Shahnon.com
Home | About | Blog | Bahasa Melayu | Archives | Academic | Pictures | Store | Links | Contact

. books, movies, musics, social, politics, travel, photography, art, et cetera .

Thursday, August 31, 2006

 

Merdeka!

Selamat Hari Merdeka!

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

 

Mat Rempit dan pelancongan

Aku geleng kepala, nak tergelak bercampur sedih pun ada baca komen pengerusi Putera UMNO Datuk Abdul Azeez pasal Mat Rempit.

“Mereka ada hati dan perasaan, berbakat serta berkebolehan terutama dalam bidang kejuruteraan permotoran dan kelajuan. “Apa yang paling penting, mereka adalah generasi pemimpin akan datang,” kata Pengerusi Putera Umno, Datuk Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim. - (tepuk tepuk)

Ha, ni satu lagi,

Katanya, Mat Rempit juga mempunyai pelbagai kelab tidak berdaftar seperti Kumpulan Shell, Kumpulan Kamikaze dan Kumpulan Apache, tetapi amat mengagumkan apabila Putera Umno mendapati kumpulan itu mempunyai struktur
organisasi pertubuhan yang tersusun dengan anggota yang patuh dan taat pada pemimpin serta peraturan kelab.
(wah kagumnya saya. terasa nak menyertai kelab mat rempit pula)

dan kemuncak komen Datuk Abdul Azeez yang paling tak masuk akal ialah idea beliau supaya jalan di Kuala Lumpur ditutup seketika sebagai tarikan pelancong (?!!*%#@*!?)

“Jika mereka mahu beraksi di depan khalayak ramai, mengapa kita tidak boleh tutup jalan, misalnya di Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman atau Jalan Tun Razak dan sediakan penghadang yang selamat di sepanjang jalan supaya mereka boleh beraksi.

“Saya percaya, jika kita beri sedikit kelonggaran kepada Mat Rempit menunjukkan bakat mereka, aktiviti itu boleh dijadikan satu acara unik yang boleh menarik minat pelancong asing,” katanya.

Lagi,

Beliau mencadangkan supaya Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan (JPJ) dan polis bekerjasama menutup jalan tertentu bagi menyediakan persekitaran selamat untuk mat rempit berlumba. - Utusan

Gila. Bodoh nak mampos punya idea. JPJ dan PDRM pun bodoh sama la kalau setuju dengan idea Datuk Abdul Azeez ni. Tak dapat bayangkan kalau pemimpin macam ni duduk dalam kabinet kerajaan.

Bacaan lanjut - Harian Metro: Imej Positif Mat Rempit
Utusan Malaysia: Putera UMNO terima bekas penagih, mat rempit


Friday, August 25, 2006

 

an interview with Abu Bakar Bashir

'We should not fear being called radical'

"..The only Muslim leader who has some spirit left is your former leader Mahathir Mohamad, who called for a boycott of US and other Western currencies. He was right, when he said that Muslim countries should abandon the US Dollar and trade with their own currencies instead. Why should we use the Dollar even when we trade among ourselves? Even though Mahathir did not openly call for jihad, at least he said something. This was the least we could have done." - Indonesian cleric, Abu Bakar Bashir.

Read the rest of the interview, here.


Saturday, August 19, 2006

 

Shahnon: Sebuah Autobiografi..


..bungkusan buku autobiografi Sasterawan Negara Shahnon Ahmad,
'Perjalananku Sejauh Ini: Sebuah Autobiografi' yang baru tiba pagi tadi

Khamis, 2.30pm
me: hello ni Shahnon. erm, nak beritahu yang saya dah bank-in duit untuk buku...
Ujanailmu: Buku Shahnon Ahmad ya? okk. Shahnon beli buku Shahnon ya?(ketawa kecil)
me: ya ya
Terima kasih kepada syarikat buku online, Ujanailmu kerana sekali lagi tidak pernah mengecewakan saya. Melihatkan senarai buku terbaru di website Ujanailmu, teringin nak dapatkan buku 'Tulang-Tulang Berserakan' oleh Usman Awang dan buku A.Samad Said, 'Bulan tak Bermadu di Fatehpur Sikri'. Dato' A.Samad Said telah mengambil inisiatif sendiri untuk menerbitkan kembali buku-buku lama beliau di bawah syarikat beliau sendiri, Wira Bukit sebab umum tahu hal merajuk beliau dengan penerbitan DBP berkenaan isu DBP yang kurang proaktif dalam menerbitkan karya-karya beliau dll.
Berbalik kepada buku autobiografi Shahnon Ahmad tadi, saya sempat membelek-belek beberapa mukasurat dan ada satu bab yang saya tertarik iaitu bab 6: 'Perjalanan Seperguruan dengan Seni Silat Cekak Ustaz Hanafi', di mana beliau menulis tentang sejarah pembabitan beliau dalam aktiviti silat - Silat Cekak Hanafi dan Silat Gayung Petani, yang mana secara kebetulan juga saya pernah mempelajari kedua-dua aliran silat tersebut. Gayung Fatani/Petani selama 5 tahun - sepanjang 5 tahun saya di sekolah menengah - dan Silat Cekak Hanafi sewaktu di universiti.
Membacakan perenggan pertama bab 6, beliau menulis,

"..Seperti yang termaklum, minatku pada seni pencak silat sudah sekian lama tumbuh dan berkembang semenjak dari kampong lagi. Tapi pada peringkat awalan perjalananku, minat ini lebih pada estetikanya, seni tarinya, seni bunyinya melalui alat-alat muziknya dan hanya pinggiran saja aspek pertahanan diri melaluinya." - (bab 6, m/s 65)

Beliau merujuk kepada seni tari Gayung Petani/Fatani. Memang diakui ramai bahawa dalam banyak-banyak silat, bunga Gayung Fatani adalah yang tercantik seni tarinya. Bukan niat untuk bangga diri tapi antara tujuan utama beliau menyertai silat itu adalah sama dengan saya - kerana minat pada seni tari silat itu, tidak sangat kepada aspek beladiri tumbuk, tepis, buah dan tendangnya. Oleh sebab itu, secara jujurnya saya rasa kurang seronok di awal pembabitan saya dengan Silat Cekak Hanafi apabila mendapat tahu dalam sistem pelajaran Cekak Hanafi tak ada langsung seni tari. baru saya tahu ada juga silat yang tiada seni tari. Permainan keris pun tak ada (senjata rasmi Silat Cekak Hanafi ialah parang lading). Tapi sejak dari hari pertama saya turun latihan lagi saya telah menyahut cabaran jurulatih untuk belajar sampai tamat. Lepas buah asas, buah jatuh kemudian buah potong dan akhir sekali buah tamat. Dan dari hari itu saya belajar untuk mencari rahsia dan kehebatan Silat Cekak Hanafi. Antara falsafah utama SCH - 'pakai tak pakai, tak pakai pakai'. Sebenarnya tak rahsia pun, nak tau, kena belajar - Ayat standard ahli. heheh. Untuk sesiapa yang fikir bukan-bukan, sorry Cekak Hanafi tak ada ilmu batin. SCH bebas dari sebarang tahyul dan khurafat. Nak kebal-kebal, tak lut ke apa cari silat lain. SCH guna tangan dan kaki sahaja. Ha macam promote SCH pulak.
Sekian.

Friday, August 18, 2006

 

Middle East conflict II

The Israeli aggressor is let off the hook
by Chandra Muzaffar

The terms of Resolution 1701 are stacked against Lebanon and allow Israel to continue its military operations even after a ceasefire, says CHANDRA MUZAFFAR.

THE United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 is fundamentally flawed. It fails to name Israel as the aggressor in the war between Israel and the Hizbollah.

It does not demand that the aggressor ends its aggression and withdraws its troops — perhaps 30,000 of them — immediately and unconditionally from Lebanese soil.That Israel is the aggressor in the war that erupted on July 12 is an irrefutable fact. True, Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a border skirmish on that day. But there have been numerous skirmishes of this sort along the Israeli-Lebanese border in the last six years.

The British journalist George Monbiot notes that "on several occasions, Hizbollah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF (Israeli defence forces) positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbollah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006".

Even in May 2006, an alleged Mossad assassination of two Palestinians from the Islamic Jihad in the Lebanese city of Sidon led to a border incident in which "one member of Hizbollah was killed and several wounded, and one Israeli soldier wounded".

Cross-border skirmishes, in the words of the American analyst, Phyllis Bennis, "happen around the world on a daily basis; certainly the Israeli- Lebanon border has seen more than its share". A skirmish need not become a war. It becomes a war only if one of the parties ups the ante.

And Hizbollah was not that party. It sought to exchange the two captured Israeli soldiers with the 15 prisoners of war taken by the Israelis during the 18-year occupation of Lebanon from 1982 to 2000, in breach of Article 118 of the Third Geneva Convention. The Israeli Government was adamant about not negotiating. Instead, it deliberately chose to launch a war by bombing the Beirut international airport and Leba- non’s infrastructure.

There are media reports suggesting that Israel had been planning an assault upon Lebanon for some time. According to the San Francisco Chronicle (quoted by Monbiot in the Guardian of Aug 8), "More than a year ago, a senior Israeli army officer began giving PowerPoint presentations on an off-the-record basis, to US and other diplomats, journalists and think tanks, setting out the plan for the current operation in revealing detail".

The attack, he said, would last three weeks. It would begin with bombing and culminate in a ground invasion. Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, told the paper that "of all of Israel’s wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared... By 2004, the military campaign scheduled to last about three weeks that we’re seeing now had already been blocked out and, in the last year or two, it’s been simulated and rehearsed across the board."

In any case, Israel’s military campaign in the last month clearly marks it out as the aggressor. More than 1,100 Lebanese civilians — one-third of them children — have been killed by Israeli bombs and artillery fire. Almost a million people have become refugees, with tens of thousands fleeing to Syria. Water supply systems, electricity grids, hospitals, schools, highways, harbours and airports have been destroyed. All major cities and almost all villages have been devastated in one way or another. The death and destruction wrought by Israel upon Lebanon is colossal compared with the number of civilians killed and infrastructure demolished by Hizbollah rocket attacks upon Israel.

And yet Israel’s criminal behaviour — specifically its savage massacre of children — does not even receive a mild reprimand in Resolution 1701. Israel is not held responsible for any wrongdoing. On the contrary, the resolution implies that Hizbollah is the root cause of the death and destruction that have occurred in Lebanon and Israel. It begins, for instance, by "expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah’s attack on Israel on July 12, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons".

More than absolving Israel of any misconduct, the resolution even allows the aggressor to continue its military operations after the cessation of hostilities. It "calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations."

Israel, it appears, would be allowed defensive military operations. Since Israel regards all the wars it has fought from 1948, including the current one, as "defensive", it would be able to argue that any military action it undertakes after the formal ceasefire at 0500GMT on Aug 14 is legitimate under the terms of Resolution 1701.

The likelihood of this happening is real since Israeli troops will remain in southern Lebanon until the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) "deploy their forces together throughout the south". This could take a few weeks. One should not be surprised if Israel exploits this time gap to "dismantle" the Hizbollah which has been Israel’s primary military objective in Lebanon for decades. It is an objective that has eluded Israel as vividly demonstrated by the current conflict.
The Hizbollah leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, in turn has made it abundantly clear that while his movement accepts the UN call to cease hostilities it will not acquiesce with the presence of Israeli soldiers on Lebanese soil. This sets the stage for a new phase in the Israel-Hizbollah war.
To prevent this from happening, Israeli troops should be required in the name of justice and under international law to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from Lebanon while the Hizbollah should cease all attacks on Israel immediately.

The 15,000-strong Lebanese army and the 15,000-strong UNIFIL, as envisaged by Resolution 1701, should concentrate upon ensuring that the ceasefire holds. It should not try to disarm Hizbollah which in any case is an impossible task. For Hizbollah is in essence a popular resistance movement which embodies the noble aspirations of not only the Lebanese people but also of the Palestinians and the Syrians to be free of Israeli occupation and hegemony.

If anything, the current war which many Arabs and Muslims regard as a triumph for Hizbollah over Israel has further enhanced its image. This is why the question of Hizbollah’s role should be addressed within the larger context of Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Arab lands. Israeli occupation is in fact the root cause of the continuing crisis and turmoil in much of West Asia. The sooner the West acknowledges this, the better it would be for world peace.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

 

The Middle East conflict

"Prior to the latest incursion, Gaza was still surrounded by the Israeli army, with checkpoints at exits, its coast patrolled and its airspace controlled. It is actually a large open-air prison. Israel's continued occupation of territory beyond its legitimate borders is the problem." - Gilwee Walker, California, USA. (Time,Aug 7-14 2006)
It sickens me to watch George Bush's speech on CNN wanting to root out the cause of the century old Middle East conflict while ignoring the fact that Israel IS the root cause of the problem. Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land is the root cause of the problem! The US hipocrisy and double standard foreign policy of protecting Israel's interest in the Middle East is the root cause of the problem. In short, the state of Israel is the stumbling block to peace process in MidEast. Period.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

 

Tuah & Jebat, Wangi jadi saksi II

Setiap Sabtu pasti saya tak terlepas daripada membaca kolum mingguan Dato' Johan Jaafar di NST. Kali ini, beliau menulis tentang pementasan Wangi Jadi Saksi oleh U-Wei Shaari.

Who really was responsible for slaying Jebat?
by Johan Jaafar

IN the play Wangi Jadi Saksi written and directed by U-Wei Haji Shaari, Hang Tuah does not kill Hang Jebat.

I am not going to reveal the secret just yet (you can check my previous entry. no harm revealing it here i guess :p), the play is still being staged at the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) Auditorium. But let me assure you the culprit is not one of the usual suspects. Certainly, there are many ways of looking at the Tuah-Jebat saga.

After all, the warrior who actually committed the act of derhaka (treason) differs in two major Malay sources. In Hikayat Hang Tuah, Jebat was the one, in Sejarah Melayu, one of the most reliable Malay historiographies, it was Hang Kasturi.

Within the Malay political construct, Tuah had always been the good guy, the panglima (warrior) whose loyalty to the sultan (king) was unbelievable. He was even willing to jump into a cesspool to save the king’s horse. Back in the early ’60s, Kassim Ahmad came out with a new "reading" of the saga. Jebat was the hero. He was the common man, the indefatigable fighter for justice and fairness and more importantly he died for "the cause". Imagine him going against his own king for he could not accept the fact that Tuah, his "brother" and close friend, was killed because of court politics. According to legend, Tuah was banished to Ulu Melaka by the wise Bendahara who believed in his innocence. Tuah was brought back to kill the rampaging Jebat. Like a good soldier Tuah did just that, without remorse.

Kassim’s interpretation of Jebat created quite a commotion. In an era when leftist literature was the in thing and leftist thinking trendy, Tuah posited a different concept of a hero in a new Malay society.

Jebat became the symbol of revolutionary thinking and critical readjustment. Suddenly, everyone wanted to be Jebat. Tuah lost his lustre and relevance. Jebat, who was for so long condemned as the traitor, suddenly attained cult status.

He was celebrated in Usman Awang’s Matinya Seorang Pahlawan, Dinsman’s Jebat and my very own Kotaku Oh Kotaku.

Some would argue U-Wei’s stage play is a "re-reading" of the Tuah-Jebat epic(again?). No, it is not revisionist history, just an epistemic shift in telling the legend. It is not one of those interpretations that will endear the loyalists and purists.

The play, staged in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of DBP, assembled talents from the Republic of Ireland, Australia, United Kingdom, Singapore and Malaysia. Produced by LeBrocquy Fraser, it is U-Wei’s much needed break from movie-making. He is better known as director of such films as Perempuan, Isteri dan..., Kaki Bakar and Joghro.

I have no problem with U-Wei’s retelling of the story, though. And how he placed Dang Wangi at the epicentre of the conflict. Remember, no one actually knew what happened when Tuah was allowed into the istana to confront Jebat. Whether Wangi was the witness when the two close friends fought to their last breath is an issue worth the attention. Or did they fight at all? Or did they engage in a discourse on righteousness or political correctness?

To begin with, Wangi Jadi Saksi is a hard sell. It is wordy, tough and demanding. It is at times moody, even vague. It is one of those Ibsenian constructs where you need to peel the onion to get to the core. Perhaps the central thesis in U-Wei’s interpretation is estrangement. It is about a man’s helplessness before the overpowering forces of circumstance.

Jebat is doomed from the start. He was fighting against the system. As he was reminded by Tuah, if the system fails, all hell will break loose. And the Malays will cease to exist (thus the famous phrase attributed to Tuah, "Tidak Melayu hilang di dunia."

Theatre is full of surprises. Theatre as it is does not reflect reality in the sense of fidelity to common everyday experience. Theatre is supposed to challenge the mind. In a way, like literature, theatre allows the "abstruseness" of the art to prevail. So, please bear with U-Wei for trying to play with words, to confront us with the abyss of our curiosity and ignorance and to remind us of his character’s impotent degradation. U-Wei did not have to get into Jacques Derrida’s idea of "notorious word- drunkenness" to achieve his aim. The story is self-telling, the words merely a vehicle. But words are powerful in Wangi Jadi Saksi — one needs a fine comb to meander through its meaning, nuances and innuendoes.

Just take a look at Pateh. Listening to him giving lessons on commerce, politics and politicking makes us sit up and listen. This guy is clever. He’s sly and mean, but he is the man of the day. The truth is I have never seen a more astute, dazzling and oily Pateh in my life. And Khalid Salleh, who plays him, elevates the character to a point where every scene becomes a feverish spectacle of style and emotion.

I have no complaint about Vanidah Imran, one of the most talented actresses today. Perhaps the stage is too big for her. She is a rookie trying to position her talent in a role too demanding for her. She is good, no doubt. At times she’s the tortured soul unbearably burdened by guilt and pleasure. The stage’s leisurely, sensuously voluptuous atmosphere keeps her busy moving around, but rarely with the conviction expected of the character. In this play, her flaws should not be exaggerated. Not many living actresses would be able to handle the challenge. She should not be faulted for trying hard.

U-Wei experiments with two actors playing Jebat — Sobry Anuar and Mohammad Shoffti Jikan — and alternates between them. While Sobry is intense, Shoffti is playful. Where Shoffti lacks in charisma, he compensates with agility. While Sobry’s reading of the character is too literal, he is able to complement that with his conviction.

Khir Rahman’s Tuah is predictable though adequate to posit a character shrouded in guilt and enigma. Sabri Yunus as Masa as usual needs only to appear for less then 10 minutes to mark his presence. But the biggest upset was the under-utilised Rahim Razali (as Bendahara). In this play, one of the finest actors on stage is relegated to a supporting part. But Rahim being Rahim, even his non-presence is severely felt. That alone is a good reason to catch up with the play.

I am not going to reveal the secret just yet, the play is still being staged at the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) Auditorium. But let me assure you the culprit is not one of the usual suspects. Certainly, there are many ways of looking at the Tuah-Jebat saga.

After all, the warrior who actually committed the act of derhaka (treason) differs in two major Malay sources. In Hikayat Hang Tuah, Jebat was the one, in Sejarah Melayu, one of the most reliable Malay historiographies, it was Hang Kasturi.

Within the Malay political construct, Tuah had always been the good guy, the panglima (warrior) whose loyalty to the sultan (king) was unbelievable. He was even willing to jump into a cesspool to save the king’s horse. Back in the early ’60s, Kassim Ahmad came out with a new "reading" of the saga. Jebat was the hero. He was the common man, the indefatigable fighter for justice and fairness and more importantly he died for "the cause". Imagine him going against his own king for he could not accept the fact that Tuah, his "brother" and close friend, was killed because of court politics. According to legend, Tuah was banished to Ulu Melaka by the wise Bendahara who believed in his innocence. Tuah was brought back to kill the rampaging Jebat. Like a good soldier Tuah did just that, without remorse.

Kassim’s interpretation of Jebat created quite a commotion. In an era when leftist literature was the in thing and leftist thinking trendy, Tuah posited a different concept of a hero in a new Malay society.

Jebat became the symbol of revolutionary thinking and critical readjustment. Suddenly, everyone wanted to be Jebat. Tuah lost his lustre and relevance. Jebat, who was for so long condemned as the traitor, suddenly attained cult status.

He was celebrated in Usman Awang’s Matinya Seorang Pahlawan, Dinsman’s Jebat and my very own Kotaku Oh Kotaku.

Some would argue U-Wei’s stage play is a "re-reading" of the Tuah-Jebat epic (again?). No, it is not revisionist history, just an epistemic shift in telling the legend. It is not one of those interpretations that will endear the loyalists and purists.

The play, staged in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of DBP, assembled talents from the Republic of Ireland, Australia, United Kingdom, Singapore and Malaysia. Produced by LeBrocquy Fraser, it is U-Wei’s much needed break from movie-making. He is better known as director of such films as Perempuan, Isteri dan..., Kaki Bakar and Joghro.

I have no problem with U-Wei’s retelling of the story, though. And how he placed Dang Wangi at the epicentre of the conflict. Remember, no one actually knew what happened when Tuah was allowed into the istana to confront Jebat. Whether Wangi was the witness when the two close friends fought to their last breath is an issue worth the attention. Or did they fight at all? Or did they engage in a discourse on righteousness or political correctness?

To begin with, Wangi Jadi Saksi is a hard sell. It is wordy, tough and demanding. It is at times moody, even vague. It is one of those Ibsenian constructs where you need to peel the onion to get to the core. Perhaps the central thesis in U-Wei’s interpretation is estrangement. It is about a man’s helplessness before the overpowering forces of circumstance.

Jebat is doomed from the start. He was fighting against the system. As he was reminded by Tuah, if the system fails, all hell will break loose. And the Malays will cease to exist (thus the famous phrase attributed to Tuah, "Tidak Melayu hilang di dunia."

Theatre is full of surprises. Theatre as it is does not reflect reality in the sense of fidelity to common everyday experience. Theatre is supposed to challenge the mind. In a way, like literature, theatre allows the "abstruseness" of the art to prevail. So, please bear with U-Wei for trying to play with words, to confront us with the abyss of our curiosity and ignorance and to remind us of his character’s impotent degradation. U-Wei did not have to get into Jacques Derrida’s idea of "notorious word- drunkenness" to achieve his aim. The story is self-telling, the words merely a vehicle. But words are powerful in Wangi Jadi Saksi — one needs a fine comb to meander through its meaning, nuances and innuendoes.

Just take a look at Pateh. Listening to him giving lessons on commerce, politics and politicking makes us sit up and listen. This guy is clever. He’s sly and mean, but he is the man of the day. The truth is I have never seen a more astute, dazzling and oily Pateh in my life. And Khalid Salleh, who plays him, elevates the character to a point where every scene becomes a feverish spectacle of style and emotion.

I have no complaint about Vanidah Imran, one of the most talented actresses today. Perhaps the stage is too big for her. She is a rookie trying to position her talent in a role too demanding for her. She is good, no doubt. At times she’s the tortured soul unbearably burdened by guilt and pleasure. The stage’s leisurely, sensuously voluptuous atmosphere keeps her busy moving around, but rarely with the conviction expected of the character. In this play, her flaws should not be exaggerated. Not many living actresses would be able to handle the challenge. She should not be faulted for trying hard.

U-Wei experiments with two actors playing Jebat — Sobry Anuar and Mohammad Shoffti Jikan — and alternates between them. While Sobry is intense, Shoffti is playful. Where Shoffti lacks in charisma, he compensates with agility. While Sobry’s reading of the character is too literal, he is able to complement that with his conviction.

Khir Rahman’s Tuah is predictable though adequate to posit a character shrouded in guilt and enigma. Sabri Yunus as Masa as usual needs only to appear for less then 10 minutes to mark his presence. But the biggest upset was the under-utilised Rahim Razali (as Bendahara).

In this play, one of the finest actors on stage is relegated to a supporting part. But Rahim being Rahim, even his non-presence is severely felt. That alone is a good reason to catch up with the play.


Archives

November 2004   February 2005   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   July 2007   November 2007   January 2008  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]

 

 

 

 
shahnon.com © 2002 - 2009