Funny Minister!

Politics is not funny - not for those involved nor for those who watch! Politics is ugly, a drain, a necessary evil - the descriptions are endless.

Why then, is political satire so wonderful? Unlike other popular subjects of humour, the popularity of a political satire is directly proportional to the amount of truth in it! The closer it is to reality, the more it makes you laugh!!

My earliest memory of political satire (at least the kind I understood) is cartoon strips by a writer called Satya, in the tamil political magazine ‘Thuglak’. It probably helped Satya, that the editor of the magazine - Cho Ramaswamy, is the king of political satire himself!!

But popular media like movies and rarely TV serials approached politics with seriousness. Politicians were usually portrayed as callous and corrupt men, whose job descriptions included lying, smooth-talking, leering at women in general, raping the hero’s sister (who existed in the movie solely for this) and after having sufficient fun, dying a violent death at the hands of the hero of the movie.

TV serials were even worse. In the days of DD, almost no serial touched upon politics or politicians. Even the daily news was sanitized and doubled up as Travel and Living channel, showing the PM’s latest visit to a foreign country.

I remember that my father used to watch this series called ‘Yes Minister’ late at night (or it was probably 9 or 10 pm, which, at that time was late night to me). My father would keep smiling throughout the episode and the laugh track would play to provide important cues. I was really young and loved showing off my intelligence. But although I tried really hard, I simply could not:

a. Read large books without pictures.

b. Understand a word of ‘Yes Minister’ or ‘Bodyline’.

Later a hindi version of the series also played on TV, called Ji Mantriji. It was then I realized that the issue was not only with the language but also the content. I gave up trying to watch the series and concentrated on the simpler ones.

After more than 2 decades, my cousin mentioned Yes Minister in passing. I was abroad with access to all types of American and British sitcoms. During these years, I had also become a fanatic follower of PG Wodehouse and fallen head-over-heels in love with the works of other British writers like Douglas Adams. I realized that the time had at last come to watch one of the most beloved series of Britain. I finally got the DVDs from Netflix, but could still not watch them then, for (wo)man only proposes, it is God who disposes!! I later watched the series months later. And this time, I was on a roll. I managed to finish all the 3 seasons.

Yes Minister is a series about the newly appointed cabinet minister for the Department of Administrative Affairs (DAA)- a fictional department, Jim Hacker and his daily struggle to carry out his responsibilities against the face of opposition (usually) from the Permanent Secretary - Humphrey Appleby. Stuck between the two is Principal Private Secretary, Bernard Woolley whose loyalty towards the minister is often in conflict with the need to grow in his career of a civil servant.

Throughout the series, Appleby instructs Bernard on the duties of a minister and that of a civil servant. He strongly believes that most ministers effectively govern for 2 years. The first year and a half is spent by the minister in getting a grip on running the government and in coming to terms with the appalling state of the economy (which is hidden from the public and the opposition). The last year and a half is to ensure that status quo is maintained, since getting re-elected and not public welfare is the priority. Effectively the remaining 2 years are the only ones where ministers can govern.

The civil servants on the other hand, are the ones that actually run the government, since they are permanent. Ministers exist to create policies and civil servants are the ones to execute them.

The great things about the series are too many to be written in a paragraph (also, I tend to digress and ramble more when I write in paragraphs!!), so here is my MS-Powerpoint experience at play:

a. Top-notch performances by the lead actors - Paul Eddigton as the well-meaning but confused, publicity loving Hacker suits the role perfectly. (Sir) Nigel Hawthorne as Humphrey Appleby is an absolute delight to watch and hear. The richness of his English and his six-sigma diction is like a breath of fresh air - it is like after listening to non-stop ‘hits’ of Kumar Sanu, you suddenly hear a song in Mohd. Rafi’s inimitable honey-soaked voice!! It is like a feast after a famine!! Let me stop here before my comparisons get more cheesy!! Derek Fowlds as Bernard Woolley is superb and his role is more difficult than those of Hacker and Appleby, since he speaks very little. But when he does, it is so funny that you tend to remember the lines long after the episode ends.

b. Dialogues - What can I say about the dialogues? Terms like razor-sharp, witty, funny etc., seem so trite compared to the awesomeness of the lines. Each of the principal characters has a distinct style of speaking and the writing reflects that wonderfully. (I need to keep a tab on the number of ‘wonderful’s and ‘awesome’s in this post!!). Hacker is a graduate of economics but is notorious for mixing metaphors. The funniest lines occur when Bernard takes a worried Hacker’s mixed metaphors literally and provides explanations on why they cannot be right.

(*Hacker - You have sent me into a typhoon without an umbrella!

Bernard - An umbrella is no use in a wind..

Hacker - Shut up Bernard !!

* Hacker - “Now, listen. I want you to go through the Whip’s office to get to the backbenchers and to the central house, to put a stop to this thing before it starts.”

Bernard Woolley: “I’m awfully sorry to quibble again minister, but you can’t actually stop something before it starts.” (from the episode The Writing on the Wall))

Appleby’s language is aimed at confusing Hacker (not that it is very difficult). His language is circuitous, flowery and usually meaningless. As a rule, he truthfully (mostly) answers Hacker’s questions, and Hacker can get true information, if he asks the right questions!!

The fun here stems from the difference in the way Hacker and Appleby speak - some quotes:

*Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, I have something to say to you which you may not like to hear.

James Hacker: Why should today be any different?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Minister, the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those whose experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the more onerous duties and profound deliberations which are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted position.

James Hacker: I wonder what made you think I didn’t want to hear that?
* Jim: Who else is in this department?

Sir Humphrey: Well briefly sir I am the Permanent Undersecretary of State known as the Permanent Secretary, Wooley here is your Principle Private Secretary I too have a Principle Private Secretary, and he is the Principle Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary, directly responsible to me are ten Deputy Secretaries, eighty-seven Undersecretaries and two hundred and nineteen assistant secretaries, directly responsible to the Principle Private Secretaries are Plain Private Secretaries, and the Prime Minister will be appointing two Parliamentary Undersecretaries and you will be appointing your own Parliamentary Private Secretary.

Jim: Can they all type?

Sir Humphrey: None of us can type Minister, Mrs McKay types, she’s the secretary.

c. Plot - Every episode is complete in itself and can be viewed separately. Most of the episodes end with usually Appleby saying ‘Yes Minister’, smugly or grudgingly depending on whether he succeeds in having his way or has to accede defeat to Hacker (rare, but happens in a few instances).

I am now looking forward to watching ‘Yes Prime Minister’ next, where Jim Hacker becomes the PM and Humphrey Appleby is elevated in ranks to Cabinet Secretary.The then PM of Britain, Margaret Thatcher was supposedly a big fan of the series. The series was enjoyed by both the public and the politicians. Funnily enough both parties (Labour and Conservative) thought the joke was on the other party although the authors Sir Anthony Jay and Jonathan Lyn were careful not to mention or point to any party specifically!!

After enjoying the series immensely, I chanced upon the book version of the series and now am reading the book. Unlike the TV series, the book is presented as excerpts from Jim Hacker’s diary. Interspersed are memos of Humphrey Appleby (which like all good civil servants, are always written on the margins of a paper, even if the paper is empty) and supposed interviews with Bernard Woolley later. This obviously makes the book funnier in some ways. The TV series depended on the actors abilities (well-placed, I have to admit) to elevate it to a different level altogether, while the book allows for a lot of interjections and comments by the authors and other assorted characters (much like my comments such as this one!). I am mid-way through the book and I thought I owed some explanation to my bursting out laughing during lunch at my desk, although most of you reading this would not have noticed it !!

Note: Some of the quotes were from one of the following sources:

www.somaliaonline.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/6/13223

www.uta.fi/FAST/BIE/BI1/khyesmin.html

www.yes-minister.com/ymseas2b.htm

What you leave behind..

My mother tells me often, that her Chemistry Lab Assistant in college, would frequently tell her (my mother) that her workplace in the lab was an indication of how her kitchen would look.

Coming to think of it, the condition of a place after a person has left it is a better indicator of the person than when she/he was resident there. As many mystery novelists will tell you, many criminals gain important information about you by going over what you leave behind inside the ATM room than by what you keep in your purse. Police world-over have discovered important clues from the scene of crime because the perpetrator of a crime supposedly leaves behind something about himself almost always.

Forget such grand things. I recently moved to my new space in a new office that is closer to the city than the previous one. I picked one of the deserted places and moved in. Well, partially moved in, because the draws here are still full of papers, including wedding invitations dating back to 2005 and 2003. It is possible that the junk does not entirely belong to the previous occupant, but is a legacy passed on over generations.

As a result of the junk, my belongings are still in my car although it has been more than 3 months since I moved in. I have not yet had the heart or inclination to clean up the junk or to throw away the papers, since somewhere deep inside, I am worried that these papers may mean a lot to someone else (plus I hate cleaning in general and cleaning others mess in particular!!).

Interestingly I am faced with a similar situation at home. After a short spell at a different locality with my brother and his wife, we have moved back to our old home. Our last tenant has vacated the house, on paper. But the remains of his life here stare at us from every corner of the house - from the poster of Mickey Mouse, to the rusted flower-vase on the stair-case, from the completely ignored and extremely dirty balcony (which he and his family never entered in the entire 1.5 years!!), to two boxes full of junk (to us) and a gas stove on the loft. As if these were not enough, he has also left behind the broken front portion of the car in the parking slot, where it serves as a threat to my car every day. His cupboards and study table had decorated the shared parking lot till last week.

When I first vacated a house in the US, I left behind some old furniture, simply because I did not know at that time, what to do with them. I thought I was doing a favour to the house owner - not only was I vacating his apartment, I was leaving free stuff for him !! The house-owner obviously did not think so!! As a result, my initial deposit was never returned, since moving the furniture out was considered part of the cleaning expenses.

Now, thinking about the drawer full of junk papers and the stuff we had in our house till a week back, I understand what a frustrating experience it must have been for the next occupant to find my stuff lying in the apartment. What may be memories to me, are just garbage to him! I know what I think about the tenant and the previous occupant(s) of the seat at workplace and I really do not want anyone to think the same about me!!

Entering a kitchen which resembles a town ravaged by a hurricane (yes, I have seen one!!), thanks to the previous cook, with all the jars of salt, pepper, chilli powder, the lighter, multiple plates, ladles and pans etc on the kitchen-counter turns me off completely. As a result, I strictly follow a simple rule - replace something immediately after use (it is also because I have zero trust on my memory to do it later!!).

Extending it to the workplace, a clean table gives a good impression to the others. A clean drawer is not only an indicator of an organized mind, but also shows that you are considerate. I am not known as the most organized or cleanliness conscious person in the world. But I frequently check my drawers to check the papers that I have accumulated so far and throw away most of them. This practice is more to make place for really important things than to keep the place clean. This also helps when you have to move to a different location, as you do not have to clean up the desk again, since everything is important.

So, leave behind good memories if possible. Take the other things with you or throw them in the trash before leaving. Do this as a favour and the next occupant’s blessings will be with you!

Bizarre is Funny!!

Now all of you- Ok, Most of you- Forget it, some of you know how I love funny stuff; about how I rave about PG Wodehouse, Kalki, Devan, Douglas Adams and Sujatha.

I envy these people who can make others laugh. It is the MOST difficult thing in life, don’t you think? With entertainment overload, two things have become very difficult for creators of any kind:

a. Scaring People - Fiction has almost lost all its ability to evoke fear these days for reality is scarier almost all the time!

b. Making people laugh - Now there are channels dedicated to comedy, but people are just weary. They watch it like they watch news. Forget making you laugh, many of the funny sequences don’t even make you smile!!

There was a time when a clown could make people laugh merely by slipping on a banana peel. Then talkies came and comedians spoke smart dialogues to make people laugh. Later one guy started hitting another and people laughed and after that one guy constantly got hit by others and people laughed. It takes a different kind of genius to make people laugh (and it requires a little less ego on my part to actually laugh at a joke )!!

Different things make us laugh at different times. One thing that made us laugh when we were kids seems extremely annoying when we turn into adults (and I am assuming this happens sooner or later in all our lives, although for some later than some others !!). On the contrary, some things that seemed pointless or sometimes even sad, may make you laugh a few years then on.

Bizarre and weird stuff may make us wonder, or may scare us, but very rarely they are also funny. Of late, I see myself drawn more and more to such twisted humour. Here are 3 such movies, where the bizarre situations make you laugh in spite of yourself.

a. Arsenic and Old Lace -

For a lot of us, who have always associated death/murder/torture etc with gloom (which it actually is!!), a movie where they are used to comic effect is actually a pleasant surprise. I am not talking about movies/books, where the situation is sad or gory and one takes pleasure in that, for that would only mean the person is some kind of a sadist.

The 1944 film Arsenic and Old Lace is a good example. This stars my other favourite hero of B&W English Movies - Cary Grant (the first one being James Stewart). Remarkably handsome, Cary Grant was great in comedy too. He, like John Cleese, was wonderfully funny with his facial contortions and physical humour.

Arsenic and Old Lace is the story of Mortimer Brewster and his two ’sweet’ aunts Abby and Martha. Mortimer, a chronic bachelor, finally falls in love and gets married to Elaine Harper, his neighbour. Mortimer and Elaine return home to get ready for their honeymoon to Niagara. While visiting his aunts he finds a corpse and thinks his crazy brother Teddy (who thinks he is Theodore Roosevelt) is responsible. He tells his aunts that his brother must be hospitalized before he kills more people. The women explain to him that they and not Teddy were responsible for the murder. In fact they consider the murder an act of charity towards the elderly and lonely gentleman! They go on to reveal that they have already murdered 12 other lonely people by poisoning their wine with arsenic and a few other poisons!! All the corpses have been buried in the basement, where Teddy thinks he is digging the ‘Panama Canal’. Matters are further complicated when Mortimer’s long lost brother - the cruel murderer Jonathan and his accomplice arrive at the house to dump their latest murder victim.

If you thought the plot sounded more like that of a murder mystery or a slasher flick, you need to definitely watch the movie. It is a laugh riot from start to finish!! The aunts are adorable and the Teddy character is insanely funny! All actors seem to have realized that they are a part of a madcap comedy and have shed all inhibitions and are happily crazy - a must for any comedy movie)!!

b. Ek Chalis ki last local - This is a 2007 Hindi film. This is one of the best dark comedies to have been made in Bollywood (a long long time after Kundan Shah’s brilliant Jaane bhi do yaaro)!! This movie once again proves that Abhay Deol is one of the most dependable actors in Hindi cinema. Say what you want about his acting skills etc, his choice of roles is simply superb and unmatched. Look at his list so far and you will find that every movie is unique!! Neha Dhupia is a mystery woman in Hindi cinema. She is not beautiful, she cannot act much, but she features in most of the offbeat movies in Hindi cinema!

Ek Chalis ki last local, is the story of Nilesh, a call center executive, who misses that last local train (at, what else, 1:40 am) and has to while his time away till the first train in the morning. He meets Madhu (Neha Dhupia) who has also missed the train and both decide to loiter around till dawn. The people they meet, the experiences they undergo form the rest of the story. Trust me, it is very hard to describe the story as it is a series of incidents and every time you think you have figured out what is going to happen next, you are thrown a surprise twist!! If your mind is as twisted as mine, you are likely to enjoy this movie!!

c. No Smoking - Well, how do I even begin to describe this movie! This 2007 movie by Anurag Kashyap cannot be explained at all. Many film-buffs read a lot of philosophy in the movie. People found subtexts for each scene. The news about the movie, more than the movie itself created so much hype, that I was a little intimidated by it all.

I am known for being a complete knucklehead when it comes to ‘intellectual’ movies. My rants against unintelligible pseudo-intellectual climax-less french movies are well known (among a couple of cousins!). But a cousin who knew something about me recommended this movie. Added to this motivation was the fact that I had watched AK’s Black Friday and thought it was simply brilliant. If a moviemaker could turn a facts based book on the Mumbai riots into a gripping movie, it surely meant he had a lot of promise!!

As I started watching No Smoking, I decided to clear my mind from all preconceived notions about the movie and its stars. Frankly I am not a fan of John Abraham - for his looks or his ‘acting’ talent!! I thoroughly enjoyed the movie!! Seriously, I had initially thought (from the title) that the movie was about the evils of smoking but the movie took me by surprise of the pleasant variety!! I could almost visualize AK convincing the producers about the ‘moral’ of the movie, all the while laughing evilly to himself!! I even remember the interviews by John Abraham prior to the release of the movie - how the story impressed him and how it was ‘not preachy’ but still had a moral!! Who knows what he understood of the story when it was narrated to him!! Maybe he understood it all and he was part of the con or maybe he didn’t understand anything and simply surrendered to the director’s will!!

The end of the movie was a little confusing, but overall the movie was very engaging and funny. If I tell you the parts I found funny, you may recommend a psychiatrist for me! Seriously the fact that one of the punishments for smoking include cutting off the person’s finger. If that sounds cruel on paper, you have to see it on screen!! Ranvir Shourey, that superbly spontaneous actor plays Abbas Tyrewala and there is a B&W sequence (titled ‘Kyon ki bachpan bhi kabhi naughty tha’) involving John and Ranvir, supposedly in their teen-age, that is wickedly funny!

Much as I try to describe how much these movies made me laugh, it is difficult to express it all in words. Try watching them and don’t blame me, if you don’t like them, because I warned you, somewhere in the post, that my mind is growing more and more twisted these days!!