Gone Girl

It was refreshing to see such a negative take on marriage. We always joke about how marriage makes you loose your freedom and how you have to sacrifice on all kinds of shit. But it is always accompanied by something that compensates it. Love, sex, kids, security, just the company. This movie was devoid of any positive side. It was what the idea of marriage can become if taken to the extreme. And it is a rather unnatural idea when you think about it.

Given a choice nobody will marry an ugly person. It might be an insensitive statement to make, but is it not true? So what would you expect to happen to a relation which is based on physical attraction to begin with? It will be as fickle as the attraction which started it. But we fight with it day in and day out. To add some substance to it. Kids are of course a game changer. But what of a long and successful marriage without kids? In the end what will become of the two people involved in it? When none of them is attractive anymore.

Actually the end is easy. It is the middle years when all the infidelity and such-likes happens. When both think they deserve better. It is like marriage is designed to ruin you. But somehow, by a stroke of luck, you might be saved. The more successful and genuinely happy marriages that I have seen look more like any other friendship rather than the added baggage that is part of the marriage bandwagon.

But like any other hard, near impossible thing (like rock climbing, deep sea diving, cliff jumping) marriage, if done right, can forge character. Of course it might be a tad difficult if the spouse is a psychopath. But in most cases they are not. What remains is letting go of your ego and being kind. Ah, but what seems clear in writing, is hazy in doing. What seems like an obvious thing in principle, is always the hardest thing in practice.

The Corrosion of Character

I have started reading this rather weird book upon the recommendation of an even more weirder character I know.

As I went through a few pages I have realized that this book presents a different view of things. New often means controversial, challenging your beliefs and the very way in which you have put your life together thus far. New also means it is not necessarily true. Or maybe true in general but not true in my case, our yours. Thus, there are going to be many interesting tit-bits in this book that I would like to record. Some in agreement, some in disagreement and some otherwise.

I generally use twitter for such shit. But the 140 characters thing can get irritating at times. So I will be sort of live blogging this book as a go through it. This post will be updated often, I hope.

---

"Career", for instance in its English origins meant a road for carriages, and as eventually applied to labor, meant a lifelong channel for one's economic pursuits.

The author is saying that earlier times people lived out their whole lives in one job/company, so there was great certainty and stability. Which was a good thing. Now people have to hop around so life has become more uncertain and stressful.
Me: Disagree. Stress is a result of trying to control the uncontrollable. It cannot be blamed on random stuff.

Time is the only resource freely available to those at the bottom of society.

Me: Interesting. Wonder if it is available freely at the top too.

The author writes about today's world and how we move around and keep changing jobs.

But his deepest worry is that he cannot offer the substance of his work life as an example to his children of how they should conduct themselves ethically. The qualities of good work are not the qualities of good character.

Me: Completely Disagree. A hard days honest work is enough substance for making a good character. It does not matter if you have worked there 10 days or 10 years.

Enrico had a narrative for his life, linear and cumulative, a narrative which made sense in a highly bureaucratic world. Rico [his son] lives in a world marked instead by short-term flexibility and flux; this world does not offer much, either economically or socially, in the way of narrative.
Me: Again Disagree. The narrative is that if you acquire a skill that is marketable then you don't have to depend on any one company for your economic needs.

"Change" means just drift
Me: Agree. If you have not figured out your own agenda then you will most like drift. But how was this different earlier? Lack of movement does not imply stability.

No long term
Me: The author says today's society is based on the above principle. I agree. I myself cannot make any long term plans. Because I can see it does not make sense in these times. But I do wonder what will happen to me in the long term. Hmm as Keynes used to say, everyone is dead in the long term.

अस्तु - So be it

Will I be the same person without my memories? Will the people who love me now continue to love me even if I treat them as strangers? Never recognizing or acknowledging their existence. Most relationships are give and take. If the take stops, how long before the give gets diverted in other, more fulfilling directions.

The strong point of this movie, for me, is the superb acting by the whole cast. Mohan Agashe, as the sanskrit scholar losing his memory to dementia is as masterly as ever. Iravti Harshe, as the elder daughter struggling with her father's illness and the expectations of her young children has given an intense performance. Nachiket Purnapatre and Amruta Subhash have played their parts to perfection.

 

The theme might be the illness. But in typical Sumitra Bhave - Sunil Sukhtankar style, the movie touches a lot of emotions, dilemmas and paradoxes which are part of our ordinary lives. I was troubled by one particular shade. The elder sister Ira (Iravati Harshe) comes out as maternal and caring kind of a person. She refuses to keep her father in an old age home in spite of the mounting difficulties and tensions resulting from his erratic and at times violent behavior. This obviously is taking a toll on her. The younger sister Rahi (Devika Daftardar) is of an altogether different nature. Clear, frank, without attachments and rational to the core. She casually suggests that their father is no longer their father and it is OK to let him spend the rest of his days in an institution. After all, he won't even know the difference!

This, to me, felt like a very easy but unfair classification. One sister full of empathy and care, the other equipped with cold hard reason. Why can a rational person not be empathetic? Why was these to traits always portrayed as opposites? Are they really, or is it just a lazy typecasting done to avoid confusion. What category would you put a person who has both? Because there has to be a category, oh yes. During an emotional outburst Ira mentions that the whole Bhagwat Geeta happened because of Arjun's रुजुता. His empathy. But that was not his weakness. It was his strength, to be able to be someone else. To think from their perspective. Perhaps Arjun was both kind and reasonable. After all, he agreed to, and did what need done. Didn't he?

The movie is about losing context. All our lives we collect memories and build context. People recognize and relate to us by that shared knowledge. But perhaps, while these nitigrities are being worked on, there is something else building up in the deep. Perhaps that can be called the real you. Which exists without context. As Chanamma (Amruta Subhas) says in the end 'देव झालाय त्याचं. सगळं सारखच दिसतकी हो त्यांना'

That said, the movie was not without goof ups and inadvertently funny stuff. Ira listening to their father sing O Rahi O Rahi and thinking he loves her sibling (Rahi) more than herself. Or Ira asking her husband to shut up in the middle of a serious conversation making Milind Soman so awkward that he ends up giving a random clueless expression. But the worst was product placement. I understand that marathi movies, especially such serious and sensitive types do not mint money. They might not be breaking even either. But putting ads in scenes just puts me off. I feel a bit cheated. I am referring to the scene where Ira stops for shopping keeping her father in the car. For a whole 3-4 seconds there is an advertisement board clearly shown past her window. They took great pains to avoid the चितळे and just showed बंधू मिठाईवाले in a previous scene. So I do not think it was unintentional. Or perhaps Chilate did not give them discount on the bakarwadis so they orchestrated sweet revenge.

आजचा दिवस माझा

Most of the times we blame our Government. Sometimes we praise it. But almost never do we care to understand it. This movie provides an interesting insight into the functioning of the Chief Minister's office and the bureaucracy under it.

An organization moves in the resultant direction and speed of all its employees. Sometimes that means no movement at all when everyone is trying to force a different direction. But when these motions align, you can see a slumbering elephant suddenly transformed into a galloping stallion. This movie depicts such a day (or should I say night) when the stars aligned. Can the will of one man, even if he is the top office bearer in the State, cause such a transformation? Perhaps. But it is not easy.

There have been enough movies that have romanticized politics (like Nayak and the idiotically stupid Ranjhanna). But Chandrakant Kulkarni has managed to keep this movie well grounded. Sachin Khededar as CM Vishwasrao Mohite has given a powerhouse performance. He has never gone overboard and maintained perfect composure. He has been able to show the cunning politician as well as the kind-hearted leader with equal finesse. Since his character is what causes the whole plot in the first place, it was quiet critical that it was done right. And it has been. 

Mahesh Manjrekar has given a subdued but decent performance as a senior IAS officer. The feeling of superiority (we basically run this nation), the arrogance towards subordinates, the reluctant and false respect for superiors and the overall culture of mutual gain is brought out nicely through his character. Though in the end, when his daughter refuses to marry a 'boring' new IAS recruit, he realizes that he does not posses real power. And we realize that when it is time to do something good, such types are of no use.

But the best part for me was played out by Hrishikesh Joshi as the CMs private secretory. There is a phone call where he explains to his kid, who has just passed with flying colors, why he cannot come home till the job is done. That alone made it worth the while.

Now for the criticisms. First and foremost, the titles were horrible. A kid in 10th grade can come up with better graphics now-a-days. There was no creativity and no effort in it. It just puts you off right at the beginning (I was on a flight with nothing better to do so I carried on).

Second is the comedy. I am sick and tired of comedy in Marathi movies now. It is the same kind of physical, screaming and retake genre which the likes of Ashok Saraf, Lakshya and Sudhir Joshi had pioneered. Yes it was fun and they were good at it. But it is time to move on now. We need to find some real humor. Frankly, this movie would have been much better without all its comedy sequences. Also without scenes which were designed to bring out a particular message. Most of the time they feel childish. The expression should flow effortlessly from the conversation. If it does not then let it be. There is no point in engineering the dialog to achieve the desired result.

The third criticism is about plot itself. It is based on the allotment of flats to renowned artists from a quota. This is a legacy of the times when we were ruled by Kings who used to provide Rajashrya. It does not make sense in a democracy. And it is the exact type of arbitrary patronage that leads to corruption and dysfunctional use of government resources.

One of the final scenes has a somewhat direct confrontation between the CM and his IAS officer. It plays out well. The elected representatives should decide the priorities. What is important and what needs to be done now. The officers need to execute on those priorities in accordance with proper procedure. Khedekar quotes the late Maharashtra CM Yashwantrao Chavan's words that the ministers need to say 'No' more often and the bureaucrats need to say 'Yes' more often.

Given the current political climate there are bound to be a lot more movies with similar theme. But most will be hero worship style and would miss the point of being in governance completely.

[Photos courtesy: hdmovies-4u.blogspot.com indiannerve.com marathistars.com movies.buzzintown.com]

Career

It is only recently that I realized that a career is not compulsory. It will take some time to sink in.

Unfortunately having fun and living your life to the fullest is also not compulsory. You don't need to do that. Many a human survive just fine without it. Most of us fail the Monday test (Do you look forward to it?). I read in a book that the opposite of happiness is not sadness. It's boredom. If you are not excited (every day) by what you do, you are perhaps in the wrong profession. How did I land up here? It is always a case of life happening to us while we are sleepwalking through it. Question is, how long do I continue to sleepwalk? It is certainly possible to do it forever.

The idea of a free life is grand. The practicalities are not. They are mighty confusing. Free is not relaxing. Free is not lolling. Free is hard work. And this is all speculation. Who knows what it is like to be free? I don't. I trade my vigor and energy for money. Every day. Till I will be no longer in possession of any. Is that free? I cannot decide the amount of work I am willing to do. I have numerous wishes which will die simply due to lack of time and energy on my part. Many have. Is that free?

How are we supposed to live? Is there a standard? In our 200,000 years of existence we have not figured it out? Why has no one ever mentioned it to me? Is the fear of having no money enough to block every other thought or possibility that can exist? I am pretty sure it is. And the more money I have the greater the fear of losing it. Economics tells us that money is fungible. That is can be interchanged easily for something else. But experience tells me that money can limit my mind like no other. The addiction is intense. The thought of going a single day without income will strike fear in the heart. The justifications will flow quickly. What will I do when I get old? What will I do now? What will she think? What will he think? What about my self worth? Am I worth nothing?

The people around you define your necessities. Couple of properties. Strong investment portfolio. Gold. Fixed Deposits to take care of emergencies. Some land somewhere hoping for long term appreciation. Plain old cash in the bank. And I define myself by my ability to attain these necessities. I measure my success by how much I went ahead of my friends in possessing them. All other measures of worth are for pansies.

These questions are many and are most important. Important than anything else in the world. But I have not checked my email in a while. And my phone is blinking too. I wish I had his strength of will. These questions will take no less. But who am I kidding?

इहासने शुष्यतु मे शरीरम्

त्वगस्थिमांसं विलयं च यातु । 

अप्राप्य बोधिं बहुकल्पदुर्लभाम् 

नैवासनात् कायामतः चलिष्यते ॥

Let my body wither away on this seat,

let, skin, bone, and flesh get dissolved;

Without getting enlightenment,

difficult to achieve in many eons,

Never shall this body move from this seat.

पोस्टकार्ड

पत्र पाउसाच्या थेंबासारखं असतं. ते कुठलीना कुठलीतरी भावना रुजवतच.

म अशी पत्र रोज निर्व्याजपणे पोचवणारा पोस्टमन कधीतरी त्या शब्दांमध्ये हरवत असेल का? गजेंद्र अहिर्यांचा पोस्टकार्ड हा चित्रपट मला फार आवडला आणि त्याचा खूप कंटाळा पण आला. हे परस्पर विरोधी नाहीये. दोन तास हा मोठा कालावधी आहे. त्यात असंख्य वेळा तुमचे विचार आणि भावना बदलतात. चित्रपट बघून बाहेर पडताना, कसा वाटला? ह्या प्रश्णाचं उत्तर दुसरं कोणी नाही विचारलं तरी आपण स्वताचं स्वताला देतोच. ते कदाचित ह्या सगळ्या भावनांची बेरीज केल्या सारखं असावं. मला इथे बेरीज करायची नाहीये.

तीन गावं. तिथले तीन पत्ते (पत्ती नाही!). तिथे आपली आयुष्य मांडून बसलेली तीन माणसं. आपल्या सर्वात जवळच्या माणसापासून दूर गेलेली. वर्षानुवर्षं वाट बघत आणि भेटीची आस जागी ठेवत काढलेली. आणि ती भेट झालीच नाही तर? काय होत असेल? मरणानी तरी सुटका होते अश्यांची? का ती शेवटची झोप पण नीट लागणार नाही? आणि ह्या सगळ्या अतृप्त इच्छांमधून संथ गतीने वाट काढत चाललेला पोस्टमन. ज्याचा खर तर ह्या पात्रांची काहीच संबंध नाही. पण तरी त्यांच्या आर्त हाकेमुले खेचत गेलेला. 

सगळ्याच कथा मला भावल्या. डोळ्यात पाणी आणणाऱ्या होत्या. सई ताम्हणकरनी सहज आणि अतिशय उत्कृष्ठ अभिनय केलाय. "कष्ट करणाऱ्या म्हाताऱ्या माणसाची देवावरची श्रद्धा उडायला नको" ह्या तिच्या वाक्याला डोळ्यातले पाणी बाहेर येऊ का विचारत होते (मी त्याला गप बस म्हणालो). राधिका आपटे अप्रतिम कलाकार आहेच. ह्या चित्रपटात पण तिचं काम सुंदर झालं आहे. चित्रपट जसा पुढे पुढे जातो तसं त्याला नुसतं भावनिक सोडून गूढतेचं वळण मिळायला लागतं. नाव सांगणं टाळता जी. ए. च्या कुठल्याश्या कथेचा उल्लेख होतो (त्यावर आधारित असावी?). भारावून टाकणारं संगीत आणि हरिहरन, कविता कृष्णमुर्ती ह्यांचे आवाज. Cinematography तर सध्याच्या मराठी चित्रपटांची कमालच असते. म्हणून त्या विषयी बोलायलाच नको. Technically काही आवडलं नसेल तर वैभव मांगले ह्यांचे पात्र (उगीच एकांगी केलेले) आणि सुबोध भावे ह्यांची वाकडी टोपी (काहीही काय?).

मला कंटाळा आला तो परिस्थिती पुढे हताश झालेल्या मराठी माणसाचा. आणि बहुतेक वेळा परिस्थिती म्हणजे हवे तितके पैसे नसणे. म त्यासाठी त्याग, रडारड, दुःख्. एखादी गोष्ट आपल्याला मिळणं शक्य नाही हे समजून पुढे न जाता येण फारच क्लेषदाई असणार. मला कल्पना आहे की माझ्या सारखं सुखासीन आयुष्य जगणार्याला हे म्हणणं सोपं आहे. हुशार माणूस आपल्या इच्छा अपेक्षा आपल्याला पेलतील अश्याच निवडतो. पण एखाद्या असाध्य गोष्टीची अनावर आसक्ती निर्माण झाली तर? नरकाचा रस्ता मोकळा होत असावा.

[photo courtesy: rangmarathi.com]

Agora

We dance round in a ring and suppose,But the Secret sits in the middle and knows.

- Robert Frost

This short but haunting verse kept creeping in my mind as I watched Agora. The story is set in 4th century Alexandria. That was the time when Christen hordes were sweeping into the predominantly pagan Egypt. And Christianity was trying to get a foothold.

In these discordant times there lived a mathematician and philosopher named Hypatia. Remember, those were the days when people believed that the earth is flat. Many thinkers had tried to explain the motion of the planets that they saw in the night sky (they called them - wanderers). But there were too many inconsistencies in each explanation. Some had suggested that the Earth might actually be a wanderer itself in a circular path around the Sun. But the thought that something as stable as the ground can move was widely considered hilarious. Plus there was the observation that the Sun gets smaller in winter and bigger in summer. How do you explain that with a circular orbit?

If I could just unravel this just a little bit more, and just get a little closer to the answer, then... Then I would go to my grave a happy woman.

Hypatia was not interested in religion. When ridiculed as a non-believer by a christen official, she plainly states that she believes in philosophy alone. She was not interested in men. She famously rejects one of her suitors by presenting him her menstrual rags. Indicating that not all is harmonious and beautiful about the human body. A fact often forgotten when you are sexually attracted to someone. We are not used to female characters who would rather talk philosophy than be interested in men (call me sexist). But it was played very convincingly by Rachel Weisz. And it was easy to take in once I realized that it is just a stupid stereotype like any other.

[Usual Disclaimer: Watch the movie if you can. Otherwise read on..]

Things come to a climactic finish when Hypatia realizes that the Earth is in fact moving in an elliptic orbit around the Sun (Agora). But by then, in a strategic move to grab absolute power, the Bishop of Alexandria has declared that Christianity prohibits any women for teaching or learning philosophy, of even talking in public. He declares Hypatia a witch, knowing that the prefect of Alexandria was in love with her. She is hunted and about to be tortured. But Davus (her erstwhile personal slave turned missionary) finds some kindness in him and gives her a quick death. The most he can do for her. Her greatest discovery dying a quick death along with her.

It is said that her death effectively put on end to the long tradition of logic, reason and analytic thinking in Alexandria (It took mankind 13 more centuries to rediscover the same fact when Johannes Kepler finally published the laws of planetary motion in the 17th century.) One quote from her sums it all.

Synesius, you don't question what you believe, or cannot. I must.

 [Photo courtesy: wikipedia.org, shawmovies.sg, il7ad.com]