OK, I am definitely being ambitious now. Actually, I simply could not resist this reading challenge for 2016 posted by Popsugar. Though the list is a bit Americanized, I still found some really interesting reading tasks here. Anyways, I am always looking for an excuse to read. Then why not another reading challenge!!!

http://www.popsugar.com/love/Reading-Challenge-2016-39126431

I am still following Book Riot's reading challenge but now I will be following the lists alternatively. That is, two book from one list followed by two books from the other list and so on. That means, I am still reading 'The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks'. But after I am done, I would like to read from the Popsugar challenge list. So as per the list, the first two books that I have to read would be:

1) A book based on a fairy tale: This was really hard to decide as I must confess that I have never read anything similar in this genre. I mean, I have read actual fairy tales from Brothers Grimm to those of Hans Christian Anderson, but never one that was based on them. Also the term 'fairy tales' is a bit ambiguous to me. Broadly speaking, when you are thinking fairy tales, are you thinking stories based on commonly known figures such as Cinderella or Snow-White; or are you thinking of local folk-lore and mythological figures such as Baba Yaga or the Lady of the Lake? I admit this really confused me. Anyways, I thought that the safest bet would have been to read Bill Willingham's Fables series.

However, I am missing the last two volumes of that series and it seems pointless for me  to read something that is incomplete. So after a lot of thinking, I decided to read Neil Gaiman's acclaimed 'Sandman' series. 'The Sandman' is a popular figure in European folklore and he even shows up in one of Hans Christian Anderson's stories, as far as I remember. Anyways, what I think is that this would be an awesome opportunity to finally read the Sandman and to decide for myself whether this series lives up to the hype surrounding it. Fingers crossed!!!

Morpheus, the titular Sandman.

2) A National Book Award Winner: Again this was hard because the The National Book Award is given in both fiction as well as non-fiction categories. Plus the Award was established in 1950 which would mean that I was thoroughly spoiled for choice. While perusing the list for fiction books on Wiki, I came across Alice Walker's The Color Purple which had been given the award in 1983.

Naturally I was overjoyed as I had bought the book some years back but had never got down to reading it. And I have always been a keen fan of African American literature such as Zora Neele Easton's Their Eyes were Watching God, James Baldwin's The Fire Next Time and Toni Morrison's Beloved. 

Obviously this was a great excuse to further familiarize myself with African American works and reading Alice Walker's book would only bring me much more closer to understanding these writings and the various kinds of identity politics involved. 

I am feeling really excited. If I can finish my present reading list, I would really feel like I have achieved something. Not to mention, I would feel less inept.!!

Review of Ray Bradbury's book ' The October Country'

It's a monster party!.. Hope you have your invites!

As mentioned in my previous post, the first task of the Reading Challenge 2016 was to read a horror book. Today I finally finished reading Ray Bradbury's collection of short horror stories called  The October Country. I have till now never read a Bradbury book. 'The Martian Chronicles' has been on my reading list forever. So naturally I was very excited to start reading this little collections of stories. Bradbury was the first author that come to my mind when I first saw my reading list ( and though I liked The October Country well enough, I really wish I had picked his more critically acclaimed book, 'The Illustrated Man' for this challenge.) 

Some classics of horror

Surprisingly, I am quite well read in the horror genre. It is amusing that a huge scaredy cat such as me has read horror classics like Dracula, Frankenstein, The Exorcist, as well as the stories by Poe and M.R. James. In context of the horror books that I have read,  I would put Dracula and The Exorcist in the same group as they both have similar themes and are written in a very fast paced style of a spy novel. The aim is to shock and intrigue you rather than give you sleepless nights. Frankenstein has always been a misfit for me in the horror genre. It is tragic, it is poetic and deeply beautiful in its writing. The horror is not the monster but rather the self-absorbed creator who puts everyone in harm's way for his own selfish ends. Rather, I found H. G. Wells, 'The Island of Dr. Moreau' much more terrifying and a harsher moral story about man's ambition to play God. In that sense, Frankenstein is less horror and more tragedy of a modern day Prometheus who goes overboard with his genius. The Monster is not born horrifying, it is made to become a horrifying creature by the fear and selfishness of its creator. Even then, it remains a tragic, misunderstood figure. 

Poe's works or rather his keen obsession with beautiful women who die early is pretty evident in most of his tales and have been much discussed in the literary circles. But still some classics such as 'The Tell-Tale Heart', 'The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether', 'The Black Cat', and 'The Cask of Amontillado' are exceptional works. Needless to say, as much as I adore Poe's penmanship, he is clearly at his best when he is not writing about dead women!! Here I am also reminded of some of the short stories written by Nathaniel Hawthorne in 'Mosses from an Old Manse' where the focus is also on beautiful women suffering from such immense terrifying distress that even their heroes cannot save them (Oh boy!). Classics in this theme include 'Rappaccinni's Daughter' and 'The Birth-Mark'. I think M. R. James was the one author who really managed to spook me. Initially while reading, I had assumed that he was another of those writers who was trying to imitate the style of Poe's writing (who despite his obsession, was truly a gifted writer). Thankfully James is not obsessed with dead women, but he is indeed taken with antique ornate houses with long deep histories. Almost all his stories are situated within or around a Gothic mansion or cathedral. The house is as much a participant as the protagonist of his stories. I have read 'Ghost Story of an Antiquary' and as you continue to read the book, the stories get spookier. The supernatural is hinted and acknowledged but never comes right out. Instead, like most horror writers, he skillfully puts you in the protagonist's shoes and makes you feel the chills going through that unfortunate person's spine. 'Canon Alberic's Scrap- Book', 'The Mezzotint', 'The Ash Tree' and 'The Treasure of Abbot Thomas' (this particular story really scared the daylights out of me!!) are some great examples. 

Anyways, I seem to have got carried away with my discussion. I have to admit I chose Bradbury's collection of short stories for a particular reason. First of all, I did not want to pick something too scary such as Clive Barker's Books of Blood or Mark Z. Danielewski's House of Leaves. I really value my sleep and I would hate it if terror kept me up. Also since I am currently working on my thesis and need to travel everyday, reading short stories seemed like a good choice to not get too involved in the book in order to remain needfully focused on my work. I would say that the book on the whole, was a mixed bag. The common trope used by the author is that of psychological horror. So it might seem ambivalent whether true horror is taking place or that it is simply the paranoia of the protagonist. For me, the best story was clearly, 'The Man Upstairs'. (Attention, spoilers ahead!!) It was an interesting take on the vampire motif. The Upstairs Guy is clearly the malevolent vampire but he is actually a very submissive figure in the story. It is only hinted at that he might not be human. What was more shocking was the behavior of the protagonist, a young preteen boy, who is the only one suspicious of the Upstairs Guy. Okay, the boy is a PSYCHOPATH who calmly dissects the vampire while he is sleeping simply because he wants to prove his theory that the vampire does not have the right internal organs. And the boy does it with a smile and childish excitement. And that was horrifying!!

Another story that I liked was 'The Wonderful Death of Dudley Stone' which is technically not a horror story. It seemed that the story was written more for Bradbury than the audience as it captures very ironically the tensions and fears that writers go through with each release of their books. The anxiety of continually wanting critical approval and how 'death' might free you from the hold of this strain of that pressure. It is a clever and interesting story and in fact, quite honest in its message. It really gives you an nice insight into the author. 'The Watchful Poker Chip of H. Matisse' was a macabre take on the pressures of popularity where the true horror is actually your need to please others. It was the most insightful story among the bunch and therefore had me wondering whether I had picked the right book. 'The Emissary' was a nicely written ghost story, though a bit predictable. Actually most of Bradbury's stories in this collection are quite predictable. I also loved 'The Scythe' which was incredibly sad. 

Ray Bradbury really tries hard to push the limits of our thinking by choosing very unconventional protagonists and antagonists. You are not going to find ghosts or ferocious monsters in his stories. Instead your biggest enemy is the warfare and conflict in your mind. Something as harmless as the wind blowing on your face or the skeleton inside of you might actually be the real villain. Is your mind playing tricks or are you suddenly aware of malevolent entity that you had earlier taken for granted. While playing with this kind of horror trope, Bradbury sometimes succeeds but sometimes he flops spectacularly. Stories such as 'Uncle Einer' (think Addam's Family), 'Homecoming', 'The Wind' (a very unexpected antagonist), 'Jack-in the-Box' (very bittersweet coming of age story where Bradbury ironically twists our understanding of being dead and being alive), 'The Jar' and 'The Next in Line' (Both these stories have interesting female protagonists who also end up dead) and 'The Crowd' (predictable but still engrossing) were really excellent pieces. However some stories I simply did not get and personally for me, it was a major fail. 'The Small Assassin' had a ridiculous premise of a killing baby. Clearly a terrible ripoff of 'The Omen'!! (Though I have to admit that the ending line was very nice and quite catchy). Another one I did not like was 'There was an Old Woman' about an old lady who manages to evade death. It is supposed to be morbidly funny but humor for me falls flat. Stories like 'The Dwarf'', 'The Cistern', 'Touched With Fire' and 'The Skeleton' were just average. Overall, the book was an enjoyable read. And even though it seemed a slight bit amateur in its writing style and presentation (but not in its ideas which were quite unique and creative), it was certainly worth the time taken to read it. I also look forward in the future to read more of Bradbury's numerous works.

Next on my list is Rebecca Skloot's The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Looking forward to reading it and enjoying it. Cheers!!!

So I have decided to take Book Riot's 2016 Reading Challenge. This would mean that on average, I would have to read 2 books per month. I hope I will be able to finish the list. Wish me Luck!!
https://2982-presscdn-29-70-pagely.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ReadHarderChallenge2016_checklist_web.pdf

For January, I would have to read something from the following genres:
1) A Horror Book : This is a tough one as there are some really good choices out there. I think I would love to read something by Ray Bradbury. I think I will read his book of short stories called 'October Country' which was released in 1955.

2) A Non-Fiction Book about Science: For this one, I think I would like to read 'The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks' by Rebecca Skloot. It is not just the science of cell type HeLa but also the story of the person behind it. Also it combines race issues and the ethical role of science (as I have been told in the Wikipedia article!!), so it should make an interesting read.

Happy Reading and a Happy 2016!!

THE LANDSCAPE OF HISTORY by John Lewis Gaddis: Some Brief Thoughts

Our book club of amateur historians had decided to read 'The Landscape of History' by famous Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis for this month. We are trying to gain a more stronger understanding of methodology in history and Gaddis' book seemed like an apt choice. While reading the book, I was reminded of Chetan Bhagat's recent comments about what historians actually did.  According to his Twitter comments, it went something like this:

   

‏@chetan_bhagat

What do historians do? I am genuinely curious. This happened. Then this happened. Then this. Ok work done for the day.

Well, Twitter did manage to troll him hilariously for his comments. But despite all of that, I think Chetan Bhagat did have a point to make. The way he described the role of historians, is actually the way most people perceive academic research in history. Bhagat just asked a question that everybody is thinking. How many times have I been plagued with questions like, "Oh, you are studying history. You must have to memorize a lot of stuff" or "Why are you studying history? Go study something that will get you a proper job in society. Don't waste your parent's money on useless endeavors" and so on. This is where I admit, Gaddis' book made a lot of sense to me.

The Wanderer above the Sea of Fog by Casper David Friedrich

The book starts off with this famous painting 'The Wanderer above the Sea of Fog' by German Romantic artist Casper David Friedrich. As one can easily see, a lone figure is looking onto a vast endless landscape. According to Gaddis, the Wanderer pictured is the historian and the landscape he overlooks is the past. As a historian standing at a height, one can see all the major topographical features of the landscape. What I see from a particular height and angle, would clearly affect how I understood this view and how I chose to perceive it. Gaddis says that the past is like a landscape and when one is writing about it, one is not trying to replicate it. Instead we are trying to represent it just like an artist would try to represent the natural scenery through his canvas and paints. From where we stand and choose to view this landscape, allows us to represent the reality of the past in a way that would be quite different from another wanderer looking below. No two historians can produce the exact same work (unless one wanted to plagiarize the other!!) because each brings a different experience when trying to represent the past onto their canvas. 

As historians, we are unable to reproduce every minute detail that occurred in the past simply because we were not there when the event occurred nor do we have tangible sources in the present to reconstruct the exact reality of the past. But once again, one wants to contest that whether our job is to piece out all details as much as possible. First of all, its not even humanely possible, the past is like the bottomless sea. No matter how much you try to put together details, there will always be a missing piece. At best, you get only a distorted image of the past. Secondly, this method of history is long passe but somehow the perception among the common people has remained that this is what we still do. For this I blame the lazy and robotic way in which humanities is taught and tested in our schools today. Most children continue to carry this mindset into their adulthood where like Chetan Bhagat, they remain mystified with what actually is the role of humanities in general. 

Like in the painting, the historian is trying to watch the landscape from a distance. Such a distance helps her to focus on the main details and features of the past that she is investigating even when all details are not always present. The job of the historian is to work out macro trends through micro analysis. But as historians, we are also wary of making generalizations and hypothetical models which most other social sciences generally prefer. As Gaddis points out, our generalizations is subservient to our narrative which itself is dependent on our primary sources. For example, one can never say that the Partition of 1948 never happened. We have written documents, both official and non-official as well as oral testimonies of those who lived through that time. So obviously, as historians we have to build up the outline of the past we want to study through these sources. But it does not mean we do not use our imaginations and structural processes to wean out trends within these events. When you bring sources, say of the Partition together, it does not mean you are planning to write every detail that occurred. As we discussed earlier, that is not a possibility. First you think from what perspective do you want to understand this particular landscape. Do you want to see the political trends involved over a period of time resulting as a consequence of the event in a particular location? Do you want to bring to focus certain voices such as voices of women that are often silent in these documents? Or do you want to merge the silence/relevance of the voices mentioned in the archive to the larger politico-economic climate of the event? Then the most important question that you can ask after thinking is, what is the story that I want to tell ? How do I piece the relevant details and represent the past in a way that conveys the big picture which is equivalent to the 'Sea of Fog' in the painting. 

By representing I am not purposely creating a 'unreal' reality of the past. Instead one has to understand that there is not just one kind of truth. Gaddis puts it rightly that many kinds of truths can coexist in the same field of time and space. As humans, we may all react similarly to say, fall in price of a commodity. But it does not mean we will all react exactly the same to that phenomenon. As per Gaddis, both the linear as well as the non-linear exist simultaneously. One cannot be ignored in favor of the other. And that is why historical methodology often seems like a huge mess but it works because it's a huge mess. No one historian will look at his archives the same way. The archives will answer those questions what is asked of them. And most wonderfully, neither the questions nor the answers are ever the same. And that is why being historian is so much fun. It's like being a detective. piecing out clues to a puzzle. But the best part is that you get to piece together the puzzles the way you think makes the most sense to you. You are the star of your own show but at the same time your source materials prevent you from getting carried away in your flights of fancy. (That job is best left  to writers like Chetan Bhagat, I feel!). Really, as a historian you are both master and servant to your work. It is always a give and take.

However, because of the fluid and unique nature of historical research, it also makes it susceptible to misunderstandings and misuse. Research in history is never apolitical or ahistorical. To think that research is a neutral zone is a gross misunderstanding of the meaning of research and politics. However, when you deliberately ignore what your archive says or try to destroy those sources that reflect contrary views in order to appease a particular political motivation, then there is the misuse of history. You don't force the archives to speak to you the way you want them to. Instead they are like little pixies and fairies giving you clues on how to find you way through the enchanted forest that is the past. When you add your own predetermined answers to the archives, it shows that you have stopped listening and in effect, stopped yourself from really looking at the landscape of the past. Instead the past has been recycled to meet the needs of the political present. The historical narrative then becomes part of partisan politics and departs from its original objective which is to showcase the past in its own terms. The past then ends up being the monopoly of the present.

Gaddis blames historians for living in a methodological island and never sharing their work in a way that is accessible to the public. I would add to this and argue that the inaccessibility of academic research in history to not just the public but also to other disciplines, have allowed for certain political interests to misuse it for their convenience. It has further allowed other disciplines to label study of history as irrelevant to research. Therefore  there should be an attempt among us historians to change this status quo. What we need is a more 'activist' and 'accessible ' kind of history that also values good research methods and techniques while encouraging diversity in representations . 

Alexander Nevsky (1938): A Review

ALEXANDER NEVSKY (1938)

Directed by : Sergei Eisenstein

Year of Release: 1938

movie poster

This is the second movie of Sergei Eisenstein that I have watched. The first one was Battleship Potemkin, released in 1925. I really enjoyed watching Potemkin, especially its complex camerawork in the Odessa steps sequence.. Understanding the limitations involved in filming these scenes especially in the Silent Film era, makes you really want to admire the spectacle that Battleship Potemkin is. As a Russian propagandist film promoting the cause of the socialist revolution among the workers against the tyranny of the monarchical state and army, this silent film was successfully able to convey those feelings of agitation, protest and solidarity. Potemkin is not just a gem among silent films, but is actually an enduring classic for all times. It is my personal opinion that silent films were never handicapped despite the absence of recorded sound and spoken dialogues. Contrarily, the silence did have a voice and that voice was heard through beautiful symbolism strewn throughout the cinematic landscape, focused acting (such as in the Passion of Joan of Arc) and innovative camerawork. I think Eisenstein's strength lay in manipulating the camera in such a way that each scene was exploding with action on a massive scale. His direction style uplifted the 'crowd' from a homogeneous blob of mass to one which had agency and was full of life and action. Despite not focusing on any one character, Eisenstein made you empathize with the struggles of each member of the community portrayed. Basically, the message endorsed in his film was that the struggle of the community is the struggle of each individual involved and one cannot exist without the another.

Alexander Nevsky can be seen in a similar light as Battleship Potemkin. Alexander Nevsky was a 13th century Russian warlord who successfully defended his territories from the invasion of the Swedes and the Teutonic Order of Germany. Clearly he was a figure worth emulating and immensely canonized in Russian nationalist literature. The Wikipedia article on Alexander Nevsky (the film) mentions that Eisenstein wanted to base Alexander on Stalin, the then Russian dictator. Whatever his intentions were, one can easily tell after watching the film that it is less historical drama and more of a propagandist one.

The titular character as portrayed by Russian actor Nikolai Cherkasov

Even though it is a sound film with spoken dialogues, I actually found the movie quite inferior to Battleship Potemkin. Even though it had all major elements of an Eisenstein film, it did not evoke the same kind of thrill that Potemkin did. In fact, the famous 'Battle of the Ice' sequence felt too long and drawn out. The battle scenes seemed too scattered and at times too comical and simplistic. Maybe its because I watched Potemkin first because of which it's specter hung over my head while I watched this movie. But I truly missed the angst and complexity portrayed in Potemkin. The reasons why I compare both films is simply because the message conveyed is technically the same, which is simply rousing the oppressed peasants/workers against an oppressive corrupt elite which is the nobility and the religious class of priests. However, in Alexander Nevsky, a leader is clearly portrayed who is constantly encouraging the community to stay strong and united against a common enemy. Interestingly, at the end of the film, the crowd does not actually target the knights or the soldiers but the symbols of religious orders who are considered as corrupt and as trouble makers who allow innocent children of the peasantry to be willingly massacred. The enemy is no particular person but rather the existing social order which needs to be purged of its corrupt elements and in order to achieve this, Nevsky becomes the perfect historical figure to be used in expressing current contemporary concerns of the Russian state.

The priests allowing children of the captured city of Pskov to be massacred 

The depiction of Alexander Nevsky is itself a very interesting for me. More than Stalin, I feel Eisenstein has depicted him as some military version of Jesus (I have no obvious idea what Eisenstein really wanted to depict through this portrayal and these are actually my own conclusions). According to the Christian traditions, the Jews expected the Messiah to be someone who would lead the Jews to victory against the Roman Empire but Jesus' mission turned out to be contrary to what was anticipated by the masses. In fact, Judas' betrayal was assumed to be because of disappointment with this new Messiah. In the film, first of all, the actor playing Alexander Nevsky is styled according to the basic portrayal of Christ. He also has loyal disciples like Vasili and Gavrilo whom he constantly discourages from acting as Judas Iscariot did. The opening scene has him fishing with the people, which not only depicts him as an ideal socialist leader, but also seems as a quaint biblical reference to Jesus' statement that "I shall make you fishers' of men". Throughout the film, he is depicted as an asexual and ideal male who is gathering the lost flock of peasantry towards him. In all these respects, he is similar to the traditional portrayal of Jesus. However, where he differs is that he a messianic figure who defends his land and people from all those who dare to attack. In fact, where Jesus failed, Nevsky succeeds and in turn establishes a new religious/socialist order. The attack on religious figures and symbols at the end is the depiction of  the end of not just an old and decaying social order but also the old idea of Christianity. Nevsky is the new messianic figure, and if Eisenstein intended Nevsky to stand for Stalin, what we really get is an indirect Messianic portrayal of Stalin who is ready to lead his people to not just a new state but in fact to a new religious order, which is probably a cult of personality centered around Stalin. In contrast, I found Zemlya, released in 1930 and directed by Alexander Dovzhenko, similar in its critique of Christianity but less obsessed with the Messianic aspect. The ending of Zemlya depicts an outright rejection of the religious symbols and authorities. In fact, this film chooses to go back to its Slavic roots of fertility worship and paganism. Whereas Zemlya chooses to use its non-Christian past to depict the socialism as a new religious order, Alexander Nevsky in fact twists the Christian/Jewish version of the Messianic beliefs to give a certain legitimacy to the new socialist order.

A scene from the movie Zemlya

Overall, the movie was entertaining enough. The war scenes were a bit too long but it still managed to keep you engaged. The side love story seemed pretty useless to me and too wishy-washy. I did enjoy watching the costume designs in this movie especially the decorative headgear of the Knights of Teutonic Order as well as those of the Catholic priests. It's a simple enough film with very clear objectives it wants to portray and it gives the audience exactly the kind of action scenes and emotions that are desired.

With Potemkin, Eisenstein set a huge bar that would probably matched by few. Though Alexander Nevsky does not come close in matching those standards, I still feel in its use of cultural figures and religious imagery, it is special in its own way.

The Exorcist: A Review of both the movie and the book

Currently I am on a break from writing my dissertation. So yesterday, I decided to treat myself to a back to back film binge-watch. What I ended up with was three very diverse film which were: The Exorcist (1973), Alexander Nevsky(1938) and Aladdin (1992). On this blog, I just want to discuss my feelings on each of these films. I admit to the fact that I am not an expert on film theory nor film-making, and that I am simply writing from the perspective of a simple person who enjoys watching them immensely.

THE EXORCIST (1973)

Ok, first things first, how cool is that movie poster !!

That man ( who is actually Father Lankester Merrin and basically is the titular character of the movie and the book ) standing at the edge of the mansion's entrance while the light from the window from the top left of the poster reflects his arrival. It's almost like a stage is being prepared for a legendary face off and though The Exorcist also depicts the age old struggle between good and evil, I feel that the poster tends to invert those struggles. Father Merrin, the exorcist is a shadowy black figure whose posture tells us that he is at the cusp of something momentous. With the formal attire, the hat and the bag combo, he is eerily like the modern day depictions of the Grim Reaper, He is mysterious and his intentions , according to a viewer, are ambiguous in this poster. In contrast is the bright and almost pure light emanating from the window, In fact, the radiance of that light manages to illuminate everything but the exorcist. In a way, we could interpret that this light is welcoming its challenger in the most disarming manner. Without the famous visuals of Linda Blair's portrayal of a possessed girl, the poster is actually a confusing one. It makes you wonder about whose side you want to take in this movie, the shadowy figure or the bright beckoning light above.

Another point of note: William Peter Blatty is a terrific writer and when he mentions this scene in the book, it's equally breathtaking. And to be honest, the poster remains true to the portrayal in the book and frankly it becomes one of those rare moments where reality is just as one imagined it to be. In fact, since the movie so very faithful  to the novel ( obviously since Blatty the author was also the one who wrote the screenplay of the movie ), some of the best scenes in the book are beautifully realized in the movie too, and maybe that is why this film remains still memorable because it was really able to capture the author's vision.

I don't want sound monotonous, but in all honesty, the book was a more satisfying experience in comparison to the film. The book was catchy, thrilling in all the right places and had a very smart understanding about what the audience would enjoy (which is something Blatty and Friedkin did manage to bring into the movie too). Overall for me, the book was like reading those old spy novels where the focus was more on the process of investigation then on the whodunits, with a good dose of supernatural added to it. In fact, this book reminded me highly of Stoker's Dracula. Leaving aside deep literary questions about the book's writings and intentions, Dracula is actually a fun past-time read. It has all the elements of a fantastic escapist fantasy with its one-dimensional evil monsters and its band of do-gooders who finally face-off in an epic struggle between good and evil. You could never put Shelley's Frankenstein and Stoker's Dracula in the same category, but you definitely can do that with The Exorcist and Dracula. Both have in fact, a somewhat similar premise. In both cases, the monsters are technically foreigners, Dracula from Transylvania and the demon Pazuzu from Iraq. They both take over or end up manipulating female 'virgin' victims, Mina and Lucy in Dracula and Reagan in the Exorcist. Both demons are dispelled by the power of Christian devotion and rituals performed by male medical and religious authorities. In the case of Dracula, it is Dr. Abraham Van Helsing who is both a doctor/monster hunter and in the case of the Exorcist, Father Damien Karras who is a renowned psychologist and Father Lankester, the exorcist/ archaeologist/ doctor. And finally, what holds all these elements together is the saving or the  unrelenting power of love, specifically expressed through Mina's fiance Jonathan Parker and Reagen' s mother, Chris MacNeil. A clever thing that I credit both to Blatty and Stoker is their reworking of the Gothic genre by borrowing heavily from Christian mythology and from its fringe practices. There are always stories, belief, rituals and magic that remain on the fringes of mainstream Christian beliefs but also exist alongside them as localized cultural tropes and symbols. They are never truly explored in religious teaching to the masses but at the same time their existence validates the importance and 'goodness' of the religion, just like gargoyles or demon masks guarding the outside of religious structure. Their presence invokes a sense of fear, of the unknown but also a sense of guardianship. Blatty cleverly delves into our interest in these peripheral and almost paganic ritualistic practices such as demon possession, exorcism, Satanic cults and the Black Mass rituals. He exploits your curiosity and towards the end, you are equally invested in the book not just for it obvious supernatural elements but also how these elements are rationalized into the modern day thinking and how its protagonists (including the ever conflicted Father Karras - an excellently created character besides Chris, the mother who is also an atheist) grapple to come to terms with matters completely alien to their contemporary mindset.

In contrast to the book, I found the movie a tad bit disappointing. It has a slow pace and some of the most memorable scenes as well as most of the action happen only towards the last 45 minutes. But in order to stay true to the book, the movie in presentation of the plot and its characters, becomes almost mechanical. Characters come and go abruptly. They seem to be introduced simply out of obligation to the book. Burke Denning's murder is never shown but only hinted at, which is kind of disappointing. Even the investigation by Lieutenant Kinderman, which was clearly portrayed in the book, is sidelined and just becomes another obligatory addition to the plot. I understand that you cannot add everything from the book and you need to be editing your scenes accordingly but the problem with the film is quite the opposite. The editing is in fact, too tight. Crucial scenes are cut off and the plot becomes almost one note. If it were not for Ellen Burstyn's distraught mother act in each scene of the film and Linda Blair's possessed daughter act, this film would have been quite forgettable. And minimalist dialogues do not help the movie at all. I was not very impressed with Miller's portrayal of Karras either. He made Karras too maudlin and frankly too wimpy. If only I could go back in time, I would have forced Friedkin to recast that character. Jack Nicholsan, who was the original choice, would have done troubled Father Karras justice. Father Merrin is not very developed in the book, so I do think the portrayal in the movie was just fine. If anything, the movie fleshes out his character much more nicely.

Father Merrin and Father Karras in Reagan's room trying to perform exorcism on her.

The best part of the movie is obviously Linda Blair's portrayal of a young girl possessed by the demon Pazuzu.  Credit is also due to William Friedkin's directions in portraying the horror scenes and Dick Smith's special make up effect which give a chilling and convinced depiction of true horror. Everything is in sync here and truly more than being scared, you are horrified and deeply saddened by what is happening to the poor little girl. The head turning scene was really cool. You could not tell that was actually a dummy!!... I think the only scene that truly horrified me was when the Demon violently forces Reagen to insert the crucifix into her vagina repeatedly, leading to massive bleeding. That scene was very difficult to watch.

You really can't tell it is a puppet!!

Finally, I think it is only in the ending scenes that the movie triumphs over the book. The death of Father Merrin and the eventual possession of Father Karras and the sacrifice of his life in order to defeat Pazuzu, are really intriguing (unlike in Dracula where all the main characters are still alive and intact). The book depicts these scenes from only a third person perspective who is more like an outside spectator so what you get is a very detached ending to a very spectacular affair. In the movie, the perspective is shifted directly to Karras and we see him get possessed and then committing suicide by jumping from the window. You see his angst, his troubles and finally his resolve towards his faith in these last few seconds and suddenly you feel the burden that he had decided to carry in order to save an innocent girl. Frankly its a mesmerizing scene and only scene where I can truly appreciate Miller's acting. Thankfully, the film ends on happy but an abrupt note unlike most films in the horror genre. There have been sequels to this film but I personally would like to consider it a stand-alone feature though I do look forward to reading Blatty's sequel to the Exorcist which is titled Legion.

Pazuzu possesses Father Karras

Overall, the film was entertaining but a little too robotic in its execution. The best things about the film are the fact that it chose to have Blatty as its screenplay writer who in turn was clever enough to bring to life the most exciting and visually thrilling scenes in the book. The acting and the special effects fully complemented the intentions of the plot and gave it life despite the many plot holes and cardboard characters. I admit despite my many misgiving before watching this film, I was actually not scared when I finally watched it. Surprise, surprise...

I feel like I should I come back to this old forgotten blog of mine that I started in 2010. I can't believe that it has been five years since. I like to flatter myself in thinking that the version of me in 2015 is quite a different version of what I was in 2010. However, when I read my earlier posts, I still think that a part of me or at the very least that bit of me that always wants to learn and experience new things has remained the same.

One reason I never continued with the blog, other than the fact that I was highly irregular, was because I felt highly conscious about my writing abilities. It's feels highly intimidating when various people are going through what you have written and are evaluating your thoughts, your grammar and your vocabulary. In a way, it makes you feels so exposed and you hate yourself for being so cowardly. Its so much more easier to share a well-written article by someone else to gain acknowledgement about your intellectual standing than to be able to put those same thoughts in writing by yourself. I hope keeping a blog will help me get over my intimidation and help me in not just improving as a writer but also as a constantly learning intellectual with more articulate thoughts on different matters. Cheers!!