The Revenant and Heroes

Hugh Glass gobbles up a raw fish; he bites into a piece of still warm raw bison liver and vomits right into it; a grizzly bear rips his flesh, leaving his bones visible; he pulls out the entrails of a dead horse and then snuggles into the carcass to keep himself warm. There are steep falls; animals and men torn to the barest. 

Here are a few random thoughts on The Revenant, in no way a review or even an analysis.

I usually wince when there is any violence, overt or covert. I shut my eyes for a few minutes. While watching The Revenant, I did not. There could be two explanations, both worrying: Either I have become immune to such scenes or the violence in the film is gratuitous, a sort of play-acting between big hunters and hunted with their positions alternating. 

The former reason may be ruled out, for I subsequently noticed that I continue to be squeamish even while watching National Geographic. But I am also not quite ready to dismiss the film’s bludgeoning aggression to gratuitousness simply because of Jim Bridger. 

Bridger and his demons

Jim Bridger and his face. A face registering pain, anger, loyalty, pusillanimity, and guilt. A face held together by wisps of gossamer that seem to have been jaded in the weather to give it a certain ruggedness. A face that can break. A face that deserves to be punched one minute and caressed the very next.

I did not know who the actor was. (Will Poulter, it turns out.) I have the advantage of distance — distance from Hollywood, even as trivia. In fact, it is only after watching the film that I got to know it is loosely based on a real story. Therefore, for all the difficulties a film crew faced, we realise that the reality must have been far worse. Yet, my appreciation of the film increased with this knowledge, for it could then be seen as a tribute to a period of hardship, of struggle, and of man and beast fighting for the same space and becoming like each other. 

Even in the much talked about skirmish with the bear scene, and despite the fact that after a couple of minutes of relentless assault it becomes a pantomime, the questions stand out: Was Glass pushing his animalistic limits or was the bear fighting for her humane space in protecting her cubs? 

The demarcation between man and beast is often blurred, and the moral queries are as much the animal’s as the human’s. Hugh Glass finding shelter in the carcass of a horse has a Pieta-like resonance; it is more familial than his relationship with his son, Hawk. For, the latter comes with the strings of fealty. Glass is concerned about co-traveller and opponent John Fitzgerald [Tom Hardy] killing Hawk, “because he was all I had”. Whereas the horse, belonging to another camp, helps him escape, proving to be useful even in death. 

Hugh Glass carries his son Hawk

Digression: I can imagine how in a Bollywood film, the hero would have named the horse Raja or Shera and the steed would have even shed a tear in the last moments! Perhaps I am replaying all this in my mind without the melodrama, although The Revenant has many moments of melodrama and of stylised pauses.

Leonard DiCaprio said in an interview:

They’re [Director Alejandro G. Iñárritu and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki] very specific about their shots and what they want to achieve, and that — compounded with the fact that we were in an all-natural environment, succumbing to whatever nature gave us — was something that became more of a profoundly intense chapter of our lives than we ever thought it was going to be. It’s epic poetry, an existential journey through nature, and this man finding a will to live against all odds. Yet he changes, nature changes him and I think those elements changed him while we were doing the movie.

Glass’s pursuit of living is more than about survival for exacting revenge. He wants to live to be heroic. Part of the reason may have nothing to do with being left to the elements. It could be Hollywood. I do not keep count of awards. I have not watched enough DiCaprio films to be a fan. Exultations like, “Leo owned the Oscars” do not impress me. But, the first thought that came to my mind as The Revenant opened was indeed, “So Leo owned the Oscars?” 

The Revenant has several layers that will be visible only after the Hollywood star mask is scraped off. I am not an actor or one who even understands the intricacies of the craft. What I do know is that one should see the character, and not the actor, much less the star. 

Some critics have pointed out that Fitzgerald stands against Glass because he is a racist and cannot imagine why a white man would have married a Pawnee woman and then felt so protective about his half-Native son. But, while he does sound racist (explained as his own experience of being partially scalped by one), Fitzgerald is as much a fighter as Glass in the survival sense. He has plans for the future — despite the tortuous journey ahead, he wants to carry a heavy burden of pelts that they worked to get and that would be profitable. He agrees to stay back with a badly wounded and almost dead Glass who he’d prefer dead only because he is promised $300; it will buy him a home. He is the Ordinary Guy who makes an immobile and directionless Glass seem extraordinary. 

Fizgerald and Glass confront each other

Towards the end, when Fitzgerald is finally dying, Glass pushes him upstream to meet his fate. Heroic Glass does not take the responsibility to kill him for killing his son; he leaves it to god,  a lesson we are told he learned from the Native American who had nursed him for a bit, which again shows he has not learned too many lessons himself. His version of god seems to be the Arikara on the other side of the river who are certainly not going to spare Fitzgerald. Makes one wonder about Glass and his moral prism. 

Glass has no motive except to mourn for the fact that he has nothing to live for anymore, instead of finding a reason to live. Even the young Bridger, perhaps the youngest in the team, takes the risk to stay behind with someone who might die any minute. Bridger is a hero because he sees duty as beyond doing a job, and when he does leave Glass, he not only leaves behind his canteen but also an image of a caring person who is not so much saving his own life as preferring to stay away from witnessing one who he admires give up on life.

In the end, does Glass give up? He looks blankly ahead and then straight at the audience. His Native wife* floats in and out of his dreams with aphoristic fervour telling him that in a storm if you look at the branches you will see them bend but the trunk will not. Glass has internalised this, but then so does everyone else who is not yet dead. 

---

* Grace Dove who played the role of his wife tweeted: "Not gonna lie... Pretty bummed I didn't get an invite to the #Oscars."

The Brotherhood of Hindu-Muslim Clerics

The maulvi says TV is haram. The sadhu says gambling is immoral.

Baba Ramdev and Maulana Madani

Under the skin they are the same, so what tells the mullah apart from the swami? Nothing. If we ignore the outside perception, then it is quite another matter. There is bound to be an Us vs. Them battle for the worse agent of regression. The mullahs win because the way they dress is pretty much how many traditional Muslims dress. The sadhu’s robes are restricted to the ashram community or the occasional flash of saffron donned by political leaders of a religious stripe.

Two recent reports have brought the underlying similarities to light and in fact raises questions about how religion is viewed by those responsible for propagating it. It is interesting that they seem clueless and appear to be more interested in playing god themselves. The media, predictably, plays to the gallery and especially in the case of Muslims tries desperately to get the moderate or liberal faces, though one is not quite certain about the distinction between the moderate and the liberal in this context. It is assumed that the Muslim community is held hostage by the utterings of a handful of mullahs and consolidates such a viewpoint. Curiously, they use other religious figures or scholars of Islam as the voices of reason, quite forgetting that the large populace has no such scholarly knowledge or interest and faith is just one more way to express their beliefs and identities.

This does not suit the Indian media, so you have a screaming headline: ‘TV and cinema are SATAN’S TOOLS’. Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind (JUH) chief Mahmood Madani has declared:

“Watching television and cinema are haram. They are the tools of Satan and must be buried as soon as possible.”

This debate has been going on for years. and Madani is right that only such sensational pronouncements are reported. Education and employment reservations may lend themselves to panel discussions, but not quick news stories. The anti-polio stand has fewer takers than the anti-condom stand.

A moot point here is that rarely is there a poser regarding how these maulvis themselves appear on television to promote their version of religion or indulge in political discussions. If television is haram, then what are they doing before the cameras? Why are they using the internet to advise believers about everything from sexuality to health issues?

Maulana Madani on TV

Will the media have the courage to ban these religious authorities and then let us see how their views are made available? It is a mutually-beneficial game they both play, and it reached its absolute nadir when they had the audacity to conduct a kangaroo court on TV in the Gudiya case, where clerics debated about a young woman’s marital fate. How different is it from fatwas and underworld diktats or even regional politicians holding court and dispensing justice?

The progressive mullahs, usually the likes of Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, state, “By asking Muslims to boycott television and films, they are Islamising non-Islamic issues.” He goes on to answer his own query: “How many Muslims will listen to them and switch off their television sets?” Precisely. However, what exactly are non-Islamic issues? Islam or any other religion can be applied to any field or behaviour, if the believers want it to be so. There is no reason to drag in Islam at all simply because by doing so such scholars make these issues haram, for to the faithful anything ‘non-Islamic’ will be unacceptable.


Blind devotees do not look at history. They might not even exercise their minds to realise that during the time of the Prophet there were no electronic gadgets. Unfortunately, it is the modern inventions that are projecting regressive views and are responsible for the creation of a standard scapegoat fanatic, when there is fanaticism in every sphere. What does a political scientist mean when he says, “Conservatism is only a step behind fanaticism”? Does fanaticism not base its fervour on the foundation of conservativism? How many liberals are deemed fanatical?

Entertainment is taboo in many societies, yet most of them skirt it by using music and even dance to sing praises of god. The number of shrines that have such performances is evidence of it. The camera-friendly staff members at such mausoleums are ready to entertain celebrities.

The discourse on Islam also ignores the fact that the idea of Satan is not in opposition to god, but to angels. Satan is a flitting character, which is why he has to be hit by stones in a symbolic ritual at Mecca. To grant Satan the ability and right to influence the gullible is itself wrong.


The Biblical connotation is a curious intrusion. It seems to have entered the Hinduism discourse, too. Is there a concept of the seven deadly sins in the religion? It is not even part of pure Christianity and is referred to only in Matthew’s Gospel. But a code of conduct has been promulgated for the priests in Karnataka to stay away from such sins. It states:

“Archakas (priests), who give prasada and teertha to devotees, should be above board. They should be free from sapta vyasanas (seven sins) so as to maintain the sanctity of the profession. We are also bringing in an amendment saying that priests should know vedic mantras or shlokas related to rituals of temples where they work, without which they can be disqualified.”

They must also not indulge in gambling, smoking, immoral sex and cannot take the money deposited in the hundis, which will go to the temple account. Why are these not seen as regular laws by the Temple Boards rather than sins? There have been instances where priests have indulged in some or all of these acts, but they usually operate from their own or smaller ashrams. One of the clauses in the amendment is rather surprising – priests should be free from virulent or contagious diseases. How can they lose their jobs over this? They may not perform certain rituals that might affect the gathering, but they are not to blame.


One might ask how it is possible to extricate morality from religion when the former is based on the belief system. This is largely true. However, the concept of sinning also has the convenient proviso of penance, so religious authorities might sin and find an exit through penance. This luxury is not as easily granted to the ordinary person, who often has to use dubious middle-men to cleanse themselves. Swami Nityanand is a case in point. Despite the videos where he was captured in compromising positions with his female devotees, he had audaciously organised a havan to purge himself.

Mata, Vidya and the cellphone

The sins also reveal that the activities mentioned are indulged in and this is across religions. Do the priests indulge in them due to lack of entertainment or because of their exposure to it? Access to the world and to religion itself has become dependent on such means. Why do pirs and sadhus advertise their ‘wares’? Why do they conduct nikaahs or hold pujas over the internet? Are they not aware that other ‘immoral’ websites are just a click away? If technology is haram or exploits religion, then before preaching to the public, the clerics should take the first step and refuse to use it. There was this photograph of actress Vidya Balan with Mata Amritanandmayi who is apparently blessing someone on her cellphone in a Page 3 moment. Aren’t these instances of commercialisation of religion where every scripture-reading session by some ‘devi’ or ‘maulvi’ is a sponsored event and the happening crowd that has suddenly discovered their roots gets into designer stupor?

The media will not highlight these, at least not to expose the farce. It needs the fanatics and it needs the liberals and they have to be on two sides fencing. This is prime-time faith, where even invoking of god’s name is TRP-driven.

(c) Farzana Versey

The Pope and the Prophet

Two bits of religious news and let us see the reactions…

A Scottish art exhibition invited visitors to deface a copy of the Bible. The exhibit, Untitled 2009, is part of the ‘Made In Gods Image’ exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow and was thought up by local artist Anthony Schrag. The intention was for gays and transsexuals who felt left out of religion to write their way back in to the holy book. But visitors offered pens by gallery staff had other ideas, and have scrawled a series of obscene remarks.

Is art beyond the realm of social discourse? Would one consider it as a political commentary that seeks to exclude certain segments of people because of their other beliefs and actions? Have we not heard about incidents of homosexuality within the Church?

The flip side is this: Why does the gay community wish to belong to a faith system that is mainstream when they are not? Does writing obscene remarks lessen their feeling of being left out?

Apparently, after the Pope’s objection, the Bible has been placed in a locked case and visitors can write their comments on blank sheets of paper. They may as well have a meeting or seminar. Incidentally, copies of the Bible, as I am sure other scriptures, are distributed freely. At least, I got several copies from back in my school days to a couple of years ago. How would anyone know whether or not I would treat it with any respect? Do those with evangelical fervour think for a moment that what they deem holy could mean nothing to another and that itself is a sort of defilement?

I don’t find such art particularly interesting or enlightening or even a potent commentary. However, the Church could just have taken up the issue for what it is. Instead, this is what a report states:

The adviser to the head of the Catholic Church said the project was disgusting and offensive. They would not think of doing it to the Koran, he added.

Who are the ‘they’? Who flushed the Koran down the toilet? Who published those Danish cartoons? If people did react, they were immediately termed Islamists, jihadis and intolerant. Some of us who took a view that a religion for its believers must be large enough to withstand such onslaughts were also called jihadis!

So, let us deal with an issue closer to home.

The Prophet’s picture has found its way in a Hindi book chapter in Uttar Pradesh on different religious figures who have contributed to humanity (Manav Uthaan ke Liye Vibhinn Dharmo ka Yogdaan). Islam does not permit publication of the pictures of the Prophet, according to a report. A clarification. There are no pictures available or even ancient artistic impressions. And, yes, the religion does not allow such depictions because it does not believe in iconography. That is the reason I have often mentioned tombs being unIslamic.

Yuvraj Dutt, the writer, said the Prophet’s picture was available on the internet and was downloaded from there. Incidentally, the picture was added in the third edition of the book in 2009.

It begs the question: why now? Obviously, they knew it was not exactly the done thing. What is the motive? Why this desperate urge to give a face to the Prophet? Because politics needs something.

Ex-state minister and SP leader Ujjawal Raman Singh threatened that the party would take to the streets and also raise the issue in the assembly if the photograph was not removed.

Please note the name of this gentleman. He is not a Muslim protecting his faith. Just as the first person to call for a ban on Satanic Verses was Khushwant Singh, a Sikh.

And this is my beef. I may well say that it is no big deal, but once it is made an issue of then do not expect silence. The Pope makes a noise; the maulvis will too. And the saffron guys do it as well when their god images, which are used artistically often, are distorted in any manner.

Oh, we speak about madrassas and how only religion is taught there. Here are students in a Mumbai school praying to the snake god: