Jnana - pure knowledge

Films can be considered as commercial commodities and as cultural entities. As commercial products films demand all activities linked with normal business process. That includes marketing and promotion activities. But in this article, films are considered as cultural entities. The entire ‘cinematic experience’ goes beyond movie watching activity. There is a need to establish a broader framework to understand the influence of movies on culture. That includes the study of fan’s association, the hype surrounding the release of new movie, the concept of super star and clear understanding of film business. Anyone who wants to master the art of ‘film appreciation’ needs to understand all these dynamics. The Film posters form a very important component in this experience.

Film poster contains both image and text. There is a hierarchy followed in ordering these elements. The textual material usually includes the name of the producer, director, script-writer, music director and lyricist. Film posters can be divided into 2 categories. One set of posters are designed around themes and second around stars. The thematic posters highlight the ‘genre’ of the movie like drama, sentiment, romance, action, revenge, etc. The main theme of the movie is highlighted and other details appear in background. The visual elements used are familiar to the audiences. They are repeated more often and a combination of visual elements tells the genre of the film in a simple way to its audiences. For example, the image of SRK and Kajol in DDLJ poster where SRK is holding a guitar clearly sends the message that it is family oriented romantic movie. Hero holding a gun or in stunt sequence is highlighted in action movie posters.

The star centric posters project the star of the movie prominently. The space allotted to each character in the poster decides his/her importance in the movie. But we have to note that the importance given to stars is not related just his market value. It is also the reflection of images generated by fan and gossip magazines, radio, television and newspapers. Sometimes the image of the star can overtake the theme of the movie. The posters will have only the face of the star and other actors will be reduced to background images.

There are also instances when posters were redesigned when the particular film made someone a superstar. “DEEWAAR” was a classic example for this. When the movie was released, the posters presented the movie as a clash between brothers with mother in between. When the film became super hit thereby creating a superstar, the posters reflected the same. The other characters disappeared from the posters.

Another important consideration in the film poster is the preference given to the marketable item used in the movie. For example see the 786 number plate worn by Amitab in Deewar poster. It became a symbol of working class. The blue saree which Madhuri wore in HAHK, Kajol’s dress in DDLJ, Aamir’s cap in Dil all had potential market. So they were highlighted in movie posters.

Posters are also designed for specific market segments. Trade analysts identify A, B and C centers for movie distribution. The metros and other big, cosmopolitan cities are identified as A centers. Usually family and women are the main target audience here. They expect thematic posters. So the posters put up in these areas are usually sophisticated. B class is identified with smaller towns where hero worshipping is practiced. So the posters displayed here are hero-centric and not thematic. In C centers the heroine is given enough space in the posters for obvious reasons.

The recent emergence of overseas market has created some specific needs in the poster design. The posters of DDLJ can be an example to explain these differences. The posters prepared for overseas market presented Kajol in mini dress to emphasize the fact that she was comfortable in both. Also consider the Lagaan poster .The poster designed for oversees and A class centers described the movie as a triangular love story. A foreigner in love with an Indian makes an interesting plot for them which they can relate to. On a contrary, another poster described the movie as hero-centric with the team in background as B class wants it.

In this digital age, there are many ways of promoting a movie. The introduction of cable TV has given unlimited option for producers to promote their movies. But the charm of film posters will not fade. The image of stars on autos, pan shop, all kinds of walls made the experience of cinema complete. In days where there was no preview available, posters tried to create enthusiasm about the movie. Several guesses were made about the movie after seeing the posters. The hype generated by those discussions made the cinematic experience really worth. The sudden shock viewers got by unexpected events that were untold in posters added to the whole effect (Eg: Salman Khan was never featured in KKHH posters, Lagaan was never shown as cricket movie).

Though not qualified yet, film posters certainly deservers to be called as “art form”. Today the hand written posters have become extinct. Digital prints are taking over. But, the charm of posters still continues to mesmerize movie goers.

[In this concluding part, the influence of existentialism on our social behavior is examined. Also discussed are some literary works where the shadow of existentialism can be clearly seen.]

The question of existence has been a topic dealt by many literary persons. But it was “Jean-Paul Sartre” who proposed an improvised version of existentialism during last century. The essence of this theory was to oppose society centric theories and focus more on the individuals. The main conclusions of Sartre were –

• We have no predetermined nature that controls what we are or what we do.
• We are radically free to act independently of determination by outside influences.
• We create our own human nature through these free choices.
• We also create our values through these choices.

From Sartre’s theory, it becomes clear that the individual is more important. This was closed tied to his concept on God. According to Sartre “Existentialism is nothing else but an attempt to draw the full conclusions from a consistently atheistic position. Existentialism is not atheist in the sense that it would exhaust itself in demonstrations of the non-existence of God. It declares, rather, that even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view….. We think that the real problem is not that of His existence; what man needs is to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God.”

This increased dependency on self (sometimes) puts lot of pressure on individuals. The individual himself is responsible for all his action and decisions. The idea of God provides a sense of relief for his believers. There will optimism in people’s mind that God will take care of them. But existentialism robs this hope from people. Then the person who has to a take a decision will be confused. This is what precisely happened to ‘Hamlet’. When he had to kill his step-father (also his paternal uncle), the question was not “to kill or not to kill” but “to be or not to be”. The issue of killing becomes the question of his existence. In Kannada literature lot of experiments are done in this regard. Girish Karnad’s play ‘Yayati’ is a classic in this genre. There the king Yayati exchanges his old age with the youth of his son. The twist that Karnad brought into the story was through the wife of his son. She asks him to accept her as his wife since her husband’s youth is with him now. For Yayati, this turns out to be his question of existence. In fact, even in Mahabharatha when Arjuna asks Krishna about the relevance of the war, he essentially is questioning the values. We should note the importance given by Arjuna to the individual lives of his loved ones on the other side. This is the core of existentialism.

Sometimes, the politeness in our behavior is attributed to our non-recognition of truth. While the attendant is serving us food in the restaurant, he will have a pleasant smile on his face. There may be a hundred turmoil in his heart. We may know it but we do not want to recognize it. We feel happy living in the false world that we have created. Our concept of recognition, fame, depression, unknown fears, lingering memories of loved ones all stem out from our conscious effort to live in a false world forgetting the real one.

Existentialism can help us in overcoming all our fears and answer the complex philosophical question surrounding our existence in this world.

[The previous article examined the philosophical issues surrounding existentialism. The theory of Descartes was analyzed to understand this. Here let us see the psychological aspects of existentialism]

Existentialism is used in psychology to explain the difference between the reality and imaginations. How do we make a distinction between real and unreal? Do we know that whatever we dream is unreal? How do we decide that? If it is what we gain by learning, how does a child learn it? How children know that the monster about which it thinks is unreal? These complex issues are explained in psychology by using the concepts of existentialism.

Although all things exist in our mind, they exist in different ways. Some elements of the mind exist as phenomena, others are mere images of the past, and still others are rational concepts and theories. Some of these elements we perceived as true, others as problematic, still others as totally false. It follows from this that a special work is being done by the mind -- the work of attributing its elements with their specific existential status. This work of the mind will be referred to as existentialism.

In philosophy, existentialism is presenting (reducing) a piece of reality in such a way that its existence (authenticity) becomes as self-evident as “cogito ergo sum”. If we are able to do this and all the steps of this reduction have the status of logical necessity (i.e., they are self-evident), then we recognize the piece of reality as a true one. If we fail, then we qualify the object of existentialism as problematic or false, which is “nonexistent”.

In the everyday life, existentialism takes a more simple form. In everyday reality any element (an object or an event) can appear in the mind in three different forms (as a phenomenon, a mental image and a rational construction). How do decide something as true and others as imaginary? The process of distinguishing one from other is as follows. Initially any element can represent something of the external reality, but it can also be a sheer product of the mind. Then a comparison of the metal image with real image (external reality) is done. If they are same, then the object or the event really exists. (‘High existential status’).If the result of the comparison brings only partial success then the event is false (‘Problematic existential status’). For instance, the land I own in another city and my house there still exists for me as a mental image in memory and as a rational construction (documents of possession, the concept of land, image of my house), yet its existence is problematic as I have no a definite proof that it was not destroyed. Obviously, most of the elements of the mind have this kind of existential status. Lastly, we usually attribute the ‘weakest existential status’ to the object or event that is presented in the mind in one form only: as a mental image, a phenomenon or a rational construction (for instance, a memory of a person who died or an idea of a species that became extinct). A similar weak existential status we attribute to pure phenomena, such as perceptual illusions like dreams.

Although a healthy individual is usually unaware of the work of existentialism, this work is vital for maintaining the normal picture of the world. A typical case of the disturbed existentialism is madness. Although it is not unusual for a normal person to have strange ideas and frightening images, the person has no difficulty in keeping these ideas and images under control. In madness, though, the borderlines between realities become blurred. He fails to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

[Here is an attempt to explain the theory of existentialism in a simple way. In the present article the philosophical background of the theory is explained. Next part in the series will analyze the treatment given to existentialism in psychology. The concluding part will try to see how existentialism is used in literature and its implication on our social behavior.]

The main question in philosophy is to find the ‘ultimate truth’. The different approaches taken by philosophers have led to the development of different theories. But their ultimate goal is the same –that to find the ultimate. There are 2 main categories in philosophical thinking. One group believes in intuitive knowledge and other relies on rational thinking. The people who depend on thinking use their faith and individual believes to answer philosophical questions. The problem here is that their answers will not be satisfactory since it cannot be tested.

The rationalists depend on the analytical capability of human mind to explain the things around them. To do this they have to depend on the observations done by their sensory organs and then analyze it using their rational mind. The question in philosophy is – can we trust our senses? Is there a direct relation between truth and our observation? These questions have continued to haunt the philosophers from long time.

For the Greek philosophers the actions of humans were very important. They came out with virtue theory which tried to explain what is good and bad. In India many theories tried to explain this phenomenon. But the important contradiction between both was that – in India the existence of self was never questioned. “Do I exist?” was never a question. Our existence was a-priori for all thinking. It was a truth which could not be challenged. We exist and so we believe our sense-organs. We trust the experiences they give. This was the Indian philosophy’s stand about the issue. Among the philosophers who had a different perspective about this issue, Descartes was the most important one. He grounded his theory on sound logic and gave a wonderful commentary on this topic.

Descartes found that we cannot trust sense-experience, for it often deceives us. It is hard to assure ourselves of the reality of things which appear to correspond to our sensations. We cannot even be sure of the reality of our own bodies; perhaps we are dreaming that we have bodies; perhaps we are dreaming that we are seeing objects outside. How can we know whether we are waking or dreaming? We may be entirely mistaken in believing what we see. Perhaps the world is only in the mind, in imagination. It may be just an illusion produced by thought. Everything may be doubtful, even mathematical truths. The only certainty seems to be that there is nothing certain!

The concept of secularism in India is a time tested one. We did have a successful romance with secularism and democracy from past 50 years. Even before that we learn that India was a secular country. There is no land in this world which gave birth to so many (diverse) religions, faiths and sects. This is in addition to various religions brought in forcefully by the conquerors. India has been tolerant to all these developments throughout its history.

After independence, we accepted democracy for our political setup. This was probably the most suitable among all other political theories. For a country which is so diverse, democracy was the only option. We have to remember that “democracy and secularism go hand-in-hand”. If we are democratic we are secularist also. One cannot exist without other.

There are many countries which are democratic but not secular. But then, the state will be a religious-state. This will bring lot of conflict in the state. The example of Nepal can best explain this phenomenon. Though in that country the main problem is the unrestricted monarchy, the idea of a Hindu nation is fuelling the communist movement. The case is same in many Middle Eastern countries where they have accepted a state religion. For democracy to function smoothly, secularism is a must.

The idea of secularism is present in world’s two biggest democracies – India and USA. But both have adopted a different stand over the implementation issues of secularism. India follows inclusive-secularism and US follows exclusive-secularism. (These terminologies are not part of standard vocabulary. They were coined because no better words could be found). The study of secularism involves identifying the equations between state and religion.

In US the state does not involve itself in the religious matter. There is no holiday for major festivities of all religions. Everybody is treated equally and caste/religion equation does not matter while deciding state related issues. This completely eliminates the concept of reservations and special provisions dished out in the name of social equality. This also implies that the state does not interfere in the working of religious institutions. The state recognizes that religion is the private matter of its citizens and keeps itself out of it. This idea of secularism where state excludes religious matter is termed here as exclusive-secularism.

The idea of secularism in India is quite different from this. Here the equation between state and religion is quite complex. The state does not patronize any religion but it recognizes all religions. Given the complex topography of caste scene in India this becomes a serious issue. This forces the state to introduce special schemes for members of minority group. The state takes active interest in maintaining the religious institutions. So when some are excluded there will be lot of problems. The recent controversies regarding Kanchi Mutt, Udupi Mutt arises from this point. This phenomenon where state takes active part in religious activities but still acts as neutral agent is termed here as inclusive-secularism.

Given the problems that India has faced in recent past, it will be appropriate for us to rethink on the political models that exist now. The changes in the political system should start by rethinking our approach towards secularism. The state should isolate itself from religion and that will a welcome step.

The readers of the prestigious national daily “THE HINDU” had a pleasant surprise today. They were treated with the new design complete with colorful pages. The 125 year old newspaper always had a set of loyal readers, often spanning generations. I am third generation reader of the paper and our family shares a special relation with the paper as distributor/agents from 3 generations.

The role of newspapers is often questioned in the present days. The introduction of Radio, TV and now the Internet were seen as the threat to the existence of the newspaper. The reading habit is often considered as going down and many successful newspaper groups have ventured into the more glamorous and trendy 24-hrs TV news area. Many have become papers just carrying advertisements and P3 stories. The Hindu is commendable for its effort of being a trustworthy and “classic yet contemporary” newspaper.

What is news? This basic question has to be answered in the present day. Many media persons think that reporting the events is news. A corrupt politician speaking about the need of good values in society, a elite social worker who cannot come out of her high lifestyle speaking against market economy, a former player who never scored commenting on present players – all make headlines. Today news has been reduced to reporting such irresponsible statements. Sensationalizing is another problem with today’s newspapers. What was once limited to tabloids is now appearing in mainstream papers.

Today newspapers have to don a new role. People will use TV and Radio to “feel” the news and newspapers should analyze the news. The newspaper with an independent viewpoint should be a platform to discuss all issues surrounding the issue. The unbiased, truth-telling, independent and social responsible paper alone can act as fourth pillar in the democratic country like India.

There is demand from long time that there should be a good relation between academia and industry. The academia somehow has distanced from the industry practices and teaches skills which are outdated are also well known. But now, there are some welcome changes. The industry is consulted at various stages by the University while designing curriculum. This makes the students prepare themselves better to face the challenges of the present competitive world. This issue becomes more crucial in IT related courses. The knowledge in this industry turns obsolete at a faster rate and there is a demand always to remain concurrent. So it is important for both academia and industry to have close tie-ups. This is a mutual benefit activity. The academia can attract more students and train them better. The industry also will get up to date students who can be employed to work at more relevant projects. The savings for the industry in terms of training new professionals is tremendous and it makes good business sense to have a close relation with universities.

Traditionally, universities were the breeding grounds for all major thinking. Not only in technology but all major theories in poetry, philosophy, political theories, social thinking, and radical economic theories have emerged from universities. With the growth of industrial economy and subsequent importance given for Engineering education has changed the synergies between academia and industry. Before this, the industry had no major role to play in universities. When there was a manufacturing boom, the industries slowly walked into the campuses. There was a demand to include things which were helpful for them and this was a fair demand. We have to note that it is with the arrival of this economy, there was the concept of preparing students for industry.

Studies of medicine, law and accounting have traditionally focused on the practice oriented education model. But there is a big difference between these and technology studies. The study of medicine and law is a generic study which is not influenced by market players. Compared to this, the study of technology is heavily market oriented. The body of knowledge which can be defined as generic is very less in IT. More over, just knowing these generic things (like data structures, algorithms, network models) are not sufficient for any Engineer. He has to be well versed in the practical tools and applications. The problems arise at this point. Which products should we teach students?

In a competitive market like IT, it is always the market leader or the guy with deep pockets who win. Others get a very raw deal. Imagine a company X going all the way promoting their products. The university will introduce products ONLY from X and the students end up learning only that. This in turn will create a huge resource pool of persons well versed in the products of X, so the industry in turn is forced ONLY on those products. Ultimately, everyone ends up using company X products and their market dominance continues.

A particular company has mastered this art perfectly. Being market leader it is in a position to convince Government and Universities to use their products. The reason they usually give is their popularity. But in turn they use it to achieve customer locking. The students are lured by promotional campaigns and made brand ambassadors of their products. The students in turn create market for them by creating awareness about the product among their friends. This creates a whole generation of students who grow believing that only that product can get them jobs. What students fail to understand is that the company is using them as promotional materials without any cost. It is really unfortunate that the present students do not understand this hidden tactic of this company.

There is no harm in knowing latest products. In fact, this is one thing which all technology students should pursue seriously. But they should know where to stop. Appreciating a particular technology is a personal choice. No one can take that right from anyone. Promoting it is a different issue. The student who does that actually is creating market for that company. If this is done at the cost of other similar technologies available then it is a serious mistake.

In fact this is a very new phenomenon in campus. Usually in campus there were teachers who had their own inclinations like communism or capitalism in political science, existentialism or realism in literature etc. Then the teachers were blamed that they are forcing their interest on students without giving them a choice. But never did we face a situation where a particular product of a company being promoted so heavily on campuses. Notable issue is that before it was preferences of an issue, a thinking which no body owned. Here we are speaking of propriety software products which companies are interested in promoting. The question here is that why students should do that? Why should they surrender their intellectual capabilities popularizing and creating markets?

The concept of awarding a PG degree (M.Tech) for studying a particular product of a company is a serious issue. The product in question nevertheless is a path breaking one. But how far is the decision of awarding a Master’s degree in that product justified? It may be the first time any University is offering a course in this level for any product. There are some basic questions which arise from this development. Who will benefit from this course? What if that product loses market in coming years? In a market where the success and failure of a technology and product is highly deterministic, this step is condemnable.

The universities in US have shared special relationships with the industry. Stanford has incubated start-up’s among which many are successful IT companies today. There are many companies which tie-up with Universities for joint research, design and development of new products. This should be the way how academia and industry should be related. But using campus as a marketing ground does not sound well. The campus should be a place for innovative thinking and not a bazaar for promoting products. The students should be alert and think before getting in touch with companies. They should use their relations with industry to gain new knowledge and not surrender themselves for being used as promotional materials.

Imagine a person being caught in a bus attempting pick-pocket. Is there any chance that he will come alive out of bus? Everyone will be on their toes to beat him. In fact when we come across any situation similar to this our reaction will be same. We will be waiting for others to commit mistakes. Somehow everyone feels a sense of joy in telling others that they are wrong. We like to gossip and talk about their mistakes every time we get an opportunity. We love to pass judgment on people based on this issue and probably stick on it for longer time.

We do this when we meet a person, when we watch a movie or a TV show, see a match; totally every minute we keep an eye on others. It will be better if we do not discuss the issue of criticism in politics. The opposition party seems to think that it is their birth right to oppose all issues. They probably oppose all issues first and then if they have time, begin to think about that. Hardly can you find good criticism in literature. At least in Kannada literature, the critics act like opposition members.

Good criticism is needed for the existence of a healthy society. In fact, the entire democratic structure is based on this principle. Diverse opinions lead to correct conclusions. But we have reduced criticism only to its negative side. Appreciating the good deeds is not considered as part of criticism. In fact, one mistake casts dark shadow on all good deeds done previously. The need for good critics is felt more these days. But unfortunately, there is a dearth of good criticism. The great art of criticism has been reduced to low levels of sledging and name calling.

We face this problem when debate becomes person-centric rather than issue-centric. Good criticism should grow beyond personal preferences and be grounded on sound logical principles. The recent stories like - Shakti Kapoor episode, Narendra Modi’s issue, cry over Dandi march all clearly demonstrates this matter. Whenever there is a controversy we find people on both sides arguing strongly without bothering to look at the real issue. Moreover we pass the judgment even if we are not aware about the issue involved. How many people who criticized US action on Modi’s Visa knew about technicalities involved there? The case is same in our daily life. We seem to be in a hurry to criticize people every time. What makes us do so?

Probably, we criticize people because we gain moral highness by doing so. If A has done wrong and if B notices it, then B feels he is morally higher than A. So he is forced to criticize A. He gets that in the cost of B. Though B does not do anything morally right, he feels that state because he is in the opposite side of A. It is immaterial whether B is a good person or not. Attaining this moral high ground is what everyone dreams for. While you catch a person doing something wrong you attain that easily.

Note that when criticizing others we always take a moral high ground. We try to paint the victim black. But we don’t actually paint him black. We paint ourselves in white. This will make the victim look black. By placing ourselves in moral high we push others low. Now with a newfound status, we try to judge others activity. It invariably looks wrong. When we are in moral high, others automatically appear low. The problem here is we think right and wrong as two states possible in any issue. We have to understand the grey between black and white.