| Ram Gopal's profileMy BlogPhotosBlogLists | Help |
|
|
3/31/2009 Essay on God – Part 6 of 7The Nirvana Theories
The terms NIRVANA or MOKSHA are often heard, but when asked of their precise meaning, we will never get a definitive answer. Some proclaim that Nirvana is a stage where your soul reaches god. We are but our thoughts encased in a body. Other than the thoughts, we perceive with our senses certain feelings such as pleasure and pain. Our genetic characteristic determines some other factors such as the way we walk, gesture, etc. In addition to this, we are governed by certain ideas which might have been acquired through others or through our own reasoning powers. So, where does the term soul fit in? If the soul is beyond perceiving then in a realistic sense it should be taken as ideas and feelings minus the body. Then, when it is said that the soul has reached god, it can be interpreted as them traveling until they reached god and I guess they stay in some corner of his house.
Another theory is that work is god, meaning that happiness must be sought in work. When we take the example of a wood-cutter who is happy in his profession, we observe that if he suddenly runs into a lot of money, he will stop cutting wood and he will get into another more interesting work. But when he doesn’t have it, he consoles himself that he should be satisfied with his work. Also, his inferior intelligence is exploited by encouraging his beliefs and in the process eliminating him as a competitor in more profitable ventures. There will be many cases where men genuinely love their work, but the important thing is to truly realize whether that love is induced or inborn.
Scientists and professors for instance, possess immense knowledge. But very often their lives are controlled by people who have nothing but a will to power. The man in power uses people with knowledge to get what he desires, like we use calculators to do calculations for us.
Buddha stated that “Desire is the root cause of sorrow”. By this, he meant that if we are no able to get our cherished object, only then misery will arise in us. As a solution he said that we must not desire anything and through this we can reach a state of Nirvana.
But wanting to reach that state in itself is a desire. Apart from that, if we make a close study of what we desire in life, we can arrive at certain conclusions. We desire to satisfy our hunger. So we kill animals and eat meat. If we eliminate our desires up to a point where we stop killing animals and then a man like J.C.Bose comes forward and claims that even plants have life and feel pain. So when we stop even that, ultimately we reach a point where we just breathe because of the desire to live and in the process, kill germs. So we stop that too, and reach Nirvana or in other words, die.
3/30/2009 Essay on God - Part 4 & 5 of 7.Essay on God - Part 5
Pleasure and Misery
Everyone desires to reach a stage of absolute happiness where he is all the time happy. This is defined as a state of NIRVANA which supposedly brings you to an ultimate state of pleasure.
But the terms pleasure and misery cannot be absolutely defined. It is because they are relative terms. To explain this through an example, let us take an example of a man who is accustomed to have stale bread as his daily meal. If his diet is suddenly changed to something like biryani which is better in taste, he will feel a pleasure. His degree of pleasure is in direct proportion to the degree of improvement in the taste of the food. If he is offered still better food, his pleasure increases further and if one day, it is suddenly continued to supply him with stale bread, he will feel misery. This is because, he has obtained a knowledge of something which enhances his pleasure.
On the other hand, if stale bread is the only available food on earth, the terms pleasure and misery will be meaningless as there is no scope for relative comparison. Even if the supply of a wonderful meal is continued over a long period, without any variation in tastes, a man will be bored, as the feeling of pleasure can be derived only through comparison.
Considering another example, if a man feels he is good looking, it is only in comparison with people who are not as good looking as he. If he is sad in this aspect, it is because of people who are better looking than him.
So, a world of absolute happiness is a world where all people are identical in appearance, have equal intelligence as difference in intelligence will again give rise to certain complexes, and in proportion to the difference, degrees of pleasure and misery will begin to surface. Also everyone should have equal power and artistic abilities. To sum up, each and every individual's tastes, behavior, appearance, intelligence and capacity of doing work must be same as each and every other individual.
As everyone will be having the same thoughts, there will be no need for speaking with each other, and as every one will have the same abilities, there will be no question of anyone getting interested in anyone. It is a world devoid of competition and initiative. In short, this world will be of the LIVING DEAD.
Essay on God - Part 4.
Satan
When the promoters of god were questioned about why there was so much misery in the world, they were in a fix, as they themselves proclaimed that god was responsible for every activity that happened. So, they quickly made provisions and declared that god is a force which is responsible for all the good things that happen and an evil force Satan is responsible for the misery in the world. Good is something which gives pleasure and bad is that which causes pain.
If we examine an act of rape, we see that the victim suffers and the rapist enjoys. Here, the act is sexual. In this act, god has taken the side of the rapist as the pleasure is in the rapist and Satan the side of the woman in the form of pain. What more, God and Satan have joined hands in this venture. When it is said that god is responsible for whatever gives us pleasure and satan for misery, this can be the only conclusion we can arrive at.
In any act pleasure and pain go hand in hand, for the simple reason that one’s gain is another’s loss. For example, when a man kills a bird and eats it, he gets pleasure whereas the bird gets pain. So, here too, god has taken the side of power and caused misery to the bird. When the man wants to eat it, he can satisfy his biological needs by means of eating vegetables, but because he wanted to get the pleasure of tasting a better food he killed the bird. Thus, in proportion to the amount of pleasure he desires to obtain, he causes misery as gain in pleasure is directly proportional to the gain in pain.
So there are no two forces, one good and one evil. Either there’s only a single force that is responsible for every activity; or in direct contradiction to the proclamation of the promoters of god, god is the force which causes misery and satan is the force which causes pleasure.
3/28/2009 Essay on God - Part 3 of 7 The Character of God
When we examine certain activities that supposedly please god, and view them metaphysically, their true nature can be realised. For instance, take the example of a man who is wishing for a large amount of money. If God grants him this gain it will be on account of another’s loss as money has to come from somewhere. Then, why should god favor this man? Is it because he is good? But, good is a relative term and the theory that god favors good people disproves itself again and again in our daily observance. On the other hand, if god favors only those who pray to him, then he is no different from a man in power who helps those who constantly flatter him.
When god helps a man, god is praised as great, but when a man in power helps a person, he is accused of favoritism. Everywhere and every day we see people getting carried away when they are flattered and do favors to promote the living of flatterers. Then, is god too like them? From this should we conclude that the purpose of our life is nothing but to flatter god.
We believe that god is responsible for every activity that happens and yet we tend to blame individuals when a certain action happens which is not desired by us. If the person responsible is within our power, we punish him and if he is beyond it, we console ourselves that god will punish him.
Very few people have a proper understanding of why they are praying to god. Do they fear his power? Are they afraid that harm will be done to them, if they do not pray to him? For instance, a powerful man like Hitler was looked up to for what he did to Germany’s economy during the pre-war period, and later hated for his role in Second World War because he brought so much misery. But, in case of god, even in misery, we continue respecting him. Is it out of fear? We are again at the starting point of discussion and the conclusion can only be that we respect god because we have been programmed and conditioned to do that.
We sometimes see that Yogis and Babas are respected and feared, like Satya Saibaba for instance. It is not because people are in awe of his magical abilities like creating objects apparently out of nothing that he is looked up to. The same trick performed by a street corner magician goes unheeded. What sets apart these babas is the way they behave, the way they dress, their talking ability etc. In the way they live, they create a mysterious aura around them and the sleight of the hand combined with all this, earns them the fear and respect of the people. Just talking about god will never help. For example, if Satya Saibaba comes on a Honda motor bike wearing Jeans and a T-Shirt with a walkman cassette player at his waist to preach about god, will anyone listen to him?
When we respect a professor, scientist, etc, what we respect is their knowledge, dedication etc. Even here, most of the time, we do not respect the man, but only his reputation and fame. For example, we hear many people praising Shakespeare. But the truth is, majority would not read any of his works. Here, it is not being said that Shakespeare is not great. It is only to point out that most of us respect and admire without knowing what we are admiring and respecting.
When we hear from reliable source that our respected politician is in fact, dishonest, we immediately despise him, as fundamentally we respected him only because we thought that he was working for our good. But, in case of god, if we ask him for something and he does not give it, and on top of it, he furthers our misery, we still continue respecting. It is because, we feel that if we go on praying him, our prayers will be answered some day, like if we keep on buttering a senior officer even though he is rude to us and blacklisting us for no apparent reason, he might someday recommend for us promotion. But in this case, we are called as people without self respect. We are looked down upon by the very people in the society who upheld a person as a great devotee who does the same thing with god.
Sometimes, people say that why they came to believe god is because they were saved miraculously from death or because they were suddenly elevated from their misery to happiness. We take the case of a man who has fallen over-board from a ship in mid sea and thought that he was going to be eaten by sharks. At the last minute, he was saved by another mate. He starts believing it to be the grace of god that he is saved. If this is true, then are the sharks are justified in despising god for depriving them of their food, and turning in to atheists?
3/26/2009 Essay on God - Part 2 of 7.Interpretation and Consequently Disintegration
With the rapid increase in knowledge by means of books and advancement of sciences, there rose a breed of people intelligent enough to turn the people’s faith in god to their own advantage. They interpreted the virtues in a way that suited them. As virtues and morals have no definite standards, keeping the essence constant, their forms were changed. As different men interpreted them in different ways there were different followings.
In the pre-historic times, private property did not exist, except may be a few things like odd shaped rocks etc. These, a person guarded by means of his physical strength. Gradually, with the discovery of agriculture, some people started setting barriers around pieces of land and claim ownership. Here too, they guarded the land with their strength. As society got more and more complex and organized, materials were being put at a definite value. Kings sometimes used to give land and other valuables as gifts to some of their subjects.
As private property came into existence, in order to protect the owners, some systems were developed by the rulers of which, one was the police. A man using his property as a capital, with his intelligence, increased it, resulting in a further accumulation of property. This brought about a class difference.
Frustration increased in the lower class people when they saw the upper class people living in a better standard. To stop this frustration from turning violent, in addition to the police, god was brought in to the picture. Hastily, some new virtues were added like, “You must be loyal to your master”, for example. Also, the feeling the lower class people entertained, was termed as jealousy. This feeling was condemned as a sinful thing and was emphasized with convenient examples.
But, as wisdom grew, people realized that what they were previously led to believe as divine is not so divine. For instance, the way Galileo shattered the myth of earth being flat and proposed his theory of it revolving round the sun. A little more thinking on other such things furthered their wisdom and they found holes in many other beliefs, and a slow disintegration of their beliefs started.
They realized that sometimes, a man who does not value the virtues has more to gain. They saw that a man who cheats the society by manipulating the law has more to gain than a person who strictly abides by his morals. This is nothing but the animal law being re-enacted, only with lesser competition as majority anyway were following the rules.
People discovered that even though they are strictly abiding by values and morals, they are still living a life of misery, whereas those who do not, are living in luxury. This, they could not understand. So, in order to console such people, the karma theory was brought in to the picture. The karma theory declares that how you live here in this life time depends on your behavior in the previous life. If you are in misery now, it is because you sinned in previous life. If you behave in a good way now, you will have a good life in your next birth.
To understand the karma theory better, let us take the example of a child doing something wrong. The wrongful act was ignored at that time. After 20 years, he was suddenly punished for that act. By this time, the child will have forgotten what he had done such a long time ago. Also, the child will have no sense of right and wrong. Like the child, we don’t have a definite idea of what a sin is. It is because there is no absolute standard, and it changes according to the times and prevailing conditions. The logical thing is, the child’s act should be condemned there and then, so that he will know what is wrong. But unfortunately, god is not as logical as us.
Here, in the society, a man commits something wrong and he is left alone. Moreover, he is allowed to enjoy the fruits of his wrongful act, under the pretext that he will be punished in his next birth. But here, the discussion is not about the validity of the karma theory, but how it is used to exploit people, and how it helps as a peace maintaining force.
When an individual sees another person living in a better style than him, even though he is not abiding by the rules, he consoles himself with the karma theory, that he will have a better life in his next birth, whereas the others will have one of misery. With this, his frustration subsides and he takes shelter in another virtue which is “You must be satisfied with what you have and you should not be jealous of other’s fortunes”.
Thus, karma theory is one of the many other devices which are employed for deviating people’s minds from realizing the truth. Here, the point to be stressed is the manipulators are not a separate breed of people who exploit the people by means of the above theories. But, as the instinct for power demands a better standard of living, with their courage, they look at life in a realistic sense and take whatever they can from it by any means.
But as they grow old and near death, they start thinking again, as they have no knowledge of what lies beyond death. Now, at this time, they start tending towards god and try to be virtuous as they have nothing to lose now. This is the reason why generally most people turn to god as they approach old age.
This again, is used to reinforce faith among the people. It is said that even though all his life he was a bad man and an atheist, the fact that he turned towards god at the last moment, signifies the greatness of god.
But, as science advanced, people began to realize more and more the nature of things. Gradually, they began to see through god and along with him the virtues and morals. In countries where much freedom of thought was given, a rapid disintegration of the morals began. As a result, there will be a rampant increase in crime rate. Also, the sexual restrictions are slackened, the sentimental ties will weaken, which will result in a weak family bond, which in turn gives rise to uncared for children. This ultimately results in giving rise to selfishness as a necessity. As men turn more and more selfish, they again come back to the point where they have started from, that is the survival of the fittest mode, only this time in a refined and sophisticated way. And to these people who have broken the chains of virtues and morals, the others, like the people in countries like Iran where the people still abide by strict religious principles, for instance, will seem like uncivilized people and become an object of pity for them and those people will envy the ones in the country where there is freedom, as every individual instinctively craves for freedom. 3/24/2009 GODApart from the article, “The ideas that killed 30 million people”. My friend Raja also preserved a 7 part essay I wrote on God about 27 years back, when I was doing my 2nd year civil engineering in Vijayawada… obviously this was much before I had even an idea that I will be one day a film maker. When I read it now I was frankly surprised with the clarity of my thoughts and the way I could conceptualize them even back then. Sure enough the language and some of the examples seem too simplistic and I was very tempted to update it to how I think and would write today but then I thought it might be interesting to whoever is curious enough to know how I used to think 27 years back so I decided to put here exactly the way it was written 27 years back.
I decided to put one part of the 7 parts essay every 2 days as it is kind of heavy stuff and tends to get repetitive.
P.S: I wrote this essay to impress a girl called Satya who I was madly in love with at that time but the tragedy was that she never finished reading it as she got too bored. I am super sure that quite a few of you will share her feelings.
So venture at your own risk and don’t say I didn’t warn you.
(Essay on God - Part 1 of 7)
Origin of the Idea and Necessity
Man, as he was endowed with intelligence, unlike the animals, began to think. He got curious about his surroundings and himself. He was bewildered by the things that were out of his reach, like the sun, the moon, the stars etc., and was amazed by the power of the wind which he couldn't see. Whenever he came across things like gigantic mountains, he was in awe of their size. Whenever strange phenomenon occurred in the atmosphere, such as the thunderstorms etc, he used to be scared of the immense power they exhibited. Slowly, an idea originated in him that there is a power whose magnitude is beyond his comprehension and that everyone and everything is negligible in comparison to it. In addition to his interest in his surroundings, he slowly began to think about himself and ask questions like, why he was born, the purpose of life, what death is, etc. But it was beyond his understanding. So, whatever was beyond his reach and understanding, he attributed it to a supreme force. But, at this point, this force or more correctly, his belief in the force didn't in any way affect him. He just acknowledged its presence and feared its power. He christened this force as god.
As man grew intelligent, he realized that dominance of other animals will improve his standard for which, strength is needed and strength was in numbers. When the numbers increased, in order to maintain unity among a large number of people, he needed a force, and here, the force god began affecting his life.
In ancient times, when men used to live in small groups, each group was led by the strongest man in the group. By the means of his physical strength, he used to command the group. Like in all pack animals, the others in the group acknowledge his strength and fear him. They abide by his orders and take shelter in his strength against their enemies. They respect his ability to protect them.
But, as the numbers grew, the same rule that the strongest man will dominate did not work. For, in large number of people, it is difficult for one man to take control, as his physical prowess is limited. It was impossible for him to control every individual. Also, in relation to the number of people, the number of strong people also grew. These started having following of their own, which created fractions and the group inevitably split into smaller groups.
As there was strong need for unity, men have to stick to some standards. But, these have to be implemented by a superior force. Here, the force of a one man or a group of men will not be sufficient, as it is limited. To make the people stick to some standards, fear and respect should be induced in them. This can be done only by a supreme force whose magnitude can never be understood fully. People will allow the rules set forth by this force, and some like the kings and priests will see that they are doing it correctly.
The creation of priests and such people was inevitable as it will be difficult for the rulers alone to maintain faith among the people. A ruler, as he has to attend to many aspects, inevitably mixes with the people and in times of need, he himself has to bend or break the laws. This results in a loss of faith among people. So, there was a need for separate department to look after this problem, and here the priests and such people came into the picture. In the way he dresses, behaves and speaks, he creates an aura of mystery around him. Here, it is not said that it is the plan of an individual or a group of individuals to implement this. It is all a process developed in steps as per the necessity of the prevailing circumstances.
When certain individuals question the existence of god, the enforcers counter them with questions beyond anyone’s comprehension, like, what runs the world ….? ..etc. Also, in order to stunt such thoughts, fear is induced in them. They proceed to describe in detail, the power of god. They frighten the people by saying things like; they would be struck down by lightning if they persisted in entertaining such thoughts or if they break any laws set by the religion.
But, as intelligence in people grew, this was not able to satisfy people that god will punish them if they committed any wrongs. This was disproved by their observation that even when certain individuals committed any wrongs, they were going unpunished. So they began to doubt the enforcers of god, and this started them thinking again. So, in order to stop such thought, a master stroke of brain created heaven and hell. Heaven was described as divine place where you went if you did everything good in your lifetime, believed in god, and strictly adhered to the principles of concerned religion. In the Hindu mythology, the bait offered was beautiful women like Rambha, Urvashi, etc; and in addition, good liquor. As these are the greatest pleasures in our knowledge, it was beyond their imagination to offer greater pleasures.
Similarly, as they were incapable of imagining greater pain than that is caused by burning, lashing, etc, they frightened the people that they will be eternally tortured in hell if they did not trust in god. But here, there was a problem that if an individual did anything wrong, he will think that as he had already been condemned to hell, he will continue doing things as per his liking. So, quickly, provisions were made that the duration in hell and heaven depends on the number of good things that you have done in your life. By this, the individual was given a chance to reform himself and again walk in the religious path and thus make use of the chance that has been given to him.
As hell and heaven were beyond people’s reach, their existence can neither be confirmed not denied. As people were already curious about what lies after death, they took this theory, as there was no alternative easy to understand explanation.
When a few individuals still insisted in pursuing truth, they were condemned by the society, which was led to believe that only because of such people there is misery in this world. These people, whenever discovered, were punished ruthlessly and examples were set with them. The people who inflicted punishments claimed that god himself was punishing those people through them. These people could not retaliate as they were less in number. So finally the majority of people surrendered their thoughts and the remaining few surrendered to the coercive powers of the majority.
As it was stated earlier, in order to improve standard of living, there was a need for a large number of people to be united. It is because when men lived in small groups they used to hunt for their food. Here, there was the necessity of everyone hunting as one could not sit idly or he will be left without food.
But if the people were more in number, there was a scope for learning other things, instead of hunting alone. Because, here, as there are a large number of people some of them can experiment on new things such as agriculture etc, while they are fed by other people. With this, knowledge in various fields will be advanced. And with the invention of writing, this knowledge was stored in the form of books. The greatest advantage of writing is that the generation can start developing from where the previous generation left off. They need no go to the trouble of learning everything again by themselves. With the help of a book, one was able to learn in a few days, which many people took their lifetime to find.
Religion helped a lot in maintaining unity in the society. Certain principles were set, which would benefit the social progress. It was stated that men should help each other and such other things. This helps in a stronger binding in the society between the individuals. Also, the animal in the man with its instinct to get whatever it needs by means of its physical strength will turn violent at times. To curb this, it was induced in to him that hurting or killing another man is a sin. But here, there was a danger of the fighting ability of the man being dulled, as he begins to detest it. But the society needs it at times, such as a foreign invasion. So they exploited the fighting instinct in man, only as long as it benefits society by inducing in to him patriotism, and urging him to fight the evil in the society, evil in the sense of whatever is antisocial
Regarding the sexual relations, there were no restrictions during the pre-historic times, just like there were no restrictions in the animals. But it was realized that restrictions were necessary for maintaining a strong bond between the individuals. For example, if sexual relations were restricted between a man and a woman by means of marriage, the attachment between them grows by means of their love or by the force of the virtue. The couple will care for their offspring more, and strive to make them good citizens, which ultimately benefits the society. The society incorporates in to the conscience of the people, how they should train the children, so that they are maximum useful to the society.
Also, a society needed strong and healthy people. Weak and unhealthy people burden the society and hinder its progress. So, whenever there was a chance of such procreation, it was stopped. As a result, incest and such things were banned and termed as sin. But, here too, the rules were flexible depending on the religion and the personal whims of the people who set them forth.
So, everything that benefited the society and promoted its progress was termed as virtue or moral and virtuous people were said to be the chosen favorites of god and a place was reserved for them in heaven. And, whatever was anti-social and worked towards the deterioration of the society was termed as sin. The sinners were supposed to face the wrath of the god and condemned to hell.
And so, the people lived under the shadow of god, some of them believing, some of them fearing and some others fearing the some who believed. Whatever the reason is, this ultimately resulted in a society where everyone lived for one another and accelerated social progress and giving themselves a better standard of living.
3/23/2009 My reactions to reactions1. How come so many neurotic and psychotic retards visit your blog?
Ans: Haven’t you heard that birds of the same feather flock together? 2. For a change why don’t you ask questions and we will answer?
Ans: Good idea but I don’t have any questions as I know all the answers. 3. Your thoughts on before and after life?
Ans: I am too busy thinking about this moment. 4. I feel you should remake Aag.
Ans: I feel too. 5. Why are some so fond of awards?
Ans: They cannot feel their identity without an outside endorsement. 6. I wish you will make a million movies.
Ans: I am targeting 200. 7. When you can portray fear and violence so well, why not romance and love?
Ans: Saw Rangeela? 8. Agyaat will be unknown and Rann will bring you light.
Ans: OK Mr.Astrologer or God or whatever other species you might be. 9. Does only the creator has the right to destroy?
Ans: Anyone can destroy as long as he has the power to do so and face the consequences. 10. I had the impression that you don’t care about the audience.
Ans: I did not say I don’t care. I said that I cannot care about the audience as they are particular individuals who cannot be generalized. 11. How do you distinguish a good/bad film?
Ans: There is no such thing as a good/bad film. There is only a film which you as an individual will find good/bad. 12. How did you get the idea in Bhoot of Urmila not able to move and talk?
Ans: My Grandma told me of an instance like that when I was a kid. 13. Yesterday my dad flung a dvd of Aag at me.
Ans: I hope the dvd didn’t get hurt. 14. Why is the character of Rajesh Joshi left unanswered in Satya?
Ans: He died in the making. 15. If RGV was not a director he would be?
Ans: A dreamer and a looser in whatever he does. 16. How did you shoot the Ganesh nissarjjan scene of Bhau being killed in Satya?
Ans: I sent 3 cameramen to capture various shots of the actual events at Chowpatty and in one shot where the camera zooms into one particular Ganesha from an extremely wide shot that was recreated at Juhu beach and shot with 500 junior artistes and edited in a way to create an illusion as if there were thousands. I did that trick earlier too in my telugu film “Gaayam”. 17. You are an atheist and you make films on blackmagic? Ans: If I make an underworld film am I a gangster? 3/16/2009 Of Awards
For me Awards and their corresponding events are at best entertaining events and at worse they are corruptive, not necessarily with regards to who is given what award but on their very structure itself. To start with filmmaking is a tremendous team effort and the Director can be the only person to know who in the team is contributing what, as their work is being benchmarked against his vision and requirements. The only exception to this will be songs as they can stand alone as separate of works of art in the album. So it’s highly possible that a very capable technician does fantastic work and the Director can screw it up by using it in the wrong context and if a technician does bad work it can be easily covered by the overall effect. In both the cases only the Director will know and not even the team members can know as they cannot independently have an idea of how good or how bad the Director was thinking to start with.
The irony for me is that after all the euphoria Indians had on Resul Pookutty winning an Oscar it does not even occur to them to ask what else he had done before this. They would have seen nearly 50 odd films of his previous work over the years ranging from good, bad and ugly but the point is that his sound designing in them went unnoticed. Now that the media screams that he has got an Oscar everybody is talking about sound design.
Does any of the guys who are jumping with joy about Oscar triumphs know or care who got the sound design award at the Oscars last year or all the years before that or for that matter in our own desi awards? Then what’s all this sound about? It’s nothing to do with Resul’s contribution and my proof of that is I have not heard or met a single person who saw Slumdog and mentioned sound in particular until the time the Golden Globe gave him an award and from then on everybody sounds off on sound design without even having a faintest idea of what it is.
There is a live effects track, a dialogue track, an atmospheric track and the background score track of which only a part is due to sound designer. All of these are made to come together by the final mixing engineer to create the desired effect sometimes in consultation with the Director and sometimes without. Any person who hears the final output of the mixed track has no way of knowing whose contribution to what degree is creating the desired effect. The only person who knows that will be the final mixing engineer who will be deciding what to keep, what to throw out and at what levels they have to be played.
The attempt of mine here is not to undermine Resul’s work but it is to make one understand that Resul can do better work which easily can go unnoticed and lesser work can create an impact due to reasons unrelated to work.
Coming to actor’s performances if the comparison for instance is between Aamir for X role and Abhishek for Y role and SRK for Z role, my question is what if SRK plays Y role, Aamir plays Z and Abhishek X? How can one know whether they would have done better than the other one or not? So are they giving awards to actors or characters? If it’s characters then they are written by writers and how the effect of a character comes about is dependant on a variety of factors, such as the screenplay, the co-actors performance, the editing, direction etc and under no stretch of imagination can that credit be given to the actor alone. Unlike the Stage the only true judgment of cinematic acting can be done between the start and the cut of a shot. It is because in this time period alone the actor is drawing up an emotion on cue and releasing it when the director says ‘cut’. So how much he elevated the character from the director’s vision, only the director can know and then it’s also highly possible that same performance can be completely screwed up by the director on the editing table or if it is wrongly placed in the screenplay or the impact also can be lessened by a ineffective reaction of a co-actor. So a number of people’s talents and their complex interweaving results in the sum total effect of a film moment or the film itself and there is no way for an outside body irrespective of their expertise to analyze and determine the individual credits.
I have always maintained that my successful films are due to my team and my failures are due to me alone. The reason for that is that each and every actor and technician are contributing their work and talent as per my vision and in many cases they enhance it far greater than what I had expected. But if I use them wrongly the film does not work. But when it works and I am being praised I know in my heart which individuals specifically have lifted a particular moment in the film or the whole film itself.
So in short, the success of a film is due to what contribution the actors and technicians gave in addition to what I expected of them and that is why it belongs to them and the failure of their equally great contribution belongs to me as I failed in channelizing it to its intended destination.
It has to be realized that in the making of a film the technicians and actors are working towards satisfying the director, and the director is working towards satisfying the audience. So only by the sheer understanding of the mechanics I have of what goes into the making of a film, I find the concept of an outside body giving Awards ridiculous.
3/12/2009 My reactions to reactions1. Take a bath, rinse and get rid of old thoughts.
Ans: Ok mom. 2. Will people idolize and follow anyone who becomes successful?
Ans: Yes as most people are concerned about who is saying rather than what is being said. 3. Did you take the line “I would rather die than not live life the way I want to” from Mario Puzo’s “Omerta”?
Ans” No, as I didn’t read that book. Ever since I can remember I practiced that thought and I presume that’s what all highly individualistic people do. 4. I thought after every movie of yours irrespective of its success or failure you become a better person.
Ans: Better… I don’t know, but definitely a changed person. 5. I can understand a newly married guy looking happy but when a 10year married man looks happy, could an affair be a reason?
Ans: Either that or he could have lost his marbles. 6. For all your views on women I noticed that even your baddies are kind of harmless to women as in they never assault them.
Ans: I am highly sentimental about women and hate to see or hear about them getting hurt. 7. Which political party do you support and why?
Ans: Never voted in my life nor do I intend to. 8. What does P stand for in P.Ramgopal Varma?
Ans: My surname Penumatsa. 9. Some stories are great to hear but they might be boring to see as a film.
Ans: Only if the Director fails to capture the essence of what you liked in hearing it. 10. How do you define intelligence?
Ans: Once I was talking to an actress who was heavily into spiritualism, animal welfare etc, and she made a comment that whales are the most intelligent beings in the world which has apparently something to do with their brain size. I told her that I don’t know the technicalities but for me knowledge is an accumulation of facts, intelligence is an ability to understand and analyze the knowledge, and genius is to be able to apply and create. For instance, if you are asked why droplets are formed outside a glass when ice cold water is poured into it, you will say that it is due to condensation of water vapour which is present in the atmosphere.
But to understand and analyze that you need to have the knowledge that atmosphere contains water vapour and it condenses at lower temperatures and then you need a genius to apply this principle and invent a refrigerator or an air-conditioner.
More simplistically if you say 2+3=5, you need to know the individual values of 2 and 3 and also 5 to come up with the answer.
So I told her that this was my understanding and asked her if she would explain how whales have the best brains. She snapped back and said that she read it in the “Time” magazine and asked me to shut up and not to think I am some kind of a know-all. She was beautiful and sexy enough for me to pay heed and I did just that. I shut up and she gave me a Ahhhhh great time thereby proving that more than knowledge, intelligence and genius it is ignorance which is bliss.
11. How did you conceive the scene in Shiva when Amala gets up in the theatre and walks into the screen?
Ans: I copied it from a very old Janet Jackson music video called “Control”. 12. Can you write a piece on how you became a director?
Ans: I already did on this blog somewhere. If interested make an effort to search. 13. In Ayn Rand’s philosophy there is a lot of “should”. Should destructs freedom and makes individualism impossible.
Ans: That is a brilliant observation. 14. Mutating imagination is a virtue only as long as the shoot does not start. It can become a vice once shooting begins.
Ans: You couldn’t have put it more correctly. Most of my flops are a victim of this disease you mentioned. To make an observation like this you will have to be a director or working closely with a director who made flops. If I am wrong on this count take it from me that there is a highly evolved directorial understanding in you and I mean this from my heart. 15. Which of your films are bad according to you?
Ans: All and none. 3/6/2009 A Killer IDEA
20 years back when I was desperately trying to get a break as a Director, I was trying to seek an appointment with Mr. Ramoji Rao who was a full time Producer by then and had come up with the some unconventional hits like “Srivariki Premalekha”, “Mayuri” and “Pratighatana”.
So I thought my best chances were with him but the problem was to get access to him. So I came up with a killer Idea and wrote an article titled “The Ideas that killed 30 million people” for his then newspaper called “Newstime”. It got published and then I identified myself to him as the writer of that article and got my appointment with him. Nothing materialized out of it as he felt that it was not right to give a break to me as a Director considering my complete lack of experience, whereas I was trying to convince him that a Director needs imagination and it’s only technicians who need experience to put that on celluloid. He set aside my argument saying that at best he can give me a job as a Columnist.
Well, even though nothing came out of that article, that article was my first claim to fame. My family and friends were thrilled to see my name in print. I lost that article till recently a friend of mine Raja who kept it for all these years gave it to me. I am putting that in here for you guys to get bored, amused, interested or whatever else you might feel.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The Ideas That Killed 30 Million People” written by RGV in 'NewsTime'
The writing finger writes knowing not to what use the book and its ideas would be put by future generations. The most horrendous example of the phenomenon is Nietzsche being appropriated by Hitler and the lesser Nazis.
Although the ideas that nourished the intellectual roots of Adolf Hitler, who started as a small-time painter and went on his way to become the master of Europe, can be traced back to many a megalomanical thought that poured out from a few German minds of 19th century, no other man’s ideas have contributed so much to the barbarous part of the Nazi mind as those of the philosopher Nietzsche.
Nietzsche’s writings, often dismissed off as but outpourings of a raving insane mind by many a thinker now and then and described by George Santayana as full of genial imbecility and boyish blasphemy, were untiringly praised by the Nazi writers with great enthusiasm. The Nazis would quote him on every conceivable subject. Hitler openly declared his admiration for the philosopher and often used to visit the Nietzsche Museum at Weimar and publicize his deep respect for Nietzsche by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the painting of the philosopher.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was born in 1844. He was descendant of the Nietsky family, a reputed race of aristocrats and warriors. But he himself was a weak branch of this mighty tree. As a result of genetic inheritance of a feeble constitution from his father he was subject to a variety of physical ailments, neuralgia, weak eyes, dizzy headaches.
He was the laughing stock of the school with his weak body and shy nature. He was afraid of the boys and never could bring himself to use their slang and cuss words. But for the short time he used to play with his sister he always would wind up in a corner with some book or the other. After school he joined the University of Bonn and from there he transferred to Lepzing and devoted himself to the study of German language.
He discovered Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Idea and hungrily read every word of it. Schopenhauer declared that nature traps humanity into an existence of misery through procreation by baiting sex. So in order to escape this trap man should willfully stop procreating and breathing. Nietzsche absorbed this pessimistic doctrine and transformed it from a will to die to will to live. The will should be to live in spite of all the suffering that we endure. Such an assertion of the will raises man above himself and transforms him into God, he claimed.
One day during the war between Germany and France, he saw a troop of cavalry marching to the front and at that moment he said his entire philosophy fell into place. He felt for the first time that the strongest and highest will to life does not find expression in a miserable struggle for existence but only in a will to war, a will to power, a will to overpower.
In an evil moment man has created God and thereafter was chained to his own creation. He urged that man should be able to break the chain and gather courage to be himself and to surpass himself. Man must strive to become Superman. He dismissed morality as but a device to lead men by their noses and proceeded to define good and evil. The term good was not an ethical classification formerly but only a social distinction. Good formerly meant brave and strong. The strong used to impose their will on the society and draw a moral code to suit their own characteristics.
But as the time went on, a new set of people have risen who were physically weak but mentally strong. In a struggle against their warrior masters they invented the so called virtues as a weapon to use against the sword. A system of ethics was founded to cover their own weaknesses. They proclaimed the rights of the underdog to shackle the natural instincts of the strong and to perpetuate their own impotent rule. A religious propaganda was launched in their support to exalt their own impotency. The poor, the weak, the lowly are the good and for them alone is salvation.
In such a way did “the fox replace the eagle”. It was an act of clever revenge on the part of the cowardly against the courageous. It was the most pious fraud ever committed in history, declared the anti-Christ, as Nietzsche called himself.
Society does not exist for its own sake, claimed Nietzsche, but only as an elevator by means of which a select race of human beings may elevate themselves to a higher duty. It will be ascertained beyond doubt for any reader of Mein Kampf that Hitler took his select race of human beings to be Aryans. Nietzsche’s views are reflected often in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. “All the results of art, science and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan…It is the fire of his knowledge that caused man to climb the path to mastery over the other beings of this earth. .. The Aryan, in his encounter with lower people, subjugated them and bent them to his will…As long as he ruthlessly upheld the master attitude, not only did he remain master, but also the preserver and increaser of culture. As soon as the subjected people began to raise themselves up and approach the level of their conqueror, the barrier between mater and servant broke down. The Aryan gave up the purity of his blood and, therefore, lost sojourn in the paradise which he had made for himself… We all sense that in the distant future humanity must be faced by problems which only the highest race, becoming master people and supported by the means and possibilities of an entire globe, will be equipped to overcome”.
The above extracts from Mein Kampf clearly indicate to what extent Nietzsche influenced Hitler.
Nietzsche further claimed that all talk about “good and bad conscience” is sheer nonsense. Actually a strong man does not feel any sense of shame for any of his deeds. Do the great birds of prey feel shame as they seize helpless sheep, he reasoned.
“The strong men, the masters regain the pure conscience of a beast of prey; they can return from a fearful succession of murder, arson, rape and torture with same joy in their hearts, the same contentment in their souls as if they had indulged in some student’s rag.
“Man must be evil; for evil is man’s best force. The evilest is necessary for Superman’s best”.
These words were uttered by the most terrible man that has ever existed, as Nietzsche described himself in his autobiography Ecce Homo, had a profound influence in shaping the mind of Hitler and a host of lesser Nazis, and in time they would justify the breaching of Versailles Treaty, the violation of the Hague Convention and the most cold –blooded and ruthless deeds such as the suppression of personal freedom, the brutal practice of slave labour, the depravities of Auschwitz and other such concentration camps, the ruthless massacre of his own followers in 1934, the savage killing of the war prisoners and the senseless slaughter of millions of Jews.
He had created the greatest revolution in history, declared Nietzsche. Some day after his death, history would no longer be divided into BC and AD, the era before Christ and the era after Christ. Christ would be forgotten now that Nietzsche has replaced him. History would be divided into BN and AN, the dark centuries of ignorance before Nietzsche, and the enlightened centuries after Nietzsche.
About war, Nietzsche lashed out in the thundering language of The Old Testament in which Thus Spoke Zarathustra is written: “Ye shall love peace only as a means to a new war. Ye say that it is the god cause that halloweth every war. I say unto you that is the good war that halloweth every cause.
“Lo I command you to make way for the predator, the splendorous blond beast would arise again,” he prophesied.
“Let the nations of the World beware! Let the democracies of Europe tremble! Within fifty years these babel governments will clash in a gigantic war for the markets of the world.
“The beasts of prey, the race of conquerors shall rise in mightier and more deadly form. Those who cannot bear my philosophy are doomed and those who regard it as the highest blessing are destined to be the masters. The superman is coming. Make way for him or be destroyed. He and the elite around him would be the lords of the earth”.
Few people who have read Mein Kampf, the so called Nazi bible, and the people who have followed the deeds of Hitler and his Nazi followers during the course of the Second World war would doubt that Hitler considered himself the superman of Nietzsche’s prophecy.
The Article:
3/4/2009 My reactions to reactions1. Since both you and Rahman came together to Bollywood through Rangeela do you think you have been as successful as him?
Ans: No, because he has never done any bad work unlike me. His music might not have worked some times due to various reasons but he has never done bad music whereas in my case I have done many bad films some of which worked due to various reasons. 2. How come you always come up with a title even before the film starts?
Ans: I make my films because of the title. 3. Are you your biggest fan?
Ans: No. I have multiple personalities within me which range from being intelligent to dumb to funny to intense and quite a few of them suffer from disorders. 4. Are you Ganesha or Karthika?
Ans: I am more closer to a Rakshasa. 5. Zahreela Pyar song in Daud is an eternal composition.
Ans: Very true and I hate myself for screwing up that song by putting it in a wrong film. 6. How come you don’t go to any award functions?
Ans: I don’t believe in the concept of awards and as entertaining events I have better choices than them. Soon I will write my bit on Awards. 7. Why do we feel so bad when there is no RGV movie playing at the theatres?
Ans: Maybe because you then would not know where to spew your venom. 8. What happened to the boy in Satya who runs all over with a Police siren on his head in the Goli Maar song?
Ans: He was my assistant director named Sabir. To my knowledge he left films since and is dabbling in stock market. 9. BTW, I have recommended your blog to my GRE friends.
Ans: Am I supposed to touch your feet for that? 10. Atleast your films don’t have vulgarity, double meaning dialogue, artificial sequences, rapes etc.
Ans: Yes, I know I am lacking. 11. Do you mean to say that any person with a good sense of imagination can be a director?
Ans: The only thing you need is that. 12. My Dad thinks it’s stupid to throw away my medical career and go for an unsuitable career in films.
Ans: My Dad thought the same too and see who had the last laugh. That apart my father could have been right too but the point of life is to live it the way you want and for that you need to dare to face the consequences of your decisions. I personally would rather die than not live life the way I want to. 13. Is intelligence possible without compassion and love?
Ans: No. 14. How was the comic scene “Kya Karen” in Sarkar Raj between Vora and Kanga come about?
Ans: I copied it from “Jungle Book” where in a scene three vultures debate sitting on a branch “What do you want to do?” 15. Describe RGV in one word.
Ans: Yummy! 16. God is dead – Nietzsche.
Ans: Nietzsche is dead – God. 3/2/2009 Rahman timesI was making a Telugu film called Kshana Kshanam with a first-time music director called Keera Vani, now known as M.M.Kreem. One day at the recording studio while we were having lunch, Rickey, a rhythm programmer working with M.M.Kreem at that time, mentioned to me that I should work with this very talented keyboard player called Dilip. That was the first time I had ever heard of A.R.Rahman. I didn’t take Rickey seriously. Much later when I happened to listen Roja’s songs at Mani Ratnam’s home, long before the film released, I was blown away with the sheer originality of the songs’ orchestration and tunes. I immediately wanted to sign him for a film I was making with Sanjay Dutt called Nayak, and for Rangeela. But my investors preferred Anu Malik, as they felt the success of the music of Roja’s dubbed version was a fluke, and that this kind of music would not work in Hindi. The very fact that A.R was not signed by any top Hindi filmmaker after Roja is proof-enough, they reasoned. They said that Anu Malik was at the top of his form after Baazigar, and that we would get a much bigger price for the audio.
I bartered with them that I will sign Anu Malik for Nayak if they allowed me A.R for Rangeela. They agreed, but the plain truth behind it was that they were not really interested in “Rangeela” as Sanjay Dutt post “Khalnayak” was a much bigger star than Aamir at that time. After 20 days of shooting for Nayak Sanjay got arrested in the serial blast case and the film was shelved. (Much later the script of Nayak I made it as Sarkar).
Before A.R, I have worked with Ilayaraja, M.M.Kreem and Raaj Koti, and knew on a personal level many other music directors and their working styles. What struck me first when I met A.R was the incredible dignity with which he carries himself. There is neither an iota of arrogance nor a halo of pride which success invariably brings to people. After telling him the story of Rangeela, I showed him references of some Hollywood musicals, and described to him the visual style I was planning to capture the film in. Once he went through the situations, the compositions he came up with used to surprise me, though not always pleasantly. That is because his tunes were so original in his interpretation of the emotion of a situation that a conventional ear will take time to let it sink in. That I think is the reason one tends to like his music more and more as one listens to it again and again. A case in point is the Hai Rama song where my brief to him was that I wanted to shoot an erotic number, wherein more than the romance I wanted to capture lust in Urmila’s and Jackie’s faces. I said to him that when animals have sex they are not ashamed, or feel shy, as they are so completely lost in their own feelings for each other, and hence do not care about where they are and who is watching them. The visual of Urmila and Jackie circling each other in the Kuldhara ruins of Rajasthan was the key image I gave him.
After the brief I was subconsciously expecting him to come up with a tune, something on the likes of I Love You (Kaate Nahin Katthe Yeh Din Yeh Raat) in Mr. India. What he came up with was the Hai Rama tune, which sounded to me like some classical Carnatic raga, and my first reaction was that he had lost his head. But when I kept hearing it, it grew on me like an obsession, and I finally said that we will go ahead with the tune even though I was still unsure, deep inside, of how it would fit into the situation. But when he finished the entire track with the orchestration it was beyond my wildest imagination that an erotic song can be made to sound like that. He captured the intensity of the eroticism and the purity of its feeling in the beginning alaap, the cello themes, and through the wild tablaas which elevated the effect of the images I created, many times more than what they would have been otherwise.
One other trait I noticed about the difference between A.R and other music directors is that where the others pretty much dictate to the musicians and the singers about what they want, A.R interacts with them; in a manner of making each and every one of his solo musicians and singers feel as if it is their song and not his, thereby placing the onus on them to feel from within to get the best out of them. This I have never ever seen remotely practiced by any other music director.
Whereas most music directors record the final track first, with all the orchestration and get the singer to dub the last, A.R invariably gets the singer to dub on a base rhythm track first and does the orchestration later, as he wants the orchestration to rise from the depth of the feeling in the singer’s voice. That’s the reason why with every one of his tracks you can’t recognize where the music ends and the voice begins, and vice versa. Each and every instrument is made to be played with the same emotional depth as that is in the singer’s voice.
Not knowing technicalities of music I would think the phenomenon of A.R owes not only to his obvious talent but also to his incredible patience, focus, and dedication towards a song he is creating. The moment they finish recording a song, most music directors forget about it and move on to whatever else they are doing. A.R invariably keeps revisiting his song and effecting changes onto them (Read it as sculpting and polishing). Until a time the tracks have to leave for the audio company, he treats each and every song of his like his own daughter whom he is preparing for a marriage with the listener.
Also, A.R is the only artiste I have met who does not have creative arrogance. I mean that he never defends his work if it were to be criticized. He was recording The spirit of Rangeela theme in Chennai while I was shooting in Mumbai. When he sent the track to me I didn’t like it, at first hearing. Not just me but the entire unit didn’t. I called A.R and told him that it was not working. Without a second’s pause he said he will work out something else, and this he said after having worked on the track for more than a week.
As I was playing the spirit theme in my car over and over again, at some moment it hit me like a thunder bolt, and I told him that I must have been out of my mind not to have liked it in the first place. He smiled and said “I knew you would like it eventually”.
The aesthetics of his song tracks are beyond compare to any other music director’s. What I mean by aesthetics is, if the melody is the story, the various instruments and the way they are recorded, played, and their inter-volume levels and tones would be like art direction, cinematography etc. So purely in melody one might still feel a difference in their own individual favourites, of what they like more and what they like less, but his aesthetics are always perfect irrespective of the overall effect of the song.
I can never forget a line of Rahman’s, which he said to me while at his studio, “I’ve decided that whatever goes from here has to be good”. He said it with neither arrogance nor extreme confidence. It was just so very simply said just as a decision he took and that single sentence made me understand A.R’s greatness, more than his music itself. I have known many including myself who said, thought, and wished the same, but with the exception of A.R I have yet to meet a single man who practiced it and continues to practice it. Jai Ho! |
|
|