A Suitable Boy- a final review

 

So, A Suitable Boy has concluded on our screens, which means it is time to attempt a retrospective. In a previous post I said that ‘novels are artificial constructs that tell a story in a choreographed way, in the end of the story seems inevitable and satisfactory once you reach it’. Episode one began with a wedding, at which Rupa Mehra declared her attention to get her younger daughter Lata to follow suit. Episode six ended with Lata’s wedding; inevitable, but was it satisfactory?

In bringing the book to the screen the novel’s complex interwoven storylines were always going to be simplified. In essence, three were retained, Lata’s adventures in love, her brother-in Law Maan’s glorious obsession with an older woman and his father’s political activity. The extended cast list was pruned and the four main families introduced with brief pen portraits. The test was, if you haven’t read the book, can you still follow the story?

I’d say the series passed the test. If, like me, you followed the Twitter thread during and after each episode, it was clear to see that viewers were emotionally invested in the story and the characters. Each suitor had cheerleaders online, as did handsome bad boy Maan.

For those like me who have read the book, the test was, can the show avoid outraging us with its changes and omissions? Again, I would say it succeeds. The characters who we don’t see, such as Firoz’s brother Imtiaz, are not really missed, and the plot changes are minor. For instance we see the three suitors meeting outside the house Lata is staying in, whereas in the book they all meet up at the cricket match, but the scene on the screen works really well.

What both the book and the show have in common is that they manage to make most characters likeable and show us their motivations. In general, the more Indian a character is the more we warm to them. Lata and Maan for instance favour traditional dress, whereas her brother Arun is very Europeanised and somehow less likeable. Firoz too has a great line in stylish Indian jackets. The devious Meenakshi looks great in her saris, which make her very decorative.

The older characters too are interesting. Mahesh Kapoor may be a typical heavy-handed father when we meet him but he is attempting a radical policy change that will adversely affect his friend, the Nawab Khan, by stripping him of land. Mahesh knows everything has a cost. The Nawab too, knows he will lose out but is trying to see the big picture and support the reform anyway.

This is, of course, a historical costume drama and we need to be wary of imposing or values and concerns on its protagonists. This is especially when it comes to Lata and her choices. At the book’s outset we meet a ‘modern’ young woman, at University, unsure whether marriage, her mother’s preferred option for her, is what she wants. Her romance with Kabir has a touch of the Romeo and Juliet’s about it, love across the divide, love over-riding all other concerns. But this doesn’t last and she avoids becoming a tragic heroine. Having experienced passion with Kabir she is self-aware enough to recognise that Amit does not make her feel like that, even though she enjoys his attention.

Which leaves Haresh. It is here that modern sensibilities can get in the way. Conditioned to disapprove the idea of arranged marriage, many of us will dismiss him as the safe choice Rupa wants Lata to marry. In addition, he is not cool, being literally buttoned up in his European clothes, and not eye candy in the way Kabir is (or Maan, for that matter). So Lata’s pivoting towards him in preference to her other suitors left some confused. But on the page and on the screen there were clear motivational reasons for her. Kabir displayed a jealous streak that put her off and Amit always seemed to be going through the motions, while Maan showed her the consequences of letting passion over-rule common sense. Finally, even though her mother wanted him to be the one, her brothers’ disapproval enabled her to position him as the rebellious choice.

What clinched it though was when he showed her that although he adored her, he was not prepared to be toyed with. His abrupt departure forced her to confront the fact that he mattered to her, and showed him in a different light. Lata senses that with Haresh it will be a marriage of equals with some-one who genuinely loves her. Other opinions are available, but as I say, in the context of 1952 her decision is explicable.

The story of Maan and Saeeda is the antithesis of Lata’s relatively demure adventures. It is a wild story of passion and transgression. The actors in these roles managed to convey their connection very well even as the viewer realises it can’t last. Saeeda does toy with Maan, (more so in the book) but she is vulnerable too. This is another relationship across the religious divide, as well as across the age divide and the respectable/disreputable one. Tabu is an established star, whilst Ishaan Kataar shows the potential to become one.

Compared with their tumult the pursuit of Tasneem by Firoz seems positively 18^th century. Which is just as well, as they are in fact brother and sister. When this gets tangled up with the Maan/Saeeda story tragedy ensues.

It is all the more tragic because as the book implies, and the show more explicitly shows, the relationship between Maan and Firoz is almost a romantic one, certainly an Achilles/Patroclus or Alexander/Hephaistion one (an intense friendship with a physical undercurrent). Seen in this light, Firoz saving his friend in court is no surprise. This is an example of the book, and the show, being more than just chocolate book pretty. There are also examples of disreputable behaviour, the attempted seduction of Lata by a friend’s father being one, and the implied seduction of her brother by an older female friend of the family being another, along with Meenakshi dallying with her husband’s best friend.

These provide shade and depth to what could otherwise be a bit Mills & Boon. But what also makes this show worth watching are the performances. Tanya Maliktala as Lata has an on-screen presence that compels you to watch her. She is not a ‘hot chick’, but far more interesting as a result, and with an intensity that makes her attraction to her suitors believable.

The show has an almost impossible tightrope to walk in terms of avoiding Indian clichés and not offending modern sensibilities, but generally does so well. As a White British male tuning in through love of the book I was concerned that those with Indian heritage might be upset with it, but the Twitter thread showed a lot of love from the Indian community, which was re-assuring. Because although it tells its story through Indian imagery and sensibility, ultimately, its main themes are common human concerns that transcend settings to appeal to us all.

One criticism remains: IT WAS TOO SHORT! It deserved at least twelve hours of television to do it justice. 

This time last year

Last year we visited Haigh Park in Wigan and attended one of the Friday Food Festivals. It was packed, it was a sunny summer evening, and we stood in close proximity to other people and bumped into them without a care. Because that was 2019 and such things didn't matter. Now it's 2020 and it matters very much. This is my first attempt to express my feelings about the pandemic in verse. It's rough and ready and doesn't aspire to anything beyond conveying a sense of loss somewhere between there and here..............

If you were there at all last summer- this is for you (and if you are in the photograph, I hope you don't mind).

This time last year, we were there

Mingling and moving through a crowd of strangers

Shoulder to shoulder without a care

No thought in our heads of any dangers

 

We were there this time last year

Knowing all we had to do was make some choices

The aromas demanding attention as we drew near

Shouting to hear ourselves above the voices

 

Last year, we were there, last time

Surrounded by faces we didn’t know

Hearing random conversational rhythm and rhyme

Lit by the sinking sunset glow

 

This year it cannot even go ahead

How could it, when so much has changed?

Our certainties have turned and fled

The fabric of our lives is disarranged

 

Go ahead, this year, with a trip? We cannot

even contemplate a Hotel stay

A chance to visit somewhere when it’s hot

Let chance throw something new our way

 

We cannot go ahead this year

And stand with strangers we will never see again

And laugh and smile and be free from fear

So thanks for last year, Haigh Park Wigan, here’s to coping with the pain

Liverpool in February, before COVID changed everything

Images from a pre-COVID world

In February I visited Liverpool with my son and spent some time down at the Waterfront. That visit belongs to a pre-COVID world and, as some-one who worked in Liverpool (I was working there the last time Liverpool won the title!) I have been wondering, and worrying, how the Albert Dock location can recover from this. Mingling with the crowds of locals and tourists on that trip the idea of infection had only just started to be a concern.Now everything has changed......

  

 

How big is your big picture?

How big is your big picture?

    

Introduction

We’re all familiar with the scenario. There’s this huge economic trading area, comprising of previously mutually antagonistic peoples. Within its borders goods and people move freely in a complex economic web that provides luxuries as well as essentials. Its borders are defended by up to date first world technology, its territory criss-crossed by an effective road and transport system. Despite recent economic shocks and problems its citizens live largely peaceful, prosperous and sedate lives. War is a foreign adventure not a domestic calamity. 

Outside its borders the picture is very different; the world is good deal more turbulent, less prosperous and less stable. Those outside see this economic area as a land of promise- they want a share of the good life too. Many of them are fleeing war and persecution, to such an extent that there are mass movements of population putting pressure on the borders of the settled world. 

I’m talking about the European Union, right? Well, no, actually. I’m talking about the Roman Empire in the late fourth century. When I look at that period of time I am increasingly struck by the similarities with today and it seems to me that we may be looking at the migration/immigration issues we face in far too narrow a way. 

So, about those similarities. Well, in the last but one decade of the fourth century events in what was then the Roman province of Britain had consequences in Rome itself and eventually contributed to the British exit from the Roman Empire. Maximus, the military commander in Britain, had himself declared Emperor at York and took his legions out of Britain to march on Rome. Unlike Constantine at the beginning of the century, who had done the same thing, his attempt failed, weakening the Roman grip on Britain in the process. 

Meanwhile, out on the Russian steppes, a series of crises we still don’t fully understand was causing successive waves of people to migrate west. One cause may have been Chinese expansion. Although the Roman Empire and the Chinese Empire of the time seem to have been ignorant of each other’s existence (despite armies from both reaching the Caspian Sea, albeit in different centuries), Chinese pacification of the tribesmen on its western frontier possibly set off the migrations which carried on for centuries, as first the Huns, the Goths, the Alans, the Avars and finally the Magyars arrived in Europe. 

Today civil war in Syria, conflict in Africa and insecurity across the Middle East have set off movements of people who are desperate to gain entry to the “promised land” of Europe. 

The end of the Western Empire

To the settled citizenry of the Roman Empire the incomers from the East seemed uncouth and “uncivilised”. In fact, their social set-up was very sophisticated, it just ran on different lines. Those at the top of barbarian society were both well-off and well-informed and as adept at gaining advantage through negotiation as well as force. Roman policy was always two-fold- to keep out where possible or to assimilate by offering foederati status, the right to live within the Empire whilst retaining their own laws and customs. Eventually though, the numbers became too great for assimilation and their leaders perceived the weakness of the Roman leadership. During the fifth century the Lombards, the Visgoths, the Vandals and the Franks gradually assumed control of the various provinces, often in the name of Rome. The magnitude of these changes only became apparent over time. To many citizens in urban centres it was scarcely discernible at first. What mattered to them as ever was security and prosperity.

Whilst you can stretch analogies too far, recent years have seen the sheer number of incomers become a significant factor in Europe; possibly contributing to the result of the  Brexit debate and vote, and to the rise of protectionist ideas in many European countries. Meanwhile, the movement of people has been sparked by events over which the West has very little control (although we may have contributed to the causes). In the long run the Empire was replaced by barbarian kingdoms who nonetheless claimed legitimacy from Roman antecedents. The ruling families of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy inserted Julius Caesar into their family trees and the early Frankish Kings took Roman titles such as Consul.  Today's incomers are more atomised, individuals and families rather than tribes on the march of course, but they are changing Europe too.

So when I say, how big is your big picture, I mean, have you (have I) been thinking deeply enough about what is going on? Is the current situation one that can be managed or part of a fundamental change? The Roman Empire lasted several hundred years, by contrast the current status quo is a post-war construct still decades short of being a century old, whilst its current incarnation only dates back to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. One of the strengths of the Roman Empire was its adaptability; it responded to facts on the ground by re-labelling things or by re-organising the way tax was levied to allow newcomers to still claim to be part of the Roman system even though they were very different in social mores and organisation.  As a result it is very difficult to pin down a year and say, this is when the Roman Empire ended.

 In this country, no doubt influenced by the seismic change wrought by 1066, we tend to talk about 410, the year the Legions left for good, but it is clear a Sub-Roman culture persisted for another two centuries in some parts of Britain before being subsumed by what we now label as an Anglo-Saxon one. Cities such as Lincoln, Chester, Carlisle and others helped to ensure the transition from Roman to Germanic was a gradual one. Something else was going on too. Although it suited Anglo-Saxon kings to listen as their Bards told stories of how their heroic ancestors conquered the land, it seems that the process was more one of assimilation. When writers in the 7th century started talking about the peoples that made up the various kingdoms, they were talking about geography as much as ethnicity. If you lived in the territory of the Hwicce or the Magonsaetan, you were a part of that gens, to use the Latin term, regardless of whether your ancestors were Germanic or Celtic, or something else entirely. 

Europe today

Likewise today; to be German or Swedish or French means to live there and to subscribe to that society, whether your ancestors come from the Massif Central or the Atlas Mountains in North Africa, or from Bavaria or Turkey. There are, and probably always will be, people who believe in racial heritage as the main indicator of nationality and have an instinctive fear of the 'other'; I believe the lessons of the end of the Roman Empire teach us something different; that what counts is the ability to forge a society that can look after its citizens. Further, who among us can genuinely know where we come from? Roman Britain included Celtic and pre-celtic people as well as Italians of course, and the children of Roman Auxiliaries who married local women, who were from all over Europe and beyond. And the Anglo-Saxons? Rank newcomers, parvenu Johnny-come-latelys who didn’t even rock up until two and a half thousand years after the construction of Stonehenge. They were followed by Vikings, Normans, Flemings, German traders who belonged to the Hanseatic league, Huguenot refugees from France and refugees from Central Europe during the nineteenth century.  

So even before the incomers from South-East Asia, the Carribean and Africa put in an appearance, the British Isles were a melting pot of peoples. Always have been, always will be- and maybe, just possibly, we are living through another big shake-up that will transform these islands as well as the rest of Europe.. Now, you can be afraid of that, and react with fear, that is say, negatively, or you can embrace it. The visible sign of all this is of course the rubber dinghy laden with desperate people, the lorry filled with young men hoping to get through the border checks. In the fifth century the modes of transport were different but the hopes and fears of the people on them were, it is safe to say, similar. One way or another, we have to respond, the question is what form will the response take? This question is one of the big drivers of our time; how we respond will say a lot about us and our society. So, I end as I began; how big is your big picture?