Matter(?).

"The most beautiful things are those that madness prompts and Reason writes."

[mapsontheweb]

What the world leaders studied at college, 2018.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

Interesting.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

One of my most important mantras came from a talk Joi Ito gave at the PopTech! conference. He said education has to fundamentally be antidisciplinary- a vein of thought inspired by Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s idea of the Antifragile. By antidisciplinary, Ito refers to the tearing down of academic ivory towers to inspire innovation among the brightest and the best in academia. 

Donald E. Ingber, M.D., Ph.D., is the Founding Director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, a Professor of Vascular Biology at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Bioengineering at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 

This talk delivered at PopTech! 2010 is an overview of the origins, epistemology and research being pioneered by the Wyss Institute. 

And right off the bat, I could notice strong ties of his vision of academic impact to ideas of Consilience and Open Collaboration. That’s why there are no laboratories at the Wyss Institute- there are Collaboratories. And that to me is brilliant! It also reminds me of the design of the Pixar Campus and Offices- what I had read about in Isaacson's book about Steve Jobs. It was designed to inspire interaction and accelerate the flow of good ideas. 

And this model to me looks more and more the future of effective academia. Apprenticeships need to be revived and the old notion of a student needs to be discarded. We can only get good at what we do only if we know who we are in the massive scheme of intellectual things. 

Dr. Ingber talks about a sculpture class he took as an undergraduate at Yale and how the confluence of tensegrity structures and cell cultures inspired a lifelong obsession- how inspiration comes from the most arcane of connections. Here’s a quote:

"And the reason that I'm here today (in terms of serendipity) is that I saw [tensegrity structures] for the first time when I was an undergraduate at Yale in a sculpture class that I just happened to take the same week that I learned to culture cells. And that, as they say, is the beginning of the rest of my life."

This talk reflects the scale of ambition and effectiveness of the Wyss Institute. Its inspirational and the experimenters of academic/education policymakers should pay heed to such ideas. 

[whatisvignesh-blog]

Steven Pinker’s latest book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress has the Harvard Psychologist picking up where his previous book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity left off.

While the Better Angels book specifically focused on the phenomena of violence, Enlightenment Now focuses on the myriad of ways by which life today is exponentially better than it ever has been. This is a cause for celebration, according to Pinker, not the general mood of pessimism most of humanity is generally predisposed to. 

Pod Save America is one of my favorite new podcasts out there and its parent organization, Crooked Media, was founded by a bunch of really smart and talented guys who were speechwriters for President Barack Obama. 

This conversation took place under the auspices of Crooked Conversations, a platform where politics and culture meet for a stimulating chat. In under 15 minutes, host Jon Lovett manages to get Steven Pinker to talk about technology, politics, culture and being optimistic in the Trump-era.

Check it out.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

#ReadingFilms : Utter Postmodern Crap

“American Psycho” (2000) Directed by Mary Harron Screenplay by Mary Harron & Guinevere Turner Based on the novel ‘American Psycho’ by Bret Easton Ellis Starring Christian Bale, Willem Dafoe, Jared Leto, Josh Lucas, Samantha Mathis, Matt Ross, Bill Sage, Chlöe Sevigny, Cara Seymour, Justin Theroux, Guinevere Turner, Reese Witherspoon

To me, American Psycho is an excuse to make a film.

To make a film without even a shard of meaning, conscientious of the viewer’s experience is just self-destructive, pseudo-art.

The film didn’t get me thinking. I hate films that don’t get me thinking. 

I am a selfish cinephile; I want a film to change my life.

Unfortunately American Psycho did neither for me and I am fairly confident it wouldn’t ever do so in the years to come either.

It is a well-crafted film, but an utterly pointless error trapped in celluloid... and oh, good lord! 

Film history!

The first great flaw in the film is the story selection in and of itself.

I might cook a wonderful bowl of spaghetti, but that doesn’t mean I go out and open an Italian restaurant. Similarly, a book, a New York Times Bestseller that too, might be a great piece of fiction writing but can turn out to be unrelatable garbage on film (aspiring writers and directors, take note).

That is the great screw up with American Psycho.

I haven’t read Bret Easton Ellis’ novel, but it’s easy to posit that the book ought to be containing a few pages of roisterous penmanship. The screenplay was, however, a farce. The cool stylishness of the film’s world hides the poverty of thought in the film’s exposition.

Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) has everything one can ask for- a great physique, a Harvard education, and a Wall Street job. So why is he a psychopath?  Why does he feel that unearthly need to kill?

The film has a few things to say on that matter but I am going to discount it and call BS on it.

The perfection in Bateman’s character had to have a polarizing cognitive counterweight. What might be better than to make him a psychopathic, serial killer?

Take the ‘e’ off of Bateman’s and let’s dive into a mild tangent.  It’s almost as if Bret Easton Ellis wanted to strip off all the things that made Batman as a concept relatable to the human psyche. In the process, he created a Bruce Wayne-like character with a passionate intent to kill.  (Note: I admit that was my hidden bias kicking in full swing. Sorry, Ben Affleck. Christian Bale will always be Bruce Wayne/Batman to me.) 

So, why do I hate this film?

1. Unabashedly Neo-Nihilist

You see, my time is limited and my life’s pretty much wrecked as of now. When it dawns on young people that the world is suffering and the only antidote to suffering is meaning, I, on some level, believe that it’s a dishonest sleight of hand that filmmakers employ to capture a slice of neo-nihilist thought, stating that what the other side looks like. Life is allegorical as it is, why screw around, communicating using the what-the-other-side-looks-like narrative? That’s unfair to me as a cinema viewer.

Yeah, I am doing the very narcissistic thing of holding myself up as the yardstick of excellent cinematic taste. I am self-aware enough to admit it. If you still find that pretentious, bite me.

The neo-nihilism is represented in Bateman in the form of Man-as-a-Checklist.

So what does that mean, Man-as-a-Checklist? 

It means Bateman’s a guy whose life runs on checklists, on processes. 

Once you sell yourself to a set of practices based on a core set of beliefs, it becomes an ideology and every ideology has its flaws. Bateman’s flaw was that he couldn’t or he didn’t have a process to help him retain a sense of conscientiousness, humaneness. This explains why he’s acting like an idiot; killing people, with his ego acting as the internal trigger.

2. Compounded Absurdity

Life is absurd, I get it. But, it seems to me as though American Psycho wanted to push the maximal, consumerist archetype envelope like nothing before it ever did. 

Herein lies American Psycho’s unique failure as a piece of cinema: it succeeded in establishing the absurdity through symbology, however, it failed in establishing the rationale behind Bateman’s choices, failing to extract the meaningful- by which I mean the relatable- value from Bateman’s settings and the context of his life.

3. ‘Out of Body’ for the sake of an ‘Out of Body Experience’

Only a handful to zero people I know are killers. 

What I felt American Psycho tried to do was convey the experience of having a one-sided friendship with a psychotic murderer.

It’s a pretty neat concept but so was the fidget spinner- interesting but without a concrete logic.

The cast’s performance was superb, to say the least. The reality in their performances transported me into their world, but after 2 hours I had to conclude, “What a shitty reality!”

4. Psychopathy as an Accessory

You’d have to be an idiot to attach psychopathy as an accessorial trait of the protagonist.

I can understand that life gets strange and complicated, but murder through the use of machetes and nail guns are sadist at best. If black humour was what the film was going for, then, in my opinion, the film was just utterly off the mark. My laugh, which sadly emerged once over the film’s two-hour runtime, was a combination of “Interesting!” and a scoff.

The ungodly focus on the trivialities annoyed me and the pettiness engineered into the character design was abhorring. 

Watching American Psycho was a polarizing experience, to say the least.

Maybe it’s genius lay in all my criticism, the things I so hated about the film, in a nutshell, my inability to look beyond myself.

Yes, I am open to accepting that opposing point of view as well.

However, as a pure cinematic experience, American Psycho woefully lacked... I don’t know, meaning?

Maybe that’s the absurdity the film is trying to get at. If so, excellent; but what a terrible, shitty way to put it across. 

Postmodern films are like gonorrhea for intellectual cinephiles. It sucks- the symptoms, the pains, the pointlessness- but we live through it as though it’s a badge of honour. 

It’s not. That’s just a very stupid way to look at it.

There you go, I contradicted my entire opinion.

That’s what watching American Psycho was like.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

Essays on Cinema (Vol. 1)

An Introduction

Frank Capra once said “Film is a disease”. I picked up this quote from Martin Scorsese’s lecture on the importance of Visual Literacy. The phrase stuck with me. It was relatable, empathetic and understanding in the way a Mother Goddess telepathically connects with her Child. I began reading about cinema and in all honesty, this is the most wonderful disease in all of mankind.

The process of understanding and appreciating cinema isn't purely a visual exercise in my opinion. It requires time, effort, dedication and a personal quest to convince ourselves that the only way to make sense of a world larger than our own Ptolemaic interpretation of a personal universe is to get out of that universe; seeping into the hearts, minds and consciences of some of the finest artists is an apt procedure to sink into the collective unconscious of humanity.

I love films- watching them, conversing about them, reading about them and thinking about them. They are a direct extension, almost a physical manifestation, the Yin-Yang of the Conscious and the Unconscious in reality. Understanding them through the lens of various ideas and interpretations of its Nature would not only enhance your experience of watching a film, but also enable your capacity to interpret the world in a myriad of different ways.

This compilation contains twenty essays on the art, artists and ideas of cinema. Authors, sources and fields range from Paul Schrader to Film Comment to Neurobiology. I wanted to share with you a bunch of interesting perspectives on the Idea of Cinema.

This is the first of many compilations to come (I hope). Do reach out and share your thoughts, criticisms and opinions on this volume. Also, if you do feel overly altruistic, please do share resources you’d believe would be valuable, so as to enhance the quality of literature adhered to in this series.

Here’s the link to download : https://drive.google.com/open?id=1QrSGYPBfZpJLI1_eWbIhojMVrIo-hfgk

I hope you share it, talk about it, think about it- or best- make one for yourself. That’s the motive behind this. 

Thanks in advance for checking this out.

Vignesh Swaminathan

4th January 2018 Ahmedabad, India

[whatisvignesh-blog]

The Film(s) That Changed My Life

“Which film changed your life?” This is a question in every film enthusiast’s arsenal. Rajeev Masand has an entire playlist on YouTube dedicated to just this one question. Some highlights from those videos include Anurag Kashyap citing Vittorio De Sica’s ‘Bicycle Thieves’ and an outrageous number of other actors and filmmakers professing their love for Martin Scorsese’s ‘Raging Bull’.

As somebody who loves a touch of the excess, I’d have to say there isn’t one, nor two films, but four films in my case.

To structure it sensibly, I’d like to use the Myth of Sisyphus as the intellectual scaffolding upon which I shall build my answer to this question. Existence is suffering and the only way to look at the bright side of things is to, paraphrasing Flaubert, lose oneself in the perpetual orgy of cinema. 

My Sisyphean allegory kicks off with the boulder rolling downhill with Martin Scorsese’s ‘Goodfellas’.

My tenth-grade results were delayed by three to four months and it was during this period, I made a weird decision to watch one gangster/mobster film a day until my results were out. The Godfather Trilogy, Scarface, The Departed, The Untouchables, Casino, Reservoir Dogs, Lock, Stock and Two Smokin’ Barrels, Carlito’s Way, Donnie Brasco and many others; one such film a day for four months. 

Among the plethora of these mob classics, Goodfellas really stood out to me. It was a pivotal moment in my life. From the opening scene to the panache in the first sentence the narrator, Henry Hill, utters (“From as far back as I could remember I always wanted to be a gangster) followed by the rambunctious title track by Tony Bennett, I was hooked. I knew I was in the presence of something timeless, a classic. Through the pace of the story and the lives of its characters, I discovered that life can be expressed for everyone to watch and learn from one another's lives. 

Rolling the boulder back uphill, there is Christopher Nolan’s ‘Inception’.

This to me, personally, is the greatest film ever made. The depth in the characters, the Borgesian narrative, the bending of reality, Hans Zimmer’s score, Guy Hendrix Dyas’ Production Design, Christopher Nolan’s direction, story, screenplay, and dialogue made it a film school in itself for me. 

I must’ve watched this film close to fifty times as of today and each time I watch it, I learn, notice or discover something new in the world of its story or about the film itself.

As a kid, I used to use high falutin words like abcderie in my homework essays as well as everyday conversation. However, when I watched the film, Saito’s dialogue, “Do you want to take a leap of faith? Or become an old man, filled with regret, waiting to die alone?” made a remarkable impression on me as an aspiring writer. The sheer simplicity of the choice of words as well as the profundity in its depth, made me reassess my whole style and modus operandi of writing. 

It was inspirational. The film left me wondering whether I had the courage in me to imagine anything in such gargantuan scope and ambition. Also, it didn’t disrespect me as a viewer. It challenged me to use my brain cells and connect the dots, follow the story. Needless to say, I began to understand how steep an uphill climb it might be, but also how exhilarating it would be simultaneously.

The second time the boulder went rolling down was when I watched Martin Scorsese’s ‘Taxi Driver’.

I love Marty Scorsese. Everybody loves Marty Scorsese. But this film... My God!

Taxi Driver was the latest film to be added to this list, but its addition is a testament to all things I love about life- courage, sacrifice, vision, and genius. I watched Taxi Driver for the first time in 2013 but I didn’t understand shit, to be honest. I just thought “Well, the film sounds interesting.” That was obviously a reference to Bernard Hermann’s magnificent score. However, when I caught the film in the wee hours of a February morning in 2017, I was transfixed. de Niro’s performance, Paul Schrader’s magnificent script and Martin Scorsese’s direction (as well as his cameo) combined with Bernard Hermann’s score made Travis Bickle and his life appeal to a part of my secret self. I also loved it for the fact that this was the film that made me grasp the idea that film was an extraordinary medium to express the depth, poignancy and the pace of life, choices and time.

I saw motifs, themes, colors, arcs, effects all concocted to give the viewer a seamless experience. 

Taxi Driver to me is like the iPhone of cinema- no one part was greater than the other, each part was wonderfully crafted, well thought out and efficiently executed. The film was a thorough exercise in character, clarity, discomfort, as well as the Balzacesque use of a city as a character, really appealed to my literary sensitivities.

The final film in this list made me believe that it's actually worth striving to push the boulder all the way up only to watch it roll back down ad infinitum. It's Francois Truffaut’s ‘Le Quatre Cents Coups’ or ‘The 400 Blows’.

This was where the origins of the Nouvelle Vague, Truffaut’s own journey to reshaping modern cinema and the importance of establishing the relativeness of a protagonist within the structure of the story hit me in full swing. 

I related to Antoine’s plight and loved the theme of freedom, joy, and childhood screaming throughout the film. Watching this film was an intensely personal experience for me and if you, like me, have a younger sibling, play them The 400 Blows. I’d guarantee they’d relate to it as well as enjoy it.

In summation, here is the final list.

1. Goodfellas 2. Inception 3. Taxi Driver 4. The 400 Blows

These films made a massive impact on me. While some of you might say, “Hey! I see a Scorsese bias.” or “Hey! How come you haven’t mentioned any Indian films?”, to that, I say, “Too bad.”

On a deeper note the Sisyphean allegory accounts for Time, an element rarely addressed in its fullest glory within the context of this question. I believe the films that touch the real part of you have the power to freak you out through its sheer artistry, rolling that boulder downhill or give you the courage to push, strive, and rise to perform the climb uphill.

Time runs forever and so will films. Biography or the past isn’t destiny. Sisyphus was condemned to push this boulder for all of eternity. The films of the future will also account for the Sisyphean shift. The key bit is to stay open to this idea. Time and your Secret Self will take care of the rest.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

A Plea to the Anthropocene

In the end, he whose opinions cannot be calculated, will be the one whose opinion, would be most sought after. For the cold brutality of algorithms, is years away from the mimicking, the rhythms of a Beginner’s Mind.

Brute force can crush the math of decision making, But can math replicate the common place option, of making decisions ?

I am no Keats. And I accuse no Newton of unweaving the rainbow; for this rainbow has yet not been unwoven. However, it is the secrets of human cognition, Newtons, young and old, are so busy trying to unweave.

Thus, Brothers and Sisters, My plea to you is this : “Enjoy your subjectivity for as long as you can. Be mindful of its existence and, push it to the far edges of your cognitive lands.” One day you will wake up and realise, what made you so special, isn’t so special anymore.  Don’t hang your head in shame for having not, enjoyed its gifts all those long years ago.

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

#ReadingFilms - Teen Drama, Francis Ford Coppola Style !

“Rumble Fish” (1983) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola Screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola and S.E.Hinton Based on the Novel ‘Rumble Fish’ by S.E. Hinton Starring Mickey Rourke, Matt Dillon, Vincent Spano, Nicolas Cage, Dennis Hopper, Diane Lane, Diana Scarwind, Tom Waits

First of all, I want to be absolutely clear- ‘Rumble Fish’ is not a great film.

Two out of five tops.

However, its an intensely personal film; its inspired by Francis Ford Coppola’s love for S.E. Hinton’s novel of the same name. Coppola loved the novel, not for the traditional literary characteristics- the plot, the characters, the movement and impact of time- rather, he saw it awaken in him a love and loyalty he felt for his elder brother, August Coppola, to whom he dedicates the film.

True, the film is a teen drama. But what is also true is that it's a Francis Ford Coppola teen drama. And by the way, in addition to the truth is the more interesting fact that this is a post-‘The Godfather’ and post-‘The Conversation’ Francis Ford Coppola!

Objectively, only a handful of elements stand out in ‘Rumble Fish’ : - The Cinematography - The Editing - Mickey Rourke’s Performance - Stewart Copeland’s Score

Almost everything else in the film can be discarded as ‘trashy’ in my opinion.

However, subjectively, I felt the film touched something deep in my soul. And a large part of it deals with the themes Coppola has his characters live through, the light and shade in character construction as well as the grand idea of what does it really mean to be one’s own man.

The true weight of the film, (once again) in my humble opinion, can be weighed in subjective gold. And what is this ‘Subjective Gold’?

By ‘Subjective Gold’ I refer to 3 ideas of living which the film attempts to represent. I. The Naive and the Sentimental II. Metaphor as Life on Canvas III. The Meaning of Growing Up

Let’s break it down.

I. The Naive and the Sentimental

In this film, Rusty James (Matt Dillon) represents the Sentimental while the Motorcycle Boy (Mickey Rourke) represents the Naive.

The distinction between the Naive and the Sentimental has its roots in an essay by Friedrich Schiller titled ‘Über naive und sentimentalische Dichtung’ (On Naive and Sentimental Poetry) which was published in 1795.

Here, instead of Poetry, I choose the characters in the film.

The Naive character is someone who is in tune with Nature. He is calm, cruel, and wise - traits that are amply visible in Rourke’s character. The Sentimental character is one who has strayed away from Nature’s simplicity and is too caught up in his/her own emotions and their states of mind.

Rourke plays the wise gang leader and bonafide role model to the neighborhood troublemakers. Dillon plays the innocent and loveable younger brother who aspires to attain his older brother’s halo of reverence.

II. Metaphor as Life on Canvas

The film could be interpreted as the influence of an older sibling on the younger one, the pain of being in a broken family and ideas on how to just ‘be’.

Rourke was the outlaw, the biker, the gang leader. He had everyone’s (with the exception of Law Enforcement) love, admiration, and respect. Dillion grows up in his brother’s shadow- he grows up believing in 2 myths. One, the road to ideal manhood is the one the Motorcycle Boy had taken. And two, as the younger brother of the Motorcycle Boy, Rusty James believes that leadership and courage flow through his veins as well.

There is adulation and hero-worship on Rusty James’ part.

But unfortunately, biography led Rusty James to lose himself over the trivial details rather than the broad stroke of the Motorcycle Boy’s characteristics.

A case in point would be intelligence. More than intelligence it’s shrewdness. Unable to cope with Rusty James’ infidelities, Patty (Diane Lane) finds new love in Smokey (Nicolas Cage). When Rusty James confronts Smokey over Patty, it becomes clear that Smokey not only arranged for Rusty James’ last sexual exploit, but also engineered its leak to the ears of Patty. Surprised by such manoeuvres, Rusty James wonders whether he’d ever be as cunning as Smokey ?

What we can take away from the relationship between Rusty James and the Motorcycle Boy is that genius is independent of genealogy- its something that needs honing, practice and discipline.

In the case of the Motorcycle Boy- it's the intrinsic and the toughness of mind that complements his soft-spoken demeanor. Rusty James, having grown up, identified by, as the Motorcycle Boy’s younger brother, takes it for granted that the traits that distinguish the Motorcycle Boy from the herd are in him as well- alive and kicking.

However, the Director, Francis Ford Coppola, subtly implies that genius or magnetic exceptionalism isn't something that obeys the genealogical order. He insists that its something one acquires for themselves as they go on to live their lives, forging a path for themselves that’d define who they are.

III. The Meaning of Growing Up

Ultimately, its critical that we don’t forget that ‘Rumble Fish’ is a teen drama. And while it has all the elements that go into the making of a teen drama, Coppola highlights, naivety, foolishness and most uniquely, schadenfreude.

Having already spoken of naivety and foolishness, I believe its schadenfreude that makes ‘Rumble Fish’ an intensely personal film for the viewer.

Schadenfreude (noun, German) refers to the ‘pleasure derived by someone from another’s misfortune’.

In this context, we, the audience have a good laugh at Rusty James’ expense. It's with such philosophical finesse, Coppola often breaks the fourth wall.

The Motorcycle Boy is there for Rusty James, his brother. As the film goes on this trend is well established. If Rusty James is in trouble, there’s the Motorcycle Boy. If Rusty James is in a fight there’s the Motorcycle Boy. If Rusty James’ incapacitated, there’s the Motorcycle Boy.

I think Coppola very intimately establishes the Motorcycle Boy’s relationship with the audience in two ways. Firstly, the black and white color scheme in which we view the film is representative of the Motorcycle Boy’s colorblindness. Its intended effect is to give the viewer the experience of looking at the world through the Motorcycle Boy’s eyes. Secondly, and this is where the Motorcycle Boy’s character design absolutely fascinates me. Throughout the film, as mentioned, the Motorcycle Boy is there for his brother, Rusty James. When we, the audience, laughed at Rusty James’ failures, the Motorcycle Boy’s poise and demeanor almost give one a feeling of as though he knows we are laughing at his brother. The Motorcycle Boy’s role is described as the turnpike that connects Rusty James’ evolution to Rusty James’ relationship with the audience.

The Motorcycle Boy has clearly grown up. He’s forged his own path and become his own man. This takes guts, and the Motorcycle Boy knows this. Rusty James, however, hasn’t grown up. Part of the Motorcycle Boy’s intention to stay was inspired by the emotion of helping his brother become his own man. By the end of the film, Rusty James is on the path to becoming his own man, but unfortunately at a terrible price.

I think its pretty easy to intellectualize films. Bazin once said that ‘the cinema substitutes for our gaze a world more in harmony with our desires.’

Interesting.

‘Rumble Fish’ to me, represents that kind of cinema. We can intuit the toughness of the world the film is set in. We can empathize with the relationship between the Motorcycle Boy and Rusty James. But ultimately, we need to understand and respect the impact S.E. Hinton’s story had on Francis Ford Coppola and how it brought to surface the love and emotion Francis had for his brother, August.

Before we can intellectualize a film we need to pay a bit of respect and attention to the filmmaker and his/her motive. Too often, fans of cinema forget this ritual. But once we try seeing the film’s episteme through the filmmaker’s sensibility; the process of understanding, appreciating and intellectualizing cinema becomes easier.

This film warrants more than one watch; one for the mind and twice for the heart!

[whatisvignesh-blog]

#ReadingFilms: Riveting and Quite Extraordinary

‘Thevar Magan’ (‘Son of Thevar’) (1992) Directed by Bharathan Written by Kamal Haasan Starring Kamal Haasan, Sivaji Ganesan, Gouthami, Revathy, Nassar

I do not recall the name but one prominent film critic associates the origination of the persona (or the archetype) of the mustachioed, aruvaal wielding Tamizhan in cinema to Kamal Haasan’s performance in Thevar Magan.

The film is still fresh, powerful and a poignant representation of a world and a culture outside the walls of Madras.

I’d Iike to give this essay a bit of structure by drawing 3 overarching points and building my analysis thereon up.

1. The Story and Themes

‘A westernized young man returns to his village. Unaware of feuds, customs and their implications he pulls himself into a world of sabotage and pain. When it was time, he sacrifices his love and his dreams for the sake of the people for whom his family has been responsible for centuries.’

This is Thevar Magan in a nutshell. It is an extraordinary take on the lives and the dreams of Young India in relation to the history and culture that fuels its villages. 

a. Karma Yoga

At a very high level (at least for me) is the idea that the film is an interesting exposition on the concept of Karma Yoga. 

Karma Yoga or the Yoga of Action is a form of Yoga based on teachings in the Bhagavad Gita. Karma Yoga is the process of achieving perfection in selfless action. It is primarily the practice of selfless service to humanity whereby a spiritual seeker attempts to give their actions selflessly without hoping for merit, fame or glory. 

Kamal Haasan’s character, Saktivel, is the seeker in the context of the film. He becomes a vignette for what a modern Karma Yogi ought to be as every action he takes in the film is one keeping in mind the unity and the prosperity of his people. I think a film is a terrific canvas where one can paint ideas of sophisticated theology or philosophy, making heavy-duty concepts extremely accessible to the masses.

b. The Greater Good

Another concept we can find in the film is the concept of the Greater Good in the context of love. Love, I think, is an interesting lens through which one might view the Greater Good because it really goes against the idea of Man being a selfish, lust-driven, seeker. 

Along similar lines the film also makes a claim that ego is not necessarily an evil cognitive tool - it’s, in fact, a wonderful apparatus for one to hold on to his/her self-respect and word of honor - concepts which are core ideologies in any walk of life.

Another bit of the film that caught my attention with respect to the Greater Good is one involving Saktivel’s hair. Westernised and well-initiated in the art of punk, Kamal Haasan’s mullet represents the Young Indian’s propensity in absorbing and applying the western notion of cool. But when the time comes that which is modern and that which is cool must not stand in the way of doing that which is right. In the film it involves Saktivel sacrificing his punk appeal to be reborn as the leader and caregiver of his community.

c. Culture and Community

The film received a bit of backlash upon its release because people thought that the film painted a picture of the Thevar community in Tamil Nadu as a bloodthirsty lot. However, in my opinion, the film does great justice and respectfully sheds light on the history and accomplishments of the Thevar community. From being the first recruits in Subhash Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army to being responsible for the welfare, prosperity, and justice-related issues in the village, the story is in fact very educative about the Thevar community’s involvement in social progress. I think its very unfair that social activists spotlight one aspect of the story over the cumulative exposition. 

There is a debate among viewers on what the film truly intends on representing. A faction of viewers believes that the film is a treatise on violence and bloodshed. Another faction believes the film is a celebration of the Thevar community’s way of life. But by far the most interesting thematic opinion revolves around the concept of a son’s reluctance to enter and take control of the family business upon the father’s passing; a theme very wonderfully explored and inspired by Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘The Godfather’.

2. The Cast

Thevar Magan released in what may have been the greatest decade in Tamil Cinema - the decade of Kamal Haasan. This was the decade that not just Tamil Cinema, but Indian Cinema, by and large, caught a glimpse of Kamal Haasan’s artistic genius. He performed the roles of a writer, actor, producer, dancer, singer (and probably even that of a director) cementing his genius as one of India’s greatest ever Artists. 

Kamal Haasan was able to play the role of Saktivel so convincingly because he understood the climate and the nature of the characters who were involved in the story and their relation to Saktivel. 

Apart from the performances of Kamal Haasan, Gouthami and Revathy I think the film really played to the strengths of two of the finest actors in the history of Indian Cinema - Sivaji Ganesan and Nassar.

a. Sivaji Ganesan

The legendary Sivaji Ganesan’s role in the film was brief but the character’s impact echoed throughout the film. The Godfather metaphor makes the point clearer - although The Godfather’s main protagonist is Michael, Vito Corleone’s reputation, power, and influence looms over Michael and the story. The same is true of Periya Thevar’s impact on the story.

b. Nassar

In my opinion, it was Nassar’s performance of the revenge-crazed Mayandi Thevar that stole the show. Nassar belongs in the pantheon of the great character actors in Indian Cinema. His ability to not only transform but also to seep into the marrow of his character makes his brand of acting a craft of unmistakable genius. 

With a profoundly misdirected sense of justice and fairness, Nassar’s character walks the thin line between ethics that are amoral and immoral. We, the viewers of cinema and participants of culture at large, know that amoral and immoral ethics are wrong but Mayandi’s bullheaded, take-no-prisoners attitude is something all of us secretly desire and appreciate within those dark corners of our heart. Failure despite his best efforts makes us feel sorry for Mayandi Thevar. That ability, to generate pity (or empathy) despite being on the wrong side of justice is where we can see the genius of Nassar’s performance.

3. The Cinematic Experience

The dialogues, the casting and the environ of the film were masterfully compiled. That’s what gives the film a feeling of absolute completeness. The rurality of the Tamil language coupled with the apt interpretation of the Thevar mindset and body language, Thevar Magan gives you an unadulterated, authentic, rural Tamil Nadu experience. 

a. The Cinematography

When I close my eyes and think the words ‘Thevar Magan’, a blue sky and a lush, rural greenery occupy my consciousness. 

Living in an urban area, heat islands, rude autowallahs, and unforgiving traffic rules our day to day lives. Sure, some people love this chaos and the hustle-bustle, but a lot of us inherently crave sanctuary and tranquility that a countryside represents. 

What I find really interesting in P.C. Sriram’s cinematography is the subtlety in his mastery over Paradox. The great cinematographic theme of the film is that of Paradox because the story moves counterintuitively to the richness and the serenity of the visual. It almost imposes upon the viewer the idea that even in a land of peace and quiet rivers of blood could most definitely flow. 

The locations at which the film was shot are not just aesthetically well-thought but often times plays the silent role of moving the story forward. 

b. The Music

In terms of sound, Ilaiyaraaja’s score and soundtracks are still held in high regard among the masses. It can be said that the maestro managed to capture the complete spectrum of life that goes on in the film sonically.

To understand and appreciate the value and impact of Ilaiyaraaja’s musical contributions to the film we need to walk down the same path the maestro intuitively takes while composing  - and this path can most suitably be described in terms of a Chinese Landscape Painting.

The small human figures depicted against crags, rivers, and mountains are portrayed thus so as to inspire the viewer to focus on the man and then try and imagine the surrounding landscape through his eyes. And this is how Chinese Paintings are designed to be read. 

While a painting refers to that which is visual, Ilaiyaraaja employs the same organizing principles to deal with the realm of sound. 

The crags, rivers, and mountains are replaced by lyric, melody and rhythm.

Ilaiyaraaja is the first rasika of the filmmaker. His ability to empathize deeply with the characters and their arcs in a story have yielded some of the greatest soundtracks in Indian Cinema. And Thevar Magan is no exception.

There is an element of sophisticated minimalism in Ilaiyaraaja’s work on the film. The most dominant characteristic of all the tracks on the film is the combination of balance and emphasis given to meter, melody, and rhythm. 

c. The Notion of ‘Complete’

And finally, there are people who claim that Thevar Magan is the most complete film amongst all of Kamal Haasan’s work. While I am horribly one of those people who hasn’t yet watched Kamal’s entire body of work, I can quite understand what is implied by the term ‘complete’.

This notion of ‘complete’ emerges from a powerful idea of the story being structured in the form of a novel at its heart. According to Orhan Pamuk, “In well-constructed novels, everything is connected to everything else, and this entire web of relations both forms the atmosphere of the book and points towards its secret center.” Thevar Magan performs the same functions in an audio-visual format.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that I have done my best to understand what forms the atmosphere of the film as well as made several attempts to point towards what may be the secret center of the film.

*Thevar Magan was India’s official entry to the 65th Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language Film category. Unfortunately, it was not nominated.

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

#ReadingFilms : A Film Far Too Ahead Of Its Time

Swades (Swades: We, the People) Directed by Ashutosh Gowariker Story by Ashutosh Gowariker Screenplay by Ashutosh Gowariker, Sameer Sharma, Amin Hajee, Charlotte Whitby-Coles, Yashodeep Nigudkar, Ayan Mukerji Starring Shahrukh Khan, Gayatri Joshi, Kishori Balal

Swades is a film I have watched multiple number of times. Given the numerous times I have watched the film I have come to realise that I was emotionally in places distant from serenity and reality to understand and appreciate what the film was all about.

In the 5th grade (when I first saw the film) I thought it was a depressing and a needlessly long movie. 8th grade, I thought there was a hint of reality to the movie. 10th grade, I thought the film was emotionally honest, yet I found it long, way too long.

I watched the film a week ago and I was reduced to tears. I remember saying to myself, “What a spectacular film!”.

For starters, I thought Swades was eons ahead of Writer-Director Ashutosh Gowariker’s debut, Lagaan. 

The counterfactual-historical film, Lagaan, was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture in a Foreign Language category.It won plaudits from moviegoers and critics alike because it managed to weave a story around the independence struggle, cricket and a narrative involving a retelling of David taking on a fierce Goliath.

The audience, obviously, lapped at it.

Swades, to me, stands out because it unflinchingly paints a portrait of an India that is painfully real. Seldom has a film been made which touches upon the macroscopic absurdity of the invisible structures that holds the Indian Civilisation.

I found very similar intellectual threads running between Swades and Akira Kurosawa’s ‘Ikiru’.

While Ikiru is about relationships at the Systemic level, Swedes is about relationships at a Grassroots level. Ikiru educates the viewer about the various bureaucratic walls that cut off elected officials from their people while Swades flips this exposition on its heads and takes it to another level implying that there is not only a division between the people and the elected officials but also various cultural barriers that cut off people from themselves. And I think at the heart of both films is an idea of pessimism. Kurosawa, in the case of Ikiru, is very explicit about it; the candle of idealism can resist today’s storm but not tomorrow’s wind. Swades prefers to remain idealistic in its pessimism despite knowing that the diaspora wouldn’t be moved to action. Swades sticks to the story, giving the film a happy ending and hopes for the best.

Swades also talks about feminism, the diaspora, an idealistic future, the idea of community, and of course, what does it mean to be a Modern Indian.

Big, powerful ideas. Let’s unpack them one by one.

1. Feminism

Over the course of the last few years, there has been a pro-feminist wave whose impact can be felt far and wide. ‘Dangal’ seems to be the latest film preaching the feminist gospel. However, during a time when ideas of individuality in the context of feminism weren’t so prevalent, Swades was really a breath of fresh air. 

In an era where the awareness campaigns via the internet were too few, I felt Swades really went out of its way to really represent an idea of the being of a modern woman.

Gita (portrayed by Gayatri Joshi) is a character who has been intentionally designed to represent the archetype of the modern Indian woman- educated, independent and forward thinking.

Through Gita, Gowariker aims to show the viewer the value of an independent woman in a rural land plagued with mindset and culture problems. A teacher and an aspiring agent of social change, it's also interesting that she has a younger brother. Why? Is it to signify a change of seasons in terms of the Indian Mindset, shaped by the actions and the beliefs of an elder sister? I don’t know, I can only speculate. It's exciting, nevertheless.

2. The Diaspora 

No subject in the film has touched me as deeply as its take on the diaspora. 

The Indian Diaspora to this day are the carriers of the flame; the flame of the Indian Aspiration.

To start off I’d like to direct you towards a video of the filmmaker Vikas Bahl where he talks about why Swades was a film that changed his life. In the video, he brings up a conversation he had with a teacher during his college years who told a young Bahl that “India’s greatest export is her People.”

We, as a society, and as a civilization pride ourselves leaving the Mother’s Nest, to alien and foreign lands, never to turn back home. As absurd as this may sound, it's actually true. I’d even go as far as to say that some parents exclusively breed children to have them earn foreign degrees, earn foreign money and settle down abroad. There might be only an iota of proof that some parents do this for the welfare of their own children. However, a contrarian view on the matter is the assumption that the parent uses the child’s success as a point of worldliness and authority on the noble art of child rearing, elevating their stature in society through the actions of the child.

The Young Indian has his mindset and imagination made malleable by the ideas and the views of the West. Freedom and a better standard of living are reasons why a return to India isn’t even an option in their books. 

And the truth is they can’t be hated for their decision. It's actually pretty rational.

The perpetrators, in my opinion, are the ones here at home, encouraging young people to forget their sense of identity and their sense of culture in the face of western liberalism and opportunity. Let me be clear, I am not against the West; I am against how Indians in India think about the West.

President John F. Kennedy, in his famous inaugural address, instructed his citizens to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” The Indian Mindset, in a nutshell, can be described as the antithesis to the aforementioned statement. We ask what the country has done for us and dare we talk about what we can do for the country. As long as this is the dominant mode of thinking about things throughout the country, accelerated progress and dreams of a developed nation are only ideas that we will celebrate in our sleep.

Swades does a wonderful job flipping the bottom-up model of social change. It is an example of the kind of impact a top-down model of social responsibility can bring. This is done through the metaphor of an NRI using his skills and knowledge for the betterment of India at the grassroots level by generating electricity to (em)power a village.

3. The Idealistic Future

Gowariker belongs to a rare breed of filmmakers who aren’t locked up in an ivory tower. He is very attuned to the realities and the fallacies that are shaping and reshaping Indian Thought.

To box the film in a Thielinan Matrix, Swades falls under that ‘Indefinite Optimism’. Ikiru, for instance, falls under the ‘Definite Pessimism’ category.

The natural question to ask is “Why Indefinite Optimism when you have previously stated that Pessimism is at the heart of the film?”.

While Kurosawa drew the viewer out of the story and into the reality of bureaucracy mechanics, Gowariker consciously ensures that the viewer watches the film as the story progresses; only upon the progress of the story can there be a valid generation of ideas and opinions inspired by the film. I’m not saying that Ikiru doesn’t perform the same function. I’m saying that Kurosawa, interestingly, makes the viewer follow the story, then there is a sudden splash of reality dominated social commentary, and before we realize it, Kurosawa throws us back into the story. Gowariker, on the other hand, does all his social commentary within the framework of the story, the characters, and the dialogues. There are differences between the two modes of representative storytelling, but they are ones of subtlety and metaphysics. 

The story focuses on the return of an Indian influenced by Western thought. The water bottle, the caravan, the internet all symbolize this. The film is a masterclass in understanding the mechanics of holistic progress.

Gowariker’s ‘Ideal Indian’ is similar to his concept of the ‘Modern Woman’. Gowariker is brilliant in drawing no differences between the role of either sex, making it an apt metaphor for gender equality, an issue we spend so much time debating on. 

4. The Community

Swades (brilliantly) is not a film about nationalism. Its a film about People, Progress, and Principles. 

At the intersection of People, Progress and Principles is Community. Swades is a class apart in its application of Community as a dominant character in the story.

In 1973, Italo Calvino wrote the introduction to the Italian edition of Balzac’s ‘Ferragus’. The essay was titled, ‘The City as a Protagonist in Balzac’. While the village in Swades is not a protagonist, its Community is a powerful player in the story.

History textbooks do students a great disservice by feeding them a very selective interpretation of India’s past. The textbooks essentially portray the British as looters, but not as moral monsters who, by editing the philosophical framework of Indian Life for their administrative benefits, destroyed and refined (for the worse) the idea of Community.

The ramifications of these changes brought forth by administrative dictums like the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms is etched and is echoed in the mindsets and the attitudes of the villagers at Charanpur. Its what stifles progress, unity and a pan-Indian concept of what does it means to be Indian. 

Swades is a representation of what it takes to bring a fundamentally (and an ideologically) divided community together- a problem that torments the Community to this day. 

Maybe I’m talking out of my ass here, but maybe the dysfunctionality of the Government is a solid enough catalyst to develop communal togetherness at a grassroots level. Maybe this is a philosophical rationalization for the Government’s little or no interest in developing a pan-Indian consciousness (and why would they ? Wouldn’t this result in leaders losing vote banks ?).

Maybe the British haven’t left after all.

5. The Modern Indian

Swades ultimately made me ask myself the question ‘Who or What is a Modern Indian?’

This is a really big question and its one the film attempts to answer.

The point is not whether home-brewed values outflank globalized values, neither is it an Us versus Them argument, nor is it a case where we ask whether Indian Abroad is smarter than the Indian At Home.

I mention these dichotomies beforehand itself because its almost always the default mode of answering or reasoning we employ; unfortunately, reductive thinking doesn’t really help out much in this case. 

Swades teaches us that loving our land is no different than loving someone; true, it has its flaws and inequities, but the first and the hardest step to take is to be loving and accepting. Once you do this, change is right around the corner. 

I write this in March 2017, yet Swades’ message is timeless and poignant. It is many ways a film still relevant to this day. It's a timeless film.

My only qualm with the film is that I knew that the actors were acting.

Of course, someone will tell me, “Well, Vignesh, that’s because that’s what actors do; they act.” But my point is steeped in the craft and the subtlety of cinema.

If you watch Raging Bull, you know de Niro is not acting; you watch There Will Be Blood, you know Daniel Day-Lewis is not acting. And that’s my point. Great actors morph into the characters the story demands. There were moments where I could see Shahrukh ‘act’. Just as how a magician never reveals his tricks, an actor must never give his audience the impression that he is acting.

Nevertheless, this may be Shahrukh’s greatest role and performance to date.

A.R.Rahman’s hauntingly mesmeric background score supplements the narrative masterfully. Gowariker and Rahman’s partnership is yielding profoundly meaningful visio-sonic experiences for the cinema-goer. 

Swades also wonderfully lives up to two of my favorite Godard adages :

- “Sometimes reality is too complex. Stories give it form.”

- “Good films get smaller audiences, but more of the viewer.”

I rest my case.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

#ReadingFilms : When Two Cultures Collide

À bout de souffle (Breathless) Directed by Jean-Luc Godard Written by Jean-Luc Godard Based on an Original Treatment by Francois Truffaut and Claude Chabrol Starring Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jean Seberg

Watching a film like Breathless is a testament on several levels to the validity and the profundity of cinema as the most powerful medium of Art in our times. 

Its a story born out of a love for films, inspired by the characters that inhabit them and how they change and touch lives.

A very fine example of the New Wave movement (which was virally influential and had its heyday between ‘58 and ‘64 Breathless has its roots in cinematic and world history.

The effect of the devastating World War 2 had temporarily shut down the French ‘high culture’ machine. With the war’s conclusion, the United States lent support to war-torn nations via the Marshall Plan. France was one of its beneficiaries. 

France not only received support monetarily but also culturally. The United States re-gifted France a culture of Cinema. American films were the ones that were first played in movie theatres in a post-war France.

This power of cinema took a few young Frenchmen by storm. Among them was a young Andre Bazin. Bazin went on to open the uber-influential Cahiers du Cinema. It was at Cahiers where the budding prophets of the New Wave (Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol, et al) got their starts.

Breathless released in 1960, a year after the release of Francois Truffaut’s The 400 Blows. While I thought Breathless lacked the aspirational visual perfection I came to enjoy so much on The 400 Blows, Breathless, to its benefit, had a gritty DIY sort of feel which I thought was pretty cool.

It looks very real- so real, that it may be (looking) like something that may be going down next door. There is simplicity in the story, and I believe simplicity is a luxury because it allows the writer to write in a cool and a detached prose. Its got a touch that’s almost impersonal. The story is one influence by cinema itself and a celebration of how what is on the reel bleeds into what is real.

The dialogues in the film were phenomenal. Some of them were majestic and powerful in the depth of thought that they wish to convey, seeping into the marrow of your soul.

The story is also really rich in subtle, symbolic references. Maybe I am reading too deeply into it but it's a fun exercise nonetheless. Here are a few of them : 

- the frenchman inspired by american cinema falls in love with a woman selling the french version of an american newspaper

- the frenchman has a penchant for stealing american cars

- the frenchman is so captivated by american cinema’s Humphrey Bogart that the traits of the on-screen Bogart become an integral extension of the frenchman’s identity

These are merely threads in the story; I really like to think about what do these kinds of thoughts really represent. The broad-spectrum answer would be the inevitably powerful collision of the French and the American cultures. 

Another aspect of the story that appealed to me was the absurdity of the human imagination. Michel (played by Jean-Paul Belmondo) is someone very taken by the idea that the kind of characters Humphrey Bogart portrays on-screen are real and human. They (characters portrayed by Bogart in his films) pose themselves as something worth aspiring to in Michel’s mind. The constant cigarette smoking, the fedora, the stroking of the lips; as mentioned earlier, the traits of the on-screen Bogart became an integral extension of Michel’s identity and persona.

Patricia (played by Jean Seberg) plays Michel’s love interest. She is an American in Paris. She’s liberal, open-minded and quite the modern woman (this is taking into account the fact that the film was made in 1960). 

There are several threads that tie into Breathless’ story. You find ideas of living, being, dying, choosing, hating, suspecting, confessing, and of course, Godard’s famous idea of immortality.

The film appears very real and very every day; a most wonderful combination.

Part of the film’s genius owes praise to the masterful cinematography of Raoul Coutard. Coutard’s influence can best be described as the grainy look filmmakers use to make their tales of fiction look amazingly real.

The famous of cinematographical trivia associated with the film is one involving tracking shots. With a budget that does not account for the traditional application of a tracking shot, Coutard ingeniously used a wheelchair with Coutard on the camera and someone (probably Godard himself) pushing the wheelchair.

Another pioneering technique employed in the film was that of jump-cuts. This jagged cutting style still lives on and is most beloved. According to Australian film critic, Jonathan Dawson, “Godard just went at the film with the scissors cutting out anything he thought boring.”

Breathless opened to a sensational reception. 

The film is a definite masterpiece. And I’d like to end it by quoting my favorite dialogue from the film:

Patricia : “What is your ambition?” Parvulesco : “To become immortal... and then die.”

[whatisvignesh-blog]

#ReadingFilms : The Games People Play

The Killing (1956) Directed by Stanley Kubrick Screenplay by Stanley Kubrick Dialogues by Jim Thompson Starring Sterling Hayden, Coleen Gray, Vince Edwards

An utterly devoted George Peatty (Elisha Cook Jr.) comes homes after discovering his wife’s secret life. Sherry Peatty (Marie Windsor) was planning to elope if the heist went according to plan and if her secret lover, Val Cannon (Vince Edwards) succeeds in ambushing George and his crew, absconding with the money. The mind mannered George seemed to had reached his limits; unable to neither accept nor forgive his wife’s unfaithfulness, he pulls the trigger. As Sherry dies in the most 1950s cinematic fashion, she utters a dialogue which sums up what I felt about the film:

“A bad joke with no punchline.”

The aforementioned scene is a key component of the film, but in no way is a microcosmic representation of the film. Kubrick cleverly vignettes involving the story’s key players and centripetally churns the road of the film’s narrative. 

‘The Killing’, in my opinion, was Stanley Kubrick displaying shades of his genius, a precursor to his ascension of a demigod status is the world of cinema. However, ‘shades of genius’ is only shades of genius- not genius in its entirety. 

The film gave a sense of the aesthetics usually associated with the 50′s film noir movement. 

‘The Killing’ can be considered to be the first ‘mature’ Kubrick film. While we may be unable to draw threads that link ‘The Killing’ to say, ‘Dr. Strangelove’, we can see that there was a lot of promise the 28-year-old Kubrick showed with the release of ‘The Killing’. 

One can see the Kubrickian idea of ‘Control’ and the sprinkle of chess metaphors richly embedded in the film. 'The Killing’ is actually well suited to Kubrick’s storytelling sensibility because the great benefit of a heist film (which is as true in the case of horror films as well) is the fact that the film isn’t entirely dependant on the cast. This kind of a positional advantage is exploited by Kubrick through the implementation of a nonlinear storyline. 

It is often said that a forty move game of chess has more possible combinations than the total number of electrons in the universe. Kubrick was someone who was really obsessed with the game of chess. Chess requires sound strategy and a good eye for pattern recognition. 

Kubrick cleverly managed to incorporate these qualities to make a fine heist film. Kubrick puts his obsessive expertise to use by crafting a labyrinthine plotline where it's only through the passage of time do we realize the roles and the responsibilities of those involved in the scheme. 

For a heist to truly take you need the right people to do the right job stationed at the right place at the right time. Kubrick’s story reflects his strengths as a thinker and a filmmaker very well.

On a completely different note, we can also see a cinematic thread that connects ‘The Killing’ to ‘Ocean’s 11’. They walk a similar narrative tightrope when it comes to the pulling-a-heist-at-a-sporting-event department.

There is also a streak of nihilism in the film. One example I point to maybe the climax where the loss of $2 million due to an aversion created by a dog on the runway during the transportation of the loot may be a representation of the fact that you can plan, execute and perform any act of infinite complexity, but Luck and its twin, Fate, have their own way of fucking you over. There are several other such representations hidden in plain sight in the film.

The narrative seems to run on a fixed schedule and its almost as if Kubrick was teasing the viewer to think that “If you want to make a killing at a horse racing event, this is the way you do it- these are the people you need, this is how you time it and this is how you do it.”

Ingenious.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

#ReadingFilms : A Surrealistically Structured Masterpiece

‘El Angel Exterminador’ (1962) Directed by Luis Buñuel Written by Luis Buñuel and Luis Alcoriza Screenplay by Luis Buñuel Starring Silvia Pinal and Enrique Rambal

I don’t seem to recall where was it that I first came across the name Luis Buñuel or references to his work but after watching his 1962 film, ‘El Angel Exterminador’ (‘The Exterminating Angel’, in English), I am so glad that Buñuel’s name did catch my eye.

El Angel Exterminador is a film about aristocracy, human nature and the surreal.

A film made late into Buñuel’s career, ‘El Angel Exterminador’  is a satire and often times a macabre comedy. The power of Buñuel as a storyteller gripped my imagination from the get-go.

I like the kind of emphasis Buñuel places on some scenes in the film. In the beginning, I noticed that the scene of the guests entering the house actually happens twice. I noticed it as a visual phenomenon; however, I couldn’t understand its significance in the storytelling paradigm Buñuel is attempting to establish. After reading a piece by Roger Ebert on the film was when I learned that the reason the scene take place twice is an emphasis motif- ‘the guests have so definitely arrived that it's going to be difficult for them to leave’.

The film, in my opinion, is also a take on the idea of propriety, in the Adam Smith sense of the word.  It is also an absurdist take on the ideas of free will,   on the savage characteristic of human nature connected with a very viewer-friendly rendition of a Borgesian labyrinth.

These are all big ideas, so I’ll break it down.

1. Propriety

The first big idea is that of Propriety.

Propriety is an old-fashioned world. The grandiosity of this idea is very eloquently expressed by Adam Smith in his book ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’.

By ‘propriety’ Adam Smith is talking about a way of personal conduct which borders on Proper Behaviour and Acting Appropriately.

The diner sat clearly members of the aristocracy. Therefore, it an unaired reality that these gentlemen and ladies are well versed in the tradition of propriety. 

Buñuel’s masterstroke is actually taking on the old world idea of propriety and turning it on its head. Buñuel succeeds in showing us that propriety is a trait of limited supply in humans. The aristocracy, owing to the impact of greater influences and education, have greater resources of propriety in them than those in the masses. Buñuel shows that under certain conditions, the supply of propriety dies in even the members of the aristocracy; they too turn into moral monsters, savage beasts.

2. Human Nature

A historically key dichotomy in the western tradition on the topic of Human Nature are those of the Noble Savage (Rousseau) and the Domineering Leviathan (Hobbes).

The Noble Savage is an idea which hypothesizes that :

‘human beings in their natural state are selfless, peaceable and untroubled, and that blights such as greed, violence, and anxiety are the products of civilization.’

The Domineering Leviathan is an idea which hypothesizes that :

‘during the time men lived without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as of every man against every man.’

The film manages to shine a light on both these cornerstone theories of human nature in its story. It actually concocts a state of being that borrows ideas and premises equally and heavily from both lines of thought.

The film shows us this :

‘the effect of greed, anxiety, and violence, products of civilization, during a state of war.’

Greed, anxiety, and violence are prevalent through the whole time the diners are stuck in the Nóbile music room over a period of time, unable to escape.

The ‘war’ may be a two-fold reference. The first might be a reference to the state of affairs within the Nóbile music room. The second one, according to Ebert, might be the distinction between the ruling class and the workers set to the backdrop of Franco’s Spain and the Spanish Civil War.

We can see the influence of secrets, desperation, and chaos; major elements that feature prominently during the war; wonderfully set within the bounds of a single room.

3. Labyrinth 

Zhang Zhou once said, “Those who dream of feasting wake to lamentation.”

The concept has been explored in two films, both by Buñuel; ‘le charm discretion de la bourgeoisie’ and ‘el angel exterminador’. The former involves dinner guests sitting down to eat but due to constant interruptions, the diner never gets to eat. The latter film expresses how diners after a nice meal are unable to take leave of the hosts’ home.  

Having understood both sides of the coin, Buñuel makes extremely satirical claims on the effect desolation has on the human spirit. Through the film, he makes references, either through dialog or through metaphor, that are anti-Franco, anti-clerical and anti-bourgeois. 

The story has been constructed in such a labyrinthine manner that it makes it easy (or difficult) for the viewer to be given a complete tour of the minds, lives, and secrets of the unfortunate people unable to escape from the music room.

The rhythm of the narrative was a bit slow, but the viewing of the film was a richly rewarding experience onto itself. Buñuel is an intelligent filmmaker. Despite the narrative being a bit slow the overall structure and the portrayal of the characters make the viewer overlook this minor flaw.

‘El Angel Exterminador’ is a masterpiece. It links the real and the surreal elements of human life to constitute a tale that's a masterclass in perspective, humanity and the absurd.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

#ReadingFilms : Improper Love - Anarchy, Punk Rock and Heroin

‘Sid and Nancy’ (1986) Directed by Alex Cox Written by Alex Cox and Abbe Wool Starring Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb

‘Sid and Nancy’ is a love letter. Its a love letter to the anarchic punk rock movement; its music, its lifestyle and its place in history.

The film is based on the actual lives of the titular characters- Sid Vicious (played by Gary Oldman) and Nancy Spungen (played by Chloe Webb).

The film is true to the punk rock vibe. Anarchist motifs surround the viewer as the film rolls on. 

‘Sid and Nancy’ encapsulates the dark side of the punk rock sensibility that is alive and well in our collective culture today (though not quite as it was in its heyday). 

It also appeared to be a weird portrait of what Britain and America brought to the consciousness of popular culture at the time. Britain birthed the punk rock anarchy and America, the evolving culture machine.

Needless to say, one would not have existed without the other. The radical sound of British punk would’ve been stuck to the underground clubs of London if not for American interest. It could also be said that the young adult angst in the United States would remain an unexpressed sentiment had it not been for the liberating fury punk rock brought with it.

The lifestyle, directed by the sound, turned into a subculture very soon. Leather jackets, funky hairstyles, eyeliner and many colored hair dyes seemed to characterize this movement. It appeared to show that people have the power to control and shape the direction of modern culture. That kind of change cannot emerge from a singular individual, it emerges from the collective action and thought of the people.

Alex Cox perfectly captures this attitude and lifestyle on film.

Another thought that emerges from this film is the use of the ‘Yoko Archetype’. 

It's a popular notion to exclaim that whenever a music group disbands due to the overly neurotic influence of a band member’s girlfriend, that lady is labeled a ‘Yoko’. And for the Sex Pistols, Nancy Spungen played Yoko to Sid’s John. The Yoko Archetype has been well utilized by the writers (Alex Cox and Abbe Wool). 

The raging success of the Sex pistols is brought to a grinding halt when Sid and Nancy’s love life taking darker, deeper and more tumultuously conscious turns.

The film also tells us that there is a price to pay if one pursues improper love.

Nancy cloaks a relatively innocent Sid in the inescapable clutches of heroin. She bloats Sid’s ego in believing that he is the Sex Pistols. Despite the advice of all those near and dear to him (even the drug dealer for that matter), Sid’s naivety costs him greatly. The Sex Pistols disband, he spirals into an addiction fuelled depression and cuts off physical intimacy with Nancy. 

Sid and Nancy’s story in real life (as well as that in the film) ends with a fight and a death. 

The film is visually rich, that transported me into a very particular slice of history.  The only negative in the film according to me is that the narrative is just a tad slow.

The soundtrack fits the mood and the timeline of the story. The cinematography was masterful. 

On the whole, the film was a wonderful experience; but the ‘wonderful’ I imply is of a very specific order. It can be traced back to Truffaut who said : 

“When humour can be made to alternate with melancholy, one has a success, but when the same things are funny and melancholic, at the same time, its just wonderful.”

And that’s the kind of wonderful I am talking about.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

On the Madness in search of Beauty

(or a contextual framework for Product Design)

There is a famous claim among people that folks who hold titles such as ‘Professor of Innovation’ haven’t innovated anything of value in their lives; but I have always wondered what may be the contrarian truth to this everyday narrative.

Another popular idea is that of ‘those who can’t do teach’; but when taking an idea such the Manhattan Project into context, it’d be sensible to say that when those who teach decide to ‘do’ they are pretty much capable of blowing up the planet. 

Therefore, it can be understood that the reasons I believe Academics (the really good ones) are dangerous folks to mess with its because of their teleological assessment of their fields, their encyclopaedic knowledge of many things and an epistemological approach to their line of work. 

Rowena Reed Kostellow, former Chair of the Pratt Institute’s Industrial Design department once said, “Pure, unadulterated beauty should be the goal of civilisation!”, while this rings true for Design and other aesthetic undertakings there seems to be, according to me, a poor inquiry into the science of what questions must ask to create things of value.

Beauty for Beauty’s sake is of no value if it doesn’t find honest application in the lives of everyday people. Thus, arises the question; how can we objectively beat a path to beauty  ?

Fundamental sciences have texts such as The Structure of Scientific Revolutions which is a teleological narrative of what is the nature of ideas that really changed the game in terms of modern physics, be it Copernican, Einsteinian or Wilczekesque. The nature of Physics as a fundamental science is written in stone because it can be said that Physics is, in essence, Man’s attempt to objectively bring together the organising principles of the Universe.

A common notion exists that a Physicist does not spend a large part of his life looking and conducting inquiries into the grand idea of ideas; its pretty much the opposite. It is my opinion that Scientists have much more of an obsession than historians to look back into the past. 

They look into the past because the history of science, in all probability, is a collection of many poorly conceived theories to few good, sound theories.

Marvin Minsky, the AI pioneer was of the opinion that “General fiction is pretty much about ways that people get into problems and screw their lives up. Science fiction is about everything else.”

David Dalrymple, one of Marvin’s students was invited to give a lecture in Marvin’s Society of Mind class at MIT and he performed what may be called a discipline identity-based modelling of Ideas. Dalrymple’s talk was titled ‘Mind vs. Brain : Confessions of a Defector’. 

The beauty of this classification is apt simply because, this objective context fits within the large scale narrative of science. Industrial Design, as a practice, in my opinion falls between applied art and applied science. More objectively, I view Industrial Design as a taxonomy of Mechanical Engineering. 

Dalrymple takes Math as his core area of competency. He then extrapolates an order of significance firstly, by linking it to Physics, thereupon building up what he calls the ‘scientific tower’. He builds upon Physics; Chemistry and Biology. 

The other foundational application of Math is in the Computer Sciences. He then builds upon this by the addition of Software. The beyond the current curve of fundamental sciences (in the scientific tower) waits Neuroscience and beyond Software waits Artificial Intelligence. Dalrymple go on to define Cognitive Sciences as the domain that will bridge the fundamental workings of the brain with sophisticated computation techniques. 

I view the story of modern Industrial Design analogously. As mentioned earlier, I view Industrial Design as an cross-pollination of applied art and applied science. How so ? Using the model as mentioned earlier, let us draw out the roots of this practice.

Similarly, when taken into consideration the roots of modern Industrial Design practice has its in large scale manufacturing and a Bauhausian sense of aesthetics. Thus, we are merely the bridge that binds together a changing world of manufacturing and the timeless application of form and function. 

I am of the opinion that a good designer is someone who conducts his research like an anthropologist, diagnoses the problem like a doctor and defends the solution like a lawyer. 

In a foundational scheme of things it could be said that Industrial Design, as a way of thinking, must stay within its prescribed domains. And ironically, to a certain extent, I agree.

Where I disagree is with our fascination for siloing progress and this crude sense of professional/discipline identity. These things exist because these systems weren’t designed to be rebellion-robust (let alone rebellion-antifragile). I am of a sincere opinion that its only those at the top and those at the bottom of the intellectual food-chain have any idea of their place in the universe, objectively speaking. Its always these obnoxious middle managers who fuck the trajectory of progress either due to ego or a very fuck all attitude, both of which are equally nuclear.

When we really think about beauty, we are instantly captured or enamoured by a notion of simplicity. 

And this is so because when one couples simplicity and cohesion of function he creates a powerful loop of a hooked UX. The experience is so contagious that the user is professionally and emotionally invested in the product’s beauty.  And that’s what ought to be the modern industrial designer’s goal.

Nothing is more difficult for man than to apprehend a thing impersonally: I mean to see it as a thing, not as a person.

- Nietzsche  

This is articulates a very interesting point of view in Industrial Design. I’d go as far as to say one in his/ her twenties spends too much energy creating beautiful renderings and intricate thumbnail sketches. I also prescribe to a view that one ought to do what he/ she perceives as strengths, however the role of the industrial designer ought to change. It ought to change beginning with learning to empathise what what does not exist yet.  

[whatisvignesh-blog]

#ReadingFilms : Reality and the Cinematic Experience

‘Les Quatre Cent Coups’ (The 400 Blows) Directed by Francois Truffaut Written by Francois Truffaut and Marcel Moussy Starring Jean-Pierre Léaud, Albert Rémy, Claire Maurier

As all good things go, I’ve learned that what you google at 3 AM is definitely worth checking out. On one such occasion, out of the sheer pull of curiosity, I googled ‘French New Wave’. Upon a single click, I had before me a mind-expanding wiki waiting to be devoured.

The New Wave emerged from what can be described as a Camusesque idea of rebellion. A group of friends, discontent with the traditional mode of cinematic experience, took it upon themselves to show the status quo how things ought to be done.

In a certain sense, the critic and the academic are quite alike. I know a lot of people who like citing the “Those who can’t do teach” adage as though its a rule of thumb; as a refutation, I often point to the Manhattan Project. The Rebels of the New Wave the second exception to the aforementioned, ‘so-called’ rule.

I have always considered good science can only be done when there are good theories and appropriate experiments. In a similar fashion too did the New Wave function. While the scientific community had publications such as ‘Nature’, ‘Science’ and ‘Scientific American’, French cinema has ‘Cahiers du Cinéma’ (Notebooks on Cinema). Founded in 1951 by Jacques Doniol-Valcroze, Joseph-Marie Lo Duca and the phenomenally influential, André Bazin; Cahiers du Cinéma was the intellectual bedrock upon which the church of the New Wave was built.

Among those who worked for Cahiers were Jacques Rivette, Jean-Luc Goddard, Claude Charbol and Francois Truffaut. The Cahier’s attacks on ‘la qualité française’ and championing the works of Alfred Hitchcock, Fritz Lang, Roberto Rossellini, Jean Renoir and Jean Cocteau emerged from the critics’ idea of what the experience and the nature of cinema should aspire to.

Coming back to our analogy of good science, the critics at Cahiers du Cinéma developed their theory first. They brought forth ideas such as auteur theory and entering their criticisms based on a film’s mise en scène. The critics took into account the entire storytelling experience. They were unhappy with the way stories were told via cinema and they didn’t hide their displeasure. Truffaut stuck the first blow with his manifesto-like article titled ‘Une Certaine tendance du cinéma français’. Truffaut was such a fierce critic that he was often referred to as ‘The Gravedigger of French Cinema’. He was the only film critic not invited to attend the 1958 Cannes Film Festival.

Now that the Theory had been established, it was time to conduct the experiment. The likes of Goddard and Truffaut moved from the world of the written word into the world of motion pictures. This, to me, is the cinematic equivalent to the tales of the birth of the Salon des Refusés.

It is now 1959 and Francois Truffaut delivers to the world a masterpiece in his debut film, ‘les quatre cents coups’ (The 400 Blows). I watched this film a few days back and I was transfixed by the story’s narrative structure; its adherence to the reality of a character’s life; and I felt that I was in the presence of something timeless. 

Through the life of the protagonist, Antoine Doniel, Truffaut takes us on a trip into the world of Paris, circa 1950. Misunderstood at home and not too studious in the classroom, Doniel becomes a character instantly relatable to many. Truffaut uses the film to represent aspects of parenting, morality, friendship, loyalty, and what freedom means. 

The story seemed to move through several themes that are actually pretty everyday and ordinary. The genius of the film lies in the story's ability to appear so commonplace in the sequence of events that it often convinces one that they, as a spectator, were privy to Doniel’s reality. The perceptible simplicity of the story is its ultimate complexity and sophistication. Through the eyes of Truffaut’s protagonist we learn there exists unhappiness in familial relationships; we learn the joys of friendship rooted in loyalty; we learn the moral implications of an act of theft; we learn that when a bourgeois parent runs out of parenting depth, he sees the juvenile system as the next best thing.

When a film like ‘Taare Zameen Par’ garners plaudits from cinema-goers, I can’t help but not imagine the shock and awe The 400 Blows would inspire. 

The 400 Blows is neither gritty nor emotional, it's neither too flowery nor too morose. The film’s narrative objectivity is in a way a secret to its freshness, even now, almost 58 years after its release.

Personally speaking, its one of the finest films I have seen till date.

And if Truffaut’s effort and journey teaches me one thing its that when talkers (critics, academics) do (filmmaking, engineering) the world sits up and listens.

[whatisvignesh-blog]

A Thousand Words More or Less (#02)

Stories have are part of the Indian social consciousness. Its there, the seriousness with which one chooses to acknowledge the is another matter. And that’s the matter I wish to address today.

From a childhood where I admired the piety of priests to the (hopefully) rational skeptic that I am today, a lot has changed along with the passage of time. From a God fearing child, I became an unprincipled riot. My faculties were attuned very specifically to my culture since a young age; I could tell you the myths and the stories of my faith; but little did know of metaphor or philosophy back then. 

I was taught, by default, that these were the things that have happened in the past and the evolution of my beliefs began from the rudiments of those stories. And I believed it. 

Its hard not to.

Its hard because everywhere you turn you have some form of religious faith staring at you in the face. Whether its the photographs of Gods that adore my house, or the temple that’s right across the street, or a kind of music that deals exclusively through these stories; religion was hard not to ignore. Skepticism was an idea that hadn’t even entered the consciousness of my vocabulary. How did I become what I am ?

The first step would’ve been to hear stories from other cultures. I wasn’t formally introduced to art of comparative mythology, but with a decent database of cultural stories and a somewhat sound mind, for pattern recognition, I began to see motifs in these stories that cut across cultures and touched upon a different face of humanity. 

Th tale of Icarus flying too close to the sun bore significant similarities between Hanuman flying towards the sun to gobble it up or Sampati, in protecting Jatayu for flying too close to the sun, losing his wings; the idea of an all powerful trivium across religions- Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva (for the Hindus), Zeus, Hades and Poseidon (for the Ancient Greeks), The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost (for the Christians); and more interestingly in the film Inception, a character named Ariadne (played by Ellen Page) who guides the Dom Cobb (a version of Theseus, played by Leonardo diCaprio) is a modern take on the tale of Theseus, Ariadne and the Minotaur who helps him guide him (Theseus) through the labyrinths of his subconscious. 

The lines were the and so were the connections. Its just our efforts waiting to connect the two. And once I did make the connection, I found it very hard to view another story as a single standing, original tale. The idea of building religions and pledging allegiance around these stories seemed to teach me an existing duality in the power of Story - its existence as a source or morality via metaphor and our incurable property of forming identity based communities. 

I’m not saying its incorrect, I’m just saying if that’s the foundation upon which you decide to build your club, that’s a really shitty foundation. 

As I write this I’m just grinning thinking about what’d that kid in the picture think if someone told this to him ? Would he be scared, exasperated, rational or liberal ? I guess I don’t know, but that’s alright. I’m not going to be stupid enough to claim that I know the answer.