Mar Adentro: A Film about the Right to Die

Yesterday, I watched Mar Adentro (Spanish, translates as 'Sea of Life'). The film was about a physically disabled man wanting to die. The film was masterfully done. It won the Best Foreign Language Oscar in 2004. I should have been able to experience its substance to the fullest. But I could not.

Because, something I had read years ago, something once pointed out to me by someone, which kept coming back to me.

It was during a sort of debate I have had on an earlier post 'The Right to Die'. I had then read of a particular judicial case of whether or not to administer death to Terri Schiavo - a person in persistent vegetative state. She had become brain dead, and after long years of judicial debate, the court had ruled in favour of administering death, considering it to be what Terri Schiavo herself would have wanted, and respecting her wish. I had agreed, and wrote an article against people who seems to be denying us the 'Right to Die'. The debate had then ensued on the blog when another one questioned this logic, and we continued for quiet a while researching the case of Terri Schiavo over the internet.

In the course of this debate, I was once pointed out a link to an article, which did have quiet an effect on me, though it did not derail me from my belief that the right to die is as much mine as the right to live. A phrase from that article which struck me most was: "... I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead." Do we glorify death for such cases because we ourselves are afraid of being in those states? Would extremely disabled people see life and death in the same way as we do? If they choose to die at all, would it be out of not being able to lead what we call a 'proper life', or just to get rid of unbearable pain or suffering? The article had more an effect on me than I had then thought, as I realise today, from its coming back to me while watching this beautiful movie. Anyway, that debate ended when logic was finally challenged with faith - and as always, no logic could ever counter faith, no matter how strong the logic be. Basically, we both jumped onto faith - me leaping into faith in logic (for the case), my opposition leaping onto faith in life and the sacredness of its continuity.

Coming back to Mar Adentro, it is a beautifully done movie, recommended for any movie lover.

I Love To See You Cry...

<< Promoted from my paper diary... >>

That relationship in which there is no tears is no relationship at all. The intensity of feelings, of sadness should cross all barriers - of anger, of rationality, of determination, of poise, of self-respect - all the barriers which stands against the sublimation of the innocent soul in love, in complete surrender.

These moments of pain will bound the souls together in a bond stronger than any other.

On such bonds, on such depths of foundations, can lofty mansions be built elevating man to absolute clarity, truth and beauty.

Without pain there can be no happiness.

Without tears there can be no rapture.

I love to see you cry. Because your tears stand as the strongest and truest testimony that you feel.

P.S. (added later): Are tears the price women have to pay for the insecurities of men? If she knew it all, will she willingly pay the price?

Scribbles: 19th April, 2009

It has been some time, some months, since my last post. Has there been nothing to write about? No - that cannot be the reason - because there is always things to write about if you want to write.

Anyways - some posts ago - I had maintained here that if there is even the tiniest of the things one can do towards the realisation of one truest desires which will not render him in some irrecoverable position, then one should go for it. Honestly speaking, I knew not then how much I myself would have been able to follow on to it. But today, I can complacently state that I have - at least on a few most important aspects - been able to follow up on my own principles.

I know not if these were wise to do, I know not what fruits these will finally yield decades later - but what I do know is that I'm happy and and have no regrets, and that I will never have any regrets out of these. Through all my years, I do have learn't one important thing - something which I should have probably learn't long ago - that any day one would rather make his own mistakes than somebody else's.

Antarmahal

Believe me - had the climax been anything less than what it was, I definitely would have thought much less of the rest of the film - I would have thought it deliriousness coming from Rituparno going by how his latest films (at least the latest few I have seen) touches on this very same theme one way or the other.

I have just watched Antarmahal, and notwithstanding the above, true to his genius, Rituparno Ghosh brought forth such a climax, that I cannot help feeling that maybe the rest of the film was still justified coming even from him.

The entire film was laden with female sexuality, her body, her spirit, and the maltreatment of all these as it was supposed to have been practiced 100s of years ago in Bengal.

The film was good as is usual of him, but while watching the film, I had started complaining that all his films somehow touches on this same subject - and it gets treated in his trademark way - and all this becomes monotonous, and sometimes even ghastly given the subject. Once or twice, the effect is fantastic, but one really cannot go on digesting the same pattern as often as Rituparno seems to shelve it out. I was thinking why on earth does he not think of the thousand other sensitivities lying out there for him to exploit?

But the climax of Antarmahal balances it all. All in the last 10/15 minutes. And indeed, these last minutes do propel the film in dimensions other than just female sexuality, mind and body. Art and the artist were hailed. I'm sure - the last two or three scenes, including the showing of the goddess' face to the foreign painter, the brief shot of Soha Ali Khan after the idol was opened publicly, and finally the dolls with the sacred flames lit in the last scene - all these will stay with me for a while.

Now, after being done with it all, and looking at the film from a perspective, I find myself asking about the acting - who acted best, et all. And somehow, I'm unable to answer that. No one seems to have got such dramatic chances of acting. Or maybe everyone got equal shares. I'm not sure. At first thought it seemed that the film did not provide much chances of such acting. But then, it is very obvious that a film like this cannot be carried without good acting. And yes, all through the film none of the actors ever felt out of themselves.

Maybe this is truly good direction - coupled with good acting from all - as a result of which, none of the characters protruded obliquely above the others - yet all of them fell nicely into the overall picture, thereby culminating in an overall good effect.

Muslims to answer?

They have put Muslims in the frontline. Following the Mumbai terrorist attack orchestrated by people who happen to be Muslims from Pakistan.

I just saw a program where they have literally put some eminent Muslims in a row - and a mass of audience (Hindu?) are asking them questions. Questions about how the innocent Muslim will clear the mass misunderstanding brewing in the masses, manifesting in a person getting scared by seeing a Muslim in sight (!!!).

What do these eminent persons think about how to clear up this psychological impact?

There was visible exasperation and anger in the face of some of the ones who had been called forth.

The program host maintained - and these persons said and agreed - that other Muslim should not at all be called forth to explain. Why should they be at all require to explain and clarify their innocence? Terrorism has no religion, and we all no that.

But the irony was that, by hosting a program of this kind, the very program is acting against this philosophy - they have called forth these people to answer. To have them explain away their position. This very program, I think, was acting more against the cause which it seeks to address, than any person getting scared when seeing a Muslim.

Some people are beyond religion. Truly religious and devoted people also always fall in this category. It shows on their face. No matter what religion they follow, they are all united in some core basic values and understanding. All religions are united in their basic values - of humanity, tolerance and responsibility.

I could not help but feel sorry for these people - who for no action of their own - who by some twisted coincidence of fate have been put on trial. They are fully entitled to the exasperation and anger showing on their face despite the attempts to veil them. I think it is a gross insult even to bring up this topic to them in this way.

Never say - .......

Everyday I come across these lines often. But these actually makes no sense - at least that is what I feel. So, please, never say:

There is not enough time.
Because, the time is constant - it never decreases (or increases) - it is always there - 24 hours a day. Nobody is making the day shorter for you. It is not that you do not have enough time - it is that you want to spend the time in other things. And nobody actually ever 'wastes' time - whether one is watching TV or lazing or sleeping - he IS using the time. If you want to see TV badly, or sleep badly, you will reply 'I have no time' to an otherwise 'important' thing - meaning you do have time, but that other thing is of lesser priority that the thing you want to do with your time.
So everyone always have enough time. No matter what. And never say otherwise.

Because it happens that way.
Now, my friend, that is one of the dumbest things to say. 'It happens that way' just because someone is doing it that way - nothing else. If you do it the other way, it will start happening the other way. As simple as that. The moment the rationale of doing it the way 'it happens' is not clear - make something else happen. It always gets me pissed off when I hear someone justifying anything by this clause - that 'it happens that way'!

(To your employer) I'll do my best.
Please - the company is not paying you to 'do your best'. It has no interest whether you do your best or not, or what your best is. You can either do the thing, or not. If you think you can, say you will do it - else say you cant do it.


The blog had been ignored for quiet a long while. Exactly five months. Possibly one of the longest droughts. All blames go to my new project - which had been quiet like a circus for the last months. Well, at least after so many days, here is something for my good old blog!

Capital Punishment?

Recently, I came across a post in Wipro blogs putting forward the old question of morality of capital punishment - whether or not it should continue in today's world. I'll just put forth here the series of thoughts which that post triggered off in my mind.

Every man has his right to live, his right to his own thoughts - and his rights to act upon them.

Just because I think a path is right, something is ‘just’, does not necessarily make that really right or just. What is really ‘just’? No one knows. Your philosophies and principles should change with time. If they do not, you are not learning – you have closed yourself to the world. (Your rate of change of philosophies can slow down with age, but they should never stop.)

Similarly, just because the majority happens to believe in a certain thing, it doesn’t sanctify that thing as the 'right' one. (One's singular ideals have as much chances of being right as the majority's opposite ideals. So, why should one confrm to majority? For stability/security? But does not world become insecure/imperfect for the one who is forced to conform?)

Every man has right to his opinions and ideas. And to act upon them. If, however, I think he is acting wrongly, I’d act against it - but at the same time, I’d uphold that the other should act only in the way he thinks is right. Similarly, if the majority thinks he is acting wrongly, they have every right to act against him. Result? The stronger in might wins. And that is perfectly logical. And that is the only thing which has always happened. That is what actually has always shaped ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. And I think that this is the only acceptable and logical way one can justify any ‘code’ or ‘law’ in society. That the majority – read ‘stronger’ mass – wants something to happen in a certain way. Not by arguments or opinions or ideas or ideals.

And by this code, in the same way that a man has every right to end another’s life if he thinks that is needed according to his perspective of events and is willing to face oppositions from person(s) thinking otherwise (he has actually done so always, and will do so forever), the government can also administer death if it feels threatened from the individual and deems it a necessity (again, has done so always, and will do so forever). It can administer death for its own defense. It does so in war. It can do so in domestic incidents also. Though I personally don’t like it this way - I like winning over the adversary - that only is true power - yet I’d not say that this is wrong if followed.

Along the same lines, I do not have anything against the terrorist himself who believes in what he does and kills a thousand lives who are innocent in my eyes. However, since I think it is not just that the thousand innocent lives be dead, I’ll do whatever I can to thwart the terrorist’s efforts. But I wont - and cannot - say that he is wrong.

Only when the government - the system - becomes so strong and controlling that it no longer fears individual activists (’Brave New World’?) - only then can it afford to think of abolishing capital punishment altogether. Otherwise, death sentences will be needed and are perfectly justified.