Letters to THE EDITOR: Is it necessary to plant or maintain trees?

sentinelgroup@gmail.com

Is it necessary to plant or maintain trees?

Everyone is now well aware of how important trees are to us. About a hundred years back, the earth was green. But now, day by day, we are forgetting about the need of plants, whether it is due to advances in technology and in many other fields, or due to population growth. From the agenda sheet of any event to the implementation of government schemes, we do tree planting, but the next stage is sad. Before any program starts, a distinguished person is invited for the tree planting program and the trees are planted by him very neatly.

But since then, does anyone remember to water that tree, to build a fence? After this, government schemes came out to create a green environment. According to the scheme, women are required to plant trees and send photographs of the trees, and then they will receive money from the government. They planted trees and sent photos, and money went into their bank accounts, but does anyone take care of the trees? This same approach is used for scholarships given to students. The sad thing for us is that the government has to bribe us with money to plant trees. Can we protect our own lives by planting trees, and do we need anyone else to insist upon us to do so? Certainly not, and it should not be. Instead, let's try to build a green environment for ourselves.

Himadri Dutta,

Gauhati University

‘Napoleon: A cinematic misfire from Ridley Scott’

Ridley Scott's latest cinematic endeavour, "Napoleon," promised to be a riveting historical epic, chronicling the life of the legendary French emperor. With a stellar cast, including Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby and Tahar Rahim, the film entered theatres on November 22, 2023, amid high expectations. However, as the credits rolled after a 158-minute runtime, many viewers, myself included, were left disappointed and underwhelmed.

The movie unfolds against the backdrop of Napoleon Bonaparte's complex and enigmatic life, showcasing his rise to power, his conquests, and eventual downfall. Despite the intriguing historical subject matter and the potential for a modern cinematic classic, "Napoleon" falls short, largely due to a lacklustre script penned by David Scarpa.

From the outset, it's evident that the screenplay struggles to inject artistry, depth, or finesse into the narrative. The film attempts to cover the key points of Napoleon's journey, but fails to engage viewers with the necessary depth and intrigue. The expectations were particularly high, given Ridley Scott's impressive filmography, which includes classics like "Gladiator" and "Blade Runner." Unfortunately, "Napoleon" doesn't match up to the director's legacy.

The disappointment is amplified by Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of Napoleon. Despite Phoenix's proven acting prowess, his performance appears flat and fails to capture the complexity of the historical figure. The character development is lacking, leaving the audience disconnected from the protagonist's emotional journey. There’s no question that the battle scenes are impressive. Using numerous cameras, thunderous, enveloping sound and intricate action choreography, Scott manages to convey both the overwhelming tumult of being in the thick of battle and the meticulous efficiency of Napoleon’s strategic planning. It is a battle-heavy movie.

The critique extends to the film's depiction of Napoleon's relationships, notably with his wife, Josephine, played by Vanessa Kirby. While the movie hints at the couple's deep connection, the portrayal lacks emotional depth, reducing their love story to mere physical encounters. The sex scenes, described as "animalistic" and lacking in romance, further contribute to the film's overall lack of nuance.

The film's runtime of 158 minutes feels excessive, especially considering the missed opportunities to explore Napoleon's character in greater depth. The lack of attention to detail and historical accuracy, highlighted by some critics, further detracts from the overall viewing experience. In particular, the criticism of the film's "anti-French" sentiment and historical errors raises questions about the thoroughness of the research undertaken.

The issue of diversity in the cast also emerges, with the film receiving backlash for not fully acknowledging certain aspects of Napoleon's life, such as his role in reintroducing slavery to French colonies. While Tahar Rahim's inclusion brings some diversity, the film could have delved deeper into the complexities of Napoleon's relationships and actions.

In conclusion, "Napoleon" proves to be an epic misfire, failing to capture the essence of its historical subject matter. Historian Patrice Gueniffey wrote in Le Point magazine that he viewed the film as "very anti-French" and claimed there were "many historical errors.“ For those interested in the life of Napoleon Bonaparte, it is advisable to seek out alternative mediums, such as books or documentaries, to gain a more comprehensive and engaging understanding of this complex historical figure. Save yourself from the disappointment of viewing this lacklustre film and revisit Scott's masterpieces instead.

Jyotishman T. Saikia

Gauhati University.