.LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 89. LEARNING FROM THE MOVIES

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

89. LEARNING FROM THE MOVIES

Well, popular novels and stories are made into films,with varying results. But does any movie make us turn to the books and stories?

A successful movie with an interesting story may induce us to take up the book. But any good depiction of a literary theme may rekindle interest in old literature.

One such movie I remember is Renaissance Man ( also called Army Intelligence somewhere).1994.

Theatrical Release poster. Used here for illustration .

 Bill Rago, a senior advertisement executive runs out of business. Not wishing to remain idle, he secures temporary employment as an  instructor in an army training school, teaching a bunch of good-for- nothing nuts English language and comprehension! These trainees are considered low on intelligence, not at all interested , and it is doubtful how literate they are!

Struggling to connect with them and arouse their interest, he quotes from Hamlet, his favourite Shakespearean play, to not much effect. In a brilliant flash, he assigns to each cadet  a character in the play and makes him read the lines! This sparks some interest. He takes them to live performances. He even talks to them about Henry V.

He has only 6 weeks on his assignment, but sets up a test at the end of it, against the 'wiser' counsel of the establishment, which doubts that any one would pass.

Then one day, the drill master provokes a trainee in front of every one; this cadet in full uniform and pouring rain, surprises everyone by reciting  in full the St.Crispin's Day speech from Shakespeare's play,Henry V! The cadets all pass the test brilliantly.

Rago receives a salute from the soldiers on graduation day. He decides to remain a teacher in the army school!

St.Crispin's Day Speech

This is one of the most famous speeches from Shakespeare. The English are fighting the French. Duke of Westmorland, one of the military advisers doubts the capacity of the English soldiers, and wishes there had been ten thousand more.  King Henry V  disagrees, and makes this speech to his troops, to inspire them. It is a long one, but worth reading in full.

Westmoreland

Oh, that we now had here

One ten thousand of those men in England

That do no work today.

King Henry

What's he that wishes so?

My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin.

If we are marked to die, we are enough 

To do our country loss; and if to live

The fewer men, the greater share of honour.

God's will, I pray thee wish not one more man.

By Jove, I am not covetous for gold

Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;

It yearns me not if men my garments wear;

Such outward things dwell not in my desires.

But if it be a sin to covet honour,

I am the most offending soul alive.

No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.

God's peace, I would not lose so great an honour

As one more man, methinks, would share from me,

For the best hope I have. Oh, do not wish one more.

Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,

That he, which hath no stomach to this fight,

Let him depart. His passport shall be made,

And crowns for convoy put into his purse.

We would not die in that man's company

That fears his fellowship to die with us.

This day is called feast of  Crispian.

He that outlives this day and comes safe home,

Will stand o' tiptoe when the day is named

And rouse him at the name of Crispian.

He that shall see this day, and live old age,

Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours

And say, "Tomorrow is Saint Crispian".

Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,

And say, "These wounds I had on Crispin's Day".

Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot

But he'll remember with advantages

What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,

Familiar in his mouth as household words,

Harry the King, Bedford, and Exeter,

Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,

Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.

This story shall the good man teach his son,

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by

From this day to the ending of the world

But we in it shall be remembered-

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he today that sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition;

And gentlemen in England now abed

Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,

And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

From: Henry V, Act  IV, Scene,iii., lines 17-69

If a dull cadet could learn this by heart without compulsion, just on the inspiration of the teacher, what must be the calibre of the teacher?  How grand that   that a cine-screen writer could think of such a situation! What must be the general level of education of the audience to be able to hear such literary recital in a mainline movie! Do we not honour Shakespeare enough, if only we listen, unable to learn it by heart? Is there any other easy way of honouring our greats?

(Note: I  reproduced this speech in full on purpose. There is one Tamil drama called "Manonmaneeyam" by one P. Sundaram Pillai, written a century ago. It is praised as a high work. In that too occurs a speech on the war front. Those who read this speech of King Henry will easily recognise the Tamil work as having borrowed from this heavily- without acknowledgement!)

How to teach-  Language,Literature, Music, anything!

This movie also illustrates a great secret about teaching. Teaching  language typically starts with the alphabets. They begin music with the notes- sa, re, ga, ma, etc. This has seemed to me to be the most  Idiotic way of going about the business. Do children pick up speaking by learning the alphabets? do they pick up the jingles and rhymes on the TV by learning the swaras? When they like a song, do they not learn it on their own? The way to teach is to make the person interested in the thing. He will then learn on his own! He will himself seek resolution of the difficulties he faces. Of course, all of us are not interested in all the things. Any subject can be a vehicle of promoting knowledge and intelligence. We make youngsters dull by teaching them too many subjects and testing them in things they don't like- and they probably don't need in, or for, life! 

Language teaching should begin with literature; music teaching should begin with good songs. In the olden days, most learned people were illiterate! They had scribes to record what they had to say! Even today, how many children can tell stories on their own! Sing on their own! What have alphabets and notations to do with learning, really? They may come later, not in the beginning. 

Above all, real teaching is not teaching a subject. It is about making a man- or woman! This is what we see here, in 'Renaissance Man'. This is what we saw in 'To Sir, With Love.' There , the teacher tells the boys and girls, all unruly, that since in a few months they are going to enter the world, he would treat them as adults right then! With that stroke , he has imparted them the most important lesson in the school of life: responsibility for the self!

Who is a teacher?

The academic world runs on formal qualifications for teachers-  B.Ed. M.Phil, PhD,and what not. We see that once a qualification is formally prescribed, it is obtained as a routine. Yet, how may of these degree holders can really teach?

This is another lesson 'Renaissance Man' teaches. Bill Rago is not qualified as a teacher. But he makes military cadets appreciate and read Shakespeare! In the movie, he talks on Hamlet. They were sparkling. Of course, it was the work of the screen writer- but he too was not a professional teacher!  And he must really have studied Hamlet and 'seen' something in it! (Unfortunately, I have not been able get those beautiful lines.) Teaching is a great art- and it comes to some, naturally! Likewise, in 'To Sir', the 'Sir' is an engineer,out of employment and he teaches unruly boys and turns them into adults. He succeeded, where professional teachers before him failed! It shows he was a natural teacher.

Natural teachers don't - don't have to- teach formally. For them, any situation can be made a teaching/ learning situation. Most of us have learned- imbibed- many things from parents, peers, friends. For good or bad they have all been our teachers.Teaching does not always, or all of it, take place in the confines of the class room.Nor does learning occur there, necessarily.



There are two aspects even to formal teaching. One is to convey something- formal knowledge, organised information etc. The second is to ignite the spark in the student. The first is instruction, the second is teaching proper. Most formal teaching is mere instruction, not very lively or interesting. This is what makes most students skip classes, or teachers. This is what makes subjects dull. It is found that this takes place even in some famed institutions. Recently Harvard created a scandal by clandestinely monitoring students who skipped classes!

Instruction is important too. It conveys basic information and essential knowledge, especially at the lower stages. But higher learning is possible only when the mind of the student is lit up- his soul has to be touched by something more than information. Consciously or other wise great teachers carry some spiritual weight or authority. They connect us with something other than the ordinary- a higher or deeper dimension of life . Real teaching is to make the student touch or connect with his self. He experiences himself anew. This is what Rago does. The actor seems to be living his role. There is nothing filmy about it.

Critics are crooks

I was sad to know that this movie did not receive favourable reviews. The critics have crooked vision, if at all. They ask : how is Shakespeare relevant to the military trainees? Well, how is Shakespeare or Milton or Wordsworth or even Obama relevant to us? Life will go on with or without them! But what kind of life? A literary genius is the fruit of a living culture, and they are the light of the future. They nourish the mind and soul. Politicians press the people for military service and one day the whole thing looks absurd,and sad. A soldier will get discharged one day- all his military  training and combat skill useless in the battle of life. This is where Shakespeare is more relevant. He will make the man in the soldier realise that in the great drama of life, one of his roles has ended, and another begun!

The critic raises this question because he is connected to the medium and has missed its message. He is evaluating the movie as movie, and is not connecting it to life. I would even question whether he is connected to life,either!


It is difficult to say by what standards do the critics judge. I am reminded of what Alexander Pope wrote in " An Essay on Criticism".(1711)

'Tis hard to say, if greater want of skill
Appear in writing or in judging ill;
But, of the two, less dang'rous is th' offence
To tire our patience, than mislead our sense.

Ten censure wrong for one who writes amiss;

In Poets as true genius is but rare,
True Taste as seldom is the critic's share;

Let such teach others who themselves excel,
And censure freely who have written well.
Authors are partial to their wit,'tis true,
But are not Critics to their judgment too?

Alexander Pope.
Michael Dahl [Public Domain] via Wikimedia Commons.

The movie may not meet all  standards of technical excellence,as movies go,  but it is not as bad as some critics may say and thus 'mislead our sense'. The normal viewer does not go to judge its technicalities, but to view and enjoy the story and its development, as delineated by the artists. The problem  for Rago is want of a job; the problem with the cadets is their inability and unwillingness to learn.Rago solves the cadets' problem, making them all interested in learning, and he himself settles down to teach in the military school. Thus the dull cadets become eager learners; a business executive is transformed into a teacher; and both events occur due to the human spirit, not due to  any executive strategy or the rigid military discipline. Is this not a great message for humanity? If a critic cannot appreciate this, is he human?  

I don't go by the logic of the box office. Sometimes, significant events get overshadowed by more glamorous ones. Aldous Huxley died on the same day as John Kennedy. Kennedy event hogged all attention. But in the long run, what did Kennedy contribute to humanity, compared to Huxley?

Aldous Huxley. Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons



Renaissance Man can only be watched as  a movie- it is on the You Tube. 

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 82. ENJOYING READING

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND  DELIGHT

82. ENJOYING READING

We live in times when there is a theory about everything. There is lot of literature on how to read, what to read, and why, and so on. Like in most things, no one theory is right. There are as many ways as there are readers.

Reading for pleasure or ?

One factor is basic: whether we read for pleasure, or for some more serious purpose, such as  formal study. In our school days, over half a century ago, the two rather coincided: the syllabus was small, the teachers were good- most knew the poems by heart and their teaching was like mono acting. They obviously enjoyed what they were doing. When the teacher taught us the Friar's speech in Romeo and Juliet, beginning " I will be brief, for my short date of breath", we felt the teacher might break down any moment-such was the intensity of his feeling. Who could then say we were just learning for passing an exam? 

In teaching Tamil poems, the teachers would first 'sing' it- ie recite it in an appropriate tune, then recite it without the tune but with the rhyme and other features unbroken, then read it with the compound words duly split to make the meaning clear. By the time he finished it, most of us would have learned it by heart! There were teachers who could not finish a poem in the whole period- the teacher for the next 'period' would adjust . Unfortunately, we had such rules as four periods in the morning session, each period dealing with one subject, etc. We would be happy that the maths period was over, or the science class, but would feel distressed when an interesting topic in history or literature had to be interrupted because the period was 'over'. Some days the teachers would be inspired and one word or suggestion would lead them on and on- they and we would forget everything. Not that every teacher was like this, but why judge anything by the bad specimen?

So we 'learned' how to read, we were not taught.

For the prose, we were made to read the  paras by turns. The teacher would correct us. Most boys could not do it . But we tried and learned. But this was such a small part of the whole- hardly two periods a week- about 90 minutes! 

Serious reading on our own started in college. There were nice essays by mostly renowned writers and we would read, analyse and discuss- but with an eye on the exam.

But in the last half century, things have become businesslike. Syllabuses are heavy, there is too much to read, too little time or leisure to absorb, study of language and literature has become a mere formality- it is all gone through as a chore. Where is the idea of pleasure at all?

Should Shakespeare be read?

Shakespeare we know was primarily drama- but we could only read it as poetry- everything was poetry for us! But we did not simply read; there was lot of visualisation. I think this has done us good in the long run.

Had we seen the play enacted, our image would have been affected by the actor's appearance and mannerisms. I don't see how any actor, however great, could portray a Hamlet or Macbeth or Lady Macbeth. Was Hamlet feigning madness or had he really gone mad? We see there are so many interpretations- we can imagine or visualise all , depending on our mood and deepening understanding over the years. I for one feel that 'reading' Shakespeare is more rewarding than witnessing a play enacted. 

Reading here does not mean just going through the words- it is creating a mental image: in fact, the image forms of itself- we  only have not to interfere!

The amount and depth of scholarship on the subject is simply incredible. Every edition has something in it- alas, we have such limited time and capacity to understand and appreciate!

The "Complete Works"  of Shakespeare by the Royal Shakespeare Company (2008) has a great instruction on how to 'read' Shakespeare. In his preface, Michael Boyd, Artistic Director of the Company writes:

There is an extent to which you shouldn't 'read' the book at all, but rather speak the parts out loud. You need to imagine the use of space, time, pitch,and rhythm as well as the (sometimes) unspoken voice of the audience, that are all essential to the realization of  what the scripts imply. They were not written as literature and should not be 'read' as such.

It is true they were not written as literature- ie for merely reading. But they are great literature-the greatest in the English language!.

Mahabharata!

The mind jumps to our own books- like the Mahabharata. It was never 'read' ie studied in the olden days, our own younger days.  A learned man recited it aloud,in an assembly, big or small, in the appropriate metre and tune, and explained the meaning. It would bring in a lot of other things- comparison with other characters from other books, similar thoughts and quotations, songs, etc. It was a complete mono-acting performance, often to the accompaniment of musical instruments.It contained all the features that Boyd has indicated! It was an experience to sit through a session like this.

The Mahabharata  is a unique book-it is an unfinished book. Each one of us has to write 'finis' in our own way- some of the questions raised will have to be answered by each one of us in our own way! No character is either black or white, wholly! We know some characters are born evil- they could not change. Duryodhana for instance says he knows what is right- he cannot do it; he knows what is wrong- but he can't avoid doing it; there is an inner compulsion which he has to obey! What do you do with such a character? Was he a mere tool in the hands of fate  or the gods- as the Greeks would have it? We pity his helplessness, as much as we hate his cruelties and misdeeds. Yudhishthira is the very image of dharma- righteousness- but some of the things he does are plain hideous- like staking  the common wife after he lost himself in the game of dice! Though he is the embodiment of dharma, he does not win our wholehearted affection. We feel he did not apply his mind to practical situations, and interpreted dharma in his own way! (After all, this is what every one else does too, !) Bhishma is a venerable figure- but he sides with the wrong party knowing that they are wrong! He does not act when Draupadi is sought to be disrobed in the assembly! How can you fully like him? Bhima is mighty- but mighty in his cruelty too. But he alone among the five brothers has a really tender heart for Draupadi- he cares for her feelings and protects her personally. You see such tenderness in such unexpected corners! You are really moved! Aswathama is such a despicable figure- killing the five Pandava princes when they are asleep- an act despised even by the born evil doer-his master Duryodhana; yet Draupadi does not want him killed- she has such a motherly heart that in spite of her own suffering , she does not want the mother of Aswathama to undergo the same suffering- the loss of her son!  She is thus a mother to other mothers too! And we have Kunti, who prays to the Lord: 'Lord, whenever we had suffering, you came to protect us. Give me more suffering if that will get us your company!' How many of us can pray like that! Above all, we have the lingering doubt: could not Krishna have prevented the holocaust, if he really intended it? Was it that in this instance, evil would not end , except with the end of the evil doers? Who can answer? Such is the complex beauty of Mahabharata. Only a traditional  pravachanam could do justice. A dramatic portrayal , or Cinema or TV shows would be like a caricature.It would show people as black or white- not as they are portrayed in the Itihasa. However individual episodes have always been depicted in dance and drama, as also in the movies. 

We can surely agree with Michael Boyd that such things are not meant to be 'read'! We feel so happy, and also humble when we get such nice tips! There is such a universal touch in the appreciation of literature! Why should physical or linguistic geography be allowed to interfere with the reign of the mind?