a thousand voices screaming inisde my head
wrenching out my sanity and leaving me numb,
fighting and killing each other,leaving a blank canvas in my head for
a second;
again its filled with wild scribbles,harsh strokes but no colours..
more incoherent noises,
trying to speak through me now..
draining me again and again..
there's the din rising again
more intense,with a screeching this time..
the canvas is full,no corners left to discolour..
it has reached a crescendo now
and goes beyond
ending in a blinding light of darkness..
no colours,no sound.
deadening quiet forever and now.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The Reality of Reel-ity
TZP(taare zameen par for the uninitiated) is another example of cinematic brilliance...an extremely well thought out movie.Unfortunately,it is just that...a movie.
So to expect some kind of a radical social change from this reel life venture would be foolhardy.There are people who tend to believe that such movies are the harbinger of a holistic change in perception of society towards that,which the fim deals with..in this case,it is dyslexia.Or to be precise,children affected by this condtion.
The protagonist of this story(aamir) goes all out to be the emotional cushion for the suffering kid.He,as the arts teacher, is seen employing unconventional techniques to help the boy learn everything in a different manner...he provides the boy a comfort zone,within which he can be himself,without having to worry about the repurcussions of his results back home.
My question is...how many teachers are willing to go that far,for one kid?
Not many,i believe.
So why are the tissues coming out?
It has touched a chord,did someone say?
But are we doing something to validate the message of the film? No.
Life will carry on once more for those suffering kids,who are perhaps suffering more from an illusion of temporal hope,which the film provides, than from their condition.
Contrary to what some believe(or would like to believe), films on real life issues DO NOT change reality.They,however,must be credited of bringing to the fore, issues which are on the brink of social extinction...putting the limelight on important aspects for a change.
But i repeat,they are only catalytic in their effect.It is upto the masses,who have to initiate the real change.It won't help if we merely say,that a certain film has revived a certain social aspect,long since shelved into the labyrinths of public memory.This is exactly what happened with another movie...chak de india, starring Shahrukh Khan.
The movie was supposed to miraculously turn around the perpetually dwindling condition of womens hockey in india. The despicably corrupted and biased attitude of adminstrators controlling womens hockey is revealed in the movie.It sent a wave of new-found patriotism among many,who believed that,the time had come for the national hockey team(both men and women!) to feel rejuvenated enough to go on and win titles at international levels....Wrong again.
We should stop meandering like a hard-core romantic, in a dream world;where magnanimous levels of adminstrative blunders,social prejudices and corrruption is erased instantly by a Bollywood director's two hour affair.
So to expect some kind of a radical social change from this reel life venture would be foolhardy.There are people who tend to believe that such movies are the harbinger of a holistic change in perception of society towards that,which the fim deals with..in this case,it is dyslexia.Or to be precise,children affected by this condtion.
The protagonist of this story(aamir) goes all out to be the emotional cushion for the suffering kid.He,as the arts teacher, is seen employing unconventional techniques to help the boy learn everything in a different manner...he provides the boy a comfort zone,within which he can be himself,without having to worry about the repurcussions of his results back home.
My question is...how many teachers are willing to go that far,for one kid?
Not many,i believe.
So why are the tissues coming out?
It has touched a chord,did someone say?
But are we doing something to validate the message of the film? No.
Life will carry on once more for those suffering kids,who are perhaps suffering more from an illusion of temporal hope,which the film provides, than from their condition.
Contrary to what some believe(or would like to believe), films on real life issues DO NOT change reality.They,however,must be credited of bringing to the fore, issues which are on the brink of social extinction...putting the limelight on important aspects for a change.
But i repeat,they are only catalytic in their effect.It is upto the masses,who have to initiate the real change.It won't help if we merely say,that a certain film has revived a certain social aspect,long since shelved into the labyrinths of public memory.This is exactly what happened with another movie...chak de india, starring Shahrukh Khan.
The movie was supposed to miraculously turn around the perpetually dwindling condition of womens hockey in india. The despicably corrupted and biased attitude of adminstrators controlling womens hockey is revealed in the movie.It sent a wave of new-found patriotism among many,who believed that,the time had come for the national hockey team(both men and women!) to feel rejuvenated enough to go on and win titles at international levels....Wrong again.
We should stop meandering like a hard-core romantic, in a dream world;where magnanimous levels of adminstrative blunders,social prejudices and corrruption is erased instantly by a Bollywood director's two hour affair.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Assets v/s Assholes
"asshole".This,coming from a woman in her mid-twenties,at park street, wearing a dress with a neckline,which would succeed in giving pamela anderson an acute inferiority complex.
(i am quite aware that the repitition of what is considered,a socially filthy slang for a perfectly normal anatomical part,might be disturbing to many who read this.So if you are disgusted too easily,then you have been warned...)
"asshole" is how the same woman chose to describe some boys who were measuring(the bongs define this concept as "mepe neoa") her neckline from a distance with their heightened sense of vision.Now my point is....why blame them???!!! why would a girl dress up in sensuous attire? the obvious answer is to look good and appear more attractive. Now presuming that the girl has inclinations towards people of the opposite sex,why create a moral ruckus while receiving stares? Is'nt it something which she wanted in the first place...attention? i admit that in such situations,"ogling" is the definitive term;but you can't have the cake and eat it too!!!!
the male homocritus has long been fascinated with a womans body... so when these "assholes" are ogling at a womans physical "assets",they are merely carrying on the tradition of almost all males in the world.
if looking at them is considered an act of extreme perversion,then there is a simple solution to it....cover 'em asssets up. i can see women crying hoarse already.."why cant we dress the way we want to?" well then..why do you want to dress in that manner??!! back to square one,is'nt it?!!gimme a break....our ancestors were monkeys...so the primary bestial instincts of a man will never remain suppressed...no matter how much we evolve as better rational creatures.
"give the fool rope enough and he will hang himself"
"give the man a neckline deep enough and he will ogle"
i hope the crude similarity drives home the point.
(i am quite aware that the repitition of what is considered,a socially filthy slang for a perfectly normal anatomical part,might be disturbing to many who read this.So if you are disgusted too easily,then you have been warned...)
"asshole" is how the same woman chose to describe some boys who were measuring(the bongs define this concept as "mepe neoa") her neckline from a distance with their heightened sense of vision.Now my point is....why blame them???!!! why would a girl dress up in sensuous attire? the obvious answer is to look good and appear more attractive. Now presuming that the girl has inclinations towards people of the opposite sex,why create a moral ruckus while receiving stares? Is'nt it something which she wanted in the first place...attention? i admit that in such situations,"ogling" is the definitive term;but you can't have the cake and eat it too!!!!
the male homocritus has long been fascinated with a womans body... so when these "assholes" are ogling at a womans physical "assets",they are merely carrying on the tradition of almost all males in the world.
if looking at them is considered an act of extreme perversion,then there is a simple solution to it....cover 'em asssets up. i can see women crying hoarse already.."why cant we dress the way we want to?" well then..why do you want to dress in that manner??!! back to square one,is'nt it?!!gimme a break....our ancestors were monkeys...so the primary bestial instincts of a man will never remain suppressed...no matter how much we evolve as better rational creatures.
"give the fool rope enough and he will hang himself"
"give the man a neckline deep enough and he will ogle"
i hope the crude similarity drives home the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
