Showing posts with label Movie/Cinema. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie/Cinema. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

It is the "reel" that impacts the "real".



Does art imitate life? Or the other way around? Or do they reinforce each other as in resonance?

This has been a much-discussed topic. I say: it is the "reel" that impacts the "real".

This is because: the visual medium is very strong. We may read something or hear something. But when the same disgusting, regressive and negative aspects are projected on the big and small screens relentlessly and then glorified (however subtly) - it makes a huge impact. When such things become a trend, they become the harbingers of... and bring about (negative and regressive) cultural changes: changes in perception, thinking and behaviour; which in turn results in the glorification of machismo and a forcibly advocated subdued position of women. [Though our big-and-small-screen-worthies have been happily propagating such negative stuff under the garb of 'our ancient culture and tradition'.]

Glorification of violent and regressive behaviour on the big screen, especially by big heroes (who act as the reference point or idols for a large chunk of the population) - gives it social acceptance. This is indisputable.

Remember: It has always been far easier to bring about negative change than positive ones... since the former creates formidable vested interests. 

Therefore, when filmmakers quip that films have also been talking about peace, amity and communal harmony... but that doesn't mean that communal discord has been wiped off India - they are simply trying to skirt and/or deflect the issue, by deftly defending the role played by the big screen - in bringing things to such a pass. 

'Coz: It is much easier to think and behave in a negative or regressive manner with the female of the species than to bring about peace in society. And it is much easier to resort to crude language and lewd gestures, or to indulge in domestic violence et al than to bring about communal harmony. [However, if the regressive, misogynist and negative values (as propounded by the big and small screens) were to be curbed, or at least were to be largely curtailed, it will undoubtedly contribute towards peace in society and in our lives - but this will take years rather generations to happen, provided there is an all-round sustained effort in that direction. Changing negative mindset/perception is not easy. There is no switch that can be turned-off.]

One must also examine the films depicting peace, amity and communal harmony, viz: 

1.   How many such films are there? And how many of them depict these noble virtues in a pristine manner? 

2.  What percentage of each of these films are dedicated to these noble aspects, and what chunk of the same films are occupied by "other narrative", including jingoistic and violent behaviour; regressive values, gestures and dialogues - especially with respect to women; misogynist jokes; crude demeanor of the hero (the male lead/star/super-star/mega-star); depiction of women as objects of titillation - including raunchy 'item numbers' and 'songs' with crude and suggestive lyrics... and the like.]

Trust me, once we take a closer look at our films, including the ones supposedly propagating noble virtues, doodh ka doodh aur paani ka paani ho jayega. :)

[The role of the small-screen too should not be ignored. Their reach and impact is equally powerful - and has been utilized to the hilt.]

Granted, that one or two films will not make much of a difference. However, if such regressive films depicting women in a derogatory manner become a trend, they bring about a (negative) change in perception and alter mindset - without much ado.

For example: If big heroes are shown slapping or demeaning women, such behaviour gets the seal of social acceptance. If dialogues like, 'only a husband has the right to beat his wife' gets woven into the narrative, and is then mouthed by big heroes, they make a powerful impact - albeit a negative one. Ditto - if big heroes/stars glorify machismo as something that is naturally ordained, and propagate the subjugation of women as part of 'our ancient culture and tradition'.

Once these toxic aspects are injected into society, they result in negative mindset and negative perception. These in turn bring about regressive cultural changes that also include violent behaviour towards women. Rolling back such poisonous aspects is a Herculean task; it will take hundreds of years + sustained efforts throughout. Are we up for it?

The big and small screens have a huge impact on the society and on our lives - whether we acknowledge this or not. They are the major vehicles or channels for creating mindset and perceptions; and have been used to the hilt.

The last four decades have been particularly nasty, and has had a very negative impact on society; despite huge hits having been delivered, mass heroes garlanded, and umpteen jubilees celebrated. Prior to that, negativities have been injected in small doses (possibly as a "warm up" exercise). E.g. a harmless looking old man (usually playing the role of a respectable family elder or a learned school master) sagely blames women - for all disputes or unhappiness within a family and/or society. Or stresses on how 'in their times' women did this or that - and thereby 'upheld our ancient customs and traditions'. There were references to the 'western clothes' (jeans, trousers) worn by loose/immoral women - the ones that did not 'uphold our ancient customs and traditions' - by wearing those 'western clothes'. However, nothing has ever been said about the jeans and trousers worn by the men-folk on screen and all over the country. Umm, were/are these not 'western clothes' then? :)

The tone and tenor of the dialogues, the slant of the scripts, the demeanour of the heroes et al has been very different in the last four decades. Contrast this to say Shammi Kapoor in his heydays. You notice the difference, don't you?

Also: if we are to rewind a few years (rather: decades) and trace the etymology of the obnoxious behaviour displayed by a certain section of society (like ricksha-wallas, bus drivers, mechanics et al) - towards women and their other passengers, we can trace them all to the impact of the big screen. More specifically, to the on-screen shenanigans of much-garlanded "mass heroes" and their glorification of such behaviour (via their on-screen demeanor and crude dialogues.)

This section of society (ricksha-wallas, bus drivers, mechanics, and the like) take pride in watching "first-day first-show", love to display posters and stickers of their favourite heroes, and try to imitate their matinee idols' on-screen style and behaviour. Sadly, this trend has not only endured but continues to this day via regional films and serials. [Yes, the small screen does play its part. Diligently.]

Women coming out of homes will not make much of a difference; so long there is no negative and/or disgusting perception(s) about them.

Misogynist jokes and dialogues, "item numbers", regressive advertisements et al are just part of this whole game of creating negative mindsets. Do scrutinize the regressive dialogues, crude and misogynist jokes and clichés; so-called comedy and laughter shows (once again filled with clichés + misogynist jokes), and the negative body language of big heroes and comedy show participants. The message sent out is relentless, besides being extremely potent.

And all of these - things/aspects/behaviour - catch on very fast and very easily. Undoing them is a Herculean task though.

Incidentally: many people try to point towards the restrictive societies and then innocently ask (in an effort to absolve the big screen no doubt) - as to how come rape and violence against women are rampant within restrictive societies as well.

The answer is: these restrictive societies (where rape and violence against women is rampant) have always been not only restrictive, but violent too. These societies have essentially been savage societies; though members of these societies may have now gained greater influence through certain means, their ancestors have always been barbaric people that mistreated their women, buried them alive, coveted other people's spouses and forcibly took them away. These societies have always treated women as dirt; as nothing more than child-bearing machines. So the cultural influence has always been there, and hence, such regressive perception and disgusting behaviour vis-à-vis women is de rigueur.

As for 'item numbers' (including suggestive body language and gyrations), the heroine or the female swaying to such 'songs' is of course partly responsible - for their impact. However, the ones that insist on incorporating such repulsive stuff should shoulder the lion's share of the responsibility; the onus lies on them, since they are the ones that supply the Vitamin M.

Plus: 'item girls' - unless they are big names/heroines, are NOT role models. Neither are the villains.

Hence: the major impact-makers are the big heroes; the big male leads/stars/super-stars/mega-stars/the matinee-idols/the screen gods. 'Coz, they are the role models/idols for a large chunk of the population and so, their on-screen shenanigans (dubbed and celebrated as herogiri) are the reference points - for their legions of worshiping fans.

Regressive aspects, negative values and violence - once glamorized by these big heroes/stars - automatically give all of it the cloak of respectability... and thence, instant social acceptance.

However, the focus should also be on the ones supplying the Vitamin M, besides on the ones penning such sad dialogues and lyrics, as well as on the ones directing such drivel.

"Patriarchy" per se is not to be blamed, since it does not have a life of its own. It is the caliber and quality of men that has fallen sharply.

Relationships and intimacy has been so degraded that retrieving it is practically impossible. What kind of words and phrases has become part of our psyche and our vocabulary? How do we think and/or view certain events, or rather have become accustomed to thinking and viewing them?

Rape and violence has been injected in such a manner, and in such large doses, that we have been completely de-sensitized. We do not even blink: when daughters and sisters are raped by their fathers/uncles/brothers! Strangely: either the 'debate' is firmly steered towards the "victims' clothing" or is centred on the "victim having ventured out at night"... and hence having "asked for it"...! Always.

Surely, a sister or a daughter never "asks for it" from her father, uncle or brother, right?

And a baby, a toddler, a little girl or the elderly too does not "ask for it" - from anyone. Is it not?

Rape is a heinous crime. Yet the perception has been successfully created that it is the victim that is somehow to be blamed. So: the rapists' faces are covered to 'protect their identity' while the victim is ostracized. Else: a debate is initiated about the feasibility of punishment or the rapist being a "juvenile". Someone capable of committing such a horrendous crime is a "juvenile", how odd is that?

We come across lots of instances of guys fighting over girls in colleges and localities. And this violent behaviour and regressive mentality (of viewing girls as objects) can be traced to the deluge of movies that have gloried violence and such negative behaviour.

It is not about venturing out at night, since these incidents are happening at all times - 24/7. It is not about clothes either: since babies, toddlers, little girls and senior citizens are being regularly molested and raped, even by their close relatives.

It is not about alcohol too, since no drunken man has ever lain in the middle of the road. So they clearly retain their senses and faculties sufficiently enough, don't you think?

It is not about subjugation of women or women's empowerment per se.

It is about what is being done under this garb. If a woman sheds clothes, mouths strange dialogues, does suggestive dance numbers, or 'acts' in nothing-left-to-the-imagination bedroom scenes - all of it is hailed and labeled as "liberated", "bold", "daring", "glamorous", "empowered" and so on

So you see?

It is a double-edged sword; the impact - both ways - is detrimental for women in general... and society - in particular. [In light of what has been done to words/phrases/perceptions/gestures like: "bold", "daring", "liberated", and the like... families will not even think of providing the necessary wherewithal to their daughters - so that they can become truly "empowered" or "liberated". And what do you think all this will eventually lead to?]

Recently, there were a couple of ads: one was about 'whitening' a certain area of the body - to make one look much more 'attractive' to the male of the species; another was about 'feeling like a virgin' - after undergoing a certain procedure. Women were being used to depict these strange concepts, and both these ads worked under the garb of "women's empowerment"...!

So?

A fairly recent mega-buck-grossing 'super-hit' has the pumped-up hero mouthing: "pyaar se de rahe hain rakh lo, warna thappad maar ke bhi de sakte hain."

Implying: the woman should be grateful, since the man is giving something nicely/politely, 'coz he always has the right to slap - the "thappad". [The concerned female is shown blushing and thereafter a love affair ensues...!]

What values are being conveyed and what mindset nourished? And where is all this leading?

Here's a heroine-speak: "If a particular song-dance sequence shows a woman being stalked and wooed by a bunch of men in a playful and romantic manner and she is enjoying the attention that she is getting then it in no way sends out a wrong signal."

Need I say more?

BTW: these days we also have someone claiming to have "revered women" since his childhood - via interviews in various newspapers. Bhatt naturally...!!

And a certain super-duper-mega-star became a much fawned-over "matinee idol" through a specific brand of cinema. What kind of cinema do you think this man with the carefully cultivated gentleman image has been a willing part of? And what impact did those films have on society? I mean: what has been the lasting legacy of all those fiery dialogues and gestures?

Picture: Courtesy link.

Saturday, December 8, 2012

The Code of the Woosters by P.G. Wodehouse



"He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled, so I tactfully changed the subject."

Words from Bertie to describe Jeeves' reaction re his lack of enthusiasm about going on a Round-The-World cruise. Needless to say, Jeeves has been trying his bestest to get Bertie to go, even procuring some literature from the Travel Bureau... and attempting to give it to him (instead of the morning paper). I mean: right after Bertie has downed one of Jeeves' miraculous 'Worcester Sauce' and has had the top of his skull fly up to the ceiling and back, and right after he has barely retrieved his eyeballs (after they had shot out of their sockets and rebounded from the opposite wall like racquet balls) and replaced them in position.

"... if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled..."

Classic.

The Code of the Woosters is a novel by P. G. Wodehouse, first published on 7 October 1938, in the United Kingdom by Herbert Jenkins, London, and in the United States by Doubleday, Doran, New York. It was serialized in The Saturday Evening Post (US) from 16 July to 3 September 1938 and in the London Daily Mail from 14 September to 6 October 1938.

This is my fourth full-length novel (after 'Thank You, Jeeves', 'Right Ho, Jeeves' and 'Joy in the Morning') featuring two of Wodehouse's best-known creations, Bertie Wooster and his gentleman's gentleman - the inimitable Jeeves. ['Carry On, Jeeves' consisted of 10 short stories that made for a delicious hors d'oeuvre.]

Actually, it's good that I read 'Right Ho, Jeeves' before venturing into reading this one; 'coz it is a sort of continuation of the Gussie Fink-Nottle and the Madeline Basset saga.

And since the 'Code of the Woosters' is to never let a pal down, Bertie always finds himself totally involved.

Maybe: the Woosters have never heard of PayPal. Or probably think that the considerably high-quality Wooster chickens won't come home to roost - ever. 

Gussie, as you know is Bertie's fish-faced pal and the world's leading authority on newts (and their love life). Here he is conducting an experiment: trying to study the effects of a full moon on newts... and their love life. Apparently: the guy newts wiggle their tails at the gal newts.

Methinks: once Gussie and the proponent of 'stars-are-god's-daisy-chain' (Madeline Basset) are married, they can conduct yet more experiments - together. This time: about the effects of the stars on newts and their love life. They can then spend hours together - gazing lovingly at newts and talking about them.

What a match! Made in heaven, no doubt.

However, in this novel we encounter a much self-assured and confident Gussie: one who is totally unlike his orange-juice guzzling nervous avatar that we encountered in 'Right Ho, Jeeves'. I mean: the one whose orange-juice had to be spiked with lots of gin for him to be able to make a speech in front of some schoolboys and their guardians. Or for him to be able to tell Madeline what he thinks and feels about her.

This new-found self-assurance is courtesy Jeeves' priceless advice, which Gussie follows diligently by first thinking up and then noting down the many character failings of people like the sly Sir Watkyn Bassett and the bulldoggish Roderick Spode - in excruciating detail (in a small, leather-bound notebook).

Unfortunately, while extracting a fly out of (Sir Watkyn's young niece) Stephanie 'Stiffy' Byng's eye, he (unwittingly) drops this precious notebook, which first lands in Stiffy's not-so-safe hands and then finds it's way elsewhere - including lodging itself inside a prized silver 'cow-creamer'. 

Incidentally, Madeline sees Gussie extracting that fly (out of Stiffy Byng's eyes) and then catches him again, this time: when he is innocently searching Stiffy's stocking (while they were adorning her legs!) - for that precious notebook. Result: she instantly calls off their wedding (on both occasions), and decides to 'make Bertie happy' instead.

Bertie manages to keep his composure and pleads Gussie's cause - in all earnestness.

In this novel, there are three covert operations: 1. Operation 'pinch the silver cow-creamer' (or else Uncle Tom loses out on a prized collector's item, or worse: Aunt Dahlia (and by extension Bertie) has to let go of that French culinary maestro Anatole and bid goodbye to his culinary wonders forever.) 2. Operation 'pinch the policeman's helmet' (else Stiffy's wedding plans with Harold 'Stinker' Pinker will come a cropper.) 3. And the most important operation of all: Operation 'to somehow recover a certain leather-covered notebook' (before it falls into the clutches of Sir Watkyn or Roderick Spode.)

And as fate would have it, Bertie finds himself to be a part (rather, at the centre) of all the three operations, thanks to his generous spirit, friendly disposition and gallant, chivalrous nature.

Its another matter though that he has to depend on Jeeves' supreme fish-powered intellect - in order to extricate himself from all sorts of tangle(s) including from being scaffolded, lynched, or engaged (by a sudden quirk of fate).

There is an implied operation too: Bertie's attempts to keep both Madeline and Stiffy at bay and thus safeguard his free-spirited bachelorhood.

Bertie has in fact arrived at Totleigh Towers to achieve a couple of tasks: 1. To swiftly patch up the sudden rupture in the engagement of Gussie and Madeline Bassett. [Gussie has sent him urgent summons.] 2. The recovery of the 'cow-creamer' - which is now being zealously guarded by the hulky Roderick Spode besides a local police constable.

How did Bertie land himself with task # 2?

Well, his (favourite) Aunt Dahlia browbeat him into it. She first sought his help - to dupe an antique dealer into selling an 18th-century 'cow-creamer' - to adorn Uncle Tom's collection. Failing which, he was then asked to show some sleight of hand (and feet) and recover it from right under the nose of Sir Watkyn. [The latter has audaciously duped the good Uncle Tom by employing some underhanded tactics involving lobsters and cold cucumbers; gained possession of the 'cow-creamer' (ahead of Uncle Tom) and then spirited it away to Totleigh Towers. ...And has been diligently guarding it ever since.]

Bertie isn't too keen about taking on the 'responsibility' of recovering that cow-creamer though. However, Aunt Dahlia surmounts all of his vehement protestations by being most un-dahlia-like. She dangles the culinary magic that her French Master-chef Anatole conjures up (and to which Bertie is devoted to) as bait - by threatening to sever his standing invitation to her place (for a meal).

The way to a man's heart is through his stomach. Indeed.

The major characters: apart from Aunt Dahlia, Uncle Tom, Gussie, Madeline (and of course Bertie and Jeeves), we get to meet: Sir Watkyn Bassett, Roderick Spode, Stephanie 'Stiffy' Byng, the Rev. Harold 'Stinker' Pinker, Sir Watkyn's butler - Butterfield, Constable Eustace Oates, Stiffy's dog - Bartholomew, and the mysterious 'Eulalie'.

The scenes are set in Totleigh Towers - owned by Sir Watkyn Bassett (who is now engaged to marry Roderick Spode's aunt.) Harold is the local curate (and an old pal of Bertie's.) Roderick Spode is the leader of a fascist organization called the Saviours of Britain. Bartholomew (the dog) causes Bertie to sail onto the top of a chest of drawers - like an eagle, and Jeeves to climb onto to a cupboard - like a swallow. Even something as innocuous as an umbrella makes its presence felt. However, the mere mention of 'Eulalie' thwarts the big-built and intimidating Spode and stops him on his tracks.

As to: what 'Eulalie' is - do read this delightful book to find out. I won't play the spoiler.

My twopenceworth: The manner in which Stiffy and Bertie give Sir Watkyn apoplexy and much else - reminds me of the Hrishikesh Mukherjee-directed evergreen classic: 'Golmaal'. There: Utpal Dutt's character, Bhavanishankar, has shades of Sir Watkyn; the irreverent Lakshmanprasad - played by Amol Palekar (in a double role) - displays some Bertie-like hues, while Urmila (essayed by Bindiya Goswami) may fit into the role of a desi Stiffy Byng.

Do read this book and then watch the movie - if in doubt.

Even the manner in which Bertie and his Aunt Dahlia first try to thwart Sir Watkyn and Constable Oates' combined attempt to search Bertie's room in their quest to find the elusive police helmet; and then make light of the whole incident (after the butler, Butterfield, arrives with it on a silver platter: having recovered it from the flowerbed right outside Bertie's window) - reminds me of the delightful and much-watched Bangla movie 'Basanto Bilap'.

This Dinen Gupta-directed 1973 classic stars Soumitra Chattopadhyay and Aparna Sen. The rest of the cast comprises of very competent actors like: Sumitra Mukherjee, Kajol Gupta, Sibani Bose, Kanika Majumdar, Amarnath Mukhopadhyay, Gita De, Tarun Kumar, Shyam Laha, Haridhan Mukherjee, Bankim Ghosh, and Bengal's evergreen trio of fun and laughter: Robi Ghosh, Anup Kumar and Chinmoy Roy.

Soumitro (as the boisterous, slightly impish Shyamsundar Bose) works at a bank. His closest friends are: Robi Ghosh, Anup Kumar (as Lalit aka Lalu) and Chinmoy (as Siddhartha aka Sidhu). There is Aparna (as the feisty Anuradha Singha) and friends (Sumitra, Kajol, Sibani and others.)

Do watch the movie to figure out what I mean. Hint: watch out for the morning after the poster-pasting adventure scene, when some people turn up demanding that their ladder and bucket - be returned forthwith; and the boys (Soumitro, Robi, Anup and Chinmoy) are happily asleep after all the previous night's 'hard work'.

[Both - the ladder and the bucket - was lost the previous night, as a collateral to the poster-pasting adventure, thanks to Anup Kumar's comic zeal: which caused him to trip over the sleeping hostel maid. The latter awoke, created a ruckus and endeavoured to catch him. Everyone, including some neighbours wake up too; in the melee Anup and gang barely manage to escape, leaving the ladder behind. They tackle the hostel guard by dumping the gum-filled bucket over his head.]

My verdict: The Code of the Woosters runs through 14 chapters and 286 pages. As usual, it makes for a breezy read. There is a lot of interplay between Jeeves and Bertie, so enjoy! [Do try to read Right Ho, Jeeves before this one, that way you will know the background better.]

The production quality of the book is good, barely any editing errors (one perhaps, if at all).

The book jacket cover is in a (sort of) parrot green and blue combo. PG Wodehouse appears in a lighter shade of purple, The Code of the Woosters appears in black. The effect is muted and rightly so, 'coz it allows for the figure on the cover (with a torn painting adorning his neck) to grab our attention - instantly. It is the one and only Bertie Wooster - without a shadow of doubt. [Actually: he has had a painting smashed on his head, yet not seeing stars! Bertie is superhuman indeed. :)]

Plus: I thought that Jeeves had politely objected to and then ensured that there were no facial hair on Bertie except for eyebrows and eyelashes. But I see a mustache. [Probably Jeeves was on a longish vacation.]

Frankly: the cover reminded me of Tintin and one of his adventures: where there's a painting of Captain Haddock's look-alike ancestor - Sir Francis Haddock (who lived in the reign of Charles the Second.) It is: 'The Secret of The Unicorn' - I think.

In his zeal to demonstrate to Tintin and Snowy the swashbuckling exploits of his illustrious ancestor (vis-à-vis the dreaded pirate - Red Rackham) as animatedly as he could, Captain Haddock downs several bottles of rum and with a cutlass in hand proceeds to enact it all. At the end of it, he takes a tumble and proclaims 'victory' (Red Rackham lies dead! With a yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum !) By then, Sir Francis Haddock's torn portrait has engulfed his happy face.

I really loved reading 'The Code of the Woosters'. Especially because: it gave me an opportunity to venture into Soumitro territory. I am now hoping that at least one of the remaining ones will gift me with an opportunity to write about Gregory Peck too. :)

Santa Claus - are you listening?

Btw, Wodehouse has a fascination for Archimedes and his famous whoop: Eureka. He is also a Charles Dickens fan - with a particular fondness for 'A Tale of Two Cities' (as can be understood from several references to Sidney Carton). Wodehouse is very likely a fan of Tintin and Captain Haddock and by extension, of their Belgian creator: Hergé as well. 

However: Since Jeeves is a sharp legal-eagle minus the briefcase, I would have been most keen to know his views on Fido Dido In retail. After all: the big print giveth and the fine print taketh away. And I would have also loved to know his take on the 'inbhestment' climate in Didi's Poschimbongo apart from the sudden SPoon-Elep'hunt' tango to the tune of 'Kejri Re...' :)

Or about the new species of evolved human discovered @ the Gardens of Eden: Dhonicus Cricketus X-Mas Giftus. 


Details of the book: The Code of the Woosters/ Author: P.G. Wodehouse/ Publisher: Arrow, an imprint of Random House/ Binding: Paperback/ Publishing Date: 01/07/2008/ Genre: Classics/ ISBN-10: 978-0-09-951375-9/ ISBN-13: 9780099513759 / Pages: 296/ Price: $19.95

Picture: The book jacket cover of The Code of the Woosters. Courtesy: link.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Right Ho, Jeeves by P.G. Wodehouse



Onto my third Jeeves and Bertie novel, this one is titled: Right Ho, Jeeves.

It is a Jeeves novel by P.G. Wodehouse, first published in the United Kingdom on October 5, 1934 by Herbert Jenkins, London, and in the United States on October 15, 1934 by Little, Brown and Company, Boston, under the title: Brinkley Manor. Before being published as a book, it had been sold to the Saturday Evening Post, in which it appeared in serial form (from December 23, 1933 to January 27, 1934), and in England in the Grand Magazine, from April to September 1934.

Right Ho, Jeeves is mostly set in Brinkley Court, the home of Bertie's Aunt Dahlia. She is his favourite aunt. That the French culinary virtuoso, Anatole, is her resident cook and rustles up culinary (fork-and-spoon-licking) delights several times a day, contributes handsomely towards Aunt Dahlia retaining her position as Bertie's numero uno aunt. [She isn't Dahlia-like though, by any stretch of imagination.]

Right Ho, Jeeves is the sequel to Thank You, Jeeves.

A host of characters; some new (for moi at least), while to some we have already said hello to, greet us in this novel: Augustus Fink-Nottle, Hildebrand Glossop, Aunt Dahlia, Uncle Tom, Angela Travers (Bertie's cousin), Madeline Bassett and the (masterchefly speaking) French maestro - Anatole, apart from Bertie and Jeeves of course, make up the major ones.

[This Uncle Tom is not to be confused with that Uncle Tom - the one with a cabin. This Uncle Tom is Tom Travers, Aunt Dahlia's better half-cum-ATM machine and father of Angela. Umm, instead of ATM machine, perhaps Venture Capital would be a better term. 'Coz Uncle Tom has clearly ventured into becoming her sole supplier of Capital.]

Augustus Fink-Nottle and Hildebrand Glossop are childhood chums of Bertram Wooster. They went to school together. However, each of them is as different from the other as can be imagined.

Augustus Fink-Nottle is better known as Gussie, and despite sharing one half of his name with Augustus Caesar; he is not even half as swashbuckling. Sporting horn-rimmed glasses and bestowed with a fish-like visage, he is the world's foremost authority on newts. [Only newts, not Gingrich. :)]

Gussie is in love with the proponent of stars-are-god's-daisy-chain - the droopy Madeline Bassett, but is too timid to tell her. Worse, all he guzzles is orange juice. And Bertie is a firm believer in the fortifying powers of stronger juices, like: rum, whiskey, gin, and so forth. The young Wooster is convinced that certain situations require stronger stuff (in the stomach) so as to get the required derring-do.

That is: he simply does not believe that a man can ask a woman to be his - on the strength of orange juice alone. Geoffrey Chaucer would have undoubtedly approved of such sentiments, and may have penned a few pieces in support of it as well, if only he were able to transcend time and space. I mean: if only he could overcome death, the afterlife and hundreds of centuries. But since he could not, Bertie had to soldier on alone... [To the precursor of the orange juice: Oranges of the World, Unite!]

Hildebrand Glossop (mind you: Hildebrand and not Hilfiger) is better known as Tuppy Glossop. Umm, I never knew Tuppy could be the name, or even the pet-name, of anyone belonging to the human species. It's more suited for our piscine friends, don't you think? E.g. Guppy and Tuppy could easily be the names of a pair of Goldfish, what?

Nevertheless, Hildebrand Glossop aka Tuppy Glossop is built like a pit-bull (with the mindset/tenacity to match) and has more jaw than he requires. He spends his time playing football (in summer) and tennis (in winter).

Tuppy is a true connoisseur of food, good food, and has (unknown to him) acquired a double chin. He also thinks that a shark is nothing but a flatfish. Now, what this double-chin-and-flatfish business leads to, you'll have to read the book to find out.

All I would share is: there are some rather mind-blowing and mind-numbing cross-connections, if you know what I mean. And our dear Bertie features in all of them, whether he likes it or not. [After all: he is gallant or so he thinks!]

Btw, in this novel Bertie has developed some rather overblown and utterly flattering notions about what resides between his ears. And this has also led him to take a dim view of Jeeves' until-now sparking intelligence. So much so, that he is convinced that Jeeves has lost his touch. Although a certain white mess jacket with brass buttons may have played a significant role in the scheme of things.

In this novel, Jeeves not only continues to 'shimmer in and out of rooms', but has also developed the unobtrusive eel-like manner of vanishing. ... And the (in)famous 'Worcester Sauce' makes its appearance several times.

Jeeves had been advising Gussie regarding his matters of the heart, but once Bertie returns to London, after having spent several weeks in Cannes in the sunny company of his dear Aunt Dahlia and her daughter Angela, he decides to take matters into his own hands. And so, Bertram Wooster embarks on a fool-proof (or so he believes) little plan of his own - to bring Madeline and Gussie together.

Now, what makes Bertie take matters into his own hands?

Well, Bertie discovers that Jeeves had advised the tongue-tied and soulful Gussie to impersonate Mephistopheles - in order to impress the rather soppy Madeline Basset. But, what does Gussie - donning scarlet tights and a false beard - do? Well, get hold of the book and read all you can. :)

Verdict: Right Ho, Jeeves is actually one story, a single story that runs through 23 chapters and 290 pages. The chapters are short and given the nature of the book, you will simply sail through them. Like Carry on, Jeeves and Thank You, Jeeves, this one too is an any-time, all-weather read. There isn't much interplay between Jeeves and Bertie here, since Bertie decides to take Jeeves off the case, remember? But whatever is there makes for good fun. Bertie, Gussie, Tuppy, Angela, Aunt Dahlia and Madeline Basset provide the rest, the fun part that is. [However, the interplay between Jeeves and Bertie is far more here, than what we find in the prequel, Thank You, Jeeves.]

The production quality of the book is good, and I don't quite recall any editing errors, so either they do not exist or are negligible.

The book jacket cover is in purple and yellow. PG Wodehouse appears in (some shade of) fluorescent yellow. Right Ho, Jeeves appears in white. Quite nice and prominent, must say. There is a figure (clad in a checked suit) enthusiastically addressing an audience. It belongs to: Augustus Fink-Nottle aka Gussie.

Here's why: Thanks to his innate guile and a rare stroke of 'salesmanship', Bertie manages to wriggle out of the difficult (read: frightening, for him) task of distributing the school prizes at the local grammar school and delivering a speech. His Aunt Dahlia had successfully put him in that predicament. But Bertie sends Gussie instead, on the pretext that a great speech from him will further his case with Madeline. However, Bertie is also fully 'conscious' of his 'responsibilities' as a friend, and so decides to embolden Gussie by spiking his orange juice. Circumstances conspire to ensure that Gussie ends up imbibing more gin than Bertie had ever intended.

And therefore, what we see on the cover is an overtly-happy-and-bold Gussie delivering a gin-powered speech to his audience (at the grammar school). What follows next (?) - well, read the book to find that out, or simply re-read it. :)   

My tuppyence worth: There are several treats for the discerning reader. Uncle Tom muttering about Civilization and melting-pots, and a few observations about the French/Gauls, albeit nicely routed through the culinary maestro - Anatole; all part of the unmistakable clever Wodehousian satire. There's more actually.

However, what I had suspected earlier but can now fully confirm, is this: Bertram Wooster is a fan of Agatha Christie and Sherlock Holmes. Meaning: P.G. Wodehouse is a fan of Agatha Christie and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

In fact, P.G. Wodehouse is a very big fan of Sherlock Holmes. Why? Well, even Jeeves talks about Holmes, admiringly! Guess that's Plum's way of doffing his hat. [Why Agatha Christie? Bertie's formidable Aunt Agatha, remember?]

P.G. Wodehouse has inspired a lot of our own greats too. Ruskin Bond is clearly one.

And after having found 'Mephistopheles' here, I am convinced that the great Bengali author Narayan Gangopadhyay too has tipped his hat to Plum. [Though Bengalis aren't known to wear hats.]

Narayan Gangopadhyay's evergreen creation Tenida of "Charmurti" and Potoldanga fame yells: "De la grandi Mephistopheles, yak yak!" 

It is the signature Tenida whoop and signifies: there's light at the end of every tunnel. Or in other words: Tenida's dimaag ki batti has come up with something.

[Charmurti = roughly translated: four musketeers and Potoldanga = an imaginary place, from where Tenida hails.]

'Tenida' (aka Bhojohori Mukherjee) is the leader of a gang of inadvertently naughty adolescent boys: 'Kyabla' (aka Kushal Mitra), 'Pyalaram' (aka Kamalesh Banerji) and 'Habul' (aka Swarnendu Sen).

Bengalis have a patented word for 'para bratulas' - the unmatched 'Rockbaj'. [Para = neighbourhood or locality. Bratula = brat + dracula, i.e. impishly naughty.] 

Tenida and gang don't quite fall into this category though, 'coz they are harmlessly naughty.

The suffix "da" (short for "Dada") means 'elder brother' in Bangla, and not the lumpen elements of aamchi Mumbai, mind you. "Da" is also a sort of honorific, used to address an older unrelated male. It essentially signifies: respect.

Some of these classic and immensely enjoyable stories have been translated into English, so the non-Bangla-speaking world too can now savour some of these delights, although the flavour may be somewhat altered. In the English translations, it is Teni the Terrible, Pyalaram the Puny, Habul the Hungry and Kyabla the Clever.

Nevertheless, what I am sure of is: these stories are worth several readings, altered flavour or not.

In his salad days, Bertie had saved the good Wooster name by conjuring up a long-winded one, during one of his run-ins with a policeman.

I found this bit in the much-watched 1971 Bangla classic "Chaddobeshi", where Uttam Kumar's character (disguised as a driver in his own brother-in-law's house!) tells the (possibly) UP-ite policeman that his name is Pundorikakkho Purokayashtho. This tongue-twister of a name saves him from being fined (for parking violation!)

Hrishikesh Mukherjee later remade this superhit and enduring romantic-comedy in Hindi - in 1975; it's titled, "Chupke Chupke". Starring Dharmendra (reprising Uttam Kumar's role), Sharmila Tagore, Amitabh Bachchan, Jaya Bachchan, Om Prakash, Lily Chakraborty, David, Asrani and Keshto Mukherjee, it too was a big hit and continues to charm. [The Agradoot-directed "Chaddobeshi" starred Uttam Kumar, Madhabi Mukherjee, Subhendu Chatterjee, Bikash Ray, Tarun Kumar and Jahar Ray, among others.]

So, thank you Plum for providing inspiration for great characters, books and even cinema.


Details of the book: Right Ho, Jeeves/ Author: P.G. Wodehouse/ Publisher: Arrow, an imprint of Random House/ Binding: Paperback/ Publishing Date: 01/07/2008/ Genre: Classics/ ISBN-10: 978-0-09-951374-2/ ISBN-13: 9780099513742/ Pages: 290/ Price: $19.95

Picture: The book jacket cover of Right Ho, Jeeves. Courtesy: link.