Sometimes it is easier on psycholigical health to create an alternate reality and live in it. To live in a tailormade reality, when truth can be shattering or painful. The real world is not really for everyone. It is easier to be born, than to face the realities of life.
The papers revealed that "Sachh ka Samana' the Indian version of the popular reality show " Moment of Truth, had affected the common public to play it out in their own homes and it even led to a suicide where the person couldnt stand the truth that he made his spouse admit to. What I believe is; if you can bear only one option as an answer to a question don't ask it. The truth is not for the feeble hearted. Life and people are only what we believe it or them to be. It is often better to believe what we want to believe. And it is also quite sadistic to force the truth on a spouse who is happy to believe in an imagined reality.
An alternative to reality or an alternate reality is lived in and required in various contexts and circumstances. To look at another context is the latest issue over history. Jaswant Singh,senior leader of BJP was not really wrong in writing what he felt to be the truth(about Jinnah, even if he seemed to favour him), neither was the BJP very wrong in showing non support to his views (by expelling him), as their party and it's members had to adhere to their own tailormade truth.
After these episodes, I understand better why a Christian publication I approached for publishing my book "The Thomases' Road to Realization' (which seeks to convey that all religions are speaking of one truth), cited one of their reasons for not publishing it as(in essence) -it being too secular for christian publishing. I see the point; Each religious institution needs to hold on to its own or else wont there become a single universal religion..a single party all believing the same truth?
But is that really so bad? Acknowledging the uniting factors or getting a different perspective does not take away the essence of any party or institution. Rather it only confirms that the essence is absolute making it in all hearts firmer and unshakable, quite like how all sticks tied together is unbreakable!
The world stays as it is for now believing that it cannot be interesting being united and one. Happy with the way things are, afraid of change or trying out a new perspective and a new way to being the world. Those with a mind and heart for the universal truth cannot live in this static world, they have no option yet, except to imagine a united world and live in that alternate reality.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
the celebrity speak
Aug 6th Times of India quizzed SRK asking his view on the Hashmi stand as to its effect on further dividing the nation rather than pointing out concerns.. SRK took a stand by not taking a stand on the platform that is so readily available to 'celebrities'. I also agree with him when he says of himself that he is a Good Thinking Mind. Though I have my information of his words only from the television and the newspaper and might have missed out a great deal of his words but what I have read in the few decades of his career are enough for me to agree that he definitely is a good thinking mind, also down to earth who does not feel that his biography requires to be written, who calls himself a mere capitalist actor, who does not appreciate things being said by 'stars' not as much for the sake of the concern as for holding the public attention. He understands the fact that sometimes it is appropriate not to speak up an issue for the larger good than to beat the drum and create worse situations. It is proper when a star refrains from using the platform that is so readily available to them. And such a star when he chooses to speak no doubt has attentive ears as opposed to those who make a beeline for the platform without giving the matter full thought.
And I am not saying this because I am 'starstruck' by SRK. I personally think that it is illogical to be celebrity crazy. Those in the entertainment industry are only to me as important as the handsome man next door doing a 10 to 6 job who does not happen to have a platform. And SRK is only as important as a wise neighbour would be.It is just that we wouldnt have heard what he has to say if not for the fact that he is in the entertainment industry.
Though a great deal of the populace may be celebrity crazy, (to the extent that even for an article on guru purnima the papers think of none but filmstars gurus interesting) I am sure that beyond repairing boredom, deepdown the thinking minds do know whom to listen to and what to let pass the other ear. So speak up 'wise neighbours'. With the other issue that SRK seems to be having is about being misquoted or misunderstood, I would just say that when a person is understood by the discerning public, it doesnt matter if once in a lifetime he blundered into a fight or ended up being misquoted.It is indeed not a reason to become insecure. Though the number of viewers of his films may not always be on the upward trend it only reflects on the film. I personally have seen without finding one or other fault in the acting of SRK around 4 of the umpteen I have watched(though most were still entertaining and SRK was charming all the same; and hope SRK fans will excuse my criticism on the grounds of my being a virgo) I do not judge him on his acting but on his words which as much as I have read have always been intelligent amusing and well thought out. And I feel that is what popularity and being celebrated is all about. That celebration once set into thinking minds does not really have a downward trend.
And I am not saying this because I am 'starstruck' by SRK. I personally think that it is illogical to be celebrity crazy. Those in the entertainment industry are only to me as important as the handsome man next door doing a 10 to 6 job who does not happen to have a platform. And SRK is only as important as a wise neighbour would be.It is just that we wouldnt have heard what he has to say if not for the fact that he is in the entertainment industry.
Though a great deal of the populace may be celebrity crazy, (to the extent that even for an article on guru purnima the papers think of none but filmstars gurus interesting) I am sure that beyond repairing boredom, deepdown the thinking minds do know whom to listen to and what to let pass the other ear. So speak up 'wise neighbours'. With the other issue that SRK seems to be having is about being misquoted or misunderstood, I would just say that when a person is understood by the discerning public, it doesnt matter if once in a lifetime he blundered into a fight or ended up being misquoted.It is indeed not a reason to become insecure. Though the number of viewers of his films may not always be on the upward trend it only reflects on the film. I personally have seen without finding one or other fault in the acting of SRK around 4 of the umpteen I have watched(though most were still entertaining and SRK was charming all the same; and hope SRK fans will excuse my criticism on the grounds of my being a virgo) I do not judge him on his acting but on his words which as much as I have read have always been intelligent amusing and well thought out. And I feel that is what popularity and being celebrated is all about. That celebration once set into thinking minds does not really have a downward trend.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Films
I have been thinking to write certain thoughts on films and what better but to write the day after I see another film in Theatre. I saw Luv Aaj Kal and liked it. I feel the people in the age group of thirty to forty (in India)have witnessed and been part of both the today and the yesterday sort of romance and this group must be the most torn most confused wondering whether they belong to aaj or kal. Some probaly made good the transition, some look back with nostalgia, and some are still trying to mould their minds to adjust to the paradigm shift.
That apart I feel films should reflect what the society wants within itself because of the tremendous power of films to influence. I want to particularly write about films on terrorism. I feel such films should not be made. It may seem that I am writing without thinking..but have actually been thinking since some seeming coincidences. A few films on terrorism were followed by terrorist attacks. One attack particularly in Ahemadabad Hospital compound was a copy from a certain film. Films may be trying to instill the message of peace but such message films are not followed by peace but by more destruction! It is dangerous to advice sadists as it only fuels them to do more. (see post on terror attacks). Rather films should dwell on happy things that could only bring good to society if aped. No it wont limit creative expression!
Films seldom serve too good as advice or message. People on the otherhand get some inherent faction of the film rubbed off on to them. Let it be positivity then that gets rubbed on (like in love aaj kal). If filmmakers want to give a message by making voilent films, then certain things they should think first is..Will the 'message' rub off on the audience or the 'negative ambience' will? Is the message worth risking the effect the negative ambience can have? What do I really want-only creative satisfaction or positive (and never negative) effect on the people around me?!
That apart I feel films should reflect what the society wants within itself because of the tremendous power of films to influence. I want to particularly write about films on terrorism. I feel such films should not be made. It may seem that I am writing without thinking..but have actually been thinking since some seeming coincidences. A few films on terrorism were followed by terrorist attacks. One attack particularly in Ahemadabad Hospital compound was a copy from a certain film. Films may be trying to instill the message of peace but such message films are not followed by peace but by more destruction! It is dangerous to advice sadists as it only fuels them to do more. (see post on terror attacks). Rather films should dwell on happy things that could only bring good to society if aped. No it wont limit creative expression!
Films seldom serve too good as advice or message. People on the otherhand get some inherent faction of the film rubbed off on to them. Let it be positivity then that gets rubbed on (like in love aaj kal). If filmmakers want to give a message by making voilent films, then certain things they should think first is..Will the 'message' rub off on the audience or the 'negative ambience' will? Is the message worth risking the effect the negative ambience can have? What do I really want-only creative satisfaction or positive (and never negative) effect on the people around me?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
