From Goliath to David.... A Journey of Doing Nothing :)

I was just looking at some old pictures I have on my hard drive of a trip to Goa I took with my friends. I just had to post this.. This is just for shock value and has no information or moral/practical/philosophical lesson behind it - the transformation was without any motivated effort on my part.. hehe..

Have you spotted me yet?

Okay, fine... let me help you out..

At a hotel in Goa, 2011

Just to be clear, my natural body type is somewhere between slim and average - I was just really overweight for a couple of years. I lost the weight after that (starting a few months ago) by.... well.. nothing - I changed absolutely nothing about my lifestyle, consciously, that is - I just kinda lost the weight... somehow.. I wasn't even that aware of how much weight I had lost until I looked at the 'before' and 'after' versions side by side.

Me... in Jaganguda, November 2013

Somehow a simple LOL or a WTF just doesn't seem to suffice.. I had almost forgotten that guy existed. Needless to say I was freaked out when I chanced upon the Goa pics. I know I weighed around a 112 kg/247 lbs at my heaviest. Still its kind of weird to actually see it now.

Btw, the 'natural' lighting in the 'after' picture helps a lil' bit in terms of emotional recovery.. ;)

P.s. the guys in the first pic in order from left to right are - well.. me, Vinu Raj, Nipun P.R. and Jayakrishnan N.

The Boy/ Girl Story in Mainstream Indian Cinema

Be warned, this is not well thought out, but I have to put it out there none the less. It's a concern I have with the portrayal of the lead female characters in Indian cinema, specifically though, in south Indian cinema. I don't see as many Hindi movies - but those of you who do, let me know if the situation applies there as well.

First of all, I'm not going into the obvious patronizing patriarchal nature of the plots in the movies, because the target demographic being men, who are still the majority ticket buying audience and the policy makers, it makes sense business wise. You can't get a large production value on just a keen social welfare agenda ;) It's sad, but it is what it is. I'm more concerned with the illusion of change with regards to the popular heroine.

Let me explain. A surface glance at the recent story lines, will show a positive change in the character of the urban female love interest. She was always beautiful but now she also happens to be educated, ambitious, more or less independent, opinionated and strong willed. A far cry from the shy, traditional beauty of the yesteryears. Not that there weren't strong women in the older movies... let's put a pin on that for now.

Simply put the lead female character is now "modern" (whatever that means..). But all her supposedly 'good' qualities are conditional. Conditional on satisfying the requirements of the tragically fragile male ego looming large in the hundreds of seats in the dark cinema hall. Normally, this wouldn't bother me, because its hardly a 'national secret'. We all know this but no one really addresses this. What does bother me is the "old wine in new bottle" scenario that seems to be molding the views of the youth with regards to how they think of and what they expect from the opposite sex. 

In many movies (nope, not naming names), I see precisely the situation that we want to avoid being peddled as 'progress' with some clever disguise. For example, in the generic movie, the girl is intelligent and strong willed but also kind of arrogant and naive when it comes to the reality of the world. The hero could be a down to earth and equally if not more intelligent and smart guy, but whatever happens there always comes a point in the plot, where the girl learns a 'lesson' at which point the hero, out of the kindness of his heart and deep love for her, imparts his 'gyaan'. The girl is now humbled and succumbs to his charms. Now, keep in mind, this can happen in many ways, not just through physical or verbal confrontation which may or may not involve a sleazy third party, and the lesson learned could be emotional, intellectual, or moral. There is suddenly a change in the girl's world view and/or her view of the hero and his world view, and acceptance of her mistake. 

I'm not saying the characters don't make sense, within the framework of the story- they often do. And I'm sure there are many naive girls and super smart guys out there :).. What I am saying is that this becomes a problem when sold as the norm or the fantasy and is implied, in the story, as the foundation for the ensuing passionate, all consuming and committed love affair. 

Also, I keep seeing a pattern of outdated, rigid philosophy of 'the ways of the world' coming out of many a 'modern' hero's mouth tempered with some new age terminology and some clever/cool punch line, to add effect, I'm sure. It doesn't exactly help that in all other respects the hero is a crusader against injustice, protector of the weak and all around good guy, with a swagger in his step and capable of being the lone warrior in a good vs. evil battle.

Let me guess, right now, many of you are thinking the exact same thing - "This guy's talking in hyperbole and making a mountain out of a molehill that's been here for a long time." Maybe I am, maybe I'm not.. I'm not getting into the larger social implications here, but I'm focusing on something as important but more subtle. The romantic relationships of our youth, which may or may not lead to or at least set the tone for our adult, 'mature' relationships.

Many of you might be positive about the fact that this doesn't apply to you or any of the relationships you have witnessed. Somewhat true I suppose.. I can attest to this on a personal level, as the circles I travel in, seem largely impervious to the subtle prejudices of the 'traditional' structure, at least more so than the majority of the larger movie viewing populace of the south.

However, even in urban India, real boy/girl romantic relationships, generally, don't start until college. The problem is that throughout the formative years of teenage we are influenced, overtly or covertly, by the fictional affairs in our popular movies, because, let's face it, movies are almost a 'religion' in Indian culture. I started thinking about this issue when I looked back and remembered gender based prejudices prevailing among many of the guys (well, not my friends ;)...) in college - and this was a bustling, multi-cultural, progressive student body in a major metropolis. By the process of elimination, I came to the conclusion that this can't be coming from the voices of our 'elders' ringing in our ears or from our classrooms, because on principle alone, we refuse to listen to either. It had to be from popular culture. Even those who are keen viewers of movies in multiple languages, including Hollywood products, are not entirely safe from this propaganda, as our peers and cultural context have way more capacity to shape our thoughts. Even scarier is the possibility (though I can't really comment on this) of how much this is influencing the girls and their thoughts and expectations from relationships, maybe even without them being aware.

I'm not against tradition or for change for the sake of change. There is value in established culture. It got established for more reasons than just superficial power struggles between classes or genders. It has its benefits and wisdom and then some. 

All I'm saying is that we should be aware of what shapes our decisions and opinions in both our personal and professional lives. Especially, when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex. So my desi boys and girls, let's deal with each other based on who we are, shall we.. and not based on what we're 'supposed to be' to each other.

The Paradox of Actually 'Knowing'

This might just be the stupidest thought that crossed my mind or one of the more interesting ones. I don't know if its a product of one of those moments of clarity or a naive notion arrived at, solely due to a lack of knowledge or because I'm missing something obvious that's right there in front of my face. It's nothing groundbreaking, I assure you. Just an idea..

I'm calling it a fundamental fallacy in methodology.

In any science, advancement is made by proposing new theories and then either proving or disproving them by collection and analysis of empirical data. This applies to the relatively young field of psychology as well.

How do you collect empirical data about the mind? Yeah, I'm aware of experimental methods, tests, questionnaires, surveys etc. But the problem, I feel with this is, you get very, very limited information and the information is very vague because the nature and scope of the questions, usually are. This is not a problem with the intelligence behind the questions, the reasons have more to do with practicality and context.

I thought, how can anyone ever completely understand me? What I can or do communicate is merely a fraction of my entire thought and the reasons behind the nature and form of my thinking are more often than not unclear even to me. This means that my parents or even my closest friends can never completely know me (I'm not entirely sure as to how to feel about this), the best they can do is form an educated opinion and image of my mind based on the collective pool of my actions (including communication) in life - the ones they know of. Generally, this suffices, in terms of decisions, emotions and problem solving in life.

But, surely, this educated guesswork can't be adequate for scientific analysis and theorizing. I mean, if those closest to me, who have known me my entire life, have pretty much a 'good guess' as to how my mind works, exactly how much can an academic, a stranger no less, glean from me with a few pointed questions or a specific experiment? Also bear in mind that the questions or the experiments are almost always designed specifically to suit the needs of the scientist, which means that, given the malleable and highly dynamic nature of the human mind, the information extracted may be distorted or contaminated by many, many factors -regardless of the precautions and safeguards taken by the scientist (which are, again, constrained within the boundaries of practicality).

So the question then becomes how valid are the conclusions arrived at and theories proved or disproved based on this unreliable data. How often, despite attempted objectivity, does the evidence kind of fit the theory instead of the other way around?

More importantly, what does this mean to the larger human campaign to analyse and understand the mind? Would we have to wait for technology and medical science to catch up, to explain everything biologically? If any or all of these things are even remotely true, then it would be the cruelest irony that the mind that quantifies and attempts to objectively analyze everything in creation that its aware of, is incapable of doing it to the one thing that is fundamental to the rest - itself.

Declaration of Mallu-ness

എൻറെ പേര്  ഹരി കൃഷ്ണൻ ജയകുമാർ . കണ്ണനെന്നും വിളിക്കും. ഞാനൊരു  മലയാളിയാണ് . ശരിക്കും പറഞ്ഞാൽ തൃപ്പൂണിത്തുറക്കാരൻ. എഴുതുന്നത്‌ മുഴുവൻ സായിപ്പിന്റെ ഭാഷേലാണേലും വീട്ടിലും നാവിലും നമ്മുടെ ഭാഷ തന്നെ. ഇത് എൻറെ  നാട്ടിലെ ഇന്റർനെറ്റിൽ കിടന്നു കറങ്ങുന്ന ചങ്ങാതിമാർ അറിയാൻ  വേണ്ടി ചുമ്മാ ഒന്ന് പണിയുന്നതാ .

പിന്നെ ഇത്രെയൊക്കെ അങ്ങോട്ട് ഒണ്ടാക്കിയ സ്ഥിതിക്ക് സായിപ്പന്മാരും ഒന്നറിഞ്ഞിരിക്കട്ടെ എന്ന് കരുതി.

അക്ഷരപ്പിശകുണ്ടേൽ ക്ഷമിക്കണം കേട്ടോ.. 'ഗൂഗിൾ' ഉണ്ടാക്കിയതു കുമാരനാശാനും മഹാകവി വള്ളത്തോളും കൂടല്ലല്ലോ. ഇത്രയൊക്കേ പറ്റിയുള്ളൂ.

അപ്പൊ ലാൽ സലാം... ലാലേട്ടനും സലാം..

എന്തേലും ഉണ്ടേൽ കമന്റ്റ്  ചെയ്ത്  അറിയിച്ചാ മതി.

Top 10 Movie Villains

Okay, so the list is a purely personal one and the criteria of selection is based on what genuinely freaked me out or impressed me, in terms of completely bad ass, sinister behavior. After compiling the list, I noticed that I didn't think of any female candidates in the category. There are many, but the list, as I said, is based on my reaction to 'evil' and it seems I react more to overt, violent and physical shades of evil than the more subtle, deeper but equally deadly emotional/psychotic variety which most of the women in movies seem to display - Kathy Bates in Misery, Faye Dunaway in Mommy Dearest, Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, Louise Fletcher in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and so on. Not that there aren't any physically violent, gory femme-fatales in mainstream cinema, many such women appear in action/thriller movies, especially in the Asian cannon. But in compiling a top ten list, I had to prioritize. Oh, by the way, the list is in no particular order of 'evil'ness.

So here goes..

1. The Joker

Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight (2008)

He finds humor in suffering and mayhem, doesn't want anything material and hates everyone and everything. The prospect of death doesn't even give him pause and his message to the world is simply that "Everything burns.."
Extremely intelligent and unpredictable..

2. Dr. Hannibal Lecter

Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Certifiable genius, an accomplished psychiatrist and an extremely dangerous psychopathic, cannibalistic serial killer with an unknown body count.

3. Anton Chigurh

Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men (2007)

Calm, deadly and ever so menacing in his movements, deliberate speech and the coldness in his eyes - an assassin who relishes his work.

4. Michael Myers

Halloween Franchise

The physically imposing, unstoppable killing machine that escapes from the darkest of asylums to pursue his baby sister, the sole survivor of his massacre of his family as a child. Pure animalistic psychopath, driven simply by the need to kill and hides his perceived ugliness in a generic Halloween mask revealing only his soul less eyes..

5. Col. Hans Landa

Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds (2009)

The highly intelligent, soft spoken, articulate Nazi 'Jew Hunter' whose eyes hint at the malevolence and darkness that lies beneath. Piercing but polite conversationalist who slides effortlessly from chit chat to menace to explosions of violence and then returns, smiling, to his charming self.

6. Idi Amin

Forrest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland (2006)

The real life, brutal Ugandan dictator whose volatile temper, bloodthirsty savagery and paranoid personality formed a dangerous mixture resulting in the horrifying torture and murder of many - those who oppose him and those closest to him.

7. Amon Goeth

Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List (1993)

Another real life fiend, a cowardly but sadistic Nazi Commandant of a Polish labor camp who kills and tortures the prisoners for work and pleasure - even to alleviate boredom. An example of the atrocities that can occur when evil obtains undeserved power over the helpless.

8. Pazuzu - the demon

Linda Blair in The Exorcist (1973)

The ancient, demonic entity that possesses a young girl, transforming her into a hideous, foul mouthed, powerful and just creepy being who emotionally, physically and spiritually tortures and kills those who come in contact with her.

9. The Devil

Al Pacino in The Devil's Advocate (1997)

Need I even say anything.. Charming, seductive, master manipulator and all powerful bad guy who will take your hand and walk you in to the darkness, laughing and cracking jokes the whole way.

10. Gabbar Singh

Amjad Khan in Sholay (1975)

The eccentric, sadistic and brutal outlaw bandit who became an iconic villain in Indian movie history.


There are so many honorable mentions that I'm having trouble deciding..but  Denzel Washington in Training Day, Stanley Tucci in The Lovely Bones, Jack Nicholson in The Departed, Hopkins again in Fracture and Red 2, Ian Mckellan in Apt Pupil,  are a few that come to mind right now.. Yeah, I know it's a strange selection but then I have specific tastes when it comes to evil..

Gimme a few suggestions of your own..

P.S. Jason Vorhees and Freddy Krueger - you guys make me smile too.. ;)

Looking in to The Abyss..

Time for another one of my ambitious attempts at sparking a conversation aimed towards understanding nature – specifically, this time, the nature of evil. Let us start with a closer look at the scope of its definition itself.

When confronted, as usual, with the lack of a focal point of analysis or even a starting one, I looked to the internet and did a preliminary scan of the discussions on the subject and these are the conclusions I came to on my own, based on varying approaches. Morality and ethics, as human- constructed concepts shall not be referred to much, as they are fluid and redefine their boundaries over periods of time.

We’ll begin with an interesting view explained in a book titled “What Evil Means to Us” by C. Fred Alford. The author, after speaking with a rather diverse sample of the population, who he refers to as his informants, states that many people defined evil as an emotional experience than an entity. Evil, he says, is a feeling of overwhelming dread and helplessness, a feeling of emptiness and  loneliness combined with a fear of loss of meaning, history and by extension - that of life. A complete awareness of human vulnerability. The act of doing evil is the attempt by us to take back some form of control and escape this feeling, by inflicting this same dread on others through pain and suffering.

This was new to me. I must confess, I had strayed from personal emotion and had focused on intellectually accessible psycho-social aspects of the manifestation and origins of evil in the world. No doubt as a result of immature paranoia about losing my way in the labyrinth of theology and philosophy.

Upon some introspection, I agreed with the author to some extent as I discovered the shades of the view of his informants in my own motivations and behaviour.  He goes on to explain and deconstruct several views regarding the concept and reality of evil. Those interested may find his book in Google Books. Note the parallels in scripture and literature that speak of evil as appearing out of a primordial darkness – nothingness..

Another branch of discussion seemed to be related to the application of the template of evil in nature and explaining humanity through this. However, I disagree with the notion of nature, simply as the origin of man and man’s subsequent separation from its structure by virtue of his higher intellect and self awareness. Whatever we are – it’s natural. Man’s loftiest accomplishments and his darkest moments fall promptly within the parameters of nature. Nature is Gandhi and Buddha and Hitler and Bundy. There is no separation of our realities. If it exists, it is by definition, natural.

While nature might not be a conscious being capable of motivated acts, its rules of external ‘macro’ homeostasis and survival have far reaching implications within ourselves than we care to admit. So, the myopic observation of nature as indiscriminate evil, that causes suffering through inaction for continued existence, is like trying to understand physical health by merely noting the symptoms of diseases.

Allegories and metaphors are equally confusing because more often than not they try to explain evil in terms of darkness and light- a futile task if you ask me, as we seem to be living in eternal twilight, where one blends into the other. The more one looks into it, evil becomes faceless, without a discernible shape or identity, dissolving into the abstraction of instincts, fears and reasons buried deep within layers of life itself.

Whether evolution allows us at this point in our journey, to reach a consensus regarding the definition of evil and the scope of its reality in our lives, is at best questionable. The only hope I can find is for us to strive to develop a comprehensive study on the topic by diving into multiple disciplines simultaneously, like philosophy, psychology, theology, sociology, biology, criminology, history, culture studies etc. Unfortunately, we have a tendency to confine our thinking on everything by firmly rooting ourselves in one area and then using the rest in a relational and therefore diminished capacity.. ;)

In the end, we are what we are. But it would be wise to accept that being sapient is not what separates us from the rest of the natural world, but what allows us to be more than just passive participants in its complex and somewhat ‘cosmic’ cycle of existence.

While pain and suffering may be an inevitable and non-negotiable part of our lives, surely we can do something to lessen it, if not control or eradicate it. It would be the worthiest of pursuits and knowing ‘evil’ or at least attempting to, seems like the way to understanding it while not giving up the right to condemn it.

"With everyday, and both sides of my intelligence, the moral and the intellectual, I thus drew steadily nearer to the truth, by whose partial discovery I have been doomed to such a dreadful shipwreck: that man is not truly one, but truly two."

- Robert Louis Stevenson, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

The Clarity in Comedy

Why do we laugh? If you think about it, you’ll find that we as a species, find humor in inconsistencies in the natural order-  it could be physical, emotional or logical. When something just doesn't make sense, we find it funny. It could be a guy walking along and then suddenly slipping on a banana peel or the realization of something illogical in a common institution or practice. This is, by far, I think, the greatest evolutionary response mechanism nature granted us. It keeps us sane.

I’m going to focus on the magnificent art of stand up comedy and its greatest artists. I’ll tell you why. In my lifelong pursuit of instant gratification and easy entertainment, I've watched thousands of movies and countless episodes of TV shows in multiple languages. It was by chance that somewhere along the line, with the advent of broadband internet, I watched a stand up comedy act on the internet. I think it was Chris Rock. At this point in my late teen years, I was heavily invested in philosophy and was generally dissatisfied with how I thought that we as a society functioned. I thought the more I read and the more I understood, the more I would be able to intelligently argue my side of things (Ah! Sweet childhood..). Ignorance really was bliss.

Anyway, I never thought I would find entertainment as well as intellectual comfort in comedy. And being a modern, relatively urban Indian youth, I was unaware of the huge and thriving culture and art of stand up comedy (Not a big thing in India). Until I started watching videos on the Internet.

Okay, I have to be careful not to mention the actual jokes themselves (because it’s bad form and I’m not that familiar with copyright laws yet..),  but explain my position nevertheless. Rock was talking about the civil war going on among African Americans themselves. Some of you might know which bit I’m referring to. The point is, it was the first time I witnessed the art of taking something everyone knows but actually dissecting it and presenting it in a manner that actually makes them see and laugh out loud.. at themselves. The fact that was he himself was African American was the most impressive thing of all to me. To genuinely poke fun at yourself and your own community and make it so damn entertaining and thought provoking was just amazing. A culture we definitely need in India by the way. We have a tendency to take things a little too seriously, in spite of a rather colourful social climate. People are a little touchy about certain things. You can blame it on a rather harsh history, but then again the African American community aren't exactly strangers to harsh histories.

Okay, I’m going off on a tangent. Getting back..  I quickly moved on to other black (yeah! The terminology was getting a little too formal for the topic at hand) comedians like Richard Pryor to Bernie Mac to Redd Foxx to Dave Chapelle. I was hooked on what I thought was my particular brand of comedy, one born out of struggle and a rich history and something, belonging to an ethnicity myself, I could relate to. But the internet being the wonderland of jumping from link to link, I chanced upon the man himself – the great George Carlin.

I, in my naivety, had assumed that great observational humor can only be rooted in a history of struggle, personal or historical; the point of view of the underdog. Therefore, no relatively well to do white American guy born in the 30s’ could deconstruct the fallacies of society as well as the other comedians. Boy, was I ever categorically wrong! Carlin’s intelligence and articulation of jokes set him apart from everyone else. He was an equal opportunity, take no prisoners, insult and expose everyone- comedian. His views on fundamental concepts like religion, politics, human rights, environmentalism, modern civilization and many more are priceless and will keep you laughing out loud and thinking for years. I realized then that great comedy is universal; that keeping an open mind will give you ample opportunities to laugh at many, many things.

Having gained some perspective, I moved from one comedian to the next regardless of sex, culture, race or nationality. The late Bill Hicks and Sam Kinnison who voiced their outrageous concerns and anger at the all powerful establishments and human behavior, in general. Seinfeld’s more soft spoken brand of observational comedy ranging from the Helmet law to the Olympics. Eddie Izzard’s unpredictable, silly and genius interpretation of history and us. Jimmy Carr’s razor sharp act of one liners. Lee Stewart’s classical analysis of popular literature to over hyped, but ultimately useless reality shows. And so many more...

Right now, I’m obsessed with the genius that is Louis CK. His joke construction and intelligence of thought, resulting in some of the most outrageous and scandalous ideas ever, is so f*cking funny that I keep watching them over and over again. He has Carlin’s gift of touching upon deep rooted social issues with utter disregard for individual sensitivities and playing with ‘done to death’ comedic fodder like men and women or relationships, but doing it in a completely innovative way that will make you pee your pants and then question your own values and take stock of some real shit.

It takes a tremendous amount of intelligence, talent and courage to do what these guys do. Stand up comedians are one of the, if not the most, smartest group of artists or entertainers out there. The stuff they get away with saying would normally get you killed out on the street, but not only do they say it out in the open , in front of large audiences and cameras, repeatedly, but they get you to pay to listen to them and want to - again and again.

If that isn't pure talent and genius, I don’t know what is... Maybe it’s “legalized insanity” like Robin Williams says or just natural God given gift. Either way, I’m lucky to have found them in my young life.

There may not be many, but those of you who aren't familiar with any or all(the horror!!) of these guys, look them up. You can watch them on Youtube and other video hosting sites. If you can buy their DVDs, do that. I rely on the internet, because like I said, they are not really available in my part of the country.

Laugh and live, folks..

Eternal Quotes.. And for good reason ;)

Okay, the title is a little misleading because 'quote' implies the same configuration of words and knowledge of the identity of the person who said it. I've forgotten all or most of that. The idea or essence of most of these stuck with me though, either 'cause they made me smile or made me think. So here goes..

"Education is the progressive discovery of our ignorance."

"Most people would rather die than think, in fact they do so."

"He is one of those people who would be tremendously improved by death."

"If Christ were alive today, the one thing he wouldn't want to be is Christian." - Twain(?)

"A second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience." - Wilde

"I couldn't stop laughing from the moment I picked up your book till I put it down, someday I intend to read it." - G. Marx

"A witty quote proves nothing."

"The greatest king is he who is king of himself."

"Last words are for those who haven't said enough."

"An idea is a thought that the mind possesses, a belief is a thought that possesses the mind."

"Hydrogen and human stupidity are the two almost infinite things in the universe, and the latter has a longer shelf life."

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire (?)

"Deep down, I'm really superficial." - Wilde

"Patriotism (or was it religion?) is the last refuge of a coward."

"The objective of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." -Patton

"Never in human history have so many owed so much to so few." - Churchill

"I think, therefore I am." - Descartes

"You see, I observe." - Doyle (Holmes)

"I think it would be a grand idea." - Gandhi, when asked what he thought of western civilization.

"Now, now my good man.. Now is not the time to make enemies." - Voltaire(?), on his deathbed, when asked by a priest if he renounced the devil.

Gawd... there were many more. But these are the only ones I can think of right now. And notice I haven't touched movie quotes here. The post wouldn't end.

 Do let me know some of your favorites..

I Think, therefore...

In a discussion that ensued following my ‘To Be or Try to Be’ post, my chechi (that’s elder sister, for you non Mallus) stated that she didn’t believe that the mind was just a blank screen on which thoughts were projected, that it had to be something more. She then suggested that I think on this and post something. This was a few days ago. What kept me from writing anything about this topic is the sheer vastness and depth of it. I literally, didn’t know how to approach it or where to begin. You could write a hundred books and still would have just scratched the surface of the answer to the age old question “Who am I?”

What changed then – Did I find enlightenment this afternoon? Hardly L.. I, instead, decided to go the other way and just roll with my ignorance. I’m going to attempt to take an intellectual leap of faith and hope to land somewhere around the subject matter... and not break my neck in the process.

I’m going to be borrowing heavily and badly from existing philosophers, so bear with me and feel free to correct me.

The mind as a single thought existing in the moment. This means that no two thoughts can coexist at the same time and that at any given moment, if who we are are our thoughts, we are just the one single fleeting thought which changes completely or its form or depth in the fraction of a second. Therefore, according to this, we are reborn every moment. I’m talking about the ‘self’. The ‘I’.

But, how much of the nature and construction of that fleeting thought that, at least for an instant, is the self, is caused by the accumulation of any and all previous thoughts? The thoughts, which since the very first one of our individual existence, have occurred as a result of memory, reaction to stimulus or complex cognition. We shall call this the ‘accumulated self’ as opposed to the aforementioned ‘fleeting/instant self’. If this accumulated self or identity is causal to the single momentary ‘I’, is that then also to be considered the real ‘I’? Is it a whole identity or a complex configuration of randomness that wholly or just partly causes the single thought.

What about when there is no thought? Still with me?  This is hard to grasp even as an abstraction let alone as a reality, because can any of us be aware of a thoughtless moment? By its nature, we would never know it if it existed, as to be ‘aware’ is to have a thought.

Now, I don’t know biologically when thought begins; does it start at the moment of birth or do we have thoughts even while in the womb? (No, I’m not going to look it up..I’m struggling to keep my head above the water as is) Given either scenario, is there a moment or moments before the first thought? When we are alive and breathing, with some form of consciousness streaming through us - existing simply as a complex organic entity. If so, what are we then?  Before the ‘self’ forms out of the first stimulus received.

I’m going to stop here and let you fine folks keep running with it. We are not going to get anywhere that Buddha or Krishnamurthy or Nietzsche or others haven’t gone before. And certainly not further or farther, not as a post in my blog J...

Happy thinking, guys...

The Orlando Bloom Syndrome

Bloom in a romantic scene in Kingdom of Heaven

Bloom getting knighted in Kingdom of Heaven

Bloom knighting commoners and inspiring them to defend Jerusalem against Saladdin in Kingdom of Heaven

Bloom saying goodbye to his new bride and true love for ten years in Pirates of the Caribbean : At World's End

Bloom is the new immortal captain of the Flying Dutchman in Pirates of the Caribbean : At World's End

Bloom looking at the horizon after releasing his enslaved father from his bond in Pirates of the Caribbean:At World's End

Bloom professing his love for Helen in Troy

Do you see what I see? I assure you I did not cherry pick the shots to make my point, in fact I specifically looked for the most dramatic scenes in these movies that's available on Youtube. Now, either the directors of all these movies gave him specific instructions to display minimal emotions in powerful and pivotal scenes when acting with great actors like Pitt, Bana, O'Toole, Depp, Rush, Yun Fat, Neeson, Nighy, Weaving, Mckellan, Mortensen etc. or maybe ..just maybe this right here is his 'range'. I really did not have the energy to go  through the Lord of the Rings movies looking for this, sorry..

Also, let me make this clear. I do not hate the guy. I don't know the guy. I'm sure he's great. However, I know for a fact that he is capable of displaying emotions because he does so really well in interviews, red carpet and the blooper reels of the very same movies.

Why did I do this then? Because the guy keeps showing up to play important roles in epic movies.. That annoys me. I mean c'mon - Balian, Paris, Legolas, Turner.. He is the new Keanu Reeves; another guy capable of literally no emotion or the wrong one and gives the same reaction whether he just found out that the Oracle was right, the count is a vampire, the bus is about to explode, demons are entering our world because an Archangel is helping them or that his father is the actual Devil.

 For the sake of clarity - I've no issues with him making movies, There's room in the world for us all. And he does have his fans. But, why, why would you choose him for the really emotional/ character driven plots and that too with the really great actors? Why can't he just stick with the kind of stuff that doesn't require much from him, in terms of emotional substance. For example, it was physically painful to see Keanu react to the mental breakdown and subsequent suicide of his loving wife played by the mesmerizing and talented Charlize Theron, and struggling to come up with a genuine human reaction to Pacino's masterful 'Sympathy for the Devil' monologue at the end of 'The Devil's Advocate'. His most believable performance so far has been as Klaatu in the 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' remake. Somehow, he managed to play an emotionless extra-terrestrial being really well. There's a masterclass in acting for ya.. Although, I understand that movie has its haters in the classic sci-fi fan community, as well.

Oh, honorable mention in the category, Dr. James Franco, Ph D. The frickin' WIZARD OF OZ? Really?? Just stick with the CGI apes, dude.. (Though Caesar  the chimp did give a more convincing performance, hmm...)

The next in line to this particular throne, I think, is the wolf guy from the Twilight. I haven't seen the Twilight movies but I'm aware of the plot, somewhat, from certain biting reviews on Youtube. I saw a few minutes of one of the movies when I was channel surfing once. Wolf-boy was delivering a monologue to the stoic brunette chick with dead eyes about how much he loves her and how he was, well...frustrated, enraged, depressed, (horny?)..couldn't really tell from all the spectacularly contrived and painful acting. Though if memory serves his shirt was either already off or he was about to take it off... indoors, while having a meaningful, deep conversation. Oh boy! Can't wait to see him play Julius Caesar or some shit.. Zack Snyder will direct, Caesar will be stabbed in slow mo, with CGI blood everywhere, and I will die inside.(why God, why!!)

I don't get it, people give Megan Fox so much crap, but she plays what she can (though badly), and yeah, her personality sucks if I were to believe the, ahem..'news' stories. But I'm pretty sure you won't see Megan Fox playing Cleopatra or Lady Macbeth. Why do these guys get a pass, if the criteria is not just 'looking good'? And what are the guidelines for that except a good agent and a decent publicist. I have seen equally good looking guys or maybe even better looking ones playing non-recurring supporting roles on TV shows. You know..actually acting. Could it just be dumb luck or is the universe being deliberately ironic and cruel.. to me?

What? "No talent, but hot" girls are unacceptable and disgraceful, and never hear the end of it, even as high school love interests in an alien robot movie or over the top action movies but "No talent, but hot" guys are not only acceptable but appreciated and 'cool' in  huge franchises, and as important historical and literary figures? Talk about double standards!

In conclusion, let me just say that this is all in good fun. Take it or leave it guys.. Don't bother with the hateful comments just yet.

The Express - Impress War (whenever B.C. – forever A.D)

A few years ago, in an Inside the Actors Studio interview (I’m a fan) James Lipton spoke about how theater and acting, in general, realized the distinction between performing to impress and doing it to express, and as a result, changed forever. This kind of stuck with me.

I then, as is my general modus operandi, took the concept and tried to figure out its implication in all art. I soon realized the rather obvious conflict. It’s more apparent in movies and T.V, but it’s transcendent in its effects. When an artist creates something, he or she usually does it to express something from within and this urge to communicate with someone is why they often seek subjective perfection or at least unrepentant satisfaction in their work. Art is proclaimed beautiful when the attempt not only becomes a successful exercise in communication but manages to deeply impress its perceiver, often creating within him or her, an urge to communicate as well. This is why art is formless and defies conventional definitions (the subject matter and medium of communication could very well be anything).

But we live in a world where art is commercial as well. Money is a great motivator and inhibitor of purpose.  And art is big business. This causes intentional and unintentional changes to the way the modern artist thinks, because the more you manage to impress the audience or consumer (an important distinction), the more profit there is. How many movies, for example, out there today are products of this mechanism? How many times have we come out of the cinema and wondered why we feel nothing emotionally but remember laughing and applauding while it was going on? We then coin phrases and terms that help us cope, like ‘popcorn movie’ or ‘summer entertainer’. I actually know of an instance, when a script writer for an actual movie after presenting it to a friend of mine who works in the ‘industry’ for his opinion, kept asking him at various parts of the screenplay - ”Do you think we will get an applause from the crowd for that line there?” He was quite pleased with himself, no after thoughts or anything.

Apart from the monetary issue, there is also a far deeper, more personal one, a basic subconscious need ‘to be liked and maybe even loved’. We are kidding ourselves if we say that this is not a factor in our artistic motivations. Because often the thing that is struggling to break out of you and make itself known to others, be it an idea or an emotion, might not be one that would be received well. People don’t particularly like to feel bad about themselves or the world, if the option is presented to them, that is. I can personally attest to this conflict within me when I write something. Deciding what I can and can’t say, and then deciding how to say what I can say. Keep in mind that most of what I write has no prospect for material returns. What I found out was that, to keep my sanity and the only way to obtain some satisfaction was to make conscious decisions that ensured that the primary reason to write was to express something and only once that has been taken care of, to give in to the need to impress. I don’t want to know what happens if you throw money in to the equation.

This conflict actually sheds some light on some running themes in art – why ‘great’ art is often considered ‘controversial’ and why many artists were not appreciated in their lifetimes?  The audience or the perceivers haven’t changed much in the past few centuries, certainly not when it comes to basic tendencies towards aesthetics. It’s just that the rules of society hadn’t changed enough to allow them to be impressed by the art at that point in time. Especially, if the art expressed something that the perceiver was not, due to many reasons, ready to receive. So they refer to the artist years later and say “Well, he was far ahead of his time..” Yeah, and you were chained to yours.

In conclusion, it boils down to one of those “It is what it is” scenarios. Nothing much we can do about it except be aware of it and ask the right questions. The world may be hell bent on calling all movies “art”, but as a relatively free individual with internet access and a voice, I am equally hell bent on declaring that those movies conceived, produced and marketed specifically to make money and for no other reason, are consumer products and not art, and the making of them is strictly commerce.

I am not saying that I hate or even dislike them that much, all I’m saying is that I know the difference when I see it. Can’t fool me...  ;)

Why So Serious?

Unless you have been living under a rock, in the woods...in the frickin’ Amazon,  and/or have no discernible values as a cultured human being, you know what I’m going to talk about. The Joker.

Specifically, the Joker as played by the immortal Heath Ledger (R.I.P), in The Dark Knight (2008). NOT the Cesar Romero or Jack Nicholson versions. Maybe a little bit of the Mark Hamill voice over animated one. Now, I know what you’re thinking, what’s left to say? It’s already the stuff of legend for the fans and it’s been five years since it came out. But you see I gotta put my two cents in. For my own peace of mind.

I will NOT be analyzing Ledger’s performance, because it was practically perfect and also it’s douchey to do that. The man can’t defend his choices against the all knowing, can’t shut the f*ck up critics.

All I’m going to expound upon is why I love that character, so much so that it used to be a slight cause for concern.

I shall begin at the beginning.  A couple of my closest friends and I were at the movies, at PVR Cinemas, Forum Mall, Bengaluru, about to be disappointed by Will Smith in and as Hancock, when the trailer for The Dark Knight came on. It was the one with Ledger’s voice explaining how Batman “changed everything”. I had heard that Ledger was playing Joker, but to me he was still the guy from A Knight’s Tale. So I had no idea that it was Ledger’s voice, and I had expected TDK to be in the same league as Batman Begins, good enough but nothing spectacular. And then the Joker revealed himself – “Evening, Commissioner...” HOLY SHIT! I mean, there was an audible gasp from the audience. I knew then and there that my new favorite movie character of all time had just declared his awesomeness in just two sweet, sinister sounding words.

Okay, now a little context to the obsession. Me and my best friend at the time, hung out pretty much every day after class to bitch about how much bullshit there was around us. After I had a couple of drinks, complaining would turn into analysis of the situation and then into a debate about why people were juuuust sosoo stuuupid.. I’m not going to go into all the details of that, but trust me when I say there was a lot of stupidity. A LOT. Then again, stupidity like beauty is often in the eye of the beholder, so..

For dissatisfied, intellectually disenfranchised, armchair revolutionaries like us, the Joker was tailor made, with his hatred for “the plan” and “schemers” and people who live by things that are “bad jokes”. In fact, for almost the entire movie we were rooting for the Joker, we couldn’t give a crap about Rachel Dawes or Harvey Dent, no fault of their own though.

We came out of the movie speechless. We stayed that way for a few minutes, then we couldn’t stop talking about it for days. The character of Joker permeated most every discussion we tried to have. Funny thing was he fit into it, often seamlessly. Besides, I had always been fascinated by the full spectrum of the human psyche, especially serial killers and stuff. I’m currently in the process of getting a P.G. Diploma in Forensic Psychology and Criminal Profiling, btw. It wasn’t exactly a ‘phase’ I was going through.

Then there’s the incident. Don’t hold your breath, it was nothing monumental. But it does make me smile. One evening, we were walking out of a local bar where we were known patrons,  after one of our two hour discussions about life, skimming across and dipping into many social disciplines, with my arguments fueled by liquor and smokes and my relatively sober friend reigning me back in (unique conversations as you can imagine, when only one person’ s drunk), we see something lying on the ground right outside the bar, on the side of the road. We almost stepped on it. It was.. wait for it.. A Joker card... I know what you are thinking -  well screw you, it was bloody awesome! The odds of that particular card, no other ones from the deck, lying in front of that bar, that evening, in that less than cultured street, in that kinda local, almost rowdy neighborhood, for us to find and no one else... We laughed out loud for a few seconds. Then we stared at it and each other for a few seconds. We both knew that no one would or could give a crap about what had just happened, like you probably don’t right now. Then my friend picked it up, didn't say a word and put it in his wallet. Then we continued on with our evening.

He carried that card in his wallet, all the while I knew him - till the end of college. Maybe he still does, I dunno.. To us two self proclaimed outcasts, it was a reminder to never be one of those bad joke, scheming, followers of the plan “trying to control our little worlds”.

Every time I see TDK I am not only reminded of all these things, but I see new things about the Joker himself. Little things he does and the way he says certain things. I’m sure that in all probability, neither Nolan nor Ledger, ever intended to give all the meaning in all the things I read into, but like I always say ‘The author is dead’.

The way that he is high on what seems to be, to him at least, a higher truth, and so you never see him intoxicated. He casually throws the drink out of the glass before putting it to his lips at Wayne’s fundraiser. How he emphasizes ‘gentle’ when he says “Ladies and gentlemen”. The only time he loses his cool demeanor is when he tells the mobsters that he is not crazy, “No I’m not..No I’m not.” He has no problem admitting he’s a freak but insane he is not. I like that fact that his voice changes from its usual high, taunting one to almost a heavy animal roar precisely twice. When he yells at Batman to hit him with the bat-bike or whatever (“Hit me!!”) and when he tells the Batman wannabe to “Look at me!”, and this is he does symbolically from off camera. The way the anchorman is hanging upside down when reading out the threat. How Joker always gets away in a school bus and how the diversion on the road during Dent’s prison transport was a fire engine on fire. How he sanitizes his hand after walking out of Dent’s hospital room, before pressing the button on the detonator and blowing up the hospital. And the layers to the lines he throws out somewhat casually: “I believe what doesn’t kill me, makes me stranger..”, “Let’s see how loyal a hungry dog really is”, “Insanity is like gravity, sometimes all it takes is a little push” and so on.

Ledger’s Joker is right up there with, maybe even a little above, Hopkins’ Lecter, in my book. I was devastated when I heard that Ledger passed away at 28 years. I was incredibly glad that he won the Academy award, though it was posthumously. C’mon... young medieval British commoner pretending to be a knight, a revolutionary war soldier, a European- well – ‘Casanova’, a gay cowboy and the most deep, layered and menacing villain maybe of all time... all by 28. A true tragedy. And I’m just a fan of his work.  To the people who actually knew him? Wow.. Don’t wanna go there.

Anyways, to me the Joker remains the epitome of how a bad guy should be played. I mean he practically made a guy in black, tight, bat costume legit and the story feel real. I’m also a huge Nicholson fan but his Joker is not in the same league as Ledger’s. Yeah, I know... different time, first attempt at a serious Batman movie, different kinda movie, Tim Burton and all that. But I have to work with what I have. To put it simply, The Dark Knight’s Joker, is the definitive Joker to me because he makes a saying I read somewhere on the internet seem pretty true – “When super villains want to scare each other, they tell Joker stories.”   

Now..Let’s put a smile on that face...