Bonnie and Clyde [Bonnie Parker (October 1, 1910 – May 23, 1934) and Clyde Barrow (March 24, 1909 – May 23, 1934)] were extremely famous outlaws, robbers, traveling through the United States from place to place in the Central United States, becoming notorious all over the country. During the time of the Great Depression, they were seen as having great appeal, and a legend has developed around them. Part of the controversy around them also rests in whether Bonnie was actually a full member of the gang, or had ever even fired a gun as part of the gang. She was with the gang ever since she fell in love with Clyde after meeting him in 1930, and died along with Clyde in a shootout with a posse of 6 officers from a combined force of Texas and Louisiana officers in a remote location, a desolate road near their Bienville Parish, Louisiana hideout. This was expected to happen ever since Clyde made a move against the Texas Department of Corrections in 1934 and engineered a breakout called the “Eastham Breakout” of 1934. Clyde managed to get the following to escape from the prison, Henry Methvin, Raymond Hamilton, and a few others. However, during this breakout, the killing of a prison officer by another escapee brought down the end of Clyde. He was marked as a hunted man, with the mission of the both the Texas and Federal Governments being to hunt down Clyde. In the next few days, Clyde was also involved in the deaths of 3 more police officers, ending the romantic feelings of the public towards him.

Bonnie and Clyde was a movie released in 1967, and a very famous movie at that, starring as the lead (and doomed pair), Warren Beatty and Faye Dunway. The film was directed by Arthur Penn, with screenplay by David Newman and Robert Benton. The movie also took a lead in enabling Hollywood to present more elements of sex and violence in movies. The movie also won 2 Oscar awards for “Best Supporting Actress” (Estelle Parsons) and “Best Cinematography” (Burnett Guffey). The movie is a greatly simplified version of the actual story of Bonny and Clyde, not detailing their full extent of the gang, the many crimes committed by the gang and so on. Even the person who betrayed them and led the police posse to them (and to their deaths) as depicted in the movie was a combination of multiple people. The movie deviated from the actual story to the extent that the family of the Texas Ranger who killed them, Frank Hamer, sued the movie makers (he was portrayed in the movie as having been caught by Bonnie and Clyde earlier and humiliated while he actually encountered them only in the final shoot out).
The producers of the movie, the studio Warner Bros - Seven Arts were not terribly impressed by the movie and did not have high hopes of success. As a result, they made producer Warren Beatty very wealthy (they offered him 40% of the gross instead of a fee, and the when the movie made $70 million, Beatty stood to benefit).
The movie is about the short life of Bonnie and Clyde, after they met and became the core of a crime gang. They recruited more relatives, including Clyde’s brother and his slow wife, with a quick-to-start feud opening up between Bonnie and Clyde’s sister-in-law Blanche. The gang starts increasing their operations to include robbing banks, and starts getting pursued by the police and other law enforcement agents. After the gang humiliate Frank Hamer, he retaliates by relentlessly pursuing the gang, turning them one by one against the gang, eventually reaching Bonnie and Clyde and killing them in a hail of bullets.

One of the most brutal revolutions in Europe in recent times has been the French Revolution; it had many phases and can be taken to mean the period between 1789 and 1799, when the army finally took over in the form of its leader, Napoleon Bonaparte. In the interim period, there were many struggles, many twists and turns. A new instrument of murder, the guillotine, was the main execution tool. People condemned to death for anti-revolution fervor, for their thoughts, and because getting them condemned to death removed them from the scene, all would be brought to the public squares where they would be executed with the guillotine.
‘A tale of 2 cities’ was published in 1859, and is set during the time period of the French Revolution. It shows the sheer terror of those times, where you could be condemned to death for even sympathizing with the fate of an earlier executed ‘enemy’ of the revolution, where a person could be condemned based on the written statement of a person (even if the person wants to take the statement back). The terror of the French Revolution evolved during a complex stage in which the excesses of the nobility and the church had crushed the poorer part of the population (Wikipedia), and this was almost pay-back time.

The book led to a very remembered opening statement, starting with these incredible words, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness”. The book covers the conflicting story of many people, including arrogant aristocrats who were condemned, humble and good aristocrats who were also condemned, people taking revenge using the medium of the revolution, and how the revolution eventually also condemns those who were its proponents earlier. The book has been used as the base for a number of movies over the years, and was itself based on the book ‘The French Revolution: A History’ by Thomas Carlyle.
The novel covers the story of the following main characters:
- Dr Alexandre Manette: A prisoner in the Bastille for 18 years, and the father of the lady who is one of the main characters
- Lucie Manette: Young lady loved by both Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton, and also the daughter of Dr. Manette
- Charles Darnay: A young, and good-natured French nobel. He never liked the cruelty of his family towards the peasantry and abandons the family name (Evrémonde), and fled to England after assuming his mother’s maiden name
- Sydney Carton: A complex, but depressed English barrister. Loves Lucie, and promises her that he will do whatever he can for her and her family. Eventually does so in the end with a supreme act of self-sacrifice.
- Monsieur Ernest Defarge: Took care of Dr. Manette, also a closet revolutionary
- Madame Therese Defarge: A dark-natured closet revolutionary and wife of Ernest. She is also bent of taking revenge for the extermination of her family at the hands of Darnay’s uncle

There have been a number of movies made on the Vietnam War, with some of them such as ‘Deer Hunter’, Apocalypse Now’, ‘Platoon’, and recently ‘Forrest Gump’ having attained iconic status. A lot of these movies have now focused on the severe trauma of battle, with the physical and mental affect on the people involved. Many of them have been very brutal in their depiction of the actual war scenes, and were far from the jingoistic patriotic depiction of war (and this could be because of the Vietnam War being a very controversial war, with opinion being divided on whether this war was even necessary). Movies made on the second world war have not faced this moral dilemma, and hence have not focused so much on the trauma (with even the ultra-realistic movie such as ‘Saving Private Ryan’ and the ‘Thin Red Line’ showing the horror of war, but staying away from a mental deterioration of the soldiers involved).

Patton was a movie made on a heavily decorated (and highly controversial) soldier of the War, General George S Patton (Wikipedia) (played by George C. Scott). General Patton was a major architect in the victory for the US Army in the Second World War, with his passion for discipline, and his fast movement through Europe after the Normandy Landings. He also played a key role in the missions in Morocco expanding to other parts of North Africa, and then Sicily. Another of his great missions was in deceiving the Germans about the actual landing of the Allied forces in Europe, with the ‘Operation Fortitude’ being designed to convince the Germans that Patton was the head of an army that would attack through the French town of Calais. They were successful in this deception, with the Germans being unconvinced of the landing at Normandy.
Patton was a person who was not very well liked by his troops, with his emphasis on discipline, and a strong focus on the mission. He was not particularly fond of humour directed against him either. However, he was a General whom the Germans had feared because of his strong and pretty effective tactics; his focus on making the breakout in the push into France and then Germany in a fast and very mobile manner (they were only stopping because they ran out of fuel) prevented the Germans from being able to recoup.
The film starts off with a resounding speech by George Scott with an massive American Flag behind him; this opening speech and the entire shot has become iconic. The movie fairly accurately captures the nature of the General as we get to see the military life-story of the General in the War, with his successes in North Africa, and then in Sicily. After getting into trouble due to having slapped a soldier (and with Eisenhower forcing him to apologize for that incident), he comes back into action after the Normandy landing. The movie also captures the rapid downfall of this celebrated soldier after that, when his biases against the Russians (although his opinion of what would happen in East Europe after the Soviets took control came true), his tolerating of the ex-Nazis in German areas under his control, and his outbursts subsequently led to his losing his position.
The movie was a success, and also won 7 Oscars:
- Best Actor (George Scott refused to accept, considering the awards to be a meat parade of actors)
- Best Art Direction-Set Decoration,
- Best Director,
- Best Film Editing,
- Best Picture,
- Best Sound and
- Best Writing, Story and Screenplay Based on Factual Material or Material Not Previously Published or Produced
Nominations:
- Best Cinematography,
- Best Effects,
- Special Visual Effects and
- Best Music, Original Score

The movie was directed by . It stars George C. Scott, Karl Malden, Michael Bates, and Karl Michael Vogler. It was directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, and was based on a script by Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North.

The Last Emperor was a major award winning epic movie, released in 1987, and directed by Bernardo Bertolucci, and written by Mark Peploe and Bernardo Bertolucci. The movie had some unique distinctions - the Chinese Government allowed shooting in the Forbidden City and gave him unprecedented access (to the extent that when the British Queen visited Beijing, the movie got precedence in The Forbidden City). This was also because the movie mirrored the history of China during the earlier half of the century, and in a form that did not go the vision of history as per the Communist rulers. And the movie cleaned up at the Oscars, being nominated for 9 awards and winning all 9 of them (if that is not a clean sweep :-), then what is ?)

The movie is indeed about the Last Emperor in China, who lived a sheltered life in the Forbidden City, but who also experience the tumultuous years of Chinese history, including the occupation by the Japanese and the atrocities committed in Manchuria, and then moving forward to the Cultural Revolution in the 1960’s, finally terminating at a time when western tourists are free to visit Beijing (symbolizing China’s opening to the World).
The movie starts with the time when the Emperor, Puyi, is returning to China after 5 years of captivity by the Soviet Union (held in the gulag, and as a prisoner after a trial by the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal; the movie is totally silent about this time). He was convicted for complicity in the Japanese War Crimes in the Chinese region of Manchuria after being arrested by the Red Army. Given that there was solidarity among the Communist Governments in the beginning, Stalin decided to hand Puyi back to China after it was taken over by the Communists in 1949 (even though Puyi wrote to Stalin pleading not to be sent back).
Once he reaches back to China, Puyi attempts suicide, and in this state, the movie shows his initial history; his sheltered life in the Forbidden City including his marriage and other incidents, and moves onto his prison camp where he learns the extent of Japanese atrocities and accepts responsibility for his complicity in these war crimes. The movie then moves onto the Cultural Revolution of the 60’s where Puyi is now a normal citizen, a gardener (also showing the happenings of that time where people could be condemned as not being part of the revolution, and in which many of China’s intellectuals suffered). The movie moves on further, showing Puyi now visiting the Forbidden City as a tourist, watching the throne on which he used to sit once, until finally the movie ends with a scene where western tourists are displayed the same scene, and in that sequence, the death of the Emperor is also mentioned.

Oscars won by the movie:
- Best Picture,
- Best Art Direction-Set Decoration,
- Best Cinematography,
- Best Costume Design,
- Best Director,
- Best Film Editing,
- Best Music (Original Score),
- Best Sound and
- Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium.

William Dalrymple is that sort of a writer you would love to read just because he has written it. For me, he will always be such a writer. Every book of his has been good than the other one. He surely writes a lot about Middle East and Indian Subcontinent. In “From The Holy Mountain: A Journey Among The Christians Of The Middle East”, he travels the Silk Route of ancient Byzantium through the present day Middle East retracing the AD 578 journey of John Moschos, a well known Byzantine monk, traveller and historian. All along the way he only sees a dying heritage in form of neglected monasteries, declining number of Christians and great sort of confusion among different religions in the region.

He begins his journey on Mt. Athos after seeing the older manuscript of ‘The Spiritual Meadow’ (the book by John Moschos), travels to Istanbul, eastern Turkey, Tur Abdin, then on to Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt. Wherever he went, he retraces Moshos’ route, visits remains of his era and tries to stay in the same monasteries as Mochos has done centuries ago.

All the while he notices that early Christian presence in the area was very significant and it has been declining steadily ever since. It has been sometime due to political suppression or sometimes just due to better opportunities outside - but in nearly each instance it has taken its toll on the region’s culture and heritage. Some of the monasteries mentioned by Mochos are now extinct or destroyed either by time or governments. On the one hand, he notices the differences between Islam and Christianity getting wider and wider down the ages. On the other hand, he still find these religions intermingled together at some holy places praying together for miracles or babies.

Certainly worth a read for its rich description of the place, early times and understanding of current scenarios.

Freedom At Midnight is supposedly a non-fiction book written in fiction style by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, first published in 1975. Although I would say that it is more fiction that actually a non-fiction book - some of the facts mentioned in it are controversial and biased. With all the fiction and fact thing being mixed, you will be left wondering if this book is a fiction book or factual one. The book covers the events around India’s independence, starting from Lord Mountbatten’s association with India to the death of Mahatma Gandhi. This book is surely one of the better accounts of the most important phase in the Indian subcontinent - especially India and Pakistan. The book covers different aspects to the Indian independence very effectively - who were the main people driving the whole process, who actually prepared the maps of India and Pakistan, what happened to the royal palaces/property/grandeur of pre-independence princely states, and many other such questions are handled.

One thing which I realized in this book is that it is somewhat biased towards Indian National Congress political leaders of that time and portrays Muslim League leaders in the negative shade. Well, I may not agree entirely with the authors - no one is just black or white - everyone has grey shades. And INC leader surely had their fair bit of share in grey shades.

Even though I would say that this is a better way to learn about those events. It is surely not a historical commentary of events - the writing style is simple and engrossing. Surely a one time read.

Most people would have heard of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at the same time, a vast majority of the same people would have little or no knowledge of the background of the conflict; or of the history of the region of the region at the time of the founding of Israel in 1948. The conflict has split people so widely that it is hard to find people who do not have a bias on the subject. The same is true of people who have written on the topic. In the midst of all this, to find a book that details the history of the region in a relatively unbiased way is difficult. This book is a very close approximation of the detailing of the history of that region that seeks to present history without too much bias.

Jerusalem is without doubt the most disputed territory in the world, and still at the center of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even now, most Islam inspired terrorists consider the cause of Jerusalem to be central to the conflict. Jerusalem is the holiest of holies for Jews, the site of the destructed Second Temple (and the remaining Western Wall from that temple); in addition, the same complex contains the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site for Muslims (said to house the rock from which the prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven on his horse along with the archangel Gabriel); to round off the religious significances, Jerusalem also contains the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, built on the grounds that are venerated as the place where Jesus was said to have been crucified and buried. It is not hard to imagine why the city of Jerusalem has always been a much sought over city.
To write a book about such a place is not easy. Such a book will be reviewed very critically, examined for bias, and every historical fact mentioned checked. To ensure that they did a good job, the authors, Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins, spent 5 years of research, checking historical documents and records. The overall aim was to write a book that aims to provide details of the facts and circumstances surrounding the creation of the state of Israel - to that extent, the book presents details of all the chief players of that time - the Arabs, the British who had the mandate of the region of Palestine, and the various players on the Jewish side (simple soldiers, religious leaders, the leaders (David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir), as well as the various organizations on the Jewish side (Hagannah, Irgun, Stern)).
The book itself starts from the time when the United Nations (in 1947) voted to partition the British mandate of Palestine into 2 parts - one to be the state of the Jews called Israel, and the other to be a Palestine state. However, both sides knew that this was not the end, there would be a war; and both sides prepared for war. So, for example, Israel sent its men abroad to buy arms and needed to setup an army and air force that could hold up its own against the might of its Arab neighbors. Similarly, the Arabs went to buy arms, and also worked at ensuring that all the constituents of the Arab side worked together. As the end of the mandate came closer, war became more imminent. It was also an intelligence war, something that Israel eventually won and won the entire battle (the Israeli objective was to retain their homeland, and they managed to do so). One consequence of the battle was to create a huge number of Palestinian refugees, the problem of which is a major impediment to any peaceful solution even now.

In this book, Bill Bryson attempts to recreate the travel itinerary of his youth some seventeen years earlier when he backpacked across Europe with one of his high school friend; He is alone this time with rucksack and notebook. This book a mixture of his lively anecdotes, sharp observations, and flashbacks to his earlier tour.

The book covers Norway (Hammerfest, Oslo), France (Paris), Belgium (Brussels, Bruges, Spa, Durbuy), Germany (Aachen, Cologne, Hamburg), Holland (Amsterdam), Denmark (Copenhagen), Sweden (Gothenburg, Stockholm), Italy (Rome, Naples, Sorrento, Capri, Florence, Milan, Como), Switzerland (Brig, Geneva, Bern), Liechtenstein, Austria (Innsbruck, Salzburg, Vienna), Yugoslavia (Split, Sarajevo, Belgrade), Bulgaria (Sofia), and Turkey (Istanbul).

The book is pure entertainment (provided you must not fail to catch the humor there). He is quite honest about what he liked or what he did not liked. And he was prompt is downgrading his rating for a “well-known” place once he reached there and did not found it up to the mark. He also diligently lavishes praises on lesser known places. He surely avoids the usual travel writer obligation to adore every place (read famous places) they visit.

I know that some of you may find this book rather strangely funny - or, even absurd at times. But only if you’re obsessed with political correctness, he may offend you, but he is democratic in his targets. He has some quite interesting observations to make. Although most of the observations are now out of the date (he wrote the book in 1990) but they are funny and a refreshing change from the breathless romanticism of so many guidebooks and travel brochures. He also shows that Europe and Britain aren’t as perfect as they look from the windows of a tour bus.

Most of us must have heard following opening lines of a poem by Samuel Taylor Coleridge:

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
Down to a sunless sea.

The poem references Mongol and Chinese emperor Kublai Khan of the Yuan dynasty and his summer capital Xanadu or Shangdu (as popularly known). Xanadu has a significant place in western history as well because it was the destination of the most famous Marco Polo’s trip from Jerusalem to China (which he called Cathay) carrying oil from Holy Sepulcher & presents from Pope Gregory X for Kublai Khan between 1271 & 1274.

In his book by name of ‘In Xanadu - A Quest’, William Dalrymple retraces the epic journey of Marco Polo from Jerusalem to Xanadu, the ruins of the palace of Kubla Khan, north of Peking carrying oil from Holy Sepulcher, in the summer of 1986. He calls this book as a quest - not a vacation - just because it involves hardship and suffering not accompanied by a vacation. An intrepid traveler, and entertaining writer, Dalrymple offers an anecdotal history of the people and places he encounters en route through Israel, Cyprus, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and the breadth of China. An overland passage through these closed countries is an incredible travel feat in itself.

Although I did not found this book to be as engrossing or interesting as some of the other ones by William Dalrymple. But still, this is not a great book; it is an interesting book. Much of the book is the usual stuff of travel: difficulties in getting official clearance; locals speaking funny (read faulty) English; stomach upsets due to eating strange food at various roadside eateries; staying at inns which are sometimes as dirty as roads outside; and so on. However, in some sections he writes about more interesting things like how dull Polo’s own account really is, developments in Islamic architecture, the history of some of the places, recognizing Marco’s Polo description of a place and mapping it into current state of affairs. In totality, an interesting enough book by a 22 year old (remember this was his first book).

Read this book if:
1. You love reading travel books which are not like essays.
2. You are on a vacation which has turned wrong - in this book you will find that it could have been worse

What happens when a writer, known so far for travel books and about history, and who tickles the funny bones in your body, decides to write about science. Writing books about science and making them interesting have broken many authors, so when I first picked up this book, I was a bit worried. Well, when I finished the book, I let out a sigh of relief. While imparting a fair amount of education about science (although not about explaining the complicated algebra and geometry), the book does convey a great deal and did so in a very entertaining way.
Of course, if you are a scientist, you would take away almost nothing from this book, since it hardly claims to propound a new version of the string theory; one thing anyone can learn from such a book is how to write books like this that will explain a large number of concepts while keeping the overall subject light; and at the same time, making things more life-like by explaining details about the scientists that hardly ever makes it out.

Typically when you read about a scientist, you will learn about the great inventions that the scientist did, and how great it was and how beneficial it was. Typically such inventors are treated in a very god-like manner, and way above reality. Bill Bryson explains a lot more about such scientists, including their failing and weaknesses, and make them seem more life-like.
You will get to feel about what the situation and surrounding environment was like for such great scientists such as Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and many others. And this is exactly the reason why this massive 500 page plus book was written. Like all of us, Bill Bryson learnt all the facts about science, but again like us, in a very dull manner. He wanted to understand the reasons as to why something was discovered, the motivation of the scientists, the environment around them, and so on; all these help in understanding the development of science in a much more understandable way. This works great - you learn as to how Newton was also an egoist and also responsible for sending many counterfeiters to the gallows in an official role; or how the great Cavendish was such a recluse that he would even communicate with his housekeeper through letters.
In addition to the part about scientists, you also learn about sizes in this universe, from the size of our planet to the size of galaxies, about the development of Homo Sapiens (us) and what separates us from our biological cousins (the chimpanzees) to whom we are more than 98% genetically similar. You learn a lot about such varied subjects such as fields of cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, geology, chemistry, physics and so on.
For writing this book, Bryson spent over 3 years, talking to various scientists and understanding things from them; as a result of his not being a scientist himself, there have been errors that have been pointed out in the book; but overall, I stick to my thought that this was a wonderful book that tried to explain how scientists and science learn about everything (and something that you never read about).