My Son the Fanatic was a surprizing treat. I never heard of it before renting at blockbuster last night. I don't think it ever played in Toronto theatres. Never the less I must applaud at Hanif Kureshi's yet again bold and honest attempt at highlighting a recent phenomenon in the South Asian community: the son going "holier than thou" on the family. This film touched me personally because in my case the opposite happened; my father turned fanatic muslim on me. Hanif Qureshi's "My Beautiful Laundrette" is one of my favourite films of all time and after "Budha of Suburbia" I fell in love with this brilliant man and his work. "My Son" is a lot less shocking but still weaves it's way through the father and son conflict elegantly and I am shocked at how blind the Oscar nominators are when it comes to Om Puri's brilliant acting! This is the first film portraying South Asians where the wife has some personality and actually speaks out so I see her as a mother, a wife and a woman that I know because she exists in my community. She is dull and fat and stuck in her little world within the four walls of her home. I dislike her but I know her. The subtle emotions and body language of this lower middle-class family might not be fully understood by a non-south asian critic and that is why some find it moves slowly sometimes. I could not agree with Earnest Hardy more when he says this film (and others by the writer) "endorse a morality of compassion". I think that is the only moral value worth pushing!
39 Reviews
characterizing the movie
emibaldoni4 February 2005
This is a great film, however I must comment that I have found many foreign films listed as "comedy" or "humorous" when in fact they are poignant, disturbing and brilliant (thank you netflix and blockbuster). "No Man's Land" and "Happy Times" are fantastic movies that are incorrectly labeled as comedy, and "My Son the Fanatic" is regrettably categorized as comedy as well. The reality of each character's life is vivid and heart breaking. I felt so uncomfortable witnessing Parvez struggle with his peers, the German, his wife and son, and Bettina. Coupled with "My Beautiful Laundrette" you get a taste of immigrant life in Britain.
Dark and unconventional comedy
herbqedi13 July 2002
My Son The Fanatic demands repeated viewings for its appreciation. It is a dark comedy about an affable taxi driver in the throes of an alcoholic depression, and the eventual disintegration of his family unit.
It starts off making you think that this is going to be a comedy about a social-ladder-climbing father undermined by his son's discovery and subsequent rapture of Islamic fundamentalism. When re-viewing the consistency of the tones and hues, it seems that most scenes are being seen through the main character's (Parvez) eyes. And he turns out to be the most unreliable of narrators -- a literary device difficult to translate into film. In most of the darker and smoky hues, Parvez seems to be a warm, loving, tolerant, supportive, and protective soul.
In the lighter-toned scenes, we learn that Parvez is actually is clueless to who he is and how he is perceived. The fact is that he is a pathetic failure as a husband, father, and "career" man -- a 25-year taxi driver in a poor town in England (Does anyone know what city/town this is supposed to be? It was unclear to me.) where the cab drivers serve as a conduit between prostitutes and their clients. Throughout the movie, he sinks further into the throes of an alcoholic depression. He is an affable and engaging drunk, but a drunk nonetheless.
His son's rejection of his depressed and drunken father manifests itself in turning to Islamic Fundamentalism. His wife tries to awaken him as to what is going on, but to no avail. Pervez's sodden eyes sees life only in his own terms. Pervez sees the holy man as a fraud, and thus invents a scene in his mind that everyone else denies, played in near-total darkness, where the holy man asks him for immigration help from his (actually non-existent) political connections with the Fingerhuts, who despise him.
Someone else correctly pointed out that the son's adulation of Ayatollah Khomeni is inconsistent with the Pakistani fundamentalist sects that populate Karachi. This is the one well-lit scene where falsehood prevails, but I think that was just a fact-checking error.
As he sinks deeper, Pervez conjures up a loving relationship with his favorite whore, the reality of which is depicted in the final scenes as the credits roll.
The movie was never really about his son at all. His life was never really about the love he invested in his family at all. It is about a disintegration of a once-noble soul due to depression and alcoholism, and how the world looks through his forgiving eyes.
This is a fascinating study in duality, but you need to watch it twice to see it that way. Bravura performances by Puri, the actress who played the wife, and Griffiths as the multi-wigged prostitute are a joy to behold. There are slow and murky patches, but worth sticking with as a fascinating exploration into the culture clashes and reality blurring characteristic of alcoholic depression -- a disease with an acutely higher incidence in the UK among Asian immigrants.
Well worth watching.
It starts off making you think that this is going to be a comedy about a social-ladder-climbing father undermined by his son's discovery and subsequent rapture of Islamic fundamentalism. When re-viewing the consistency of the tones and hues, it seems that most scenes are being seen through the main character's (Parvez) eyes. And he turns out to be the most unreliable of narrators -- a literary device difficult to translate into film. In most of the darker and smoky hues, Parvez seems to be a warm, loving, tolerant, supportive, and protective soul.
In the lighter-toned scenes, we learn that Parvez is actually is clueless to who he is and how he is perceived. The fact is that he is a pathetic failure as a husband, father, and "career" man -- a 25-year taxi driver in a poor town in England (Does anyone know what city/town this is supposed to be? It was unclear to me.) where the cab drivers serve as a conduit between prostitutes and their clients. Throughout the movie, he sinks further into the throes of an alcoholic depression. He is an affable and engaging drunk, but a drunk nonetheless.
His son's rejection of his depressed and drunken father manifests itself in turning to Islamic Fundamentalism. His wife tries to awaken him as to what is going on, but to no avail. Pervez's sodden eyes sees life only in his own terms. Pervez sees the holy man as a fraud, and thus invents a scene in his mind that everyone else denies, played in near-total darkness, where the holy man asks him for immigration help from his (actually non-existent) political connections with the Fingerhuts, who despise him.
Someone else correctly pointed out that the son's adulation of Ayatollah Khomeni is inconsistent with the Pakistani fundamentalist sects that populate Karachi. This is the one well-lit scene where falsehood prevails, but I think that was just a fact-checking error.
As he sinks deeper, Pervez conjures up a loving relationship with his favorite whore, the reality of which is depicted in the final scenes as the credits roll.
The movie was never really about his son at all. His life was never really about the love he invested in his family at all. It is about a disintegration of a once-noble soul due to depression and alcoholism, and how the world looks through his forgiving eyes.
This is a fascinating study in duality, but you need to watch it twice to see it that way. Bravura performances by Puri, the actress who played the wife, and Griffiths as the multi-wigged prostitute are a joy to behold. There are slow and murky patches, but worth sticking with as a fascinating exploration into the culture clashes and reality blurring characteristic of alcoholic depression -- a disease with an acutely higher incidence in the UK among Asian immigrants.
Well worth watching.
Multicult gridlock
matt-20110 July 1999
A Pakistani taxi driver in Britain (Om Puri) is plagued by a bad cosmic joke that seems co-written by Salman Rushdie and Martin Amis: his son, rather than becoming an unrecognizable assimilate, turns into a jihad-embracing Muslim fundamentalist. At the same time, the warmth of a white hooker (Rachel Griffiths) beckons, to the chagrin and hissing tongues of his local countrymen.
The writer Hanif Kureishi's onetime Benetton smugness has mellowed into ripe colors of rue, mockery and regret as he eases into middle age, and this adaptation of his short story is a lovely, surprisingly beautifully shot, sneakily haunting small movie. The dialogue sometimes has a novelish explicitness, and the performances are variable--Puri sometimes drifts into F. Murray Abraham terrain, but he has an amazing, craggy, pain-absorbent face. But the movie has a real subject: the ways in which postmod culture-hybridity isn't always a rainbow-colored day at the beach. And the warmth amid desperation of the central relationship suggests what Neil Jordan's MONA LISA might have been without the smoky-sax romanticism.
The sad thing about seeing this movie was that, after Miramax gave the movie one of their unceremonious heave-hos (par for the course for their good movies), the audience, unblanketed by buzz, hype, an aura of hot-ticket, reacted as shruggingly as critics seem to have. Too bad: MY SON THE FANATIC evokes the sweet, melancholy fatalism of seventies pictures like THE NICKEL RIDE and STRAIGHT TIME. It has the atmosphere of an overcast crime picture without the crime. And it has at least a handful of real, breathing people in it--as rare an occurrence these days as a flight of the dodo.
The writer Hanif Kureishi's onetime Benetton smugness has mellowed into ripe colors of rue, mockery and regret as he eases into middle age, and this adaptation of his short story is a lovely, surprisingly beautifully shot, sneakily haunting small movie. The dialogue sometimes has a novelish explicitness, and the performances are variable--Puri sometimes drifts into F. Murray Abraham terrain, but he has an amazing, craggy, pain-absorbent face. But the movie has a real subject: the ways in which postmod culture-hybridity isn't always a rainbow-colored day at the beach. And the warmth amid desperation of the central relationship suggests what Neil Jordan's MONA LISA might have been without the smoky-sax romanticism.
The sad thing about seeing this movie was that, after Miramax gave the movie one of their unceremonious heave-hos (par for the course for their good movies), the audience, unblanketed by buzz, hype, an aura of hot-ticket, reacted as shruggingly as critics seem to have. Too bad: MY SON THE FANATIC evokes the sweet, melancholy fatalism of seventies pictures like THE NICKEL RIDE and STRAIGHT TIME. It has the atmosphere of an overcast crime picture without the crime. And it has at least a handful of real, breathing people in it--as rare an occurrence these days as a flight of the dodo.
A Downer
B248 May 2005
Unremittingly difficult to sit through this one. Whoever finds any comic relief in its minor ironies ("Fingerhut," "Mr. Shits," etc.) is just not concentrating on the main theme. This is a film about people living out their lives in more or less distinct states of alienation from those around them as well as from their own self-concepts. As with all such stories, there is nothing to laugh about.
Be that as it may, the actors and the direction are first-rate. While nothing much happens to develop plot, a great deal comes into view in progressively more intimate sketches that delineate character and advance one's awareness of just how "out of synch" everyone is. Central to appreciating it all is how easily universal values of love, compassion, integrity, and objectivity come unstuck when someone heeds the call of looking for greener pastures.
Specifically, the problem of ambitious people moving out of their native countries to find a better life elsewhere is one that we find in history and literature from the beginning of time. And even more specifically, the clash of one culture or religion with another -- together with elements of racism and competition -- are certainly nothing new to cinematic representations. This is a kind of story with neither end nor beginning, only one bitter scene fading into another.
A very dark film indeed.
Be that as it may, the actors and the direction are first-rate. While nothing much happens to develop plot, a great deal comes into view in progressively more intimate sketches that delineate character and advance one's awareness of just how "out of synch" everyone is. Central to appreciating it all is how easily universal values of love, compassion, integrity, and objectivity come unstuck when someone heeds the call of looking for greener pastures.
Specifically, the problem of ambitious people moving out of their native countries to find a better life elsewhere is one that we find in history and literature from the beginning of time. And even more specifically, the clash of one culture or religion with another -- together with elements of racism and competition -- are certainly nothing new to cinematic representations. This is a kind of story with neither end nor beginning, only one bitter scene fading into another.
A very dark film indeed.
A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.
=G=17 May 2003
"My Son the Fanatic" tells of a humble, hardworking East Indian taxi driver and family man (Puri) in England who finds himself caught between a religious zealot son and a prostitute fare who befriends him (Griffiths) squeezing him into making decisions about duty and happiness. A light hearted dramedy with the usual Brit flick austerity, "My Son...." is a warm-hearted film about choices for more mature audiences. (B)
For a stunning performance by Puri, a must-see
Shlomtzie30 May 2000
It's a rare treat to see a film character of such complexity. His story, a love story, is as homely and real as a wound.
Om Puri's character is not to be forgotten and Griffith gives the searingly intelligent performance I have come to expect of her. Kurtha, as the son, is very poor, his delivery stilted and amateurish, and an outdoorsy scene with the two lovers is cinematographically squandered; otherwise, nothing but raves for this one. Also takes the prize for sexiest and most heartbreaking love scene in movie history.
Om Puri's character is not to be forgotten and Griffith gives the searingly intelligent performance I have come to expect of her. Kurtha, as the son, is very poor, his delivery stilted and amateurish, and an outdoorsy scene with the two lovers is cinematographically squandered; otherwise, nothing but raves for this one. Also takes the prize for sexiest and most heartbreaking love scene in movie history.
The Personification of Imagined Cultural Identities In My Son the Fanatic
rjh-57 December 2000
Benjamin Barber identifies two conflicting eternities, race and soul, that shape the modern environment. The former connotes the tribal past while the latter implies the cosmopolitan future (Barber 4). This conflict is variably cast as that between cosmopolitanism and patriotism or between universalism and notions of thick republican citizenship. Conflict between citizens' primary allegiances pervades modern society so substantially that it has manifested itself in popular consciousness, often taking the form of print media or film. My son the Fanatic is an attempt to tackle such issues as the tensions between races, classes, and religions in the age of Diaspora and multi-national corporations. Developing relationships between characters that symbolize classes and cultural groups, Udayan Prasad sheds light on the solitude of cosmopolitan citizenry, and the greed it necessitates. By juxtaposing the film with texts from Nussbaum, Appadurai, Mouffe, and Benhabib, we gain a firmer understanding of the discrepancies between the theoretical liberal universal citizen and the ostracization that arises from the reality of a cosmopolitan identity. Prasad's film inserts cosmopolitan ideals into a realistic setting, revealing tensions that the liberal universalist's theoretical cosmopolitan citizen never encounters. Nussbaum's essay, "Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism," reduces citizenship and allegiance to a set of concentric circles, each representative of shared identities. The outer-most circle represents what all humans share as rational, mutually dependant creatures, while the innermost represents the most exclusive of identities. This stance suggests that from a moral point of view, nationality, race, religion, gender, etc. are arbitrary forms of self-identification and therefore cannot guarantee pursuit of the moral good (Benhabib 711-12). Universalism argues that because it is based on principles independent of birth, the cosmopolitan's first allegiance is to what is morally good: universal values of justice and right (Nussbaum 5). Theoretically, because all people recognize these universal values, basic human rights are guaranteed by all to all. In My Son the Fanatic, Parvez demonstrates his global allegiance through subtle use of dialogue. Several scenes directly uncover Parvez self-identity. One such scene is Parvez's first visit to Bettina's house. Over dinner, Bettina prods Parvez on why he left Islam. Parvez describes his reservations about accepting a philosophy that insisted good people who were not Muslims were destined to go to hell. He explains that in place of the next world, he said "hello to.work." By abandoning the cultural Islamic identity, Parvez was able to adopt the philosophy that people should treat each other "good." In a much later sequence of the film, this appreciation for universal rights is exemplified by the dinner scene in which Parvez's wife is forced to eat alone. Although in vain, Parvez calls out, "Minuu, I won't eat without you!" The main character's belief in equality between genders, because it is counter to the imagined cultural norm, draws great attention to the differences between the cosmopolitan and the national. Another example in which Parvez communicates his abandonment of his non-global identity is his date with Bettina at Fizzy's restaurant. Rather than focusing on the cultural i.e. religious nature of his identity, Prasad explores Parvez's relationship with his former nation-state. Explaining why he left his homeland, Parvez answers simply, "to feed my family, I saw no further." While he does not reject his nation-state, this response portrays a man who does not "worship his country like a god," (Nussbaum 3). This anti-nostalgic view facilitates what can only be considered Parvez's adopted multi-national culture. In order to demonstrate the diverse nature of Parvez's identity (and its distinctions from his abandoned traditional homeland), Prasad incorporates several international cultural interests into the character. Among these interests are sports. Early in the film, when his son is packing up his things, his father grabs him and asks about the squash racquet he purchased. His son, in attempt to become more Pakistani, had sold it. Sports offer hard cultural forms that are more likely to socialize its participants than be changed or re-interpreted. Therefore it is natural that nationalist movements that wish, as Fahid says, "to belong to the past," reject those cultural forms in an attempt to purify the imagined identity (Appadurai 90). It is therefore no surprise that the viewer later sees Parvez playing alone with his son's cricket stick, a sign of British/Pakistani integration.
Although sports offer an excellent example of Parvez's multi-national adopted cultural forms, the form most frequently utilized by the film is jazz. Beginning with his argument with his son over going out to dinner, Prasad incorporates the music into the scene to widen the schism between the cosmopolitan (Parvez) and patriotism (his son's Islamic fundamentalism). The protagonist's appreciation for the music is even rejected by his wife, who eventually declares that the music is "too trumpety." This rejection of "otherness" by the Islamic fundamentalists draws attention to the growing solitude of Parvez' chosen cultural forms. The director goes to great lengths to show Parvez as a cosmopolitan citizen. Whether one studies the way in which he treats women, his choice of music, or his taste in sports, it is clear that the main character swears a primary allegiance to neither his territorial homeland nor Islam. His lack of national or cultural patriotism is exemplified by his lack of enthusiasm for the past. When asked by Bettina why he hadn't gone back to Pakistan, his response "no money, no time," is so emotionless that the viewer has no choice but to conclude that Parvez doesn't care to return. Because of his rejection of national and imagined cultural forms associated with the Pakistani Diaspora, in addition to his acceptance of cultural forms at odds with that Diaspora, we conclude that Prasad has purposefully composed a character who is representative of Nussbaum's ideal world citizen. With this assumption (that Parvez is the symbol of lower class cosmopolitanism) it is possible to explore how Parvez's relationships in the film are metaphorical for the conflicts between the cosmopolitan and global formations.
Although cosmopolitan life is an exile from "the comfort of local truths, warm feelings of patriotism, and the absorbing drama of pride in oneself and one's own," it presupposes a global identity/brotherhood in which all people are equal. Nussbaum offers Crates and Hypparchia as examples of cosmopolitan citizens in order to suggest that the world citizen is not condemned to a life of complete solitude and rejection (Nussbaum15-17). Yet because her examples of cosmopolitan life consist entirely of world travel, public fornication, and posh dinner parties, it does little to explain how world citizen would fare in contemporary society. Nussbaum assumes that the cosmopolitan can achieve a general level of acceptance by his/her environment. In My Son the Fanatic no such level of general acceptance is present. Although he personally believes in the principles of universal equality and justice, Parvez is constantly reminded throughout the film that non-cosmopolitans find him decidedly foreign (and therefore worthy of a second-class status). At best, he achieves a level of respect equal to his economic or social utility. Two sets of characters/scenes in the film offer insight as to the viability of the cosmopolitan identity. In order to elaborate on the exchange between cosmopolitans and transnational corporations, Prasad establishes Mr. Schitz as a character who, like multi-national corporations, acts with enormous financial clout and motivated entirely by self-interest. Prasad also explores the exchange between the traditional homogeneous nation-state and the cosmopolitan citizen. Prasad only thinly veils the similarities between Schitz and multi-national corporations. Therefore by examining the relationship between Parvez and Mr. Schitz, it is possible to extrapolate the possible interaction between multi-national corporations and cosmopolitans. Two possibilities for the relationship exist. On the one hand, liberal philosophy believes that markets, when left alone, will set socioeconomic norms that will encourage global human rights (Mouffe 123). The opposite argument believes that multi-national corporations "rely crucially on the legal, fiscal, environmental, and human organization of the nation-state while operating within and across national structures, exploiting their legitimacy," (Appadurai 168). In order to determine which hypothesis is more likely to be the reality, we look to the film for examples that support either notion of multi-national corporations.
Although sports offer an excellent example of Parvez's multi-national adopted cultural forms, the form most frequently utilized by the film is jazz. Beginning with his argument with his son over going out to dinner, Prasad incorporates the music into the scene to widen the schism between the cosmopolitan (Parvez) and patriotism (his son's Islamic fundamentalism). The protagonist's appreciation for the music is even rejected by his wife, who eventually declares that the music is "too trumpety." This rejection of "otherness" by the Islamic fundamentalists draws attention to the growing solitude of Parvez' chosen cultural forms. The director goes to great lengths to show Parvez as a cosmopolitan citizen. Whether one studies the way in which he treats women, his choice of music, or his taste in sports, it is clear that the main character swears a primary allegiance to neither his territorial homeland nor Islam. His lack of national or cultural patriotism is exemplified by his lack of enthusiasm for the past. When asked by Bettina why he hadn't gone back to Pakistan, his response "no money, no time," is so emotionless that the viewer has no choice but to conclude that Parvez doesn't care to return. Because of his rejection of national and imagined cultural forms associated with the Pakistani Diaspora, in addition to his acceptance of cultural forms at odds with that Diaspora, we conclude that Prasad has purposefully composed a character who is representative of Nussbaum's ideal world citizen. With this assumption (that Parvez is the symbol of lower class cosmopolitanism) it is possible to explore how Parvez's relationships in the film are metaphorical for the conflicts between the cosmopolitan and global formations.
Although cosmopolitan life is an exile from "the comfort of local truths, warm feelings of patriotism, and the absorbing drama of pride in oneself and one's own," it presupposes a global identity/brotherhood in which all people are equal. Nussbaum offers Crates and Hypparchia as examples of cosmopolitan citizens in order to suggest that the world citizen is not condemned to a life of complete solitude and rejection (Nussbaum15-17). Yet because her examples of cosmopolitan life consist entirely of world travel, public fornication, and posh dinner parties, it does little to explain how world citizen would fare in contemporary society. Nussbaum assumes that the cosmopolitan can achieve a general level of acceptance by his/her environment. In My Son the Fanatic no such level of general acceptance is present. Although he personally believes in the principles of universal equality and justice, Parvez is constantly reminded throughout the film that non-cosmopolitans find him decidedly foreign (and therefore worthy of a second-class status). At best, he achieves a level of respect equal to his economic or social utility. Two sets of characters/scenes in the film offer insight as to the viability of the cosmopolitan identity. In order to elaborate on the exchange between cosmopolitans and transnational corporations, Prasad establishes Mr. Schitz as a character who, like multi-national corporations, acts with enormous financial clout and motivated entirely by self-interest. Prasad also explores the exchange between the traditional homogeneous nation-state and the cosmopolitan citizen. Prasad only thinly veils the similarities between Schitz and multi-national corporations. Therefore by examining the relationship between Parvez and Mr. Schitz, it is possible to extrapolate the possible interaction between multi-national corporations and cosmopolitans. Two possibilities for the relationship exist. On the one hand, liberal philosophy believes that markets, when left alone, will set socioeconomic norms that will encourage global human rights (Mouffe 123). The opposite argument believes that multi-national corporations "rely crucially on the legal, fiscal, environmental, and human organization of the nation-state while operating within and across national structures, exploiting their legitimacy," (Appadurai 168). In order to determine which hypothesis is more likely to be the reality, we look to the film for examples that support either notion of multi-national corporations.
Only Four Years Before It's Time
dpmoretti30 September 2001
In light of 9-11, this movie is even more timely than when it first came out. The clashing of consumerism and religious fanaticism is on all our minds. This movie's even handed approach and willingness to show both sides places the viewer on an swerving ideological journey. And Om Puri and Rachel Griffiths give remarkable performances. A must see.
A must, after July, 7th
gmc7517 July 2005
After hearing about the terrible London blasts, which happened just a few days ago, the first thing which came to my mind was this movie. I watched a few years ago and loved it. Doubtless, I don't agree with B24: this is not a comedy at all, and it's nothing to share with "East is East". This movie is extremely forward-looking, not only because it somehow anticipated the "Clash of Civilization", but also because it gives you an extremely good description of all the difficulties that the first generation of Western-born people have to face.
The character has to face reality: he is sure that he will never be able to be a real British (Western) citizen: despite his father's efforts and open-mind, the guy is too young to realize that if you don't accept yourself first, you will hardly find out people ready to welcome you. This is why he finds it more convenient (and much easier) to be surrounded by other Pakistani people. Among all the characters, the portrait of the "Imam" is very good: he is shown as an hypocritical man, always ready to blame the West, but still living in the UK, where he can get anything he wants: women, sex, movies all those same things that he says are supposed to represent our flaws. But perhaps these people must forget something: despite their words, we're not afraid!
The character has to face reality: he is sure that he will never be able to be a real British (Western) citizen: despite his father's efforts and open-mind, the guy is too young to realize that if you don't accept yourself first, you will hardly find out people ready to welcome you. This is why he finds it more convenient (and much easier) to be surrounded by other Pakistani people. Among all the characters, the portrait of the "Imam" is very good: he is shown as an hypocritical man, always ready to blame the West, but still living in the UK, where he can get anything he wants: women, sex, movies all those same things that he says are supposed to represent our flaws. But perhaps these people must forget something: despite their words, we're not afraid!
Shoddy Art, Repugnant Politics, Brilliant Puri and Griffiths
Danusha_Goska20 June 2013
"My Son the Fanatic," writer Hanif Kureishi and director Udayan Prasad's 1997 film about Farid, an English-born Pakistani boy who becomes a devout Muslim who firebombs a brothel, is a train wreck. Its art is shoddy and its politics are repugnant. But Om Puri as Parvez, the taxi- driver father of the fanatic son, gives a performance that is solid gold. Rachel Griffiths, as a prostitute, is brilliant.
Parvez (Om Puri) is a taxi driver in a depressed English mill town. He befriends Bettina (Griffiths) a prostitute. He works for a monstrous German sex tourist named S---t. Parvez's son, Farid, is engaged to the lovely Madeline Fingerhut, daughter of the chief of police. Farid breaks off his engagement and becomes the Muslim "fanatic" of the title. Parvez tries to stop his son's fanaticism. He also enters into an affair with Bettina, the prostitute, who loves him.
"My Son the Fanatic" struggles to combine several disparate themes and subplots. It is never successful because it never probes deeply enough into any of its material. The film ends ambiguously; the viewer has no idea how any of the story strands will resolve themselves.
The two most powerful features of the film, the only real reason to see the film, are Om Puri and Rachel Griffiths. They are very different and they are both powerhouses. Om Puri feels like a beating heart. He is totally believable, irresistibly lovable, and charismatic. Puri had smallpox when he was two and his face is cratered. These scars just make you stare at him all the more.
Rachel Griffiths is perfect as Bettina, the stereotypical "hooker with a heart of gold." She's smart, and she's in pain.
In spite of their age and culture differences, Parvez and Bettina's love is completely believable and poignant. It's clear that Parvez's wife Minoo is not providing him with passion, respect, or either emotional or physical intimacy. She calls him a "useless idiot," and at one point it appears she may leave him to go back to Pakistan. While Parvez resists his son's fanaticism, Minoo supports it.
You really want to know – can a man fall in love with a prostitute? Parvez's friend Fizzy reminds him cruelly that Bettina has been penetrated by thousands of men. Could Parvez ever get over that? Could Parvez and Minoo separate in a way that worked for them both and spared them both great pain? Could Bettina settle down with one man? Could the couple survive the disdain of respectable people? Again, the chemistry between Parvez and Bettina is so compelling you really want the film to attempt to answer any of these questions. In fact, it answers none. Sadly, Parvez and Bettina are merely Hanif Kureishi's little wind-up toys. He has zero respect or affection for his own characters. Kureishi created Parvez and Bettina just to make his own, repugnant, political point. They are agitprop.
With the exception of Madeline Fingerhut, who is on screen for about 120 seconds, every last Westerner the innocent Muslims encounter is a racist, a prostitute, or a monster. The thrust of "My Son the Fanatic" is this. Innocent, decent Pakistani Muslims immigrate to England and are confronted by orgies, naked women selling their bodies in the streets, racism, violence, and booze. The film is graphic and disgusting. There are gratuitous scenes of Bettina being used by her johns. The German sex tourist S– is depicted abusing men and women and hosting orgies. There is no logic in this; this man is shown to be ridiculously wealthy. A sex tourist with that kind of money would not travel to some grim northern English mill town.
S–-, the German sex tourist for whom Parvez works, is named after feces. He is utterly disgusting. There are graphic scenes of his exploitation of Bettina. Later, she is shown with bruises from his beatings. He also beats Parvez. When Parvez goes out, he is cruelly mocked by an English comedian. There is no other English life depicted in "My Son the Fanatic." Not a single English person is kind to children or animals. The English are all violent, sexually perverse, racist scum. Farid becomes a fanatic after Madeline's father is rude to him. "You are the only pig I've ever wanted to eat," Farid tells his future father-in-law. All this graphic perversion is thrust into the viewer's face to emphasize: innocent, decent Muslims are forced by Western ugliness to become terrorists.
Okay, let's rejoin planet Earth, shall we? On May 21, 2013, the BBC reported on 54 separate child sex slave rings in England run by Pakistani men. The descriptions of the activities of these gangs are nightmarish. Western Civilization did not corrupt these men; their corruption was already installed. And as for the charge that racism forces otherwise innocent men to become fanatics; please see Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarneav, two beloved, funded, coddled, immigrants who arrived in the US as "refugees." The refuge the US gave these men was used by them to murder innocents.
The London Times named Hanif Kureishi one of "The 50 greatest British writers since 1945." Given the shoddiness of the plotting and characterization of "My Son the Fanatic," and its skewed politics, one has to wonder why.
Parvez (Om Puri) is a taxi driver in a depressed English mill town. He befriends Bettina (Griffiths) a prostitute. He works for a monstrous German sex tourist named S---t. Parvez's son, Farid, is engaged to the lovely Madeline Fingerhut, daughter of the chief of police. Farid breaks off his engagement and becomes the Muslim "fanatic" of the title. Parvez tries to stop his son's fanaticism. He also enters into an affair with Bettina, the prostitute, who loves him.
"My Son the Fanatic" struggles to combine several disparate themes and subplots. It is never successful because it never probes deeply enough into any of its material. The film ends ambiguously; the viewer has no idea how any of the story strands will resolve themselves.
The two most powerful features of the film, the only real reason to see the film, are Om Puri and Rachel Griffiths. They are very different and they are both powerhouses. Om Puri feels like a beating heart. He is totally believable, irresistibly lovable, and charismatic. Puri had smallpox when he was two and his face is cratered. These scars just make you stare at him all the more.
Rachel Griffiths is perfect as Bettina, the stereotypical "hooker with a heart of gold." She's smart, and she's in pain.
In spite of their age and culture differences, Parvez and Bettina's love is completely believable and poignant. It's clear that Parvez's wife Minoo is not providing him with passion, respect, or either emotional or physical intimacy. She calls him a "useless idiot," and at one point it appears she may leave him to go back to Pakistan. While Parvez resists his son's fanaticism, Minoo supports it.
You really want to know – can a man fall in love with a prostitute? Parvez's friend Fizzy reminds him cruelly that Bettina has been penetrated by thousands of men. Could Parvez ever get over that? Could Parvez and Minoo separate in a way that worked for them both and spared them both great pain? Could Bettina settle down with one man? Could the couple survive the disdain of respectable people? Again, the chemistry between Parvez and Bettina is so compelling you really want the film to attempt to answer any of these questions. In fact, it answers none. Sadly, Parvez and Bettina are merely Hanif Kureishi's little wind-up toys. He has zero respect or affection for his own characters. Kureishi created Parvez and Bettina just to make his own, repugnant, political point. They are agitprop.
With the exception of Madeline Fingerhut, who is on screen for about 120 seconds, every last Westerner the innocent Muslims encounter is a racist, a prostitute, or a monster. The thrust of "My Son the Fanatic" is this. Innocent, decent Pakistani Muslims immigrate to England and are confronted by orgies, naked women selling their bodies in the streets, racism, violence, and booze. The film is graphic and disgusting. There are gratuitous scenes of Bettina being used by her johns. The German sex tourist S– is depicted abusing men and women and hosting orgies. There is no logic in this; this man is shown to be ridiculously wealthy. A sex tourist with that kind of money would not travel to some grim northern English mill town.
S–-, the German sex tourist for whom Parvez works, is named after feces. He is utterly disgusting. There are graphic scenes of his exploitation of Bettina. Later, she is shown with bruises from his beatings. He also beats Parvez. When Parvez goes out, he is cruelly mocked by an English comedian. There is no other English life depicted in "My Son the Fanatic." Not a single English person is kind to children or animals. The English are all violent, sexually perverse, racist scum. Farid becomes a fanatic after Madeline's father is rude to him. "You are the only pig I've ever wanted to eat," Farid tells his future father-in-law. All this graphic perversion is thrust into the viewer's face to emphasize: innocent, decent Muslims are forced by Western ugliness to become terrorists.
Okay, let's rejoin planet Earth, shall we? On May 21, 2013, the BBC reported on 54 separate child sex slave rings in England run by Pakistani men. The descriptions of the activities of these gangs are nightmarish. Western Civilization did not corrupt these men; their corruption was already installed. And as for the charge that racism forces otherwise innocent men to become fanatics; please see Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarneav, two beloved, funded, coddled, immigrants who arrived in the US as "refugees." The refuge the US gave these men was used by them to murder innocents.
The London Times named Hanif Kureishi one of "The 50 greatest British writers since 1945." Given the shoddiness of the plotting and characterization of "My Son the Fanatic," and its skewed politics, one has to wonder why.
Warm, powerful drama that predicts the London bombings
tonstant viewer16 June 2008
Om Puri as the character Parvez, opens this film playing a clumsy, overenthusiastic, embarrassing Pakistani immigrant in England, mangling the language and missing every possible social cue. Oh, no, funny little foreign man. Yuk.
But then something wonderful happens. We watch Parvez's life fall apart, and he gradually and inexorably turns into a real person of depth and moral struggle. By the end, he has become a person who will live with you long after the film ends.
In order to make a living, Parvez drives a cab at night. He also fixes up randy passengers with local hookers, though he is not motivated enough to sample them himself. He feels dirtied by this way of surviving, but does not become a bad person himself.
His son, on the other hand, abandons a lovely English girl to join some local Muslim fundamentalists. They are deliberately not clearly identified with either a Sunni or Shiite affiliation, as that is not the purpose of the story. The group imports a radical mullah from the old country, and as he stays in Parvez's house, the son becomes irretrievably estranged from his father.
As the action progresses, the son pursues his concept of holiness and purity, and becomes a bad person. Eventually, Parvez's world collapses completely. As Parvez, Om Puri gives a superb performance.
What is remarkable about this film is not only the human story, which is real and absorbing, but also a discussion of second-generation Brits turning their backs on Western secular society and reaffirming a rigid, medieval orthodoxy from a country they may never have seen. Now, this is not a documentary and shouldn't be judged as such. What matters here most is the way humans relate to each other in the context of religious zealotry.
The scale of violence in this film is modest, but Google "Finsbury Park Mosque raid 2003" and "7 July 2005 London bombings," and you will see the eerie predictive power of art. While watching this film, it's hard to remember that it dates from 1998.
This is a worthwhile film in terms of human drama, and a tribute to the power of the artist to see into the future. Highly recommended.
But then something wonderful happens. We watch Parvez's life fall apart, and he gradually and inexorably turns into a real person of depth and moral struggle. By the end, he has become a person who will live with you long after the film ends.
In order to make a living, Parvez drives a cab at night. He also fixes up randy passengers with local hookers, though he is not motivated enough to sample them himself. He feels dirtied by this way of surviving, but does not become a bad person himself.
His son, on the other hand, abandons a lovely English girl to join some local Muslim fundamentalists. They are deliberately not clearly identified with either a Sunni or Shiite affiliation, as that is not the purpose of the story. The group imports a radical mullah from the old country, and as he stays in Parvez's house, the son becomes irretrievably estranged from his father.
As the action progresses, the son pursues his concept of holiness and purity, and becomes a bad person. Eventually, Parvez's world collapses completely. As Parvez, Om Puri gives a superb performance.
What is remarkable about this film is not only the human story, which is real and absorbing, but also a discussion of second-generation Brits turning their backs on Western secular society and reaffirming a rigid, medieval orthodoxy from a country they may never have seen. Now, this is not a documentary and shouldn't be judged as such. What matters here most is the way humans relate to each other in the context of religious zealotry.
The scale of violence in this film is modest, but Google "Finsbury Park Mosque raid 2003" and "7 July 2005 London bombings," and you will see the eerie predictive power of art. While watching this film, it's hard to remember that it dates from 1998.
This is a worthwhile film in terms of human drama, and a tribute to the power of the artist to see into the future. Highly recommended.
The taxi driver
Prismark1013 February 2014
The film is a character study of Parvez (Om Puri) an immigrant taxi driver in a Yorkshire Town.
While his friends have become wealthy, he is still plying his trade as a cab driver.
Like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, he seems a little isolated maybe even alienated, as he deals with the scummy strata of society. The late night drunks, drug addicts and those violent to prostitutes.
He is not outwardly religious, drinks too much and is only source of pride is his son who is engaged to the daughter of a police inspector.
The fact that she is white is not an issue for him and he does not notice that her father seems to be far from enthusiastic with this engagement.
Parvez in a sense is at home with the host society. You also feel that he has fallen out of lust with his middle aged wife although they have cordial relations.
However he notices that his son has changed. Farid has ended his engagement, turning his back on what he views as a decadent society and mixes with a fundamentalist crowd.
It is a clash of cultures which is an Everyman tale irregardless of culture or religion. The difference is here, it's the older man that wants to integrate while the son rejects it.
Parvez driving a German businessman around becomes friendly with a prostitute and has relations with her. At the same time his son and his gang wants to drive prostitutes of the streets.
At the end his relationship breaks down with his son. Farid accuses his father being a fanatic.
Hanif Kureshi based the story apparently on his family member who became a more devout Muslim. However you always have to take things with a pinch of salt when Kureshi makes such claims.
However it does identify with religious fundamentalism in the light of the Rushdie affair from 1988 and the attractions of fundamentalism to the young.
This is a thoughtful work from Kureshi who in his younger years was always trying to shock his audience to mask that the writing was not so good.
He is helped here by the director doing his best with a low budget but the cast which includes Stellan Skarsgard and Rachel Griffiths are very good.
While his friends have become wealthy, he is still plying his trade as a cab driver.
Like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, he seems a little isolated maybe even alienated, as he deals with the scummy strata of society. The late night drunks, drug addicts and those violent to prostitutes.
He is not outwardly religious, drinks too much and is only source of pride is his son who is engaged to the daughter of a police inspector.
The fact that she is white is not an issue for him and he does not notice that her father seems to be far from enthusiastic with this engagement.
Parvez in a sense is at home with the host society. You also feel that he has fallen out of lust with his middle aged wife although they have cordial relations.
However he notices that his son has changed. Farid has ended his engagement, turning his back on what he views as a decadent society and mixes with a fundamentalist crowd.
It is a clash of cultures which is an Everyman tale irregardless of culture or religion. The difference is here, it's the older man that wants to integrate while the son rejects it.
Parvez driving a German businessman around becomes friendly with a prostitute and has relations with her. At the same time his son and his gang wants to drive prostitutes of the streets.
At the end his relationship breaks down with his son. Farid accuses his father being a fanatic.
Hanif Kureshi based the story apparently on his family member who became a more devout Muslim. However you always have to take things with a pinch of salt when Kureshi makes such claims.
However it does identify with religious fundamentalism in the light of the Rushdie affair from 1988 and the attractions of fundamentalism to the young.
This is a thoughtful work from Kureshi who in his younger years was always trying to shock his audience to mask that the writing was not so good.
He is helped here by the director doing his best with a low budget but the cast which includes Stellan Skarsgard and Rachel Griffiths are very good.
It doesn't seriously engage the problem of fundamentalism
AbuAhzan16 July 1999
Went to see if My Son the Fanatic offered any insights into the troubled world of intra-ummah conflicts, the strictures that fundamentalists try to impose on ordinary Muslims and the ways we find to cope with them. No such luck. There was no normal Muslim to be found in this picture. Nobody I could identify with. The choices are either: 1) a drinking, whoring Muslim totally alienated from his faith; or 2) a bitter, violent, foaming-at-the-mouth zealot. The closest person to a regular everyday Muslim is a minor character, the tired old chap at the mosque who wistfully observes that the youth accuse his kind of being deficient in Islam. He is on screen for about half a minute.
The "Islam" depicted in this film gave an odd sense of disconnect with the reality that I'm familiar with: it came through in patchy, discontinuous, incoherent glimpses. Maybe Hanif Kureishi's aim was to show how bewildering this phenomenon looks from the outside, from the father's point of view. It certainly will not give the non-Muslim audience the least idea of what Islam means in the lives of ordinary Muslims. The maulvi imported from Pakistan is an odd cipher: he conveys nothing at all about his beliefs. Mostly he stays silent, but he's too superficial a character for his silence to even seem enigmatic. All he does is giggle at a televised cartoon and ask for help with immigration. Maybe Kureishi deliberately meant to show him as totally vacuous; if so, he succeeded at that. Therefore the son's impassioned conversion comes across as an entirely negative reaction to his circumstances, with little suggestion of any positive beliefs.
The most disturbing element in the film, and the one that hit home the hardest, was to show fundamentalist Islam as heavily male and harshly anti-woman. There was one moment of intense poignancy: the lad's mother being banished from the family dining table to eat alone in the kitchen. This scene was in its quiet way the most powerful and eloquent of the whole film. The other activities of the fundamentalist crew (starting a squabble in the mosque, haranguing hookers on the street) may have seemed annoying but harmless--but when they firebomb and beat up women, they become truly frightening. Why does fundamentalism always seem to come down to this--violence against women? The Taliban are a nauseating real-life example. On the other hand, we need to ask why filmmakers choose to show Islam only in the ugliest way, without any sense of its beauty and love and peace that keep bringing in so many converts. However, there is a counterpoint to this theme shown in the nasty bruises on the hooker, inflicted by the obnoxious German who hired her. Here Kureishi seems to suggest that whether it's Islam or non-Islam, no matter--all systems still come down to violence against women. Yet he never suggests any positive alternative to all this social nihilism. A point of inaccuracy: the fundamentalists are shown speaking approvingly of Ayatollah Khomeini--however, among the Pakistani fundie groups I have met in real life, like the Tablighites and Maudoodites, all Shi`ites like Khomeini are condemned as anathema.
It was impossible to feel any sympathy for either of the two antagonists in this film. Each one acted like a jerk in his own way. The son was obviously a jerk for turning so viciously intolerant--but the father, who was supposed to be the sympathetic character, was an even bigger jerk for the way he neglected his family and cared only for himself (and in nearly every scene of the film he's holding a glass of booze). The main theme of the movie was not even about Islam at all; it's about how men are jerks by nature. The only character I felt sympathy for was the neglected wife. Her husband tries to justify his adultery by crying out for "tenderness"--and yet although his wife shows that she's dying for a little affection, he only responds with cruelty. True, she gets a bit shrewish herself, complaining about missing out on the fun that the rich guy's wife is having--but is that supposed to be the whole justification for his ill-treatment of her? In the end, he stubbornly refuses to learn anything at all from his experience; when his friend and his son tell him the plain truth of his behavior, he reacts with sudden rage and beats up his son. He just holds on to his swing records and his liquor, for whatever comfort that might offer after he's gotten alienated from everyone in his life and left all alone. This film was a well-directed, wrenching study in how family members hurt one another, but its contribution to Islamic discourse was insignificant--it never came close to engaging the problem of fundamentalism in a serious way, but only exploited it as a vehicle for jerk-itude.
The "Islam" depicted in this film gave an odd sense of disconnect with the reality that I'm familiar with: it came through in patchy, discontinuous, incoherent glimpses. Maybe Hanif Kureishi's aim was to show how bewildering this phenomenon looks from the outside, from the father's point of view. It certainly will not give the non-Muslim audience the least idea of what Islam means in the lives of ordinary Muslims. The maulvi imported from Pakistan is an odd cipher: he conveys nothing at all about his beliefs. Mostly he stays silent, but he's too superficial a character for his silence to even seem enigmatic. All he does is giggle at a televised cartoon and ask for help with immigration. Maybe Kureishi deliberately meant to show him as totally vacuous; if so, he succeeded at that. Therefore the son's impassioned conversion comes across as an entirely negative reaction to his circumstances, with little suggestion of any positive beliefs.
The most disturbing element in the film, and the one that hit home the hardest, was to show fundamentalist Islam as heavily male and harshly anti-woman. There was one moment of intense poignancy: the lad's mother being banished from the family dining table to eat alone in the kitchen. This scene was in its quiet way the most powerful and eloquent of the whole film. The other activities of the fundamentalist crew (starting a squabble in the mosque, haranguing hookers on the street) may have seemed annoying but harmless--but when they firebomb and beat up women, they become truly frightening. Why does fundamentalism always seem to come down to this--violence against women? The Taliban are a nauseating real-life example. On the other hand, we need to ask why filmmakers choose to show Islam only in the ugliest way, without any sense of its beauty and love and peace that keep bringing in so many converts. However, there is a counterpoint to this theme shown in the nasty bruises on the hooker, inflicted by the obnoxious German who hired her. Here Kureishi seems to suggest that whether it's Islam or non-Islam, no matter--all systems still come down to violence against women. Yet he never suggests any positive alternative to all this social nihilism. A point of inaccuracy: the fundamentalists are shown speaking approvingly of Ayatollah Khomeini--however, among the Pakistani fundie groups I have met in real life, like the Tablighites and Maudoodites, all Shi`ites like Khomeini are condemned as anathema.
It was impossible to feel any sympathy for either of the two antagonists in this film. Each one acted like a jerk in his own way. The son was obviously a jerk for turning so viciously intolerant--but the father, who was supposed to be the sympathetic character, was an even bigger jerk for the way he neglected his family and cared only for himself (and in nearly every scene of the film he's holding a glass of booze). The main theme of the movie was not even about Islam at all; it's about how men are jerks by nature. The only character I felt sympathy for was the neglected wife. Her husband tries to justify his adultery by crying out for "tenderness"--and yet although his wife shows that she's dying for a little affection, he only responds with cruelty. True, she gets a bit shrewish herself, complaining about missing out on the fun that the rich guy's wife is having--but is that supposed to be the whole justification for his ill-treatment of her? In the end, he stubbornly refuses to learn anything at all from his experience; when his friend and his son tell him the plain truth of his behavior, he reacts with sudden rage and beats up his son. He just holds on to his swing records and his liquor, for whatever comfort that might offer after he's gotten alienated from everyone in his life and left all alone. This film was a well-directed, wrenching study in how family members hurt one another, but its contribution to Islamic discourse was insignificant--it never came close to engaging the problem of fundamentalism in a serious way, but only exploited it as a vehicle for jerk-itude.
The petty humiliations of a working man
Varlaam16 March 2000
While this film is superficially about East Indian immigrants in Yorkshire, its themes are universal. Anyone who is or is related to an immigrant should feel at home here.
As far as religion goes, these characters could be Jewish or Christian as easily as Moslem. The mediaevalist/modernist conflict is the same. There's no reason why the audience for this film should be just a parochial one.
Om Puri gives a brilliant and nuanced performance as the central character, the resilient Punjabi cab driver. Rachel Griffiths is very fine as always as his kindred spirit, a hooker, although her character here is a little more limited in scope than those she portrayed in "Muriel's Wedding" and especially "Hilary and Jackie". Stellan Skarsgård also steps into a pair of shoes a few sizes smaller than those he has worn in the past.
Unheralded though it may have been, this is another thoughtful comedy-drama from Hanif Kureishi, author of "My Beautiful Laundrette" amongst others.
As far as religion goes, these characters could be Jewish or Christian as easily as Moslem. The mediaevalist/modernist conflict is the same. There's no reason why the audience for this film should be just a parochial one.
Om Puri gives a brilliant and nuanced performance as the central character, the resilient Punjabi cab driver. Rachel Griffiths is very fine as always as his kindred spirit, a hooker, although her character here is a little more limited in scope than those she portrayed in "Muriel's Wedding" and especially "Hilary and Jackie". Stellan Skarsgård also steps into a pair of shoes a few sizes smaller than those he has worn in the past.
Unheralded though it may have been, this is another thoughtful comedy-drama from Hanif Kureishi, author of "My Beautiful Laundrette" amongst others.
This film has gained significance since September 11
walward-224 November 2001
Boy, has this movie gained significance since September 11. It's about a man whose son, Farid, grows to feel alienated in Northern England. His parents immigrated from Pakistan, but Farid has never been there. As an adult, he rejects his British culture to seek his Pakistani roots that he's never known. The film is about the father, Parvez, as he watches the boy, whom he has adored and doted on, slip into Islamic fundamentalism. At first he thinks his son is on drugs, but then he finds the truth. Which one would be worse?
This is a complicated film in that none of the characters are really good people. Parvez is a true gentleman who is completely tolerant of everyone around him, but he is essentially a pimp. He has a good heart, but his lack of morals is partly what pushes Farid toward the Islamic fanatics. Farid, on the other hand, does not have a good heart. He and the rest of his fanatical friends want to impose their rigid moral code on everyone else. When they fail, they resort to violence. Sound familiar? Can you say "Taliban?" It's this attitude that has spawned the terrorism we live with today.
This is a thought-provoking film that sheds some insight into the clash of the Eastern and Western cultures. When you see middle-class kids like Farid, who have been raised entirely in a western culture, turn to fundamentalist Islam, you know we're all in a lot of trouble.
This is a complicated film in that none of the characters are really good people. Parvez is a true gentleman who is completely tolerant of everyone around him, but he is essentially a pimp. He has a good heart, but his lack of morals is partly what pushes Farid toward the Islamic fanatics. Farid, on the other hand, does not have a good heart. He and the rest of his fanatical friends want to impose their rigid moral code on everyone else. When they fail, they resort to violence. Sound familiar? Can you say "Taliban?" It's this attitude that has spawned the terrorism we live with today.
This is a thought-provoking film that sheds some insight into the clash of the Eastern and Western cultures. When you see middle-class kids like Farid, who have been raised entirely in a western culture, turn to fundamentalist Islam, you know we're all in a lot of trouble.
A Good film!
buiger21 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This time I am in total agreement with the critic (James Berardinelli).
A good film, very realistic, with great ambition and very good acting. Too bad it didn't live up to it's full potential, but it is still well worth the time. Even if it leaves much of what it starts unresolved, it does enough to make the viewer start to think about many things in life and that is the best a movie can hope to do.
I have to say I also found the unconventional ending to be excellent, where the father kicks out his son, leaves his wife, and is in a sense, reborn ( he can finally listen to his beloved jazz music in his whole house and sip his whiskey in peace). Parvez says in the final scene to Bettina that he has never felt so destroyed yet also so relieved... It must be true.
A good film, very realistic, with great ambition and very good acting. Too bad it didn't live up to it's full potential, but it is still well worth the time. Even if it leaves much of what it starts unresolved, it does enough to make the viewer start to think about many things in life and that is the best a movie can hope to do.
I have to say I also found the unconventional ending to be excellent, where the father kicks out his son, leaves his wife, and is in a sense, reborn ( he can finally listen to his beloved jazz music in his whole house and sip his whiskey in peace). Parvez says in the final scene to Bettina that he has never felt so destroyed yet also so relieved... It must be true.
Intriguing examination of universal tensions
allyjack3 August 1999
The movie's ending - suspended between liberation and loneliness - is just about ideal, a perfect summary of tensions that are essentially universal yet also compellingly specific; finding particularly acute expression amid a community of economic deprivation, huge cultural challenges and some inherent racism. When Puri commences a relationship with Griffiths, representing the ultimate transgression across just about every available line, it's hard to resist the father's sense of release even as it strikes you as the latest example in the dismal tradition of filmic whore as symbol of anything-you-like. The counterpoint with the son expertly shows how fluid these familiar cross-cultural and cross-generational structures and struggles actually are and how there's perhaps no way out of an endless cycle of rebellion and adjustment and readjustment. The movie is unexceptional in its technique but apart from some awfully clumsy comedy at the start impresses with its vigor and intellect.
The short story is just better... but this isn't exactly bad
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews17 November 2006
We watched this in English class, after having read the short story, written by Hanif Kureishi. Going by how powerful the original text is, this is somewhat unimpressive. I think the real problem is that the short story was so compact, so rich in detail yet so brief, and it was thoroughly well-told. There are always problems when one lengthens a short story, and that fact is very evident here. There just isn't enough good material. There are attempts made at drama that fall flat, often due to the lack of proper build-up to them. Film requires more drama, stronger feelings. Maybe the story just wasn't suited for the medium. The original had the lead character's son filled with hatred, one instilled from an invisible enemy, leading to much frustration in the father. The ending was almost sublime in its pure emotion, the release experienced. Here, this enemy has gotten a face and a body, the hatred in the son isn't as credible(partially due to the son's occasional weakness, which stands in stark contrast to the strength of his convictions, both herein and in the original), and the ending is... just not anywhere near as strong as that of the book(it even messes up the original ending, by including the same scene, deprived of its powerful emotion, near the conclusion of the story here). Characters are added, some for little reason. Breaks of comedic relief are inserted, presumably to ease the heavy message, themes and story of the film. I suppose this could have been a good addition, but it just takes away from the serious nature of it. The plot is good, if some of the new material seems of little interest. The focus has shifted some; the film is entirely about Parvez, and how he relates to those around him. The pacing is decent enough, it doesn't drag too noticeably. The cinematography and editing is fine. It would be difficult to claim that it tries too hard, since it hardly tries at all. In spite of all the negatives, I'm glad to have seen this film, and I wish Kureishi more luck with feature films in the future... and I certainly will keep my eyes open for his other films. He's a quite gifted writer, I think the main problem here was that this story did not fit the medium and length of feature film. I recommend this to any fan of stories that deal with the cultures, in particular conflicts between them. 7/10
Interesting character study, but simplistic views of Islam
andelfe18 August 1999
Although I enjoyed the movie in terms of its acting, direction, and script, I found it incredibly irritating that Islam is presented as an all or nothing faith. There seems to be no "normal" Muslim--only the crazed fundamentalist or someone like Parvez, who seems to have completely rejected his religion. Had there been a few minor characters that could represent the majority of Muslims, I would have been able to enjoy the movie much more without having to feel that the film-makers were simply trying to brainwash the audience into hating all Muslims. Aside from that, however, there were several very powerful scenes (though I felt the scene at the end at the brothel was a bit overdramatic) and the overall style and execution of the film was very effective. I give it an 8 out of 10, but still believe there was ample room for improvement. The motives of the son could have been explored more in depth, but mainly, there needed to be a middle ground to represent the majority of the Muslim faith.
Original and Flawed
o_s_k_r21 June 2021
What I liked:
The cinematography is amazing! For example there's a great scene where Bettina is standing in the forest ruins. Parvez's head passes in front of her and she disappears. The use of the sound is also touching and creative. However the main theme is a little bit over-used.
What didn't work for me:
Om Puri is just too old for Rachel Griffiths. That sort of thing might work in Bollywood but here the romance feels wildly unusual. She's much closer to the son's age and I wondered whether it might have been a smarter move to reverse the roles and call this "My Dad the Fanatic". I also couldn't help comparing Puri's face to Bukowski. Could these two really be lovers? Maybe it would have worked better with a much older female lead?
We also don't quite know enough about Parvez. How did he come to England? What does his wife do with her time? Doesn't she have other relatives in England?
And finally the town feels a little bit odd. There doesn't seem to be any "normal" inhabitants. We have fanatics and prostitutes and a rich German hedonist. It would maybe feel a little more balanced if we saw someone boring every now and then.
The cinematography is amazing! For example there's a great scene where Bettina is standing in the forest ruins. Parvez's head passes in front of her and she disappears. The use of the sound is also touching and creative. However the main theme is a little bit over-used.
What didn't work for me:
Om Puri is just too old for Rachel Griffiths. That sort of thing might work in Bollywood but here the romance feels wildly unusual. She's much closer to the son's age and I wondered whether it might have been a smarter move to reverse the roles and call this "My Dad the Fanatic". I also couldn't help comparing Puri's face to Bukowski. Could these two really be lovers? Maybe it would have worked better with a much older female lead?
We also don't quite know enough about Parvez. How did he come to England? What does his wife do with her time? Doesn't she have other relatives in England?
And finally the town feels a little bit odd. There doesn't seem to be any "normal" inhabitants. We have fanatics and prostitutes and a rich German hedonist. It would maybe feel a little more balanced if we saw someone boring every now and then.
Tries To Do Too Much
Theo Robertson22 September 2004
Comedies featuring Asians in Britain have met with much recent success . BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM was an international hit while EAST IS EAST was a big hit at the British box office . MY SON THE FANATIC came out a couple of years earlier than the aforementioned comedies and fails to hit the funny bone
An Asian taxi driver forms a platonic bond with a prostitute while his son becomes more and more of a Muslim fanatic . The problem with this is that the story tries to say too much on the dangers of racism , religious fundamentalism , assimilation and that we all have the same basic needs despite our differences . I also got the impression that the movie didn't want to offend sensibilties too much , but there's a scene featuring a nasty and racist comic which is somewhat sickening . Needless to say the comic is white ( A Bernard Manning clone ? ) and his target is Asian . As has been mentioned MY SON THE FANATIC has taken on special signicance post 9/11 but this makes it an even more uneasy watch
I will praise the cast which includes Om Puri as the Asian taxi driver who's son is becoming more and more fanatical and mixing with the wrong crowd . Puri gives a sad and haunting performance . Rachael Griffiths who I'm sure is going to become a big name soon gives a performance as a prostitute while Stellan Skarsgaard proves as always that he's the most convincing actor to have come out Europe for many years .
An Asian taxi driver forms a platonic bond with a prostitute while his son becomes more and more of a Muslim fanatic . The problem with this is that the story tries to say too much on the dangers of racism , religious fundamentalism , assimilation and that we all have the same basic needs despite our differences . I also got the impression that the movie didn't want to offend sensibilties too much , but there's a scene featuring a nasty and racist comic which is somewhat sickening . Needless to say the comic is white ( A Bernard Manning clone ? ) and his target is Asian . As has been mentioned MY SON THE FANATIC has taken on special signicance post 9/11 but this makes it an even more uneasy watch
I will praise the cast which includes Om Puri as the Asian taxi driver who's son is becoming more and more fanatical and mixing with the wrong crowd . Puri gives a sad and haunting performance . Rachael Griffiths who I'm sure is going to become a big name soon gives a performance as a prostitute while Stellan Skarsgaard proves as always that he's the most convincing actor to have come out Europe for many years .
A Fine Little Film That Is Particularly Important Today!
gradyharp11 March 2007
MY SON THE FANATIC is a small scale film made in 1998 about the problems of cross culture assimilation between Pakistanis and the British - or rather between Muslim and Christian - that packs a powerful punch in the understanding of current clashes similar to the film's story that are so keenly in focus today. Based on a short story by Hanif Kureishi (who also adapted the story to a screenplay) and directed by the highly respected Udayan Prasad, this film is blessed with a fine cast of actors who make some of the more improbable aspects quite warmly credible.
Parvez (the always fine Om Puri) slept through his Muslim education in Pakistan and moved to England with his wife Minoo (Gopi Desai) where he has been a taxi cab driver for 25 years while his co-immigrants such as his best friend Fizzy (Harish Patel) have become rich entrepreneurs. Parvez and Minoo have a young son Farid (Akbar Kurtha) who is a bit unsettled as a Pakistani adjusting to life in capitalistic England and has found a girlfriend Madeline (Sarah-Jane Potts) who happens to be the daughter of the Chief Police Inspector Fingerhut (Geoffrey Bateman). Despite the fact that Parvez and his wife would prefer Farid marry a Pakistani girl they consent to an engagement party, a turning point for the politically tenuous Farid. When Farid observes how the Fingerhut family snubs his Pakistani parents and background he explodes and instead joins a fundamentalist Muslim group, pledging his life to stamping out porn, drugs, evil, etc.
Parvez attempts reconciliation with his wildly fanatical son but the only person with whom he can communicate is a hooker named Bettina/Sandra (Rachel Griffiths) who has a heart of gold and is only in the Profession to make enough money to become a teacher. Parvez is a driver for a pimp service and he is assigned to escort a wealthy smarmy German Schitz (Stellan Skarsgård) through a series of encounters, encounters that involve Bettina among others. But along the way Bettina softens to Parvez, listens to his anguish about his son, and eventually becomes Parvez' paramour. When Farid's fundamentalist group is attacking the brothel where Bettina works he discovers his father's situation and is enraged: Parvez, Farid and Minoo must come to an understanding - and it is this manner of coping that provides a very touching ending to the film.
The story holds its own as a movie, but the underlying content is pungent, intelligent, perceptive, insightful and very cogent. Each member of the cast is excellent but Om Puri proves once again that he can carry a film with a questionable character strongly on his shoulders. Not only is this a fine little comedy drama to watch, it also provides some serious food for thought. Grady Harp
Parvez (the always fine Om Puri) slept through his Muslim education in Pakistan and moved to England with his wife Minoo (Gopi Desai) where he has been a taxi cab driver for 25 years while his co-immigrants such as his best friend Fizzy (Harish Patel) have become rich entrepreneurs. Parvez and Minoo have a young son Farid (Akbar Kurtha) who is a bit unsettled as a Pakistani adjusting to life in capitalistic England and has found a girlfriend Madeline (Sarah-Jane Potts) who happens to be the daughter of the Chief Police Inspector Fingerhut (Geoffrey Bateman). Despite the fact that Parvez and his wife would prefer Farid marry a Pakistani girl they consent to an engagement party, a turning point for the politically tenuous Farid. When Farid observes how the Fingerhut family snubs his Pakistani parents and background he explodes and instead joins a fundamentalist Muslim group, pledging his life to stamping out porn, drugs, evil, etc.
Parvez attempts reconciliation with his wildly fanatical son but the only person with whom he can communicate is a hooker named Bettina/Sandra (Rachel Griffiths) who has a heart of gold and is only in the Profession to make enough money to become a teacher. Parvez is a driver for a pimp service and he is assigned to escort a wealthy smarmy German Schitz (Stellan Skarsgård) through a series of encounters, encounters that involve Bettina among others. But along the way Bettina softens to Parvez, listens to his anguish about his son, and eventually becomes Parvez' paramour. When Farid's fundamentalist group is attacking the brothel where Bettina works he discovers his father's situation and is enraged: Parvez, Farid and Minoo must come to an understanding - and it is this manner of coping that provides a very touching ending to the film.
The story holds its own as a movie, but the underlying content is pungent, intelligent, perceptive, insightful and very cogent. Each member of the cast is excellent but Om Puri proves once again that he can carry a film with a questionable character strongly on his shoulders. Not only is this a fine little comedy drama to watch, it also provides some serious food for thought. Grady Harp
At times enlightening
jordondave-280851 October 2023
(1997) My Son The Fanatic
DRAMA
Adapted from the short story b y Hanif Kureishi with an already East Indian descent, Parvez (Om Puri) of more than 25 years while driving a cab builds a rapport with prostitute, Bettina (Rachael Griffith) who would eventually meet with Parvez's rebellious son, Farid (Akbar Kurtha) slowly becoming a fanatic.
Does a good job on how East Indians are sometimes mistreated when residing in another country. Showed some interesting things about what is happening in England such as how the cabbies make a little extra money while coinciding with an English brothel. At times the film dawdles too long on certain scenes.
Adapted from the short story b y Hanif Kureishi with an already East Indian descent, Parvez (Om Puri) of more than 25 years while driving a cab builds a rapport with prostitute, Bettina (Rachael Griffith) who would eventually meet with Parvez's rebellious son, Farid (Akbar Kurtha) slowly becoming a fanatic.
Does a good job on how East Indians are sometimes mistreated when residing in another country. Showed some interesting things about what is happening in England such as how the cabbies make a little extra money while coinciding with an English brothel. At times the film dawdles too long on certain scenes.
Hate in a northern town
paul2001sw-123 September 2006
Writer Hanif Kureshi has long been interested in the clash between Western decadence and fanatical Islam which, perceptively, he sees as a war that occurs not between civilisations but within individuals or, as in this film based on one of his books, families. In exploring the conflict between a secularised immigrant and his devout son, the film looks in all the right places, and is full of fine little cameo performances; but I didn't find it a wholly satisfactory affair. Om Puri's character (the father) is needed to hold the story together, but the part feels more like just one more cameo, albeit extended: it's a nicely drawn portrait of a man, but also a shallow one. Also, the film seems dated by its origins pre-dating 9/11. Kureshi refers back, albeit obliquely, to the Salman Rushie affair that first made political Islam an issue in the U.K.; subsequent terrorist atrocities have made the broad subject of this movie more pertinent, but its details less so. Perhaps the real problem is that we never really get to understand the son, who remains a mystery to us as much as he is to his father: an examination of the psychology of fanaticism, or (to cast it in a kinder light) simply that of belief, is strangely absent from the film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
