third viewing - that this is ultimately so well-executed, seen in the odd tidbits and snippets of Smaug and his various body parts, especially in the film's closing moments, that this concern is considerably allayed. Such a situation undoubtedly oftentimes comes about, I readily accept, with such fast, action-paced thrillers, and so perhaps cannot be helped. Yet 'seeing is believing', as they say, and for those without the time and cash to see the film again, let alone thrice, such initial, even if frequently inaccurate impressions truly do 'die hard'.
For this very reason - despite my later relief - my issue with his portrayal still bears mention. It is this: Smaug's eye-catching unveiling amidst the seemingly limitless horde of jewels at the film's end, and the immense fire-breathed energy and unrivalled presence of his power-packed physique at its start, were almost undone and belied, I would contend, by the 'precursor' bunch of silly-looking dragon streamers at the outset of his age-old assault upon the dwarf kingdom of Erebor. I appreciate these do have their modern-day resonances in especially Chinese and Japanese dragon festivals and the like, but frankly fellas, they just seemed a little amateurish. Essentially representing El Nasty as a bit of a lightweight, feather-duster equivalent 'bad guy'. Not such a good much less apt look for 'Smaug the Chiefest and Greatest of Calamities'. No, One to be lampooned only at one's peril.
A central and equally contentious element of, if not Tolkien's fantasy literature itself, then certainly its Peter Jacksonesque interpretation, the battle scenes were otherwise both too many and too long and Lord of the Rings film trilogy blood 'n guts and gore extremish, though ably effected and varying enough from one to the next for all that. And so - try as I may, and I certainly have - it is hard to fault film reviewer Morris' contention that Bilbo's (captivating and well-depicted) character definitely lended itself to much more filling out, which additional characterization was precluded simply due to the exorbitant proportion of the film devoted exclusively to battle scenes. (Which was also of course a commonplace criticism of the Rings' films.) And so something had to give, and unfortunately, what 'gave' here was more of Bilbo, the main character who clearly deserved even much more of the attention he did get. Though it could equally be argued that we were given such a superb sampling of his sublime and ever-so-subtle character to be held spellbound, however short and seemingly stinted that cinematic synopsis may well have been.Thus whetting our appetites for what's yet to come.
Nevertheless, for devoted fans like myself, I suspect we'd have remained engrossed if the film had gone on for some while longer, as despite all the fighting, the film maintained a good, steady pace and captivating, suspenseful tension throughout. As for Morris et al's criticism that in (apparently) prolonging the film beyond its reasonable limit Jackson and crew essentially threw into the film each and every nook and cranny of the book, this actually shows a rather superficial understanding of Tolkien's classic, as Jackson and co arguably failed to do just that very thing. Sure, the film might well have highlighted the book's many much less protracted battles, but it meanwhile signally failed to focus sufficiently upon the oodles of space the book gives to the elaboration of Bilbo and company's characters. So those making such criticisms essentially contradict themselves, decrying the film's length (allegedly due to needless padding out with rampant fighting) while pleading for more character development notwithstanding. So maybe it's not the film's alleged lengthiness, only their tedium with its subject-matter they in fact find so objectionable. Methinks what such really want is both a cake and the eating thereof. And as I've ever found, that's somewhat tricky.
And so while I completely concur with Morris' contention that additional, useful, character-developing footage of Bilbo's character wouldn't have gone amiss, that's only because that was an important part of the relevant portion of the book which the filmmakers seemed to skimp upon. And as we all know, scrimping and saving is best left to the financiers and monetarists: not. But certainly not to those wishing to faithfully reproduce the classic literary works of such an idiosyncratic genius as Tolkien.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Now Don't Be So Hasty: 3rd Time Still 'Lucky': Premature Reports of The Hobbit film's demise are just that - premature (and grossly exaggerated)
So what keeps drawing me - back and back, and back - ever 'there and back again', to quote J R R Tolkien's well-known phrase, fully utilized by his film adaptors, for Bilbo's adventure to the Lonely Mountain? Some throwback to childish phantasmagoria? An - as yet undiagnosed - case of "OCD", obsessive compulsive disorder, admittedly (if rather subjectively) so attested by a loving sister herself apparently afflicted with selfsame clinically-diagnosed condition? A 'pure and simple' liking, yea love for the (first instalment of the) film adaptation and its medley, its motley array of arguably brilliantly-characterized cast? Plenty of 'time on my hands' and a rather laissez-faire (by which folk tend to mean, laissez-aller) attitude to life, as some other siblings and another close 'relative' would no doubt attest, one calling me once 'a man of leisure'? Some misguided, and doubtless inordinate, desire or determination to defend Sir Peter Jackson & co, and to vindicate their reputations and efforts in their latest masterwork from the usual and all-too-typical jump-upon-the-bandwagon critics and detractors and innumerable other 'antis' presently relishing, and revelling in (and none too unsmugly at that) The Hobbit's failure to confirm even its seemingly meagre nominated share of three 'minor' awards at the recent Oscar's?
Perhaps all of the above - 'with knobs on', as some wags would surely add, 'along with all the rest', as others might say, inferring any number and combination of especially subconscious, subterranean impulses and motivations which invariably goad or prod one in a simultaneous multitude of often mutually-conflicting directions. But, damn it, I can't help myself: it's a damn good film, and even exquisite capturing/ rendering/re-enactment of the essential spirit of Tolkien's now 75-year-old kid's fantasy extraordinaire. Irrespective of the few, and I'll readily concede conspicuous, flaws that a keen reader and devoted admirer of The Hobbit cannot help but see, especially, or so I've found, with each and every subsequent viewing of its cinematic counterpart. Yep, The Hobbit departs, and at times majorly, from the substantial content, 'the guts' of J R R's literary work. But to the gratitude of all those diehard Tolkien fans who likewise relish and appreciate his works' Jacksonesque interpretation, the first film at least manages to adopt, to convey, to encapsulate the very mode, the manner, the style of that selfsame literary gem. And that's all that ultimately really matters. Or as the rotund woman is known to have remarked: "That's all she wrote."
Nevertheless for the sake of that ever-elusive quality of balance and fair play which the modern media pays much lip-service to yet really cares stuff all about, it would be a little remiss to overlook let alone leave unmentioned what strike me as the film's most glaring omissions, incongruities and inconsistencies, and so these will be cited and expounded in my final instalment. My essential premise, my justification for so doing being my admission as follows: yes, in many parts, respects and ways, as is somewhat inevitable with any film adaptation of especially a renowned and much loved literary work, The Hobbit diverges, and then some, from Tolkien's book. And of course this is patently self-evident, the two genres essentially differing so markedly from one another, not least in the ways that time is perceived and experienced, as well as the ways in which a narrator's or (especially) central character's unspoken commentary are re-presented visually. And, again quite understandably, I concede, with *each subsequent viewing, increasingly obscuring one's progressively fainter recall of one's own imaginative 'mock-up' of the original text, a tendency remarked upon at a recent public forum coinciding with the Dunedin, New Zealand premiering of The Hobbit by noted C S Lewis scholar, and founding Tolkien Club member (of one of its Australian chapters) Professor Paul Tankard of the University of Otago in Dunedin. Resulting in the molding, merging and morphing of one's original imaginative understanding into an increasingly 'definitive' idea one assimilates and imbibes and appropriates from the visual film material. To the obvious detriment of that initial, if necessarily inchoate, personal perception one forms and develops further with every new reading.
*Having already seen the film three times, at its Dunedin premiere on the 12th of December in its much-touted High Frame Rate 3D version, a week later as a personal birthday treat in simple 'ole 2D - yet, if anything, enjoyed even more, and lastly in mid-January in 'plain' 3D at the time a whole lot of criticism was being directed anew at the Government's costly financing of the venture. Incidentally the day I (initially) made this new posting coincided with a would-be 4th viewing, again in 2D, if I'd managed to get my act together sufficiently to 'cheer it' off the screen as it rapidly and rather prematurely winds down, at least here in the increasingly sunny south of God's Own. Incidentally, but intriguingly, espying an old newspaper clipping recently I noticed something rather interesting - for film buffs generally but especially for Wingnut Studios/Weta Workshop fans. In either 2000 or 2002, 'each and every kiwi' saw 4 films apiece that year, netting or grossing the New Zealand box office and/or the relevant filmmakers around **$100 million NZ, which even if just translated directly into 2012/2013 dollars would represent a sizeable one-tenth of the Hobbit's internationally-cited nettings/grossings of one billion dollars, last I heard anyhow. So you can see that if each and every New Zealander also saw The Hobbit an average of my own hoped-for 4 times, Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, Taylor et al'd be onto a (financial) winner beyond all description. And through their exceptional talents I'd suggest Aotearoa, in particular our tourism industry, would not be far behind. (**But in today's dollars who knows what the comparable figure might be... .)
Perhaps all of the above - 'with knobs on', as some wags would surely add, 'along with all the rest', as others might say, inferring any number and combination of especially subconscious, subterranean impulses and motivations which invariably goad or prod one in a simultaneous multitude of often mutually-conflicting directions. But, damn it, I can't help myself: it's a damn good film, and even exquisite capturing/ rendering/re-enactment of the essential spirit of Tolkien's now 75-year-old kid's fantasy extraordinaire. Irrespective of the few, and I'll readily concede conspicuous, flaws that a keen reader and devoted admirer of The Hobbit cannot help but see, especially, or so I've found, with each and every subsequent viewing of its cinematic counterpart. Yep, The Hobbit departs, and at times majorly, from the substantial content, 'the guts' of J R R's literary work. But to the gratitude of all those diehard Tolkien fans who likewise relish and appreciate his works' Jacksonesque interpretation, the first film at least manages to adopt, to convey, to encapsulate the very mode, the manner, the style of that selfsame literary gem. And that's all that ultimately really matters. Or as the rotund woman is known to have remarked: "That's all she wrote."
Nevertheless for the sake of that ever-elusive quality of balance and fair play which the modern media pays much lip-service to yet really cares stuff all about, it would be a little remiss to overlook let alone leave unmentioned what strike me as the film's most glaring omissions, incongruities and inconsistencies, and so these will be cited and expounded in my final instalment. My essential premise, my justification for so doing being my admission as follows: yes, in many parts, respects and ways, as is somewhat inevitable with any film adaptation of especially a renowned and much loved literary work, The Hobbit diverges, and then some, from Tolkien's book. And of course this is patently self-evident, the two genres essentially differing so markedly from one another, not least in the ways that time is perceived and experienced, as well as the ways in which a narrator's or (especially) central character's unspoken commentary are re-presented visually. And, again quite understandably, I concede, with *each subsequent viewing, increasingly obscuring one's progressively fainter recall of one's own imaginative 'mock-up' of the original text, a tendency remarked upon at a recent public forum coinciding with the Dunedin, New Zealand premiering of The Hobbit by noted C S Lewis scholar, and founding Tolkien Club member (of one of its Australian chapters) Professor Paul Tankard of the University of Otago in Dunedin. Resulting in the molding, merging and morphing of one's original imaginative understanding into an increasingly 'definitive' idea one assimilates and imbibes and appropriates from the visual film material. To the obvious detriment of that initial, if necessarily inchoate, personal perception one forms and develops further with every new reading.
*Having already seen the film three times, at its Dunedin premiere on the 12th of December in its much-touted High Frame Rate 3D version, a week later as a personal birthday treat in simple 'ole 2D - yet, if anything, enjoyed even more, and lastly in mid-January in 'plain' 3D at the time a whole lot of criticism was being directed anew at the Government's costly financing of the venture. Incidentally the day I (initially) made this new posting coincided with a would-be 4th viewing, again in 2D, if I'd managed to get my act together sufficiently to 'cheer it' off the screen as it rapidly and rather prematurely winds down, at least here in the increasingly sunny south of God's Own. Incidentally, but intriguingly, espying an old newspaper clipping recently I noticed something rather interesting - for film buffs generally but especially for Wingnut Studios/Weta Workshop fans. In either 2000 or 2002, 'each and every kiwi' saw 4 films apiece that year, netting or grossing the New Zealand box office and/or the relevant filmmakers around **$100 million NZ, which even if just translated directly into 2012/2013 dollars would represent a sizeable one-tenth of the Hobbit's internationally-cited nettings/grossings of one billion dollars, last I heard anyhow. So you can see that if each and every New Zealander also saw The Hobbit an average of my own hoped-for 4 times, Jackson, Walsh, Boyens, Taylor et al'd be onto a (financial) winner beyond all description. And through their exceptional talents I'd suggest Aotearoa, in particular our tourism industry, would not be far behind. (**But in today's dollars who knows what the comparable figure might be... .)
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
A Glimpse of Goodness in a Chasm of Ghastliness (#3)
It seems a jinx associated with 'the best laid plans of mice [or muppets] and men' is indeed afflicting me at present, as - who wouldn't have guessed it? - my first (now apparently permanently misplaced/lost somewhere in the cybersphere) posting upon this topic - focusing almost exclusively upon the very reason I began this topic, i.e. the gruesome, grisly events, and national/international reaction, around the gang-raped/(ultimately) murdered (apparently physiology rather than medical) student (as first wrongly reported) - has now in one important sense 'been superseded by subsequent events', as is so often the case. But c'est la vie, as they say, and small bikkies in light of those horrendous events and their even more momentous aftermath, an aftermath now playing out upon the Indian and world stage as the five males involved in said incident are given their initial court hearing. Anyhow, the following represents what, to the best of my ability, was my response to the incredible news reportage on Friday the 4th evening (New Zealand time) that no-one, i.e. no-one in the legal profession, in all of India was apparently prepared to represent said accused. Which would or could hardly surprise anyone remotely acquainted with this horrific case, a case which has evidently, and for obvious, perfectly understandable reasons, galvanized the whole Indian nation as it were, and has certainly propelled it onto the TV screens and front newspaper pages of our world. So let's begin by saying that the aforementioned (see posting #2) epidemic of (especially egregious, gratuitous and intense) violence once again engulfing Planet Earth, showing new footholds being 'gained' and sinister new twists and turns being taken all across our globe - in this new year and even and especially since the Sandy Mount school massacre in the U.S. - has been overshadowed by the ghastly gang-rape and death of this Indian student. And for once, both in the tenor of its approach and the actual contents thereof, the international media, alongside and following its Indian counterpart, has 'stepped up to the mark' and shown its quality; has certainly given it every bit of exposure it necessarily warrants. But firstly vis-a-vis India's legal fraternity (as of last Friday, anyhow.)
ALL POWER, CREDIT AND PRAISE to the Indian legal fraternity who, in an (?internationally)unprecedented action - in light of the appalling nature of the crime - are[were] steadfastly refusing to even countenance legal aid/assistance to the fiends involved, for fiends they surely were. For the brutal cold-blooded gang-rape and prolonged assault - and ultimate killing, nay murder - of an Indian student returning home, presumably, on a bus trip: a woman no doubt otherwise destined for greatness. That is, until this awful tragedy saw her life prematurely cut short. Yet, and for that very reason, in view of the impending vote by the Indian Parliament upon legislation still to be fully drawn up, in a vote that will no doubt now be not only overwhelming, but maybe even unanimous, her - as yet unpublicized - name will doubtless, as already suggested, be 'inscribed' upon it. And thus her name, and hence legacy, indeed because of this very tragedy, is indeed still 'destined for greatness', and will live on in Indians' and womens' lives internationally, as the figurehead/lightning-rod for galvanizing long-delayed action upon womens' treatment in India.
And to those who take deep-seated umbrage at such a suggestion - i.e. of the collective 'waiver' by Indian lawyers of the long-established right of everyone to 'due process', clearly a deeply cherished and integral part of the legal process of Commonwealth jurisdictions such as India founded upon the British justice system and especially its emphasis upon basic, inalienable common rights and privileges - well, in this one instance spare your pompous pontificating for another more appropriate occasion. As with the eruption of do-gooders and other apologists who emerged like proverbial ants/cockroaches following America's capture and/or trial and/or summary execution of such human vermin as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, though their collective voices were strangely resoundingly silent during the respective reigns of terror and/or genocide of said 'gentlemen' either in their own homelands or throughout the world, between (and even before) 1990 through 2011 - learn to appreciate better the place of balance in matters of world justice. I would respectfully suggest that 'your average punter' both here (in the West), there (in India) and indeed everywhere (throughout this celestial orb) has/have a much better intuitive/instinctual grasp and understanding of 'natural justice' than any of your ilk ever will. And indeed for all those who ever reflectively defer to Maori here in God's Own Country, well, have you never heard of the long-established custom, still evidently practised in this 'enlightened' day and age, of 'utu' - commonly understood and *translated as 'revenge' or 'vengeance', but roughly approximating to such ancient notions, whether Western or otherwise, of natural justice.? (*'Revenge or satisfaction' in the 1979 Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary.)
Or would you here implicitly and even unconsciously default to the real, usually unspoken - for obvious reasons - view of so many liberal elitists on this sort of issue, that 'the poor natives' are really somewhat benighted on such matters?; thus displaying the very sort of patronizing, paternalistic dribble that such politicos have invariably attributed to their old-fashioned, out of touch, fuddy-duddy Mother England-boot licking ideological opponents over many generations. But of course the arguments are ever infinitely malleable whenever they happen to serve one's own ideological agenda, eh. Moral relativism personified.
And so to/for all those meddling Western apologists and so-called do-gooders now (if tentatively, for obvious, understandable reasons) crawling out of the woodwork and over one another in their mad scramble to make excuses for/defend the brutal fiends/thugs involved - in response, say, to the inevitable rush, nay probably stampede now, to judgment, of/by Indian lawmakers et al to bring in the death penalty
for said perpetrators, even possibly lowering its ambit perhaps to cater for/to the 12-year-old who apparently/evidently took a leading role in the 'incident' - I, and doubtless (hundreds of) millions (of especially Indians) have but one thing to say (to you): you know nothing, and have no idea whatsoever. And, believe you me, I'm being kind and generous - in the extreme. What right have you to pontificate upon the rights and wrongs of (a) victim/s of such horrific events/happenings? No, really? Unless and until one of your own loved ones undergoes/experiences just such a ghastly sort of thing, you have no right whatsoever to criticize, much less condemn the supposed/alleged 'inhumanity' of those - quite naturally and understandably - crying out for (seemingly heartless) revenge/vengeance.
Nay, for a long-forgotten principle of Western society, simply termed natural justice. Or 'a fair go' in New Zealand's own proverbial vernacular - a 'concept', however, having both 'positive' and 'negative' implications, as the well-publicized trial of Norway's very own, one and only, mass murderer, Anton Breijik Breivik,, showed so well. No, Norwegians generally didn't deem him merely insane, deluded, a mere madman, as so many erroneously and I would suggest scurrilously today likewise denote Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. No, they knew perfectly well what they were doing, and yes, they were downright evil - indeed evil personified in Hitler's (and others') case/s. However unwelcome such an ascription may well be to your hypervigilant sensibilities.
To paraphrase an old and well-known native (American) Indian saying: Don't - you dare - criticize your brother (or sister) until you've walked a mile in his (or her) mocassins. Or to cite a wholly different, supposedly Western, but actually Semitic, tradition: You're walking upon holy, sacred ground. For human beings are indeed sacred (beings), having been made in God's own image, however admittedly defaced that image appears at times Yep, the Good Book declares: whosoever sheds (his fellow human's) blood, by him shall his blood be shed, for in God's own image He made him [i.e. man and woman]. And whether we still live under a theocracy or not - and we patently do not - most people instinctively understand and implicitly agree with such a sentiment; however unnerving and unsettling it may well be to modern ears - including, believe it or otherwise, my own. It just somehow has the ring of truth about it, far above and way beyond our petty human reason(ing)s, however carefully reasoned, intricately developed and speciously articulated.
And if you have a problem with that, I have just one thing to say: take it up with 'the Man Upstairs'.
I hear He's open for business come the fast approaching Judgment Day; and I've heard He not only makes no mistakes - His judgment is flawless - but He tends to have the last word.: upon all of us, myself included!
ALL POWER, CREDIT AND PRAISE to the Indian legal fraternity who, in an (?internationally)unprecedented action - in light of the appalling nature of the crime - are[were] steadfastly refusing to even countenance legal aid/assistance to the fiends involved, for fiends they surely were. For the brutal cold-blooded gang-rape and prolonged assault - and ultimate killing, nay murder - of an Indian student returning home, presumably, on a bus trip: a woman no doubt otherwise destined for greatness. That is, until this awful tragedy saw her life prematurely cut short. Yet, and for that very reason, in view of the impending vote by the Indian Parliament upon legislation still to be fully drawn up, in a vote that will no doubt now be not only overwhelming, but maybe even unanimous, her - as yet unpublicized - name will doubtless, as already suggested, be 'inscribed' upon it. And thus her name, and hence legacy, indeed because of this very tragedy, is indeed still 'destined for greatness', and will live on in Indians' and womens' lives internationally, as the figurehead/lightning-rod for galvanizing long-delayed action upon womens' treatment in India.
And to those who take deep-seated umbrage at such a suggestion - i.e. of the collective 'waiver' by Indian lawyers of the long-established right of everyone to 'due process', clearly a deeply cherished and integral part of the legal process of Commonwealth jurisdictions such as India founded upon the British justice system and especially its emphasis upon basic, inalienable common rights and privileges - well, in this one instance spare your pompous pontificating for another more appropriate occasion. As with the eruption of do-gooders and other apologists who emerged like proverbial ants/cockroaches following America's capture and/or trial and/or summary execution of such human vermin as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, though their collective voices were strangely resoundingly silent during the respective reigns of terror and/or genocide of said 'gentlemen' either in their own homelands or throughout the world, between (and even before) 1990 through 2011 - learn to appreciate better the place of balance in matters of world justice. I would respectfully suggest that 'your average punter' both here (in the West), there (in India) and indeed everywhere (throughout this celestial orb) has/have a much better intuitive/instinctual grasp and understanding of 'natural justice' than any of your ilk ever will. And indeed for all those who ever reflectively defer to Maori here in God's Own Country, well, have you never heard of the long-established custom, still evidently practised in this 'enlightened' day and age, of 'utu' - commonly understood and *translated as 'revenge' or 'vengeance', but roughly approximating to such ancient notions, whether Western or otherwise, of natural justice.? (*'Revenge or satisfaction' in the 1979 Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary.)
Or would you here implicitly and even unconsciously default to the real, usually unspoken - for obvious reasons - view of so many liberal elitists on this sort of issue, that 'the poor natives' are really somewhat benighted on such matters?; thus displaying the very sort of patronizing, paternalistic dribble that such politicos have invariably attributed to their old-fashioned, out of touch, fuddy-duddy Mother England-boot licking ideological opponents over many generations. But of course the arguments are ever infinitely malleable whenever they happen to serve one's own ideological agenda, eh. Moral relativism personified.
And so to/for all those meddling Western apologists and so-called do-gooders now (if tentatively, for obvious, understandable reasons) crawling out of the woodwork and over one another in their mad scramble to make excuses for/defend the brutal fiends/thugs involved - in response, say, to the inevitable rush, nay probably stampede now, to judgment, of/by Indian lawmakers et al to bring in the death penalty
for said perpetrators, even possibly lowering its ambit perhaps to cater for/to the 12-year-old who apparently/evidently took a leading role in the 'incident' - I, and doubtless (hundreds of) millions (of especially Indians) have but one thing to say (to you): you know nothing, and have no idea whatsoever. And, believe you me, I'm being kind and generous - in the extreme. What right have you to pontificate upon the rights and wrongs of (a) victim/s of such horrific events/happenings? No, really? Unless and until one of your own loved ones undergoes/experiences just such a ghastly sort of thing, you have no right whatsoever to criticize, much less condemn the supposed/alleged 'inhumanity' of those - quite naturally and understandably - crying out for (seemingly heartless) revenge/vengeance.
Nay, for a long-forgotten principle of Western society, simply termed natural justice. Or 'a fair go' in New Zealand's own proverbial vernacular - a 'concept', however, having both 'positive' and 'negative' implications, as the well-publicized trial of Norway's very own, one and only, mass murderer, Anton Breijik Breivik,, showed so well. No, Norwegians generally didn't deem him merely insane, deluded, a mere madman, as so many erroneously and I would suggest scurrilously today likewise denote Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. No, they knew perfectly well what they were doing, and yes, they were downright evil - indeed evil personified in Hitler's (and others') case/s. However unwelcome such an ascription may well be to your hypervigilant sensibilities.
To paraphrase an old and well-known native (American) Indian saying: Don't - you dare - criticize your brother (or sister) until you've walked a mile in his (or her) mocassins. Or to cite a wholly different, supposedly Western, but actually Semitic, tradition: You're walking upon holy, sacred ground. For human beings are indeed sacred (beings), having been made in God's own image, however admittedly defaced that image appears at times Yep, the Good Book declares: whosoever sheds (his fellow human's) blood, by him shall his blood be shed, for in God's own image He made him [i.e. man and woman]. And whether we still live under a theocracy or not - and we patently do not - most people instinctively understand and implicitly agree with such a sentiment; however unnerving and unsettling it may well be to modern ears - including, believe it or otherwise, my own. It just somehow has the ring of truth about it, far above and way beyond our petty human reason(ing)s, however carefully reasoned, intricately developed and speciously articulated.
And if you have a problem with that, I have just one thing to say: take it up with 'the Man Upstairs'.
I hear He's open for business come the fast approaching Judgment Day; and I've heard He not only makes no mistakes - His judgment is flawless - but He tends to have the last word.: upon all of us, myself included!
Sunday, January 6, 2013
A Glimpse of Goodness in a Chasm of Ghastliness (#2)
Barely has a new year - and 'post-Apocalyptic era' at that - opened upon humanity than we are once more confronted with how great an oxymoron that word - 'humanity', supposedly representing qualities of empathy, compassion, kindness, understanding and 'fellow feeling' - is. For surely a very real, eminently reasonable and patently indisputable case could well be made that the constantly extolled and repeated - to ad nauseum and far beyond - politically correct to a fault, diatribe force-fed modern 'man' through all manner of mass media, i.e. that homo sapiens is gradually, if ever so imperceptibly, progressing, evolving into ever better and greater things, 'from the goo via the zoo to you' as one wag has put it, is rendered pure mockery every single day - and night - one happens to turn on the TV or radio news. For quite the contrary to this fictitious view of humankind rising ever higher upon the moral scale of worth, we see him, and her, diving ever deeper and more and more inexorably into new, previously unfathomed depths and sewers of depravity, viciousness and sheer evil.
And here I am strictly confining myself to the realm of senseless, heartless, ruthless, merciless violence, brought into clear focus internationally once more by the United States of America - even prior to 2013 or Christmas-time 2012 - in the Sandy Mount, Connecticut primary school massacre. To the point where this morning BBC News disclosed the very real possibility that 'special body armour', i.e. bullet-proof vests, presently being manufactured in Bogota, Columbia, may well soon be made available to American school children. But not alone in the U.S., nor only amidst the dark, daily horrors of Bashar al-Assad's blood-thirsty Syrian regime, nor just among the sporadic but continual suicide bombings and other acts of barbarism witnessed everyday throughout the eastern Middle East is such violence all too evident. Whether against groups of aid workers or courageous fellow citizens including 'minors' or helter-skelter against any and all civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - in addition to the never-ending insurgencies against anyone and everyone suspected of having any links whatsoever to their mortal enemies or religious rivals - in such nations as Pakistan and Iraq we constantly are shown the ugly outbursts of a more than inhuman rage and wrath and seemingly unceasing brutality and callousness and diabolical cruelty. No, even now here in 'God's Own' itself we see - yeah, I accept, on a much lesser scale, but nevertheless - equally barbaric instances of humanity at its worst and most vicious.
Almost simultaneously, though with widely different outcomes, we heard, at the peak of New Year's 'festivities' nationwide, of two 60-some-year-olds, one a community gardener giving back, in a solo fashion, to her fellow Nelsonites at the top of New Zealand's South Island, the other an 'ex-pat' on holiday leave from Australia visiting the North Island's Waihi, merely attempting to blend into the celebratory mode of things, as he naturally assumed, there. Both met, admittedly, much more than their 'match' physically, though infinitely lesser beings on all scales of moral and spiritual worth. Sadly for kith and kin, the 62-year-old woman in Nelson may survive - by the veritable scruff of her neck, apparently - but will doubtless suffer ongoing trauma from her vicious attacker's cowardly assault. However the 64-year-old visitor from Aussie quickly departed this mortal life shortly after the random but all too successful act of ultimate unkindness of his own callous knife-wielding assailant; though his wife managed to fly over to offer some small mercies for his final few hours. As his family noted, Murray Wilkinson was "a selfless, helpless and humble man" -someone who doubtless wouldn't have hurt a fly.
Reminding me once more of someone only too aptly named Lois Dear - who for that reason alone, but also on many other levels, could've actually been my own dear Mum (whose middle name is Louise): a lady who was viciously slain in cold blood in bright middaylight a half dozen years ago. Returning to her classroom out of work hours - as no doubt was her wont - that particular weekend, she was accosted and overcome and brutally mutilated and murdered, senselessly and purposelessly having her earthly existence savagely terminated by a nasty piece of goods - to give him his full due. But oh, yes, I forgot, he was 'high on drugs'. No, he'd lowered himself by that means to the level of a brute, and even supposedly vicious 'beasts' will only act in that manner for dear life's sake, purely in self-defence, never in acts of gratuitous, meaningless brutality.
And yet in light of those tragic facts I should have trouble looking myself in the mirror, let alone snatching nightly shut-eye, for upon hearing of that 'case' I then, and staunchly, resolved to - finally - get off my chuff and actually 'do something about it'. Though long opposed to the very notion of capital punishment, I'm honest enough to increasingly accept and admit that its proponents - in a large number of instances, leaving aside the unavoidable and obviously deeply concerning one of innocent people thus being killed, which 'matter' is in many ways an incontrovertible argument against it, were there no others - are less and less impugnable as the years 'progress'. (But that for another day.) The salient point I'm getting to is that I then determined to take an action every single kiwi has open to us - though the efficacy of such is certainly open to debate: the initiating of a citizen's initiated referendum, upon receipt of the required number of signatures on which the government-of-the-day is legally bound to hold a referendum. (As just alluded to, whether many politicians frankly listen to such is another matter altogether.) But obviously, and despite standing as a candidate for Parliament in the 2008 general election, I've simply never gotten around to following through upon that resolution, much to my self-confessed shame. And despite no doubt having a ready backer in that well known kiwi patriot Norm Withers of Christchurch - whose own dear mum likewise once suffered a brutal if non-fatal attack by a thug.
Ah, the best intentions of mice and men, as they say, though like NZ's own Bret McKenzie of recent Muppet song fame, one ever wishes to see oneself as a man not a muppet. Though as they likewise say, 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', or as that other great NZ patriot John Tamihere might have put it, we need a whole lot "more do-ey and [a whole lot] less hui". And as America's beloved J.F.K. memorably declared, among many memorable utterances: "the only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Nuff said - already.
And here I am strictly confining myself to the realm of senseless, heartless, ruthless, merciless violence, brought into clear focus internationally once more by the United States of America - even prior to 2013 or Christmas-time 2012 - in the Sandy Mount, Connecticut primary school massacre. To the point where this morning BBC News disclosed the very real possibility that 'special body armour', i.e. bullet-proof vests, presently being manufactured in Bogota, Columbia, may well soon be made available to American school children. But not alone in the U.S., nor only amidst the dark, daily horrors of Bashar al-Assad's blood-thirsty Syrian regime, nor just among the sporadic but continual suicide bombings and other acts of barbarism witnessed everyday throughout the eastern Middle East is such violence all too evident. Whether against groups of aid workers or courageous fellow citizens including 'minors' or helter-skelter against any and all civilians who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - in addition to the never-ending insurgencies against anyone and everyone suspected of having any links whatsoever to their mortal enemies or religious rivals - in such nations as Pakistan and Iraq we constantly are shown the ugly outbursts of a more than inhuman rage and wrath and seemingly unceasing brutality and callousness and diabolical cruelty. No, even now here in 'God's Own' itself we see - yeah, I accept, on a much lesser scale, but nevertheless - equally barbaric instances of humanity at its worst and most vicious.
Almost simultaneously, though with widely different outcomes, we heard, at the peak of New Year's 'festivities' nationwide, of two 60-some-year-olds, one a community gardener giving back, in a solo fashion, to her fellow Nelsonites at the top of New Zealand's South Island, the other an 'ex-pat' on holiday leave from Australia visiting the North Island's Waihi, merely attempting to blend into the celebratory mode of things, as he naturally assumed, there. Both met, admittedly, much more than their 'match' physically, though infinitely lesser beings on all scales of moral and spiritual worth. Sadly for kith and kin, the 62-year-old woman in Nelson may survive - by the veritable scruff of her neck, apparently - but will doubtless suffer ongoing trauma from her vicious attacker's cowardly assault. However the 64-year-old visitor from Aussie quickly departed this mortal life shortly after the random but all too successful act of ultimate unkindness of his own callous knife-wielding assailant; though his wife managed to fly over to offer some small mercies for his final few hours. As his family noted, Murray Wilkinson was "a selfless, helpless and humble man" -someone who doubtless wouldn't have hurt a fly.
Reminding me once more of someone only too aptly named Lois Dear - who for that reason alone, but also on many other levels, could've actually been my own dear Mum (whose middle name is Louise): a lady who was viciously slain in cold blood in bright middaylight a half dozen years ago. Returning to her classroom out of work hours - as no doubt was her wont - that particular weekend, she was accosted and overcome and brutally mutilated and murdered, senselessly and purposelessly having her earthly existence savagely terminated by a nasty piece of goods - to give him his full due. But oh, yes, I forgot, he was 'high on drugs'. No, he'd lowered himself by that means to the level of a brute, and even supposedly vicious 'beasts' will only act in that manner for dear life's sake, purely in self-defence, never in acts of gratuitous, meaningless brutality.
And yet in light of those tragic facts I should have trouble looking myself in the mirror, let alone snatching nightly shut-eye, for upon hearing of that 'case' I then, and staunchly, resolved to - finally - get off my chuff and actually 'do something about it'. Though long opposed to the very notion of capital punishment, I'm honest enough to increasingly accept and admit that its proponents - in a large number of instances, leaving aside the unavoidable and obviously deeply concerning one of innocent people thus being killed, which 'matter' is in many ways an incontrovertible argument against it, were there no others - are less and less impugnable as the years 'progress'. (But that for another day.) The salient point I'm getting to is that I then determined to take an action every single kiwi has open to us - though the efficacy of such is certainly open to debate: the initiating of a citizen's initiated referendum, upon receipt of the required number of signatures on which the government-of-the-day is legally bound to hold a referendum. (As just alluded to, whether many politicians frankly listen to such is another matter altogether.) But obviously, and despite standing as a candidate for Parliament in the 2008 general election, I've simply never gotten around to following through upon that resolution, much to my self-confessed shame. And despite no doubt having a ready backer in that well known kiwi patriot Norm Withers of Christchurch - whose own dear mum likewise once suffered a brutal if non-fatal attack by a thug.
Ah, the best intentions of mice and men, as they say, though like NZ's own Bret McKenzie of recent Muppet song fame, one ever wishes to see oneself as a man not a muppet. Though as they likewise say, 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating', or as that other great NZ patriot John Tamihere might have put it, we need a whole lot "more do-ey and [a whole lot] less hui". And as America's beloved J.F.K. memorably declared, among many memorable utterances: "the only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." Nuff said - already.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)