The Jungle Book (2016) – The 1967 Version Was Superior And Best Left Alone

Warning  - Spoiler Alert!

I probably have a solitary voice here.  I saw the movie and I preferred the 1967 version.  Here is why.

The Jungle Book was the last film which was personally supervised by Walt Disney, and it showed.  The film had the characters crafted in a way that balanced the story to appeal both to children and adults alike.  One may claim that the 2016 version boasts of similar abilities – but there is a difference.  The 2016 version is just too dark!

The sinister Shere Khan is just so hateful and full of spite. What may I say of Col. Hathi? The new version of Col Hathi is so demanding in terms of obeisance and authority, one wonders whether this was what Rudyard Kipling wanted.  There are many characters in many other movies that demand such obeisance – so what was so special about the 2016 Col Hathi? Nothing.  Absolutely Nothing.

King Louis was just another King Kong. Kaa was a sheer waste. If we wanted to see giant monkeys and snakes, we are better of with King Kong and Anaconda, thank you.

Kaa resembles a villain we have seen before – a deceptive back-stabber. By the way, where was Kaa's sense of humor?  Col Hathi and Kaa’s characters made sense only because we have seen the 1967 version of the Jungle Book.  For the first timers, Kaa leaves an unimpressive image of a subplot gone horribly boring.   Baloo was a lovable buffoon, but to think he would want Mowgli to be filled with bee stings is a bit too much. 

Most movies now suffer from the desire to outdo each other in terms of computer graphics they use.  Movies also suffer from the Harry Potter hangover wherein dark characters created a charm of their own.  These characters soon became a turn off for many Harry Potter book fans in the films directed by Director David Yates.

The Jungle Book (1967) was all about fun and hope. I just did not see the point of why the new version wants to show the ugliness of the world?  There are other films that can do that, but to allow The Jungle Book to become a vehicle for a peek in to the darkness of the human heart is unpardonable.

By the way, the new version completes makes a trash of the songs  “Bare Necessities” and “I wanna be like you”.

I was unfortunate enough to spend my post tax money on this junk. Save your money and go back to 1967 version – that version has a heart and is in no need of any lobotomy that the 2016 version desperately needs.

© Nitesh Kotecha

Marching Backwards – A Short Note on Prohibition and The Cognitive Errors

I request my readers to consider the following ridiculous proposals:

Let us have a laughable and imprudent rule that women cannot step outside their houses as this will wipe out rape from the society and, surely, rape is undesirable. Alternatively, let men not step outside their houses as this will make wipe out rape from the society and, surely, rape is undesirable

Let us have a laughable and imprudent rule that all vehicles must be taken off the road as this will make accidents impossible, and, surely, accidents are undesirable.

Let us have a laughable and imprudent rule that all businesses must stop and let the honest governments of the day run all businesses as this will make wipe out black money from the society and, surely, black money is undesirable.

Let us have a laughable and imprudent rule that all liquor must be banned as this will wipe out drunkenness and domestic pain from the society and, surely, drunkenness and pain are undesirable.

The above ridiculous proposals are ridiculous only because this is what governments do.  Governments walk ass-backwards in its effort to walk in the rhythm of life of the people who have chosen them to govern.

There is a recent movement developing where liquor bans are being brought in, ostensibly, as it promotes quality of life in society (Frankly, this is nothing but invoking the stereotype of a sad family suffering a drunk husband / father).

Here is my question – is drinking a crime or being drunk stupid is?  Drinking is not a problem (By the way - I don't consume alcohol) – it’s the silly things men and women do after getting drunk that seem to be a problem (I mention men and women both here as I would like to break the bias about only men being drunk and becoming a nuisance to themselves and others).

Well, let us see where we morally stand with these new legal and administrative reforms to society. Drinking alcohol is a personal activity where the person drinking is mostly inward bound in terms of his affinity to the pleasures of the body. The person has willingly chosen to use his / her body in a way that potentially is harmful.  As this activity is an individual activity, society has a moral obligation to moderate it with certain rules and regulations ONLY SO that the activity does damage only to the individual body and not to the society.  We now have here age limits, registrations, higher taxes and licenses etc that govern the liquor industry.

The after effects of drinking too much are many and spill over to others and potentially go much beyond the person consuming alcohol.  They are obvious and too many and I will not list them here.  The moral issue here is to see if innocents, and society overall, are victims of drunken men and women.  If this is indeed the case, society can work on it through law and administration.

The distinction to be made here is that society cannot criminalize an act of freedom and must only focus its attention only where the subsequent actions post that act of freedom become a criminal act. This is basic law.  It is true that a crowd has no brains and therefore it is not surprising that such declarations are made to crowds especially around the time of elections.

Intoxication is undesirable and I list below some suggestions to solve these issues:

Alcohol can be sold to a married person only if he produces a valid APAN CARD… alcohol permanent account number.  This card must have a quarterly expiry where it can be renewed based on an affidavit from the spouse certifying that he/she/family has not suffered domestic violence or pain on account of the spouse’s consumption of alcohol.

Successive incidents of domestic violence on account of intoxication must result in the transfer of salary credit to the spouse.  Other retirement benefits too can face such a consequence.

Here is a final suggestion that truly exposes any government's hypocrisy together with the absolute and sincere lack of desire in really ensuring that alcohol intoxication does not affect the innocent - Forbid brand name extensions and subliminal advertising.  A liquor company must not be allowed to sell any product / service that even remotely carries the brand name or graphic design of its alcohol content brand.

The above suggestions are indicative and can be modified to suit the constitution and the laws of jurisprudence.  In any case, our prime responsibility is to think out solutions.

It may be helpful to remember that the Mumbai Underworld is a product of the Alcohol Ban in Maharashtra.  I pray - let us not develop a medieval mindset and not march backwards to our glorious brainless pasts.

© Nitesh Kotecha

Glorified Sycophancy - Ridiculing Intelligence to a Crime

I have been observing with great interest, the sparkling conformity, and the lack of common sense that is parading in the form of erudite crystal clear analysis of political situations. However, I hope to keep my blog sanitized and will avoid bringing politics here.

Our country saw much turbulence over the past few months where crime and misdemeanors happening around the states in the country were solely attributed to have the blessings of the central government.

I will now make a paradoxical statement – many know the truth and still no one knows the truth.  When I say that many know the truth, I mean that if the government got cracking down as to who did it, it would not take long before the truth is out.  When I say that no one knows the truth, I mean that the governments (state or central) have not yet got cracking down on the issue, and as such, no one knows the truth.

We now have a situation where the truth is far out and yet near.  Here comes in the media – the first institution that glorifies sycophancy.  Media houses depend on advertising for their revenue, and this takes them to the dark areas of connections, corporations, and government blessings.   Certain Media houses have their political inclinations and thus receive a diktat about how to malign a government in power.  Another section of media houses do the opposite and paint the government in a better shade.  This is routine all over our planet, with the possibility of some exceptions.

What amazes me, is the reaction of the public at large.  I have noticed many people, near and far, on social media or otherwise, react to the media and absorb either large chunks of negativity or go about chest thumping for the government in power.  I consider both these behaviors as aberrant as they stem not from an application of mind.  The singular statement that these people propound is that all opinions are given by “these few so called intellectuals”.

Intellectuals give opinions.  Does one want an opinion that smells of the absence of intelligence?  Why will an intellectual not give opinions?  Here is a person who value his/her opinion and expresses it.  Why is an intellectual’s opinion so threatening?  Here are some answers.

1.  Society.  A society is a group of people who interact with each other, largely because they have similar cultural interactions, or have a common political or geographical environment.  People in societies have a civil bond that binds them.  A society has members.  Members are individuals who have merged themselves to form a group (society).  So now what exactly will shake a society? Well, a member that differs from the society.  How does a member differ? – Well, on account of actions and thoughts.

This is it – it’s the individual who has chosen to value his own thoughts and actions, over the society, who threatens society.  This is an intelligent person.  Now if this person goes the wrong way with his thoughts and actions, the law and other penal provisions will catch up.  However, if this person has great thoughts and commendable actions, we now have an intelligent person who is capable of transforming a society and thus society’s fears of such individuals.

A society, by definition, is not capable of high intelligence, as it’s too busy ensuring its membership, existence and maintaining a status quo.  Only an intelligence person can instill some form of stimulus to a stagnant society and reform it to a higher level of consciousness.

2.  The need to remain in the good graces of other people.  An intelligent person abhors such a need and rarely feeds this fear.  However, followers and sheep alike are so scared of standing apart on account of their thoughts that they find safety in the thoughts held by society.  Their self esteem is now under question and so the only intellectual response they have is to ridicule the opinions of the intelligent.

There is this variety of people who have to remain loyal either to the government in power or to the opposition.   These people have a tearing need to demonstrate their loyal to either of the sides and thus form a “society” of like minded people and then rampage the streets. Here too we have a group that is devoid of any dissenting superior voice and thus will fight back any spark of intelligence that threatens to change society.

3.  The desire to be right.  This is a possible subconscious, but overarching, drive that turns people into rigid beings where they insulate themselves against any point of view that could assist them in evolving.  The people are actually afraid that they may learn something!

Here is my statement to the sheep of the world – look around you; the world has changed only on account of intelligence.  Society has a need to preserve itself and is thus not as likely to shine as pure productive intelligence.

© Nitesh Kotecha