FMT:
Anwar, the Untold Story: my honest review
‘Anwaristas’ and those with no political affiliation may have differing reactions.
1998 is a year Malaysians will find hard to forget.
Reeling from the Asian financial crisis, the relationship between then prime minister Mahathir Mohamed and his deputy and heir apparent, Anwar Ibrahim, deteriorated dramatically.
It led to Anwar being fired, accused of sexual deviancy, arrested and charged within a short space of time.
His rapid fall dumbfounded the country. For years Malaysians were led to believe that the future of our country was in his hands.
Then, in a matter of days, we were asked to believe that Anwar was a revolting human being used by foreign agencies to ruin our country. The change in narrative was so drastic it was surreal.
“Anwar: the Untold Story” chronicles events of the “Reformasi” period from the lens of an “Anwarista”.
“Reformasi” was the movement that arose in the aftermath of the fallout between Anwar and Mahathir.
While the pro-Mahathir faction justified Anwar’s expulsion by painting Anwar as a sexual deviant and a foreign agent, the “Reformasi” movement took Anwar’s side and presented his fall from grace as a pernicious persecution.
According to the “Reformasi” narrative, Anwar was a leader who wanted to end the corruption, cronyism and nepotism that oppressed the poor and enriched the corrupt.
This made him the enemy of the rich and powerful. It is this conflict that led to Anwar’s fall.
Make no mistake. “Anwar the Untold Story” is an unabashedly hagiographical account of Anwar. Like Rama in Ramayana, Anwar is portrayed as perfect in everything: the perfect leader, perfect husband, perfect father, perfect fighter, perfect opponent and perfect Muslim.
The first thing that Anwar will ask for when he is told that he will be arrested is for some time to pray. After he is beaten up in the lock-up, the first thing he will do is ask the prison officer for the direction of the “kiblat”.
The makers of the movie do not shy away from portraying Anwar as being on the right side of God. If they had a bigger budget for VFX, I daresay that they would have made a halo for him!
Surprisingly, despite the over-the-top adulation of Anwar, I didn’t find the movie to be half bad. I suppose my low expectation levels helped.
The two greatest statesmen of our generation, in my opinion, were Nelson Mandela of South Africa and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore. Lee did not make a biopic. Mandela’s was released around the same time he died.
That Anwar’s biopic came six months after he took over as prime minister, on the other hand, reduced my esteem for this effort.
Ironically, the low expectations I had made it possible for me to enjoy the movie to a certain degree.
Farid Kamil is not a bad choice for Anwar. On more than a few occasions he even looked uncannily like Anwar.
In one of the best scenes in the movie, Anwar hallucinates and talks to his own alter ego after taking a beating in prison. Here, Farid plays the alter ego role as some sort of gangster from a Martin Scorsese movie.
Having looked constipated and wooden playing “goody-two-shoes” Anwar, Farid suddenly becomes liberated and alive in this one particular scene. He is vain, defiant, convinced of his greatness and certain of the inevitability of his own destiny.
If Farid was just allowed to portray Anwar – not as “Rama” in Ramayana – but as “Ken Arok” in Pararaton, I daresay he might have given the best performance of his career here.
(To the uninitiated, Ken Arok was a hero king of ancient Java, who despite coming from humble origins, rose to rule all of Java through a combination of daring, cunning, determination and treachery. Personally, I see Anwar more as a Ken Arok than as Rama.)
Rather than his own tribulation, it was the trials of Anwar’s family that I found most riveting.
There is a scene after Anwar is arrested, where his family will be seated at the dining table, with Anwar’s chair vacant.
As the camera closes in on each of their faces, I was able to imagine how difficult it must have been for them to eat when they had no idea where their husband/father was.
In another scene, Anwar’s teenage son bounces a ball hard on the floor after hearing for the first time the deviant sexual allegations levelled against his father. I wondered what he was thinking. I wished the movie maker had spent a little more time investigating.
One of the most powerful scenes in the movie sees Wan Azizah camped at the gates of Bukit Aman, refusing to leave until she knows the fate of her husband. As she waits, Siti Nurhaliza belts a number in the background that will sweep your heart away.
I wished the filmmakers had allowed this scene to breathe. For me it finished too abruptly. At the end of the scene, we were left unsure whether Wan Azizah knew her husband’s fate.
All in all, I will say “Anwar: the Untold Story” is worth watching if you are a Reformasi Anwarista. It is predictable, but that is because we already knew much of the story going in.
For those with no political affiliation, this will at best fall in the “not bad” category. It has its moments, but lacks polish, and it risks alienating its audience by trying too hard to portray Anwar in too positive a light.
Even so, Anwar supporters and sympathisers might love the prospect of reliving those chaotic days. Watching familiar events, faces and names will be like looking at old photographs or talking with an old friend. It will warm your heart.
“Anwar: the Untold Story” is probably playing at a cinema near you this weekend. Will you be watching?
***
kt comments:
As I mentioned before, I like/enjoy the writings of Nehru Sathiamorthy. His take on the movie “Anwar: the Untold Story” is great and spot on, bearing in mind that I, though I support Anwar as PMX, like Nehru Sathiamorthy am not an anwarista nor a Reformasi devotee.
Nehru Sathiamorthy impresses me further by comparing Anwar to Ken Arok, a medieval Javanese king of the Singasari Kingdom, and also made mention of Rama (of Ramayana fame) as an anwarista perception of Anwar, a hero-deity who could do no wrong.
Indeed, Sathiamorthy mentioned that anwaristas believe that Anwar, like Rama in Ramayana, is perfect in everything: the perfect leader, perfect husband, perfect father, perfect fighter, perfect opponent and perfect Muslim. And thus has Anwar been portrayed as such in his biopic “Anwar the Untold Story”, an unabashedly hagiographical account of Anwar.
But at this stage I depart from my agreement with Nehru Sathiamorthy in Rama (of Ramayana) being teh "perfect man". Years back, I wrote a piece on a different (modern) view of the so-called "perfect man" which must have infuriated ardent Hindus, as follows:
... in studies on the Hindu saga, Ramayana, some modern scholars have questioned the true nature of the epic’s typified heroic Rama and his arch foe, the demonic Ravana. The scholars have considered reversing the roles and status of the two principal antagonists, something that would have been previously considered as an unimaginable proposition, namely, that Rama was a cad in many ways while Ravana was a chivalrous hero of sorts.
Some conservative Hindus may even take that proposition as blasphemous, not unlike conservative Malays on the role reversal of Kassim Ahmad’s Tuah and Jebat.
The studies have focused on what has puzzled Ramayana scholars throughout the centuries, namely, the inexplicable nature of the relationship between Rama and his wife Sita, specifically Rama's deplorable behaviour towards her.
Like Tuah, Rama was the hero of the saga, an avatar of Vishnu born on earth to save the world and the heavens from Ravana. Sita was his loyal wife. Together, with Rama's brother, Laksamana, the three left Ayodha on a pre-destined mission.
They went through trials and tribulation. In the course of their mission until their eventual triumphant return to Ayodha, Rama accused Sita twice of infidelity, even though she was innocent. Each time Sita was forced to prove her purity by ordeal.
But in spite of her repetitive demonstration of virtue, she was considered a tainted partner. Sita was never accepted by Rama as a loyal and full member of the Ayodha family.
Why did such a so-called righteous hero like Rama, ironically termed the ‘Perfect Man’, treat his partner Sita with such distrust, lack of respect and injustice, not once but on two separate occasions? By contrast, Ravana treated his hostage Sita with great respect and chivalry.
So, who's actually the hero and who's the villain in Ramayana?
Rama's caddish treatment of Sita was not his only 'crime'. His treacherous murder of King Vali by stealth from behind a tree while the latter was fighting his brother Sugriva, was disgraceful and most unchivalrous for the 'Perfect Man' Rama was supposed to be.
The dying Vali was so shocked by Rama's treachery that he said (from Wikipedia) "if you are searching your wife you should have come to me for help and friendship. Whoever took Sita even if it is Ravana I have defeated them and would have taken them at your feet and at your mercy".
Then he asked Rama with his dying breath:
... in studies on the Hindu saga, Ramayana, some modern scholars have questioned the true nature of the epic’s typified heroic Rama and his arch foe, the demonic Ravana. The scholars have considered reversing the roles and status of the two principal antagonists, something that would have been previously considered as an unimaginable proposition, namely, that Rama was a cad in many ways while Ravana was a chivalrous hero of sorts.
Some conservative Hindus may even take that proposition as blasphemous, not unlike conservative Malays on the role reversal of Kassim Ahmad’s Tuah and Jebat.
The studies have focused on what has puzzled Ramayana scholars throughout the centuries, namely, the inexplicable nature of the relationship between Rama and his wife Sita, specifically Rama's deplorable behaviour towards her.
Like Tuah, Rama was the hero of the saga, an avatar of Vishnu born on earth to save the world and the heavens from Ravana. Sita was his loyal wife. Together, with Rama's brother, Laksamana, the three left Ayodha on a pre-destined mission.
They went through trials and tribulation. In the course of their mission until their eventual triumphant return to Ayodha, Rama accused Sita twice of infidelity, even though she was innocent. Each time Sita was forced to prove her purity by ordeal.
But in spite of her repetitive demonstration of virtue, she was considered a tainted partner. Sita was never accepted by Rama as a loyal and full member of the Ayodha family.
Why did such a so-called righteous hero like Rama, ironically termed the ‘Perfect Man’, treat his partner Sita with such distrust, lack of respect and injustice, not once but on two separate occasions? By contrast, Ravana treated his hostage Sita with great respect and chivalry.
So, who's actually the hero and who's the villain in Ramayana?
Rama's caddish treatment of Sita was not his only 'crime'. His treacherous murder of King Vali by stealth from behind a tree while the latter was fighting his brother Sugriva, was disgraceful and most unchivalrous for the 'Perfect Man' Rama was supposed to be.
The dying Vali was so shocked by Rama's treachery that he said (from Wikipedia) "if you are searching your wife you should have come to me for help and friendship. Whoever took Sita even if it is Ravana I have defeated them and would have taken them at your feet and at your mercy".
Then he asked Rama with his dying breath:
- What was my crime?
- Even if I committed a crime (with my brother), what is your right to kill me?
- The third statement shows Vali's disapproval of the way Rama killed him. He says, "I was fighting with some other person and was not careful enough when you shot me."
He said that Vali, King of Kishkinda (a monkey kingdom) was just a monkey, therefore he as a king on the hunt couldn't be bothered whether the prey being hunted was careful or not, dismissing Vali as being in the same category as a deer being hunted.
Such was Rama's unmitigated sin of killing by treacherous stealth the King of Kishkinda, yet whose army he sought for help (through Sugriva) to rescue Sita from Ravana.
Can you respect Rama's arrogant and totally unrepentant argument?
My sincere apologies to Hindus for seeing Rama as many modern Ramayana scholars have now also see him, a caste-conscious racist and bigot with self-centred arrogance and disdain even for his faithful wife.
But notwithstanding my opinion of Rama, Nehru Sathiamorthy has been quite cheeky (and correct) in saying Anwar Ibrahim would be more alike Ken Arok - you have to look up Ken Arok's story to know what Nehru Sathiamorthy means, wakakaka.
No comments:
Post a Comment