Sunday, August 31, 2008
My approach in life has always been one of "run". Whenever a problem has come around, my first instinct has always been to give up and run. Over the years I came to recognise it as such, and did try to change.
But when i look around now, i sometimes wonder. Is patiently staying and fighting always the better option? the answer perhaps is blowing in the wind.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
maan-gaye-mughal-e-azam probably wins . Its given tough competition by 2-3 others ( oops , shiva, a now forgotten one with Saurabh Shukla wearing wigs aargh!). But I think it just edges past them, or should i say below them.
However I think the beauty of this movie is that with such an amazing cast, it manages to stink so badly that the stench just floors you!
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
And a second viewing shows up so many things you missed the first time around. Perhaps I should watch a whole lot of my favourite movies a second time!
the line i remembered the first time around, and which again caught attention - yeh aapka prayashchit hai... ya pratishodh? Hmm so much of the movie hovers therein!
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
by Langston Hughes
Monday, August 04, 2008
It might be wrong in their books, if so they can apply their rules to their lives.
And I'm all for murdering little lives in my womb if I want to, I'm sorry its my body, whether the life is healthy, unhealthy, male, female or any damn thing. Its my frigging body it will draw sustenance from after all. If I decide to eat junk, smoke like a chimney and fast every 5 days a week, and generally make sure the "life" goes for a toss, would someone be able to stop me? Should someone be able to stop me? Sure one fine day I might childishly decide I changed my mind, and if so I shouldn't have to give justifications to the government, the society and some random strangers. I don't see by what right someone else can tell me what to do with it. Least of all the government.
There was a time perhaps when the individual had to bow before society norms. There was a reason for it, the very survival of the species was at stake. When we were helpless in the face of plagues which wiped millions, we had to ensure the best chance of survival to every life possible. Individualism wouldn't have taken us very far. I'm sure we're not at a stage of such a precarious edge where the survival of the human species is concerned. I'm sure a few years would take us closer to babies being produced in factories, which might not be such a bad idea. Of course thats assuming the funds are channeled for that kind of research rather than passing laws and wringing hands and passing moral judgements on abortions.
And the argument that this is the same as any other murder is just infantile. This is a unique situation where this life is dependent for its very bed and breakfast on me. It exists due to my actions. Applying any other citizens individual rights to it is ridiculous. It doesn't have an individual existence yet. Why is its right to survival more important than mine to live an unhealthy lifestyle?
Which is interestingly linked with the other question of taking one's own life, another law I disagree with strongly. The government does not own my life does it? How than can it make a law threatening me with imprisonment for a failed suicide attempt? ( its actually funny if you look at it, you'd better get it right the first time, or you'd be punished for failure!) This one is actually even more fraught with contradictions than the one on abortions. To take just one, if I choose to stop eating, would I be force fed? And if so, how come those starvation deaths were not avoided ?
Frankly in this case, I think the movie had very little in common with the book. The movie though brilliantly made and acted in, is a very limited and simplified account when it comes to covering John's life. It covers mainly the schizophrenia, which I thought it did beautifully. I specially like the idea of starting out from a patient's viewpoint and how real everything is to them. However there's a lot more to him in the biography of course, a third of it doesn't even begin about his illness.
The book is a much more detailed and researched bit. In fact I would say too detailed - too many names and facts. Perhaps that inevitable with a bio, however it does diminish the enjoyment for someone who's not familiar with the mathematical circles. It does a fair job of sketching his mathematical achievements, the person himself, warts and all, the hint of the illness always lingering in the background, and the final interesting background of the Nobel itself which perhaps was the main reason that we've heard of him at all. Overall an interesting read, but could've been more interesting with less names, and more well ideas..
I loved the name though. The beauty implied is very different from the one portrayed in the movie, and thats interesting. After all beauty does lie in the eye of the beholder.