The End of "A Film love..."

Now, Indian cinema facing a major challenge as the change seems appearing in the audience regarding "what deemed to be the "True subject" for a Film to be screened. here ,I want to share that for this major credit goes to the Globalization, which made open everything easy on finger tips as to say that "Realities" are no more the matters of hide or manipulation in a "Glossy” mediums ;here we can take Film so, to alienate the majority of audience from getting their 'Realities."

For this we can take so many recent Flops of the movies either in Bollywood or Telugu regional movies. Now, such movies are running well which made of 1/4 of budget of flop movies with Superstars and high technical values but no "True subject" or in general terms "Story”. For Example, we take the low budget movie” HYDERABAD NAWAABS" with untrained, unknown artists and with technical crew who came into field to prove their mere-skills just by an 'opportunity' came in. It was celebrating 150 days function in Hyderabad city itself; which was a mirage for so many Producers, Directors and Superstars in recent past.

After ONE MONTH, the Superstar films, i.e. Chiranjeevi's Stalin and Nagarjunas's Boss were released but relegated to three theatres.Nawabs,which was released in just two theatres , had been spread across not only the Andhra Pradesh but also to Karnataka and Maharastra by sustaining stiff competition from big star films which, generally, said to have had the high technical standards.

Here interesting point is that Nawabs story was based on real life Experiences, Observations usually occurs at bottom of the society; particularly in Hyderabad old city; mixed with typical accent and multi flavored cultures and tastes. If we compare with "mainstream Film love story”, and finds no way... Even to think of. Though it has given a big shock to the Film Industry, was acclaimed and revered by the audience which manifested in the growth of screening theatres.later, It was ready to sustain the storms called "DON" and "JAAN-E-MANN" of both Sharukh and Salman khans. Here what we have to observe is, what made this mere film to have had sustained even with low technical standards compared to Bollywod and Tollywood movies.

Being this: Can't it be interesting to know as which latent Filmic elements and its theoretical approaches made this film into (Hyderabadnawabs)...A great success?

In my next articles,I'd try to find out and interpret the visual grammar involved in the Films and the way it would deal with "Realities" and also with concerned Film theories usually represented by in the film...

Please wait............
By

Narsing.G.Rao

THE STREAM CALLED LIFE:a poem

Life is always like a Stream
Which flows never back in same;

It knows only to embrace the slope
Regardless of hurdles; but with hope;

Sole motto is to merge with the river
Though it manifest the will of tower;

Stream never ends as fresh water flows in
Like passing year greets New Year in vain;

Like Stream; life is the fusion of new and old
By rectifying odds; remains everybody with bold.

By
Narsing.G.Rao

Women Reservaton Bill: A Deliberate Dilemma


Women, half of the universe, of entire creation, of men aspirations. No-body had even imagined without their participation in human life throughout the centuries. Even more, their contribution fetched men of their comforts and pleasures. The life cycle of men rotate around the women. Every second they think of women either married or unmarried or even married about unmarried. The reason behind all these aspects lies in the universal relationship of human beings and the instinct of men and women, which is natural and driven by the nature itself. Hence, we can justify the relations of women with men by giving equal status, pride and treating them as half of entire required phenomenon.

But, in India it is entirely different compared to rest of the world that here women has been treated as “service maid” at home or subordinate of men employees. There are no such ethical values that can follow, even though men daily pray to the God and go around the temples. But one thing was seen as pleasure to the entire women community that, one issue has come up with agenda of all political parties that “some” political reservation should be given to the women. This is nothing but one kind of diversion and amusement that to deviate the attention of women movement that rose, because of which the issue has been appeared on the agenda and has been nurtured for years without any resolution and commitment.

Here, one should consider about the “motives” which are working under-currently not to make any outcome for women reservation. The first thing is policy makers (politicians) who are supposed to be at a majority to accept or to amend it. The politicians might have different backgrounds of Ideologies, Castes and Religion. But in India, the Caste and Religion plays a crucial role while making any policy for administration. The subordination as hierarchy has been justified in Hindu religion and in other religions also where in the people have been converted physically despite remaining virtually same. As to say carriers of their original religious culture, customs and tradition in which the subordination or in other terms Male domination has been imbibed.

While discussions going on about to make any decision regarding sharing power with women, the engrossed motives of male domination or insecurity of political hazardous situation which would arise immediately manifests itself the volatile mentality of men. Because, in India women have been kept away from mainstream except pragmatic situations over centuries. For the first time the women, at least, got leverage with Hindu Code Bill which had threatened the existing hierarchy during the first decade of our independent India. During the debate over that bill also were predicaments due to anti-women personalities rather now. The main aspect of equal justice to women has not been recognized as legitimate right of a civilized society. Particularly, in India the feudal tendencies and social evils are still ruling the minds of present generation. The male metaphor emanating out of our society is still adhesive to the extent that even “highly educated” males are being lured towards social evils and negative thinking. We may trace out and attribute some reasons for these tendencies to Filmmakers in our country (Even though some good film makers are there). Every body knows how the female characters are being depicted into novels and characterized on screens. In most cases our film heroines being submissive and always placed as to seek “protection” from protagonist who is male and hero of the story.

The male dominance still prevailing because of the “safe-guards” created perpetually by the patriarchy through ideological concerns. What ever may be the political party, most of having been dominated by the male (except Sonia Gandhi, Mayawathi, Jayalalitha, Mamatha benerji, Sushma swaraj etc;) the leaders of political parties, mostly, were the products of patriarchal society in which anti-women metaphors have been imbibed through different channels that too hard to conceive or to oppose. The “unconscious” way of protecting the patriarchy by the male who were representing in entire political system in the country. The spectrums of our politics are the very same threads out of single cloth. Facade may be "Homogenous" in supporting women rights and their empowerment or pretending as to daring to introduce the women reservation bill in the parliament, still concerns with ideology and stiff political motives that not to lose their base among women community who are being desperate in electing the patriarchal governments..but...unconsciously.

By
Narsing.G.Rao

‘Self-interest’, Free economy and Crisis.

Companies should be service oriented rather than having selfish-motives. Selfish motif works only when their demand in market. If purchasing capacity getting down and nobody, even Govt. and Banks, doing nothing while people are suffering as market is full of products. Here we can blame businessmen for not properly channelising the wealth into society by proper managerial practices which resulting in decrease in buying capacity, fostering inequality, finally leading to economic crises. Which mean something went against the view of Adam smith by who followed the free-market principle of him. His theoretical interpretation and expectations of self-interest in free economy will promote sufficient advancement in products and services for society through “Invisible” hand, which leads to prosperity. But even after following free-market principles and facing economic crises is something that everybody should look at. Who will be culprits if something went wrong and led lacks of people went jobless and in desperate need of products and services and not having money to buy. It’s difficult to held “invisible hand”. Then how?

As termed to Smith: Self-interested competition in the free market, he argued, would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and argued against the formation of monopolies.
( The Wealth of Nations (1776)

The Businessmen (Banks/Organizations), as suspected by Smith, who followed and supported/promoted capital for the free-market principle yet could not produced and distributed the wealth created equally among people (customers) should be held responsible and the government should see that at least “Victimized” poor (customers) should be helped through the banks who are in a position to lend of peoples money.

If buyers are not in a position to buy even sellers are in a position to sell, banks should provide some loan (not gift or free contribution) through which they (workers, employees or entrepreneur) can do business/work and repay while sustaining themselves also contributing to the society at large. Means making capable of buying first, which is a basis for market than just producing.

Here "provide some loan " is not only a function of bank, but also to "fulfill its duty" while getting guarantee both getting money back while fulfilling its duty in particular and sustaining, helping the society through lending which is mean for business not for personal. Just imagine if they were NO “buyers” as said above, in a society, and then for whom the entire Companies would produce? Run by “few” compares to a large society/world, If so, then where is the question of “Self-interest”?

Here, self-interest, works well only when there is market (buyers) that has appropriate money with buyers. If there is equality between buyers and sellers capable of buying any product or service. Finally leads to a stage where the entire wealth is distributes equally to all for the best interest of whole society.

Here, economic crises took place because the Buyers (customers) are not in a position to “buy” the Products and Services produced by “few” producers. It means that Buyers (customers) are not in a position to Buy, because, lack of money at their hand. Still “few” are capable of “Producing”.

Smith opposed any form of economic concentration because it distorts the market's natural ability to establish a price that provides a fair return on land, labor, and capital. He advanced the idea that a market economy would produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and would optimally allocate society's resources.
( The Wealth of Nations ;1776)

Economic concentration results in terms of unfair return on land,labor,and capital to buyers which leads to create gap between Buyers and Sellers and to crisis.It means there was no proper distribution of wealth in society for all.economic crises are the symptoms of inequal distribution of wealth due to unprofessional managerial practices by ineligible businessmen,as Smith was wary of businessmen,in this regard to follow free economic principle.

As reconciliation to this, if buyers are not in a position to buy even sellers are in a position to sell. Then banks should provide some loan (not gift or free contribution) through which they (workers, employees or entrepreneur) can do business/work and repay while sustaining themselves also contributing to the society at large. This reason can be seen justifiable to the Producers and even Banks for providing loan (Capital) to the deserved in a crisis period, as reconciliation to earlier practice, by which decreasing the unemployment and creating opportunities for employment which increases the “Buying” capacity of customers, while boosting the market towards equal distribution of wealth in society. If any bank looking at repaying capacity during the crises, it cannot be justifiable. Because they (customers) have lost everything at cost of life, unconsciously, by providing labor and “Buying” for companies sake in society by working in any one of the organizations. At least considering to provide loan to deserved as a sign of justice to them of their “dexterousness” in production process by “few”, may also take as one of an “Invisible hand” (banks providing capital for “Few”). Before concluding here I want to quote Adam Smith:

"In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently only one or two. ...The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. ...His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. ...this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it." (Wealth of Nations;1776)

By
Narsing.G.Rao

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

René Descartes : I think therefore I am


To know whether corporeal things do really exists out side our mind, according to Rene Descartes, should understand first,what is Mind? What is True knowledge? What is External world? Who is God?

According to Descartes, True knowledge is which cannot be doubted. Until we doubt something means there is something which causing to it. He tried to uncover the knowledge, which cannot be questioned and doubted. In this process he finally stated that only thing which cannot be doubted and true knowledge is “thinking thing” that is “I am”.
this is known as cogito ergo sum (English: "I think, therefore I am").


The only thing, according to Descartes, which is undoubted and true knowledge, is “I think therefore I am”. Simple we can say as If you are thinking that fact constitute that what you are. Even we can unreliable on our sense data but cannot doubt that we are thinking that is our “consciousness” (cogito) about us.


Descartes says there is mind, because even though we may not perceive through our senses, we tend to believe something is causing to think about something beyond and also making us to believe undoubtedly. For this Descartes gives one example known as Wax Argument:


He considers a piece of wax; his senses inform him that it has certain characteristics, such as shape, texture, size, color, smell, and so forth. When he brings the wax towards a flame, these characteristics change completely. However, it seems that it is still the same thing: it is still a piece of wax, even though the data of the senses inform him that all of its characteristics are different. Therefore, in order to properly grasp the nature of the wax, he cannot use the senses. He must use his mind.( René Descartes; Discourse on the Method and Principles of Philosophy; 1637)


Here we take a reason which actually equating the differnce caused due to change in its form and sense data.that’s why Descates says sense may not be reliable but rational knowledge is undoubted and true.Some thing which equating or filling up to dispel any doubt caused by sense data(perception) in order to give undoubted/unquestionable knowledge is because of Mind.Now we can believe that rational thought is of Mind.


If mind is there then there should be some process by which data acquired by sense organs and are being formed into “ideas” and the interaction between their inconsistencies give rise to doubt. And to dispel that doubt needs true knowledge which cannot be doubted is given by the rational thought that is Mind. Here Descartes says that process in which the “consciousness” developed is internal world and the cause for getting sense data through our sense organs from out side the mind is “External World.”

Descartes also wrote a response to skepticism about the existence of the external world. He argues that sensory perceptions come to him involuntarily, and are not willed by him. They are external to his senses, and according to Descartes, this is evidence of the existence of something outside of his mind, and thus, an external world. Descartes goes on to show that the things in the external world are material by arguing that God would not deceive him as to the ideas that are being transmitted, and that God has given him the "propensity" to believe that such ideas are caused by material things. ( René Descartes; Discourse on the Method and Principles of Philosophy; 1637)


Finally,Who is God? Acording to Descartes there are two methods in acquiring knowledge-Perceptual knowledge and Rational knowledge-former is through sensor organs and the latter is of rational thinking.Descartes does not believe in External World terming external world is made of matter which is not constant and ever changing in nature and the kowledge acquired through sensor organs cannot be trusted.because it depends upon ever changing phenomena and exterior to us.there is no relatioin between the external world and the rational thought.thus,descartes believes the true knowledge is always “undestroyable” and “constant” as if no body could doubt and is unquestionable through out all times in all spaces.As God,which no body doubts and questioned.

Descartes proceeds to construct a system of knowledge, discarding perception as unreliable and instead admitting only deduction as a method., he offers an ontological proof of a benevolent God Because God is benevolent, he can have some faith in the account of reality his senses provide him, for God has provided him with a working mind and sensory system and does not desire to deceive him. From this supposition, however, he finally establishes the possibility of acquiring knowledge about the world based on deduction and perception. (René Descartes; Meditations on First Philosophy;III&V, 1641)


The knowledge based on external world and perceived through sense organs is not reliable because it raises doubts and seeks true knowledge. And knowledge which dispels doubts and gives us undoubted, unquestionable knowledge is only through “Rational thought”;which is God, because cannot be questioned and he(God) can have faith in reality of senses and working mind provided by him and he, God is benevolent, does not desire to deceive that reality provided by him and which is an answer to itself and to all.

By
Narsing.G.Rao

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes

Don’t cut the tree branch on which you are sitting!


The main aim of the Earth Day or International Environmental Day is to remember us of our "Existence". It means, the dependency of man kind on our earth planet and our relationships, responsibilities towards protecting, saving our Oxygen, with out which we can’t live. This day has assumed a greater place in our lives by tuning attentions from Comfortable living (Fuel, Cars, and Air conditioners) to the very foundation on which our entire man kind has been dwelling. We may have different opinions on various issues but our Planet, Environment doesn’t. If we imagine that there is no Planet, Environment, then where is the discussion to fight for comfortable living. What ever we are, how ever we are, what ever may be our strength or the development, does not equated with our lovely Planet and its Environment. We are just a single drop of this entire ocean called universe.

All our relations are desperately related with and subjected to the very effects of this World, Universe. Almost we have damaged our environment for our selfish need (needless development) by thinking that we are the owners of this Planet. But we are just the Guests on this planet and we have so many responsibilities to save, protect the place in which we are being given an opportunity only to live. If we are forgetting of being Guests and starting doing damage (already made colossal damage) as the owners, then this Planet will throw us out through its disastrous effects caused by us which are beyond our control .only way out may be to Extinct for no gain. At least every year The Earth Day reminding us not only to create awareness, carving out developmental strategies, just holding brain storming sessions, but also ordering us for immediate ACTION TO PROTECT ENVIRONMENT and the PLANET.



On World Earth Day!



By

Narsing.G.Rao

If there is mind...there is way!

When doubts arise; ignorance prevails,
Answers are there; but adolescent mind trails,
A ray of hope arise behind any gloomy inhibition;
Guiding us for times to realise that glory Enlighten,
Mind never to be learned by for a successful reap;
Which is always only a step back for a great leap,
Any lasting endeavour require some effort to muse;
As scary thwart come across while plucking a rose,
Until irrational discard rules over minds distasteful;
One never accepts to utter proudly; My Life is Beautiful,
Discard those ruthless inhibitions long instilled on behalf,
Pave a way of your own destined by yourself… for yourself.




By
Narsing.G.Rao