Jinnah

Well, as a Western actor portraying a Middle Easterner in an area known for fanatics it's fairly easy to understand the death threats. There are 2 factions in Pakistan, the Muslims and the Hindus who each hold the man Jinnah in a differant light. One looks at him as the father and saviour of Pakistan, the other rivials him. One of the reasons for the lack of Western distribution is the film companies don't see a profit in releasing it in an area with general apathy to the Middle Eastern mindset, politics and history. A pity really as it is a rather brilliant film. And after Sept. 11, 2001 the general attitude in the west towards the Mid-East has eroded not improved.

It's very unfortunate that the loonies making the threats would probably carry them out - consider 9-11!!!! Since when was a film documenting someone

Aren't Pakistan and India both in Southern Asia?

A film set in India called "GHANDI" was fairly successful here in the USA not all that long ago. It won the Academy Award for Best Picture while Ben Kingsley won best actor Oscar.

India and Pakistan border one another, please someone explain why a film about Pakistan's founding leader would be destined to do so poorly in the USA while a film about India's leader did such good box office in the USA? I'm still not entirely clear on that issue.

With the building tension between India and Pakistan so prominent in the news in the USA, I would appreciate anything that could give me a better understanding of the respective cultural dynamics of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. I think a lot of other Americans would feel the same way and would join me in going to see this film if only we were given the opportunity.

Oh, one more thing, re: Gandhi. Since the time of the Beat Poets, through the 1960s and 70s, and up to the present day, elements of Hinduism (and its offshoot Buddhism) have entered some areas of American culture. Even if one is not an adherent of "New Age" philosophies, concepts such as karma, tantra, reincarnation, etc. are familiar to many Americans. The same cannot be said for Islam. This predisposes a greater sympathy for Gandhi, as a Hindu leader, than Jinnah, as a Muslim. Even though, as I said in the above post, both were more secular than is commonly thought -- or portrayed in both films.

A final thought: There was a film that came out in 1970 titled YOU CAN'T WIN 'EM ALL starring Charles Bronson and Tony Curtis that did have a 'Muslim' leader as a key character. I don't know how the film did at the box office. It was an action/adventure film set in post WWI Turkey. The figure in question, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (called Mustafa Khayam in the film) was played by Patrick Magee. But this film may NOT be the exception to the rule as Ataturk was a revolutionary nationalist, pro-Western, and an extreme secularist and modernizer. He de-Islamicized Turkey. So, hardly a true "Muslim" leader.

Yes Matt, Alfonso did a great job answering my question! You would think this guy was a college professor or something!

I didn't like the film Ghandi and thought it too was overrated. The best part about it was Sir Ben Kingsley's performance.

Still Matt, even though you didn't like JINNAH as much as some people have, you've seen something we here in the USA have yet to see.

(Assuming my Columbo pose with cigar...)
Just one more thing. Does this film have English subtitles or is it dubbed? :confused:

Interesting...I admit to be the same way. I only watch a film if it has CL but something like Shaku Zulu or Ivanhoe really isnt the type of film I enjoy to watch. We are die hard Christopher Lee fans here and its because we love this man and his work so much we seek out anything he has done and watch it because hes, i guess for lack of a better word, our hero. Jinnah doesnt appear to be the type of movie i would wanna watch either but because its CL and he has said its his best performance. (wow ...does that say a lot) I cant wait to see it. But i agree if it wanst him the subject matter wouldnt interest me. That being a reason why i never had interest in seeing Rasputin. But it is my all time favorite Christopher Lee performance. More than HOD and The Wicker Man. I never would have seen this movie if he wasnt in it. I probally see it 3 or 4 times a year now. His performance is amazing and made me learn more about rasputin and see other films about him. Im sure when i im blown away by Jinnah The same will happen. That is an amazing gift for an actor to have ...the ability to do that to a viewer must be very gratifying for any actor

It was very enlightening to read more about the controversy surrounding Jinnah. I have been intrigued by the aura surrounding this film ever since I joined this website and have tried to find out a bit more about it. I enjoy historical movies, particularily when they are about areas of the world woefully neglected in my school days. I hope someday I can have the opportunity to view this film!

I am just curious though now about why Mr. Lee was motivated to make this film? Is there an article/interview somewhere on the site that has him talking about this aspect in more depth?

Indeed. Actually, I've been wanting to ask that very question--what exactly do you do, Alfonso? It's obvious you're exceedingly well-educated, particularly in matters of history and geography.

Thanks for the compliment, Dave.  Believe me, a kind word from a 'layman,' such as yourself, means more to me than all the professional awards and accolades in the world.  

It occurred to me after posting that I could just as easily have checked your profile, but now I'm glad I didn't. A pleasure, Alfonso.

Wow! That's comforting to know!

I was thinking of doing a piece of history coursework on the India-Pakistan thing, and I just wanted to know exactly how true to life the film was. That's great! If I decide to do that, i could use it...

I

Charles, I'll refer you to my quote again.

I'll phrase it differently this time. "The historical events that happened during Jinnah's life are 100% truth, without any political propaganda and certainly no fictional events"

Once something is proven in Court, it becomes beyond reasonable doubt and these facts stand. That is unless someone is prepared to challenge them, which has happened and may I say unsuccessfully in every count. Never mind the government of Pakistan being at the forefront of these challenges. Unless documents are found or produced that state otherwise, the film's events are 100% accurate. Anything else is fiction.

Without getting myself in deep waters and disclose information I shouldn't, I cannot argue a lot of your points. Jinnah is portrayed as close to the real person as anyone remembers, then so is Ghandi and Lord Mountbatten. There were not two or three witnesses consulted, it was a long life study into the subject by Professor Ahmed from Cambridge University, who is the world's leading expert on the subject. and who produced the film. Saying that, personal touches are unavoidable and you cannot expect the script to be word by word what history dictates. However, I would have to strongly disagree that the script is an interpretation of facts. The film does not intend to make your mind up for you and throw patriotism in your face. If seen it that way, then the perception of Islamic culture and society is seen through the same eyes as a the religious nuts do. Views so extremists that anything positive is interpreted as a challenge to the views we have been made to believe.

The "Ghost", is the narrator of events. How he narrates them, is something as personal as writing a book. The ghost is there to analyze a life and defend his position against the "angel", one acting as judge and the other as defendant. It is this analysis into Jinnah's life and the events surrounding the birth of Pakistan, which give the insights into two very different interpretations of Jinnah's real intentions. When we get towards the end of the film and all facts are put together, there is no denying that Jinnah's intentions were honorable although in order to achieve that, he had to sacrifice his family, his people and ultimately paid with his own life. What remained was a nation and the father of that nation was Mr. Jinnah. That is what the film is about, it's not about proving anything to the western world, to India or to the Pakistani government. It's about the story of a man and a birth of a Nation and in that respect, the film is 100% truthful to history . The "Ifs" and "buts" have always been present in every historical event and contrary to the general opinion that Jinnah: The movie, was as a "Pro-Pakistan or "Pro-Jinnah" film cannot be further away from the truth. It was quoted as being a stereotypical"Paki bashing project" by the editor of the biggest newspaper in Pakistan.

Both Juan AND Charles are equally right.

In history there is no absolute truth. Although sometimes the FACTS of any given event are indisputable, the interpretation to be given those acts is NEVER beyond dispute. And interpretation, afterall is the essence of history.

All history is biased. . . AND THAT'S OK. History is not journalism. History is not about a simple recitation of facts; letting the reader make up their own mind about how to digest those facts. History is about interpretation, and interpretation is ever-changing. If this were not the case, if there were one absolute true history, then the science of history would soon die. There would be one history book for each topic and that's that. The task of the 'historian' (whether behind a lectern or a camera) is to present an interpretation to his/her 'audience.' Like an artist, the historian decides what to put in and what to leave out -- what to emphasize and what to downplay -- in their 'composition.'

Inevitably, any historical entity or happening (individual or collective), and especially one which so inflamed contemporary and subsequent public opinion and which so molded later political events as did Jinnah, Gandhi, and the process of de-colonization on the Sub-Continent, will have its legacy continually reviewed by later generations of observers and commentators. Today, almost 50 years years have passed since the collapse of the British Empire and the establishment of India and Pakistan as independent states, and the number of books -- historical and fictional, valuable and execrable -- written on the subject would fill several libraries floor to ceiling. In the course of all these words, the same questions have been asked over and again: Was de-colonization an indigenous phenomenon or merely part of a larger political pattern? did independence truly advance the cause of national self-determination or was it the harbinger of neocolonialism? were the respective policies of Jinnah and Gandhi harmful or salutary? what social forces did independence and de-colonization uphold, seek to advance or restrain? and even was there a real process of independence at all or was it the culmination of centuries of institutional development?

It soon becomes obvious that in the formation of any historical verdict there are a number of factors to be considered. One is the nationality of the historian. Of the Pakistani attitude to their history Juan has already spoken; but one should realize that nations which have themselves been through recent upheavals are far more likely to see revolutions and revolutionaries in a more concrete way than, say, Americans who live in a country almost free of genuine revolutionary movements and which has not gone through a civil war in over 130 years. Equally important is the time in which the observer is writing. They may be writing in a time of revolutionary expectations -- such as 1968 -- or in a period of tension and conflict like that of the Cold War; and such experiences are far more likely to sharpen insights into what happened in an earlier time of troubles than one of prosperity, good feeling and stability. And then there is, of course, the political perspective that the historian brings to their work -- this perhaps being the most important point, for the most recent work on de-colonization (both written and visual) has been colored, in one way or another, by the experience of the two World Wars,the Russian Revolution and the spread of Communism, and the Third World national liberation struggles of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, of which Indian/Pakistani de-colonization itself was a precursor and model.

All this is the art of history. The historian, like a lawyer before a court, argues, his/her case. But, just as in a court of law, there ARE rules to be followed. In arguing for one's position, one doesn't lie, or conceal evidence or warp or alter the facts. My point is that, within the boundaries of the facts, there is scope for many and varied interpretations.

No one owns the truth. And the facts DO NOT speak for themselves. It's the historian's job to speak for the facts.

Now, this is how it should be. It is only when the past is continually reinterpreted and reexamined in the light of contemporary experience that it has meaning and is capable of comprehension. Comprehension not only of the whys and the hows, but also of the unity that binds us to the words and actions of our predecessors.