science vs religion blah

Again a comment that threatened to get longer than the blog itself.. I know this business of science vs religion has been beaten to death.. but its friday and its snowing and I havent blogged in a while, so... Right then, onto flagellating moribund equines...

Mindsurfer raises some interesting points in his blog "Scriptures and their interpretation", when he equates scriptures and laws of science to axioms. But, IMHO, there is a slight problem in this analogy. In science, a law that can be used as an axiom later has to go through the rigorous process of being proved a law first. And the only axioms acceptable are tangible facts. Among the various properties that distinguish a scientific law from philosophy, a crucial one is that of falsifiability (as proposed by Karl Popper). A hypothesis cannot be accepted as a law if there is no way to prove it wrong. This rule is extremely brutal as it lays to waste several beautiful "scientific" theories (including M-theory, brane-theory, several hypotheses of psychology). If someone puts forth a claim like "God is everywhere, within oneself and without oneself", there is no way to prove it right or wrong. Hence it cannot be used as a law, only as an axiom (even though its hardly a tangible fact).

I agree parts of Hindu scriptures are excruciatingly clear about how to conduct oneself through life. They are even tailored to fit your particular disposition (which had the unfortunate side-effect of caste system). But even this results in a subtle problem, which I'll come back to later in the blog. Having said that, I must say a large part of scriptures are allegorical, which makes them vulnerable to interpretive misjudgements.

Even if you set aside these interpretive ambiguities, the fundamental philosophy involves the participation of audience in the realization of its axioms in an unaccpetable way. Consider the starting words of Yoga Sutras by Patanjali.

"Yoga chitta vritti nirodha"

The union (yoga) of mind and Ultimate Truth can only be realized when the mind (chitta) is freed (nirodha) from all interferences (vritti).

Sort of like a disclaimer that if this doesn’t work, its probably your fault.

Science always tries to remove the observer from the experimentations while framing the laws (except probably in certain cases of Relativity and QED). Even when it doesn’t altogether remove the observer, an attempt is made to nullify the identity and contribution of the observer. In Indian philosophy, the outcome often depends on the observer itself– a fact often brushed aside by a convenient excuse that elimination of objectivity is essential for anything involving mind. Thereby, creating a congenially confused atmosphere for peddling mystical nostrums.

Looking at it another way, according to information theory, for assigning meaning to any signal, there are three things needed. 1) A way to separate signal from background noise 2) A way to to interpret the signal 3) Finally, a way to understand the inherent meaning of the signal. I already discussed how scriptures are susceptible to vagaries of interpretations (which makes 2 difficult) and falsifiability/objectivity (which make 3 difficult). And as SSM pointed out in an earlier comment, probably even 1 is a little dubious.

As I mentioned earlier in ano's blog, mythology is essential for religion to exist. It wasn't a cavalier statement. For God to exist, its important, paradoxically, for God not to exist. Consider a scenario where there was a booming voice from sky which regularly told people what is right and what is wrong. It would have been a recipe for unhappiness and mayhem, since its human nature to question that which is given as truth and find reasons to be unhappy with whatever they have got. Which brings me back to the point earlier in the blog that people would still ask questions even if their life is laid out for them (as it is by parts of Hindu scriptures).

Which leads me to the following conclusion. The very existence of a belief system in the mind defeats its purpose. Very likely, you would end up in a rabbit-hole of unquenchable scrutiny. Probably you'd get tired and capitulate to the belief system. The moment your mind is enslaved to a pattern enforced by a belief system, it has a model in place craving for validation. The mind would then suitably distorts facts to foist into this model. When in actuality, it is the model that should be modified to fit the facts. Yes, I am quite aware that science is one such model too. Science is an especially rigid monolith, which readily appeases itself with laws and principals of its own creation, when it has no way of knowing for sure whether the universe was created 10 billion years ago or 10 seconds ago?

Karl Marx probably best summed it up for religion by calling it the opiate of the masses. Quite possibly, so is science. Interesting choice of words, considering opiate dulls the mind into ignorance, instead of providing revelations, which ostensibly is the purpose of both religion and science.

Kurosawa - Take two

For me, most of the critically acclaimed directors tend to fall in one of three categories:

1. I admire their movies and can fathom their greatness (Satyajit Ray, Orson Welles)
2. I dont like their movies, but nevertheless understand why others can consider it to be great (PT anderson movies)
3. I dont understand or like their movies, but when I read and research about them, I develop a grudging respect (some Kubrick movies)

Unfortunately, Kurosawa doesnt fall into any of the above categories. I thoroughly disliked his movies, didnt understand why people considered them great and nothing I read could convince me otherwise. Obviously, the fault lies in my perception, because so many people cannot be wrong. And it is extremely frustrating to feel deprived of what is often cited as the best, celluloid has had to offer.

Let's go through some of the reasons why he's considered great and why I feel he doesnt measure up. There are a lot of subjective views in there, so I can understand refuting and discussion is difficult.

Kurosawa's plots have often been proclaimed as innovative and path-breaking. But Seven Samurai milks one of the oldest conflicts present in literature which was exploited from David & Goliath to Lagaan, that of human spirit enabling weak to prevail over the oppressive. Rashomon's plot isnt original either. Intelligence has often been defined as the capability to look at an issue to from multiple perspectives. Most authors start off their writing by analyzing a situation from multiple character perspectives. I dont understand why making a movie about it makes it so great. The fact that all the perspectives are different in Rashomon helps matters, but not much and almost immediately gets degraded by the sermonistic premise and ending.

Much has been said about AK's cinematography. I agree the shots were immaculate, but I couldnt find myself being impressed. Black and White intrinsically tends to be more expressive than Color. I didnt find any innovative camera angles or shot framing or lighting that hadnt been done earlier. Yes, the lighting was perfect, the framing precise, but it wasnt stylized. Which is not a bad thing, but the under-stylized and consistent body length shots gives the movie a documentry-like feel and by definition, in documentaries, cinematography is unobtrusive. Which makes hyping its cinematography redundant. Compare this with the long shots in Citizen Kane of Kane's wife sitting among puzzle pieces next to fireplace. Or that of the medium shot of stippled sunlight through tree leaves on Sydow in Seventh Seal. These shots instincively create a lingering sense of loneliness (in Kane) and happiness (in SS). I couldnt find any such memorable shots in Kurosawa's films (except maye be the rain and the temple in first few scenes of Rashomon, except I dont know what its meant to convery apart from the fact that its raining).

Kurosawa has been known to be fastidious about his shots (apparently he used black water in the rain shot in Rashomon, beccause clear water didnt bring out the contrast enough). But fastidiousness is not really a measure of greatness, unless there are results to match it. The "silences", that I found so alluring in "Wild Strawberries" are merely tiresome in AK's films. In fact, driven by extreme boredom, I tried watching a part of his film at 2x speed. I was somewhat surprised to find the effect quite pleasing and movie proceeding much more sanely. There wasnt one scene where I remember that audio added a new dimension to the frame (for instance, compare with the gurgling sound of respirator in the aquarium in opening scenes of The Graduate, which brings out the suffocation within Hoffman so effectively). Some scenes that were meant to be funny looked straight out of a cheap Zee TV comedy show (the horse training scene in Seven Samurai). But I'll let that pass because it could have been a cultural reference.

But what I cant let pass is the ATROCIOUS acting in AK's movies. Toshiro Mifune, proclaimed to be best among the cast, is uniformly jarring (especially in Rashomon). There's grim concentration on his face one second, raucous laughter the next and the cycle continues ad nauseum (esp in the fight with Takehiro in the woods). I can admit other points in this blog are subjective, but I really really find it hard to believe that anyone can call his acting good with a straight face. His laugther was so annoying that I was forced to turn off the volume and subsist on subtitles alone for a while. Most of the characters were so over the top, that had it been a non-kurosawa film, I'm sure they would have been shredded by critics.

Some AK fans come across more apologetic than ethused. They say what he did might be common now, but he was the first to do it. This oft-repeated reasoning is specious. While we all know the travails of creating something for the first time, we tend to overlook that there was precious little done in Japanese movies till then. So it makes the task of coming up with something new that much easier.

I have often felt western critics are over-accomodating about movies coming from Asia. Maybe its just the exotic factor, maybe its just feel-good act of promoting foriegn movies to US public. You'd often find them rating "good" Bollywood movies as "brilliant" and rank bad movies as "colorful" (example: Dev Daas). I often wonder if this maybe the reason for the west vastly overrating Kurosawa's movies.

So people, please please tell me, what exactly is it that makes Kurosawa great. And dont say its the 100 cuts for a 2 second shot, because I was watching carefully (even when I was fast forwarding) and I got nothing. And no TEHO (To each his own) type comments please, because I'd really like to upgrade Kurosawa to level 2, or at least level 3.

Movie Review: Haasil

After watching it for the fourth time yesterday, Haasil became my most watched movie overtaking JBDY. Being a long standing (and long suffering) Hindi movie fan, this movie has come to mean a lot to me. Its easily one of the best hindi movies made in recent times and the fact is especially important, not just because it announces the arrival of one of the most exciting directors in Bollywood today, Tigmanshu Dhulia, but also because it finds that happy compromise between art and commercial cinema, that other filmmakers find so elusive.

Haasil is a love story set in a backdrop of violent college politics in Allahabad. But before we get to the story, a few words about the director. Tigmanshu Dhulia is one of the new-breed Bollywood directors who believe in neo-realistic cinema. He also carries a fairly strong resume. He is a National School of Drama graduate and had worked as Shekhar Kapoor's assistant in Bandit Queen. He has also worked with Ketan Mehta (Sardar Patel), Pradip Kishen (Electric moon, written by Arundhati Roy), Mani Ratnam (Dil se), Asif Kapadia (Warrior) and wrote part of Tere Mere Sapne. Haasil is his first movie.

The first thing that hits you about the movie is its stark reality. There are no sets used anywhere. Since I have spent most of my childhood in Bihar, I can assure you the dialogues (also written by Tigmanshu Dhulia) and street lingo used is as real as it gets. The crowd scenes, the college campus, the hero's house and all his friends, they are all extremely real (probably because the director himself went to college in Allahabad and was involved in politics). The story revolves around a middle-class student Ani (Jimmy Shergill), who falls in love with his classmate Niharika (Hrishitaa bhatt). Unfortunately, he also befriends local college goon and aspiring politician Ranvijay Singh (Irrfan khan) and things suddenly go awry for all of them.

Granted the plot is nothing new, but that makes me admire the movie all the more because it only highlights the wonders good treatment can do to a movie. The confidence of the director shows in the relaxed way the plot unfolds. When you watch the movie more than once, you notice a number of nuances that you'd have surely missed the first time. And this is one movie thats filled to the gills with nuances. Some are subtle, some not-so-subtle, and some so miniscule that you cant believe a Bollywood movie director has actually take the pains to put them in there. Here are some examples..

The not-so-subtle: The way Ani douses his love letters (and also the pen) with "Fa", sending Niharika into fits of sneezing when she reads them.. Their embarrassing first kiss, that quickly goes haywire..

The subtle: The strained relationship between Ani and his father. There are no explanations given (which is so true, its usually just an age thing). The Super-cool goon Irrfan khan's angst at being such a failure with opposite sex.. And also the way he keeps talking about respecting artists. This is so very true of mid-level goonda-types in Bihar.. If you just tell them you are artist of some kind or are serious about your academics, they will always leave you alone with elaborate respect, as if they want to convince themselves that doing this righteous act would somehow compensate for their other shortcomings .. Among these goondas (at least in Bihar), you'll always find a secret wistfulness for a normal middle-class family. When this wistfulness goes unsatisfied, it gets translated into gentle scoffs for middle class types, but the yearning still remains (when Irrfan khan sends Shergill back home at night, "jaao ghar jaao, nahin to pappa aa jayenge dhoondte hue") This is very well captured (although never explicitly shown) in the movie...

The super-subtle: There are few scenes in the movie that are so minor, but yet so correct, that you just wont notice them unless you look very very hard.. For instance.. when Hrishita bhatt's father asks Jimmy shergill his name, He says Ani.. Immediately, her mom looks at him questioningly without saying anything.. and then Shergill replies, Aniruddha Sharma.. Although you wont think twice about this scene, but this is so true in Bihar.. Obviously the parents are probing for Ani's caste when they wait for his surname.. Immediately after the scene, Bhatt's father treats him with disdain (cuz they are from a higher caste), but it is never mentioned that caste was involved in this. In fact, you wouldnt know it unless you've stayed in the area. There are so many scenes like this that I could fill pages extolling the amount of attention to detail the director has given.

Another thing worth mentioning is the background noise used (say in a crowd scene). It isnt simply white noise, but it you listen hard, they are all very meaningful dialoges, but still toned down to not draw attention to themselves... And the attention to chronology.. Although dates are rarely mentioned, you see diwali, durga puja, republic day celebrations in the background marking the passage of time. Some of the best acting and dialogues are from the sidey characters (the villain's chamchas and hero's friends). Even the most minor ones have a consistent and carefully drawn out character, complete with well-etched mannerisms. Very RGV. The movie has shades of Satya and Shiva, but its much less stylized and much more realistic. I must throw in a word for the fantastic dresses the characters wear, very genuine, right from cheap and loud for chamchas to sober and conservative for the middle-class heroine..

The director also employs some film techniques that are probably cliched in Hollywood, but still a welcome change in India. Like the rule of three, where the director repeats a seemingly minor plot point (like eg a dialogue) three times. The first time depicts a trait in characters, the second time re-enforces that trait, and the third time, it suddenly plays a crucial role in the film (for example, coin flipping in Sholay). And then there is symbolism.. For instance, throughout the movie, its highlighted how depraved the political system is in UP, but in the end, with the protagonists near break-point, a rotten-to-the-core character suddenly comes good. This is symbolized in the closing shot, when the protagonists are walking in a tunnel and there's light at the end of it. (Believe me, its not done in as heavy-handed way as I made it sound :)

The background score is mundane, but thankfully non-intrusive. There are a few slip-ups in the movie. The songs, although easy on the ears and nicely paced, seem forced. It seems the director is almost embarrassed to put them there. There is some rhetoric about hindu-muslim unity, which although is toned down and streets ahead of what other desi directors do, was, IMHO, totally unnecessary. The worst part is the editing of the movie, which is extremely unprofessional. Another thing that disappointed me was that the director had carefully scheduled the shoot so the climax would be shot at the kumbh mela.. Unfortunately he didnt mine this for all that its worth and the climax turns out to be run-of-the-mill.

All said and done, this movie is a ray of hope for bollywood fans. It also shows commercial directors need not be completely unaware of subtlety. Haasil does have its share of flaws and pitfalls. My review is also tainted by the fact that my childhood memories helped me immediately idendify with the characters. But then its always a mark of a good director, if he can make you empathize with a thoroughly debauched villain. Its also a must watch for people who like to study directors and their approach to movie making. Its especially heartening that Haasil was not a total flop. Despite a no-name cast and a zero-publicity release, it still managed to do reasonably well in city as well as rural centers.

Tigmanshu Dhulia has already released his second movie Charas (which deals with drug network in Himachal). The movie recieved mixed reviews. Unfortunately, I still havent able to find a dvd for this and I refuse to watch it on VHS. The good news is he's been noticed and is getting producers more easily (unlike Haasil, which had been a struggle). He is currently busy directing the interestingly named "The killing of a porn filmmaker", also starring Irrfan khan.

Internet addiction test

Hmmm.. hypothetical point to ponder.. given a choice between not having internet access, in any form whatsoever, for the rest of your life and cutting off fingers on your hands, how many fingers are you willing to give up?

My score is 3.. 2 off left and 1 off right.

adjoinder.. same question, but this one for not having access to computers in whatsoever form.

My score is 4 on this.. 2 off each.

Is it time to get a life yet?