Don't tell me about social justice!

Bandit Queen (Hindi, 1994)

In a world where day to day survival is a Herculean task and is a blessing, the last thing on any one's mind is equality and social justice for all.
This 1994 film about a decoit in the wastelands of Uttar Pradesh. A 11 year old, considered unattractive, dark and from the lower caste of society is married off to a 30-something year old who thinks that he is doing the family by relieving the girl's family of a burden whilst the girl's family thinks that he is God-sent!

Situation is her new found home is not bed of roses. Refusing to conform the norms of the family and community, Phoolan, by nature a fire brand rebel, retaliates with the filthiest of words she is familiar with.  Punishment comes in the form of physical and sexual abuse. That precipitates the series of runaways which eventually earns the honour of being the deathliest leader of a fearless and feared gang in the badlands of the state. Suddenly, she becomes the champion of the oppressed class and the spokesperson who negotiates with the state Governor for the welfare of the oppressed class.
This film depicts the struggles of a village girl what more if she is from the low caste.
All the equality and social justice is only when my stomach is full and you do not have to worry about your next meal. No girl can walk alone in this place demanding gender equality and get away with it. It is the rule of might, survival of the fittest and law of jungle at full throttle here!
This Sekhar Kapoor directed biography boasts of many accolades and Nafrat Fateh Ali Khan's heart stirring music. The debutant, Seema Biswas, gave a sterling performance of this outlaw who was later voting laws in the Lok Sabha. The beauty of democracy...
It is an atypical Indian movie with much of brute foul language and even prolonged frontal nudity. 

When Einstein Met Tagore

I do not pretend to fully understand the discourse that happened between these two pillars of human civilisation, one from the literary wing and the other from a man of science. Read and try to understand, if you can...

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/04/27/when-einstein-met-tagore/by Maria Popova

Collision and convergence in Truth and Beauty at the intersection of science and spirituality.

On July 14, 1930, Albert Einstein welcomed into his home on the outskirts of Berlin the Indian philosopher Rabindranath Tagore. The two proceeded to have one of the most stimulating, intellectually riveting conversations in history, exploring the age-old friction between science and religion. Science and the Indian Tradition: When Einstein Met Tagore recounts the historic encounter, amidst a broader discussion of the intellectual renaissance that swept India in the early twentieth century, germinating a curious osmosis of Indian traditions and secular Western scientific doctrine.

The following excerpt from one of Einstein and Tagore’s conversations dances between previously examined definitions of science, beauty, consciousness, and philosophy in a masterful meditation on the most fundamental questions of human existence.

EINSTEIN: Do you believe in the Divine as isolated from the world?

TAGORE: Not isolated. The infinite personality of Man comprehends the Universe. There cannot be anything that cannot be subsumed by the human personality, and this proves that the Truth of the Universe is human Truth.

I have taken a scientific fact to explain this — Matter is composed of protons and electrons, with gaps between them; but matter may seem to be solid. Similarly humanity is composed of individuals, yet they have their interconnection of human relationship, which gives living unity to man’s world. The entire universe is linked up with us in a similar manner, it is a human universe. I have pursued this thought through art, literature and the religious consciousness of man.

EINSTEIN: There are two different conceptions about the nature of the universe: (1) The world as a unity dependent on humanity. (2) The world as a reality independent of the human factor.

TAGORE: When our universe is in harmony with Man, the eternal, we know it as Truth, we feel it as beauty.

EINSTEIN: This is the purely human conception of the universe.

TAGORE: There can be no other conception. This world is a human world — the scientific view of it is also that of the scientific man. There is some standard of reason and enjoyment which gives it Truth, the standard of the Eternal Man whose experiences are through our experiences.

EINSTEIN: This is a realization of the human entity.

TAGORE: Yes, one eternal entity. We have to realize it through our emotions and activities. We realized the Supreme Man who has no individual limitations through our limitations. Science is concerned with that which is not confined to individuals; it is the impersonal human world of Truths. Religion realizes these Truths and links them up with our deeper needs; our individual consciousness of Truth gains universal significance. Religion applies values to Truth, and we know this Truth as good through our own harmony with it.

EINSTEIN: Truth, then, or Beauty is not independent of Man?

TAGORE: No.

EINSTEIN: If there would be no human beings any more, the Apollo of Belvedere would no longer be beautiful.

TAGORE: No.

EINSTEIN: I agree with regard to this conception of Beauty, but not with regard to Truth.

TAGORE: Why not? Truth is realized through man.

EINSTEIN: I cannot prove that my conception is right, but that is my religion.

TAGORE: Beauty is in the ideal of perfect harmony which is in the Universal Being; Truth the perfect comprehension of the Universal Mind. We individuals approach it through our own mistakes and blunders, through our accumulated experiences, through our illumined consciousness — how, otherwise, can we know Truth?

EINSTEIN: I cannot prove scientifically that Truth must be conceived as a Truth that is valid independent of humanity; but I believe it firmly. I believe, for instance, that the Pythagorean theorem in geometry states something that is approximately true, independent of the existence of man. Anyway, if there is a reality independent of man, there is also a Truth relative to this reality; and in the same way the negation of the first engenders a negation of the existence of the latter.

TAGORE: Truth, which is one with the Universal Being, must essentially be human, otherwise whatever we individuals realize as true can never be called truth – at least the Truth which is described as scientific and which only can be reached through the process of logic, in other words, by an organ of thoughts which is human. According to Indian Philosophy there is Brahman, the absolute Truth, which cannot be conceived by the isolation of the individual mind or described by words but can only be realized by completely merging the individual in its infinity. But such a Truth cannot belong to Science. The nature of Truth which we are discussing is an appearance – that is to say, what appears to be true to the human mind and therefore is human, and may be called maya or illusion.

EINSTEIN: So according to your conception, which may be the Indian conception, it is not the illusion of the individual, but of humanity as a whole.

TAGORE: The species also belongs to a unity, to humanity. Therefore the entire human mind realizes Truth; the Indian or the European mind meet in a common realization.

EINSTEIN: The word species is used in German for all human beings, as a matter of fact, even the apes and the frogs would belong to it.

TAGORE: In science we go through the discipline of eliminating the personal limitations of our individual minds and thus reach that comprehension of Truth which is in the mind of the Universal Man.

EINSTEIN: The problem begins whether Truth is independent of our consciousness.

TAGORE: What we call truth lies in the rational harmony between the subjective and objective aspects of reality, both of which belong to the super-personal man.

EINSTEIN: Even in our everyday life we feel compelled to ascribe a reality independent of man to the objects we use. We do this to connect the experiences of our senses in a reasonable way. For instance, if nobody is in this house, yet that table remains where it is.

TAGORE: Yes, it remains outside the individual mind, but not the universal mind. The table which I perceive is perceptible by the same kind of consciousness which I possess.

EINSTEIN: If nobody would be in the house the table would exist all the same — but this is already illegitimate from your point of view — because we cannot explain what it means that the table is there, independently of us.

Our natural point of view in regard to the existence of truth apart from humanity cannot be explained or proved, but it is a belief which nobody can lack — no primitive beings even. We attribute to Truth a super-human objectivity; it is indispensable for us, this reality which is independent of our existence and our experience and our mind — though we cannot say what it means.

TAGORE: Science has proved that the table as a solid object is an appearance and therefore that which the human mind perceives as a table would not exist if that mind were naught. At the same time it must be admitted that the fact, that the ultimate physical reality is nothing but a multitude of separate revolving centres of electric force, also belongs to the human mind.

In the apprehension of Truth there is an eternal conflict between the universal human mind and the same mind confined in the individual. The perpetual process of reconciliation is being carried on in our science, philosophy, in our ethics. In any case, if there be any Truth absolutely unrelated to humanity then for us it is absolutely non-existing.

It is not difficult to imagine a mind to which the sequence of things happens not in space but only in time like the sequence of notes in music. For such a mind such conception of reality is akin to the musical reality in which Pythagorean geometry can have no meaning. There is the reality of paper, infinitely different from the reality of literature. For the kind of mind possessed by the moth which eats that paper literature is absolutely non-existent, yet for Man’s mind literature has a greater value of Truth than the paper itself. In a similar manner if there be some Truth which has no sensuous or rational relation to the human mind, it will ever remain as nothing so long as we remain human beings.

EINSTEIN: Then I am more religious than you are!

TAGORE: My religion is in the reconciliation of the Super-personal Man, the universal human spirit, in my own individual being.

Circle of life?

Ran (Uprising, Japanese;1985)

Director: Akira Kurosawa

This, Kurosawa's last movie was the most expensive in the Japanese movie industry at that time. During this film, too, his wife of 39 years passed away. He took one day's leave and continued shooting!

After listening to the folklore about unity and strength with easy breakage of a single stick versus three, the idea came to him about making a movie about the three bad sons.

He later realised that his story had an uncanny resemblance to Shakespeare's King Lear. (he apparently never read Shakespeare!)

The story is set in turmoil filled medieval Japan where the sword and blind loyalty was the order of the day. Against this background, the ageing head of the Ichimonji clan, Hidetora, decide to retire. 

He tells his three sons about unity by demonstrating the strength of 3sticks versus a single stick. The third son, Saburo, incited his wrath by using the might of his knees to break the sticks to disprove his father's wisdom. Saburo was banished by his father. Even though not the wisest, the first son, Taro, was given the throne and the second son, Jiro, was requested to show his legion.

After relinquishing his powers, the father realised that the two sons were just treating him as ruthless as how he was treating his enemies back in his days of youthfulness. His daughters-in-law, whose family he had ravaged, were out for revenge through his sons. 

What follows later is pure carnage and bloodshed, leaving the destruction of the whole Ichimonji clan and their properties. Yet, we are left with philosophical thoughts of life and reason for living.

All the technological progress of these last years has only taught human beings how to kill more of each other faster. It's very difficult for me to retain a sanguine outlook on life under such circumstances.
—Akira Kurosawa

What I was trying to get at in Ran, and this was there from the script stage, was that the gods or God or whoever it is observing human events is feeling sadness about how human beings destroy each other, and powerlessness to affect human beings' behavior.
—Akira Kurosawa

A free slave?

12 years a slave (2013)

They make us believe us that it is a darn good film and the list of nominations and accolades are testimony of that. Unfortunately, a non-artistic person like me failed to see the fantastic nature of the presentation.
They say praises of Steve McQueen, the director, but it is the different McQueen than the one I knew growing up.
We have seen way too many movies like this before, on the evil pasts of what the white settlers of the New World did to their African slaves, the treachery, the unmanly conduct and bullying.
This time around it is the narration of a pre-Civil War free Negro who was kidnapped and sold off as a slave to cotton plantation.
He endured 12 years of torture and loss of freedom to be reunited with his family, essentially losing a great deal of his adulthood. This man, Solomon Northup, later became a writer and helped slaves to escape via the Underground Railroad.
We again see how man uses selected quotes  from Bible to subdue his subjects and justify the torture that he devices on errant slaves.
Anyway, nothing like Alex Hailey's 'Roots' which also turned out to of questionable authenticity!  

Nobody owes nobody nothing?

Just the day I was thinking...

Unlike my dog in childhood, Rexxie, who used to get all excited, jumpy, tongue waggly, drolly kind at the sight of any of the family members as they return home, Felix (the cat) is not the least bothered.
Returning home after a hard days' work, you think that looking at some(one) who is all excited about your return would just make you feel alright. But Felix at the corner has other plans... He saunters casually in a relaxed fashion, strutting his stuff, gyrating his hind legs (guess that is why they call it catwalk) walking haughtily  with his nose held high (like inhaling imported air) looking away from you without a care in the world. At that moment he does not need anything, only his breathing space! Just leave him alone (stop dogging him around!) pun not intended...

catwalk

He does not need you right now. You have bought his chow, his litter bag, his playpen, got his veterinary needs fulfilled. He is big and strong, he does not need you now.
That is the same story about life. Nobody owns anybody. Everybody fans for himself. At the desperate time of helplessness, nobody can help you. You have to help yourself. You have to swim yourself to shore, you have to fight the waves, shark and the wind.
Nobody owns anybody in this modern world except if you are in the human trafficking business. Your merchandise that you own is human flesh, bone and feelings that go with it.
Slavery supposed to have died, has it really?
And then there is something called emotional blackmail where some Indian mothers know just strings to pluck to strike the chord of self pity and helplessness! These strings of control are subtle ways to control the subjects and cow them to submission...

It's all fake

American Hustle (2013)
Most ordinary people would just watch a movie and move on with life. But I, being out of the ordinary (less ordinary rather than extraordinary) analyse the nitty gritty bits.
I thought this movie was interesting and brought back fond memories of the late 70s. The setting was in 1978 complete with loud colours, hirsute appearance, big collars, bell bottoms and disco music (I feel love).
It is a story of a conman and his accomplice and mistress trying to outwit the police force whilst trapping the corrupt politicians and getting a 'Get out of Jail free' card!
Why is this titled 'all fake'? The main character, Irving, is living a fake life. He loans money without actually giving any money. He deals with forged paintings and the chain of cleaners that he is runs is just a front. He has a mistress (Sydney / Edith) who moves around with a fake British accent. Irving's wife (Rosalyn) is constantly at Irving's rear, nagging and complaining about his under-achievements. The only thing that is holding the marriage is Rosalyn's son from another marriage whom Irving adores.
In midst of all these, the FBI tracks down Irving's activities. The agent in charge, Richie, makes a deal to reduce his charges if he could ensnare a corrupt politician. While planning the con job, Edith also has a fake relationship with the agent. The plan becomes more complicated as the initial plan to get money from a fake Sheikh becomes hotter as the mob boss (De Niro in a small but lasting appearance) starts getting involved.
Fake? Fake because nobody is actually interested in meting out justice. People who are not charged are not necessarily innocent and those punished are not necessarily guilty. It is all a charade of plea bargaining and deal brokering. Truth and righteousness takes a back seat. That is the truth.
The story is supposed to be based on true event but was also spiced up to lure the audience.

Another American (good guys) movie

Captain Phillips 2013

Don't be fooled by the big star. With an uninspiring title like that, it did not strike me as a movie that would stick in my mind for any time. It is the same old good honest true to his words American guy versus the barbaric emotionless hideous looking bad teeth guys from the rest of the world. In this case, it is an American freight ship with the captain who has his own issues with his family and his crew minding their own business doing what they are supposed to do who is rudely disturbed by heartless Somali pirates.
It reminds me of Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and the aliens in the Aliens trilogy. Ripley is the responsible human trying to fight against the clueless and aimless Aliens who seem to be more interested in quarrelling amongst themselves rather than completing the tasks at hand. Change the Alien to Somali pirates and you have Captain Phillips, the movie!
It is supposed to be a heart pounding pulse raising thriller but it did non of the above to me as I knew how the outcome would be. Perhaps the story line could have made the villains more human, giving them more justifications to the activities they are doing. Saying that they were fishermen who decided to turn pirates just because their catch dwindled because of infiltration by bigger vessels seem lame.
Keeping with tradition of Hollywood, further prodding on the real happenings around the event that this movie is based on, I discovered that the crew members are totally displeased with the line of story. The truth is alleged stretched a bit too far.
Most of the crew involved in the real attack seem to be keeping mum with the events that took place as there is an ongoing court case with the shipping giants MAERSK. They would be probably taking the whole truth to their graves!