The doubt raised on the accuracy of information in Wikipedia’s content pages (see my previous post) is an interesting case against user-generated content in our freedom-loving and democratic world.
Should anyone and everyone be allowed to generate content on a website which describes itself as an online encyclopedia? I think not. After all, people consult encyclopedias for accuracy of information and balanced (impartial) points of view on specific topics.
For a moment, let us forget about Wikipedia, although its free online content, available in 250 languages, is immensely useful to millions of users across the world. Let us consider the principle on which an encyclopedia is created: the principle of knowledge, and the quality of it.
What if contributors to a printed encyclopedia, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, played mischief with this knowledge, misrepresenting it, adding a bias to suit their needs, or hiding the truth to further their agenda? Where would that leave us?
I agree that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and, by the strength of the system, user/citizen editors would soon catch the misinformation and the misuse and correct them. They would catch the miscreants and sanction them. But, by then, millions of users across the world may already be misled.
On the same principles of democracy and freedom that are hallmarks of user-managed and/or collaborative websites like Wikipedia, shouldn’t we, as users, demand more?
31 March 2007
29 March 2007
Wikipedia's weakness
Every rumour has some truth in it. Which means every rumour also carries an element of doubt. You should not trust everything you hear in a rumour. And so, I must confess that the content of my previous post narrating the genesis of ‘Frankenstein’, the story by Mary Shelley, may not have been entirely factually correct.
You see, in spite of having done my homework on Wikipedia (it’s there in my citation), I may still be wrong. That’s because there’s a rumour going around that Wikipedia itself may be wrong. How so? Well, it seems Wikipedia is entirely manned by volunteers, many of whom may not possess in-depth knowledge on the subject they write about or edit for the benefit of millions of users like me.
In a recent brandchannel.com article analysing Wikipedia’s weakness, brand identity consultant Alycia de Mesa puts it plainly: “What many general users perceive as a fact-based encyclopedic resource for any given topic typed into the search window is actually a series of articles that may or may not be factually accurate and, in some cases, are incomplete or just flat-out wrong.”
In her brandchannel.com article, titled ‘Wikipedia: In brand we trust?’, Ms de Mesa quotes Gene Grabowski, senior vice president of Levick Strategic Communications in Washington, DC saying, “Now we have something as important as an online encyclopedia for tens of millions of people, and anyone can go on and make an edit that might go unchecked for weeks or months or maybe never.”
Or worse, as Ms de Mesa clarifies, “…changes made to articles can be erased within minutes of posting by a volunteer administrator for reasons that may or may not be obvious or even warranted.” Adding later, “Because even the ‘administrators’ designated to oversee certain types of articles are all volunteers and are not necessarily credentialed in any way above and beyond the average user.”
For someone like me, who constantly uses Wikipedia for fact-finding and confirmation of truth in many areas, this is indeed worrisome news.
You see, in spite of having done my homework on Wikipedia (it’s there in my citation), I may still be wrong. That’s because there’s a rumour going around that Wikipedia itself may be wrong. How so? Well, it seems Wikipedia is entirely manned by volunteers, many of whom may not possess in-depth knowledge on the subject they write about or edit for the benefit of millions of users like me.
In a recent brandchannel.com article analysing Wikipedia’s weakness, brand identity consultant Alycia de Mesa puts it plainly: “What many general users perceive as a fact-based encyclopedic resource for any given topic typed into the search window is actually a series of articles that may or may not be factually accurate and, in some cases, are incomplete or just flat-out wrong.”
In her brandchannel.com article, titled ‘Wikipedia: In brand we trust?’, Ms de Mesa quotes Gene Grabowski, senior vice president of Levick Strategic Communications in Washington, DC saying, “Now we have something as important as an online encyclopedia for tens of millions of people, and anyone can go on and make an edit that might go unchecked for weeks or months or maybe never.”
Or worse, as Ms de Mesa clarifies, “…changes made to articles can be erased within minutes of posting by a volunteer administrator for reasons that may or may not be obvious or even warranted.” Adding later, “Because even the ‘administrators’ designated to oversee certain types of articles are all volunteers and are not necessarily credentialed in any way above and beyond the average user.”
For someone like me, who constantly uses Wikipedia for fact-finding and confirmation of truth in many areas, this is indeed worrisome news.
28 March 2007
Gothic tales
Rumour has it that, in 1816, Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, aged 19, along with her soon-to-be husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, had travelled to Switzerland to visit Lord Byron at the Villa Diodati near Lake Geneva.
There, Lord Byron, after having read an anthology of German ghost stories called ‘Fantasmagoriana’, had challenged the Shelleys, as well as his personal physician, John William Polidori, to a contest of writing the scariest tale possible.
Apparently, Percy Bysshe Shelley had conceded defeat right away.
On the other hand, Mary Shelley, after a dream of some sort, had written the story of a Dr Victor Frankenstein who had put together various human body parts and brought to life a monstrous ‘creature’, which had ultimately rebelled against the good doctor and created havoc around the countryside by killing people. This story by Mary Shelley, called ‘Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus’, had been first published in 1818 to become the most famous horror story in the world.
Rumour also has it that, at this meeting, Lord Byron himself had begun writing a story about vampire legends he had heard while travelling to the Balkans. Although he could not complete the story, his physician, John William Polidori, taking off from Lord Byron’s work, had written his own vampire legend, called ‘The Vampyre’, and had it published in 1819.
In so doing, both Mary Shelley and John William Polidori had become two of the early contributors of Gothic fiction.
[Citation: wikipedia]
There, Lord Byron, after having read an anthology of German ghost stories called ‘Fantasmagoriana’, had challenged the Shelleys, as well as his personal physician, John William Polidori, to a contest of writing the scariest tale possible.
Apparently, Percy Bysshe Shelley had conceded defeat right away.
On the other hand, Mary Shelley, after a dream of some sort, had written the story of a Dr Victor Frankenstein who had put together various human body parts and brought to life a monstrous ‘creature’, which had ultimately rebelled against the good doctor and created havoc around the countryside by killing people. This story by Mary Shelley, called ‘Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus’, had been first published in 1818 to become the most famous horror story in the world.
Rumour also has it that, at this meeting, Lord Byron himself had begun writing a story about vampire legends he had heard while travelling to the Balkans. Although he could not complete the story, his physician, John William Polidori, taking off from Lord Byron’s work, had written his own vampire legend, called ‘The Vampyre’, and had it published in 1819.
In so doing, both Mary Shelley and John William Polidori had become two of the early contributors of Gothic fiction.
[Citation: wikipedia]
26 March 2007
Frankenstein
In some of my previous posts, I’ve written about how the amount of technology in our lives is a matter of concern and anxiety. How, from emails to artificial life, technology has encroached upon our lives in an alarming manner. However, I believe, this anxiety is really a Western phenomenon and is yet to trouble us in the East.
Although the second test-tube baby in the world was created by an Indian doctor, Dr Subhash Mukhopadhyay, in Calcutta in 1978, the baby named Durga after a Hindu goddess (she is known as Kanupriya Agarwal), Eastern cultures have more or less remained unperturbed by this technophobia of the West.
Of course, I must confess, the technology behind the test-tube baby is a Western creation; and, while this creation and the technology (IVF) were celebrated around the world at that time, there was a cry of alarm as well. In fact, for his feat, Dr Subhash Mukhopadhyay was ostracised by the Indian as well as the West Bengal government, and later committed suicide in his flat in Calcutta.
The Western world’s fascination with, and alarm about, the creation of life artificially is a historical one. Somehow, there has always been a sense of foreboding attached to this idea. As if the idea automatically comes with a foretelling of doom. The most well-known literary documentation of this type of thinking is represented in Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, written just before World War 2, and George Orwell’s ‘1984’, written just after.
But, to my mind, the classic example of this thinking (and documentation) is represented in Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ – an early 19th-century English tale of horror, and a Western-world allegory of man’s fascination with creating life artificially… and the foreboding which is built-in in this idea.
Frankenstein’s ‘creature’ (I wonder if Steve Grand chose the name of his computer game ‘Creatures’ from this story) is a composite of human body-parts and is animated by electricity. It’s a momentous event when this creation takes place. But, before the ‘creature’ can be educated about the ways of the world, it runs loose and destroys everything and everyone Frankenstein loves.
It’s a story of the creature taking revenge on its creator. There is the usual celebration of man’s ability to create life artificially, followed by the sense of doom that seems to govern this thought from its earliest days.
Perhaps ‘Frankenstein’ is a cautionary tale, warning man against trying to assume God’s role. Or, perhaps ‘Frankenstein’ is trying to tell us is that, along with the ability to create life, the creator (and his technology) has a responsibility to his creation, as well as to those likely to be affected by it.
Whatever be the moral of the story, Dr Subhash Mukhopadhyay certainly paid the price for it.
Although the second test-tube baby in the world was created by an Indian doctor, Dr Subhash Mukhopadhyay, in Calcutta in 1978, the baby named Durga after a Hindu goddess (she is known as Kanupriya Agarwal), Eastern cultures have more or less remained unperturbed by this technophobia of the West.
Of course, I must confess, the technology behind the test-tube baby is a Western creation; and, while this creation and the technology (IVF) were celebrated around the world at that time, there was a cry of alarm as well. In fact, for his feat, Dr Subhash Mukhopadhyay was ostracised by the Indian as well as the West Bengal government, and later committed suicide in his flat in Calcutta.
The Western world’s fascination with, and alarm about, the creation of life artificially is a historical one. Somehow, there has always been a sense of foreboding attached to this idea. As if the idea automatically comes with a foretelling of doom. The most well-known literary documentation of this type of thinking is represented in Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, written just before World War 2, and George Orwell’s ‘1984’, written just after.
But, to my mind, the classic example of this thinking (and documentation) is represented in Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ – an early 19th-century English tale of horror, and a Western-world allegory of man’s fascination with creating life artificially… and the foreboding which is built-in in this idea.
Frankenstein’s ‘creature’ (I wonder if Steve Grand chose the name of his computer game ‘Creatures’ from this story) is a composite of human body-parts and is animated by electricity. It’s a momentous event when this creation takes place. But, before the ‘creature’ can be educated about the ways of the world, it runs loose and destroys everything and everyone Frankenstein loves.
It’s a story of the creature taking revenge on its creator. There is the usual celebration of man’s ability to create life artificially, followed by the sense of doom that seems to govern this thought from its earliest days.
Perhaps ‘Frankenstein’ is a cautionary tale, warning man against trying to assume God’s role. Or, perhaps ‘Frankenstein’ is trying to tell us is that, along with the ability to create life, the creator (and his technology) has a responsibility to his creation, as well as to those likely to be affected by it.
Whatever be the moral of the story, Dr Subhash Mukhopadhyay certainly paid the price for it.
25 March 2007
A-Life
We are fascinated with creation. Not only from the point of view of our origin on this planet or the universe, but also from the process of creating life. The birth of a human child, or any living organism, is simply awe-inspiring. So, it’s no strange wonder that we are also fascinated with the possibility of creating artificial life.
Our efforts in genetic engineering and cloning, although sounding old-fashioned in the context of the cyber world, are still on the fast track. But, so is our effort in creating artificial life of the kind Steve Grand, among others, researches in – and even plays with. (Read my previous post ‘Steve’s grand ambition’.) Steve Grand’s kind of creation is called artificial life, or A-Life.
A-Life deals with creation of new life forms which inhabit synthetic environments in computer programmes. These artificial life forms have their own characteristics, behaviour and intelligence, and they ‘live’ and ‘evolve’ within the synthetic worlds of the computer programmes they inhabit. We can observe and interact with them from our real-life world.
This, of course, is a simplified explanation. The best example of A-Life is Steve Grand’s own computer game ‘Creatures’, which he created somewhere back in the mid-1990s. But, since most of us are unfamiliar with it, perhaps, an easier reference would be the subject of, and the allusion made to, the non-real world in the 1999 film ‘Matrix’ (starring Keanu Reeves) and its sequels.
Similar to the question raised in the film ‘Matrix’, there is a concern – and fear – over the moral and social implications of developing such A-Life technologies. What if these A-Life forms became ‘intelligent’ enough to reproduce themselves and/or take control over the humans who created them? Where would we be then?
Our efforts in genetic engineering and cloning, although sounding old-fashioned in the context of the cyber world, are still on the fast track. But, so is our effort in creating artificial life of the kind Steve Grand, among others, researches in – and even plays with. (Read my previous post ‘Steve’s grand ambition’.) Steve Grand’s kind of creation is called artificial life, or A-Life.
A-Life deals with creation of new life forms which inhabit synthetic environments in computer programmes. These artificial life forms have their own characteristics, behaviour and intelligence, and they ‘live’ and ‘evolve’ within the synthetic worlds of the computer programmes they inhabit. We can observe and interact with them from our real-life world.
This, of course, is a simplified explanation. The best example of A-Life is Steve Grand’s own computer game ‘Creatures’, which he created somewhere back in the mid-1990s. But, since most of us are unfamiliar with it, perhaps, an easier reference would be the subject of, and the allusion made to, the non-real world in the 1999 film ‘Matrix’ (starring Keanu Reeves) and its sequels.
Similar to the question raised in the film ‘Matrix’, there is a concern – and fear – over the moral and social implications of developing such A-Life technologies. What if these A-Life forms became ‘intelligent’ enough to reproduce themselves and/or take control over the humans who created them? Where would we be then?
24 March 2007
The History and Workings of Robotics
“Can a robot be conscious? Can it be not only intelligent, but aware in the way that we are? So far, no artificially intelligent computer has ever shown such signs of life. However, if robots eventually think like us, detect and express emotions, pursue their own interests (whatever those are programmed to be) and even make copies of themselves, it will be increasingly difficult to draw the line between machines and living things.”
This quote is from The Tech Museum of Innovation’s website on Robotics. Specifically speaking, it’s from the ‘living’ page of ‘The History and Workings of Robotics’ chapter. The webpage (from which this quote is chosen) also covers The Turing Test and Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics – must reads for robot or robotics fans.
An online exhibition, ‘The History and Workings of Robotics’ includes sections titled introduction, working, playing, exploring, moving, sensing, thinking and living… all of which make enjoyable reading, even for those who aren’t attracted by technology or robotics all that much.
You can also visit the Robotics homepage on The Tech Museum of Innovation and learn more about the applications of, and apprehensions about, robots and robotics in our lives.
This quote is from The Tech Museum of Innovation’s website on Robotics. Specifically speaking, it’s from the ‘living’ page of ‘The History and Workings of Robotics’ chapter. The webpage (from which this quote is chosen) also covers The Turing Test and Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics – must reads for robot or robotics fans.
An online exhibition, ‘The History and Workings of Robotics’ includes sections titled introduction, working, playing, exploring, moving, sensing, thinking and living… all of which make enjoyable reading, even for those who aren’t attracted by technology or robotics all that much.
You can also visit the Robotics homepage on The Tech Museum of Innovation and learn more about the applications of, and apprehensions about, robots and robotics in our lives.
21 March 2007
Steve's grand ambition
If machines are able to reason and experience emotions like humans, what would be the difference between the two?
Steve Grand, CEO of Cyberlife Research, which is trying to create forms of synthetic life, says, “People are sometimes fearful that artificial life research will reduce us all to machines and explain away our souls... On the contrary, I believe it will give us a new understanding and a new respect for ourselves, as the most sublime machines in the known universe.” [1]
Come on! Humans as the most sublime machines in the known universe?!! What does this mean? That humans are the ultimate machines? That, out of a desire for a perfect understanding of himself, man is intent on artificially creating the perfect replica of himself in the form of a cyborg or a synthetic man? Is this sheer narcissistic pleasure, or what?
Maybe that explains Western civilisation’s fascination with science fiction over the last 60 years or so (the East is conspicuously blank in this territory). What’s more, some of this thinking may already have fructified into synthetic life forms. For, artificial life (or A-Life) research has a grand ambition. This is what Steve Grand has to say when he is asked about his life ambition (in an interview with www.homecreatures.com):
“To be the first person to create an artificial conscious being and be insulted by it. I’m supposed to say that I want to do this in order to create new kinds of technology that help people. When I’m in business meetings I’m supposed to say that I want to make lots of money for our shareholders and make myself rich. The honest truth, though, is that I want to understand what makes life tick. Life is such an odd concept, and minds are such strange things – I’ve got one of each, and I don’t understand them at all! What more can any of us want than to understand ourselves and each other? My feeling is that the best way to understand life is to create it. Building things is a great way to ensure that you’ve got your ideas straight. Fancy words can hide sloppy reasoning, but a computer will never let you get away with anything.”
To me, the thought ‘should technology be available, machines would become human’ is as fascinating as it is scary. Would these new machines be self-aware like human beings? Would they have morals? Would they be a threat to human life? Would the world be a better place to live in if humans and machines were equal? Would there be any difference between the two when we are all one?
[1 Citation: Steve Grand quote from ‘The Anxiety of Obsolescence, Chapter 2: Machine', by Kathleen Fitzpatrick]
Steve Grand, CEO of Cyberlife Research, which is trying to create forms of synthetic life, says, “People are sometimes fearful that artificial life research will reduce us all to machines and explain away our souls... On the contrary, I believe it will give us a new understanding and a new respect for ourselves, as the most sublime machines in the known universe.” [1]
Come on! Humans as the most sublime machines in the known universe?!! What does this mean? That humans are the ultimate machines? That, out of a desire for a perfect understanding of himself, man is intent on artificially creating the perfect replica of himself in the form of a cyborg or a synthetic man? Is this sheer narcissistic pleasure, or what?
Maybe that explains Western civilisation’s fascination with science fiction over the last 60 years or so (the East is conspicuously blank in this territory). What’s more, some of this thinking may already have fructified into synthetic life forms. For, artificial life (or A-Life) research has a grand ambition. This is what Steve Grand has to say when he is asked about his life ambition (in an interview with www.homecreatures.com):
“To be the first person to create an artificial conscious being and be insulted by it. I’m supposed to say that I want to do this in order to create new kinds of technology that help people. When I’m in business meetings I’m supposed to say that I want to make lots of money for our shareholders and make myself rich. The honest truth, though, is that I want to understand what makes life tick. Life is such an odd concept, and minds are such strange things – I’ve got one of each, and I don’t understand them at all! What more can any of us want than to understand ourselves and each other? My feeling is that the best way to understand life is to create it. Building things is a great way to ensure that you’ve got your ideas straight. Fancy words can hide sloppy reasoning, but a computer will never let you get away with anything.”
To me, the thought ‘should technology be available, machines would become human’ is as fascinating as it is scary. Would these new machines be self-aware like human beings? Would they have morals? Would they be a threat to human life? Would the world be a better place to live in if humans and machines were equal? Would there be any difference between the two when we are all one?
[1 Citation: Steve Grand quote from ‘The Anxiety of Obsolescence, Chapter 2: Machine', by Kathleen Fitzpatrick]
20 March 2007
Machines can't think like humans
No matter how much you rave on about technology, machines still can’t think like human beings.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I love machines and technology too. From their ability to book flight tickets in an instant to saving friends and family from possible heart attacks to developing safer cars to travel in to providing better news and entertainment… it’s impossible to ignore the benefits of machines and technology in our lives. Some say, machines can be programmed to solve just about anything we have difficulty with.
Well, not yet. When it comes to tasks which come naturally to human beings, like making beds or telling bedtime stories to put children to sleep, machines fall regrettably short. One of the reasons for this may be because machines are not quite sure of themselves when they encounter something unexpected. If the solution is not found within the system – i.e. it is not programmed into it – machines can get stuck (stop functioning or go into a loop) or behave erratically.
In contrast, when humans get stuck with problems, they seek out and find possible alternative approaches, methods and solutions… some of which may involve using another machine or technology or tactic. This versatility, or resourcefulness, of human beings is something machines have not been able to copy. At least, not yet. This is because the resourcefulness of the human mind is not entirely a matter of reason, but a combination of reason and emotion.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I love machines and technology too. From their ability to book flight tickets in an instant to saving friends and family from possible heart attacks to developing safer cars to travel in to providing better news and entertainment… it’s impossible to ignore the benefits of machines and technology in our lives. Some say, machines can be programmed to solve just about anything we have difficulty with.
Well, not yet. When it comes to tasks which come naturally to human beings, like making beds or telling bedtime stories to put children to sleep, machines fall regrettably short. One of the reasons for this may be because machines are not quite sure of themselves when they encounter something unexpected. If the solution is not found within the system – i.e. it is not programmed into it – machines can get stuck (stop functioning or go into a loop) or behave erratically.
In contrast, when humans get stuck with problems, they seek out and find possible alternative approaches, methods and solutions… some of which may involve using another machine or technology or tactic. This versatility, or resourcefulness, of human beings is something machines have not been able to copy. At least, not yet. This is because the resourcefulness of the human mind is not entirely a matter of reason, but a combination of reason and emotion.
16 March 2007
Technology is sexy
Do we have an obsession with technology?
From faster cars and computers to mobilephones with more features to Internet connectivity at lightning speeds to washing machines with fuzzy logic to HDTV, space exploration, nuclear weapons, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence… man’s endeavour to create a technologically-superior life is an endless enterprise.
What for? Why do we engineer fancier and faster machines? What motivates us to design a life of speed? Why has technology become an all-powerful culture in our lives?
While reviewing Hans van de Braak’s seminal work, ‘The Prometheus Complex: Man’s Obsession with Superior Technology’, in a 1997 issue of Technology and Culture journal, David Rothenberg offers a point of view: “We don’t just do it to get ahead in the material world, we are obsessed, we are seduced, and we use technology to impress and seduce ourselves. Technology is sexy. We always want more.”
Well, what do you think?
From faster cars and computers to mobilephones with more features to Internet connectivity at lightning speeds to washing machines with fuzzy logic to HDTV, space exploration, nuclear weapons, genetic engineering and artificial intelligence… man’s endeavour to create a technologically-superior life is an endless enterprise.
What for? Why do we engineer fancier and faster machines? What motivates us to design a life of speed? Why has technology become an all-powerful culture in our lives?
While reviewing Hans van de Braak’s seminal work, ‘The Prometheus Complex: Man’s Obsession with Superior Technology’, in a 1997 issue of Technology and Culture journal, David Rothenberg offers a point of view: “We don’t just do it to get ahead in the material world, we are obsessed, we are seduced, and we use technology to impress and seduce ourselves. Technology is sexy. We always want more.”
Well, what do you think?
13 March 2007
A new love affair
For most of us, the relationship between man and machine is not yet a direct wiring in syndrome. Although some of us go to sleep with our mobilephones and our iPods next to our pillows, we do keep a distance from most other electronic devices such as TV sets, computers and microwave ovens. But, you can’t deny the fact that slowly we are becoming willing functionaries of these machines (if they may be called by that old-fashioned term). In fact, for some of us, it’s a new love affair.
I’m not sure if we can describe the man-machine relationship as a ‘physical’ one, but there is a relationship which tends to draw in the man to the machine. When I observe the excitement – and glee – with which I use my computer to do my work, check my emails, surf the Internet, blog, network on orkut, etc., or use my mobilephone to remain connected locally, even internationally, I’m amazed at the dependence my life has on these machines. I confess, the time I spend with these machines is substantial.
It’s true I have no literal interface (i.e. physical wiring in) with these machines, but the dependence – both functional (work-related) and emotional – is tremendous. When these systems are ‘down’, I go crazy, fretting and fuming and cursing everyone likely to be responsible for the downtime. If the downtime persists, or as it is in love, if the machines fail to stick to their commitments, I go through phases of anger and anxiety and depression. How can my life go on without these machines!
Of course, life does go on… with or without machines. When I come to my senses, I chuckle over my anger and anxiety and depression. Surely, machines cannot rule my life. Losing touch with machines cannot be the end of my world.
[Just in case, I better upload this post on my blog before the broadband connection breaks down.]
I’m not sure if we can describe the man-machine relationship as a ‘physical’ one, but there is a relationship which tends to draw in the man to the machine. When I observe the excitement – and glee – with which I use my computer to do my work, check my emails, surf the Internet, blog, network on orkut, etc., or use my mobilephone to remain connected locally, even internationally, I’m amazed at the dependence my life has on these machines. I confess, the time I spend with these machines is substantial.
It’s true I have no literal interface (i.e. physical wiring in) with these machines, but the dependence – both functional (work-related) and emotional – is tremendous. When these systems are ‘down’, I go crazy, fretting and fuming and cursing everyone likely to be responsible for the downtime. If the downtime persists, or as it is in love, if the machines fail to stick to their commitments, I go through phases of anger and anxiety and depression. How can my life go on without these machines!
Of course, life does go on… with or without machines. When I come to my senses, I chuckle over my anger and anxiety and depression. Surely, machines cannot rule my life. Losing touch with machines cannot be the end of my world.
[Just in case, I better upload this post on my blog before the broadband connection breaks down.]
10 March 2007
My connected life
While travelling on work, I need to stay connected with my clients, my business associates and my friends. That’s where technology comes in. My laptop and my mobilephone become essential appendages to my body. Not only do I use these technological devices for their respective tasks, but, when I need to send or receive emails, or surf the Internet, I connect them through a wired interface and simply (to use an old-fashioned term) dial up to the world.
Mind you, at home, I’m no different. While watching TV or listening to music, I’m rather free and submissive with the remote control. Still, I’m a bit of an old fogie. So far, I’ve stayed away from iPods and hands-free attachments to my mobilephone or my music system. That’s because I’m against anything that requires me to plug in wires and things into my body. They make me uncomfortable. God help me if I ever need a pacemaker.
When I think about the omnipresence of technological devices in my life and how some of them have become almost-natural appendages to my body, I find the phenomenon quite incredible. These devices of technology have virtually become extensions of myself. I can’t live without them. This makes me wonder: If these devices of technology have become extensions of myself, have I become more of a machine and alienated myself from my inner being?
Wonder what the Romantics would have said about my connected life.
Mind you, at home, I’m no different. While watching TV or listening to music, I’m rather free and submissive with the remote control. Still, I’m a bit of an old fogie. So far, I’ve stayed away from iPods and hands-free attachments to my mobilephone or my music system. That’s because I’m against anything that requires me to plug in wires and things into my body. They make me uncomfortable. God help me if I ever need a pacemaker.
When I think about the omnipresence of technological devices in my life and how some of them have become almost-natural appendages to my body, I find the phenomenon quite incredible. These devices of technology have virtually become extensions of myself. I can’t live without them. This makes me wonder: If these devices of technology have become extensions of myself, have I become more of a machine and alienated myself from my inner being?
Wonder what the Romantics would have said about my connected life.
06 March 2007
The Romantic Movement
The Romantic Movement has been described as an artistic and intellectual response to the strict discipline and philosophy of the Enlightenment period. Its character, typically, has been expressed in feelings, sentimentality and unrequited love; not reason, technology, fashion or architecture.
This made me wonder if there would ever have been a Romantic Movement without the Industrial Revolution and all the evils that came with it. I use the word evil not with a satanic connotation, but more loosely to indicate the negative side-effects of progress and prosperity, much of which we are enjoying today.
The Industrial Revolution stood for inventions, technology, industry-building, trade, travel and the growth of cities. It brought to us goods – and even services, like banking – which made life better for us, easier for us, safer for us. Life advanced; a new civilisation was built. Yet, this advance isolated us from nature and the natural world. It took us away from the purity and simplicity of a good and happy life.
Perhaps we, or some of us, felt threatened by this change in our lives – threatened by this loss of connection or attachment with nature. And, perhaps, this loss was grief enough for us to turn to nature and its expression in poetry, literature, music and art. Perhaps, it was this collective grief which really created the Romantic Movement – and not mere feelings, sentimentality and unrequited love which is what is typically attributed to it.
Perhaps, the Romantic Movement was just a response to those values which were lacking in our lives – and in our society – at that period of time. And, perhaps, it was the Romantic Movement which made life more enduring for us.
This made me wonder if there would ever have been a Romantic Movement without the Industrial Revolution and all the evils that came with it. I use the word evil not with a satanic connotation, but more loosely to indicate the negative side-effects of progress and prosperity, much of which we are enjoying today.
The Industrial Revolution stood for inventions, technology, industry-building, trade, travel and the growth of cities. It brought to us goods – and even services, like banking – which made life better for us, easier for us, safer for us. Life advanced; a new civilisation was built. Yet, this advance isolated us from nature and the natural world. It took us away from the purity and simplicity of a good and happy life.
Perhaps we, or some of us, felt threatened by this change in our lives – threatened by this loss of connection or attachment with nature. And, perhaps, this loss was grief enough for us to turn to nature and its expression in poetry, literature, music and art. Perhaps, it was this collective grief which really created the Romantic Movement – and not mere feelings, sentimentality and unrequited love which is what is typically attributed to it.
Perhaps, the Romantic Movement was just a response to those values which were lacking in our lives – and in our society – at that period of time. And, perhaps, it was the Romantic Movement which made life more enduring for us.
04 March 2007
Falling in love, Minsky-style
“We are equally apt to deceive ourselves, not only in our personal lives but also when dealing with abstract ideas. There, too, we often close our eyes to conflicts and clashes between our beliefs.”
[Marvin Minsky, mathematician and computer scientist, from Chapter 1: ‘Falling in Love’ in his book, ‘The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind’ as quoted on Edge 203.]
We’ve all gone through it, for better or worse, and we all want to know about it. But seldom do we have the time to research or write a treatise on love – or, more accurately, on falling in love – like Marvin Minsky does.
In ‘Falling In Love’, Marvin Minsky very simply asks, what is love, and how does it work? However, in supplying the answer(s), he takes us through a long journey that covers discussions on Infatuation, The Sea of Mental Mysteries, Moods and Emotions, Infant Emotions, Seeing a Mind as a Cloud of Resources, Adult Emotions, Emotion Cascades, and Theories of Feelings, Meanings and Machines… with quotes and diagrams to boot.
Not quite what Shakespeare wrote about, right? But surely, you didn’t expect any explanation on love to be easy? At least, not from someone like Marvin Minsky who compares man to machines as easily as we compare apples and oranges over the breakfast table.
You’d probably like to know what ‘Falling In Love’ is all about yourself. So, without much ado, here’s the Edge 203 link.
[You’ll need to scroll halfway down the page for the article.]
[Marvin Minsky, mathematician and computer scientist, from Chapter 1: ‘Falling in Love’ in his book, ‘The Emotion Machine: Commonsense Thinking, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of the Human Mind’ as quoted on Edge 203.]
We’ve all gone through it, for better or worse, and we all want to know about it. But seldom do we have the time to research or write a treatise on love – or, more accurately, on falling in love – like Marvin Minsky does.
In ‘Falling In Love’, Marvin Minsky very simply asks, what is love, and how does it work? However, in supplying the answer(s), he takes us through a long journey that covers discussions on Infatuation, The Sea of Mental Mysteries, Moods and Emotions, Infant Emotions, Seeing a Mind as a Cloud of Resources, Adult Emotions, Emotion Cascades, and Theories of Feelings, Meanings and Machines… with quotes and diagrams to boot.
Not quite what Shakespeare wrote about, right? But surely, you didn’t expect any explanation on love to be easy? At least, not from someone like Marvin Minsky who compares man to machines as easily as we compare apples and oranges over the breakfast table.
You’d probably like to know what ‘Falling In Love’ is all about yourself. So, without much ado, here’s the Edge 203 link.
[You’ll need to scroll halfway down the page for the article.]
07 February 2007
Violence as a commodity
Violence is a deeply-rooted problem in our society. We need solutions to address this problem and, if not wipe it out altogether (which is a noble thought, indeed), at least, mitigate it… so as to protect our loved ones from harm. In the process, if we are able to engender peace and harmony for the community at large, so much the better.
To this effect, I've always believed that films, as a medium, can be used effectively to communicate messages of peace and harmony as they have fantastic powers of influence over us. Yet, when I recall the films I've seen in my life, I'm amazed to count the number of films which contain violence, sometimes as their central idea, providing thrills and entertainment to millions of people around the world. Sadly, I've enjoyed watching many such films… and have accepted violence as a commodity in a package not much different from comedy or romance.
My defence, like everyone else's, of course, is that films provide harmless entertainment. How much damage can films cause in our lives! There's no real proof that violence in films leads to violence in society! After all, it's a few hours of fun and entertainment in the form of a visual narrative, with actors playing the parts. It's a make-believe world. No-one in his or her right mind would take films so seriously.
Then I wondered if I would take the learning and the messages from films like 'Gandhi' or 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' seriously. I wondered if I would consider these films as few hours of entertainment and forget them, if not immediately, then soon after having watched them. It occurred to me then that these films have already had a far-reaching effect in my life… just as they have had, or would have, meanings for millions of people across the world.
In a September 2001 article in The Christian Science Monitor titled, 'Do violent films shape or reflect?' (based on which I've written this post), film critic David Sterritt compared two Hollywood films which I, too, had seen around the same time: 'Three Kings' and 'Rules of Engagement'. On reading this article and recalling the two films, I realised how important it is to separate films with positive messages from the ones carrying messages which are detrimental to our social, cultural and spiritual well-being.
For instance, 'Three Kings' (starring George Clooney, Mark Walberg and Ice Cube) is the story of a trio of cynical American soldiers in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War (the 1991 US-Iraq war). It's an anti-war film that deals with various issues of war, greed, corruption, hypocrisy, governmental power play, the use of media for propaganda, among many others. The film opens up our minds to the evils of war… even when it's over.
'Rules of Engagement' (starring Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L Jackson) is a tale of an American army officer charged with the wrongful deaths of Yemeni protestors at a rally while saving the US Ambassador in Yemen. The film portrays Arabs as villains - evil terrorists carrying deadly weapons under their robes, intent on killing White Americans as capitalists. Now, if this wasn't a biased representation of Arabs, bordering on racism, then I don't know what the film was about?
What was worse, 'Rules of Engagement' promoted anti-Arab feelings amongst Americans and others around the non-Arab world! Instead of resolving US-Arab conflicts, and promoting peace and harmony, 'Rules of Engagement' was actually escalating it.
I realised that films like 'Gandhi', 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' and 'Three Kings' were great because they discussed and presented complicated issues such as war, violence and racism in an even manner… not only to give us perspectives to these issues, but also to imbibe in us a sense of morality. And, in turn, give us the courage to face and challenge such issues whenever we encountered them in our lives.
I realised that these films were not just a few hours of entertainment, but, actually, potent carriers of social, cultural and political messages designed by thoughtful filmmakers. They did not package violence as a commodity for box-office profits, nor to satisfy the need for thrill within us. They reached out to us and touched our sensibilities.
[Citation: 26 September 2001 article 'Do violent films shape or reflect?' by David Sterritt in The Christian Science Monitor.]
To this effect, I've always believed that films, as a medium, can be used effectively to communicate messages of peace and harmony as they have fantastic powers of influence over us. Yet, when I recall the films I've seen in my life, I'm amazed to count the number of films which contain violence, sometimes as their central idea, providing thrills and entertainment to millions of people around the world. Sadly, I've enjoyed watching many such films… and have accepted violence as a commodity in a package not much different from comedy or romance.
My defence, like everyone else's, of course, is that films provide harmless entertainment. How much damage can films cause in our lives! There's no real proof that violence in films leads to violence in society! After all, it's a few hours of fun and entertainment in the form of a visual narrative, with actors playing the parts. It's a make-believe world. No-one in his or her right mind would take films so seriously.
Then I wondered if I would take the learning and the messages from films like 'Gandhi' or 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' seriously. I wondered if I would consider these films as few hours of entertainment and forget them, if not immediately, then soon after having watched them. It occurred to me then that these films have already had a far-reaching effect in my life… just as they have had, or would have, meanings for millions of people across the world.
In a September 2001 article in The Christian Science Monitor titled, 'Do violent films shape or reflect?' (based on which I've written this post), film critic David Sterritt compared two Hollywood films which I, too, had seen around the same time: 'Three Kings' and 'Rules of Engagement'. On reading this article and recalling the two films, I realised how important it is to separate films with positive messages from the ones carrying messages which are detrimental to our social, cultural and spiritual well-being.
For instance, 'Three Kings' (starring George Clooney, Mark Walberg and Ice Cube) is the story of a trio of cynical American soldiers in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War (the 1991 US-Iraq war). It's an anti-war film that deals with various issues of war, greed, corruption, hypocrisy, governmental power play, the use of media for propaganda, among many others. The film opens up our minds to the evils of war… even when it's over.
'Rules of Engagement' (starring Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L Jackson) is a tale of an American army officer charged with the wrongful deaths of Yemeni protestors at a rally while saving the US Ambassador in Yemen. The film portrays Arabs as villains - evil terrorists carrying deadly weapons under their robes, intent on killing White Americans as capitalists. Now, if this wasn't a biased representation of Arabs, bordering on racism, then I don't know what the film was about?
What was worse, 'Rules of Engagement' promoted anti-Arab feelings amongst Americans and others around the non-Arab world! Instead of resolving US-Arab conflicts, and promoting peace and harmony, 'Rules of Engagement' was actually escalating it.
I realised that films like 'Gandhi', 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' and 'Three Kings' were great because they discussed and presented complicated issues such as war, violence and racism in an even manner… not only to give us perspectives to these issues, but also to imbibe in us a sense of morality. And, in turn, give us the courage to face and challenge such issues whenever we encountered them in our lives.
I realised that these films were not just a few hours of entertainment, but, actually, potent carriers of social, cultural and political messages designed by thoughtful filmmakers. They did not package violence as a commodity for box-office profits, nor to satisfy the need for thrill within us. They reached out to us and touched our sensibilities.
[Citation: 26 September 2001 article 'Do violent films shape or reflect?' by David Sterritt in The Christian Science Monitor.]
05 February 2007
Drawing entertainment value from violence
Films like 'Gandhi' or 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' may propagate virtues of nonviolence and racial tolerance, but I wonder if they make up the right diet for the daily film-going audience across the world. For, it seems to me that, the daily film-going audience is more interested in a diet of action, adventure and thrills… with generous doses of murder and mayhem added for effect. Perhaps, murder and mayhem is really the main course!
Given a choice between 'Gandhi' and 'Kill Bill Vol.1', I'm sure film-viewers would lap up the blood and guts offered by 'Kill Bill' rather than spend two hours trying to understand the historical realism of 'Gandhi'. Or, in a choice between 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' and 'Saving Private Ryan', the war-tale 'Saving Private Ryan' would win over all the court-room battles of 'To Kill A Mocking Bird'. You may not believe me, but the box-office figures are on my side
It's no guesswork, nor impulse, that pushes big film industries like Hollywood or Bollywood to produce films which contain violence. Violence is what the film-viewing audience desires and craves for. Tales of revenge, hatred, war and fear are the most popular themes in films. The more disturbing the violence, the more sensational the film and its reviews… helping to draw in larger and larger audiences.
Films depicting violence are a popular form of entertainment in our culture. And, why not! If films are to portray life, they have every right to portray the uglier side of life, not just the wishy-washy romance which all TV soaps offer. After all, violence is as much a part of our cultural identity as romance is. And, big film industries are quick to draw entertainment value from it.
Given a choice between 'Gandhi' and 'Kill Bill Vol.1', I'm sure film-viewers would lap up the blood and guts offered by 'Kill Bill' rather than spend two hours trying to understand the historical realism of 'Gandhi'. Or, in a choice between 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' and 'Saving Private Ryan', the war-tale 'Saving Private Ryan' would win over all the court-room battles of 'To Kill A Mocking Bird'. You may not believe me, but the box-office figures are on my side
It's no guesswork, nor impulse, that pushes big film industries like Hollywood or Bollywood to produce films which contain violence. Violence is what the film-viewing audience desires and craves for. Tales of revenge, hatred, war and fear are the most popular themes in films. The more disturbing the violence, the more sensational the film and its reviews… helping to draw in larger and larger audiences.
Films depicting violence are a popular form of entertainment in our culture. And, why not! If films are to portray life, they have every right to portray the uglier side of life, not just the wishy-washy romance which all TV soaps offer. After all, violence is as much a part of our cultural identity as romance is. And, big film industries are quick to draw entertainment value from it.
02 February 2007
Creating violence
Why do filmmakers show violence in their films? Is it to create shock for shock’s sake? Or, is it to communicate an important message that violence should be stopped? Or, is it for some other reason altogether? Whatever be the reason, violence in films does get film-viewers to sit up and watch. The greater the shock on screen, the greater the audience impact.
However, that’s not where violence starts, or is created. When there’s a car crash or someone is beaten up by a mob or someone accidentally slips and falls right before our eyes, we stop and look. We hardly ever go to help. But we stop and stare – or perk up to a murder story in the local newspaper or on TV – as long as our interest lasts.
Why do we do this? Well, it seems it’s in human nature to stare at – or listen to – another’s misfortune. It gives us some sort of pleasure. The more gruesome the incident or tale, the greater our interest. A friend of mine had once voiced this aspect of human nature succinctly. According to him, as human beings, we are hardwired to enjoying a tragedy.
Some filmmakers thrive on this human affinity to violence – to watching terrible things happen to our fellow human beings. Murder, rape, serial killings, accidents, bomb blasts, war… you name it, we are drawn to violence as naturally as moths are drawn to fire. With one difference, perhaps: we know when to turn back.
When it comes to violence, our response is not only a physical one, but a mental one as well. That’s where filmmakers stand at an advantage over real-life tragedies. Filmmakers can use script, acting, lights, sounds, music, special colours, graphics and special effects, camera and editing techniques, etc. to heighten the experience of violence.
Thereby, creating their own form of violence in order to win over audiences like us. And, in the process, garner some fame for themselves. But then, where would they be without us?
However, that’s not where violence starts, or is created. When there’s a car crash or someone is beaten up by a mob or someone accidentally slips and falls right before our eyes, we stop and look. We hardly ever go to help. But we stop and stare – or perk up to a murder story in the local newspaper or on TV – as long as our interest lasts.
Why do we do this? Well, it seems it’s in human nature to stare at – or listen to – another’s misfortune. It gives us some sort of pleasure. The more gruesome the incident or tale, the greater our interest. A friend of mine had once voiced this aspect of human nature succinctly. According to him, as human beings, we are hardwired to enjoying a tragedy.
Some filmmakers thrive on this human affinity to violence – to watching terrible things happen to our fellow human beings. Murder, rape, serial killings, accidents, bomb blasts, war… you name it, we are drawn to violence as naturally as moths are drawn to fire. With one difference, perhaps: we know when to turn back.
When it comes to violence, our response is not only a physical one, but a mental one as well. That’s where filmmakers stand at an advantage over real-life tragedies. Filmmakers can use script, acting, lights, sounds, music, special colours, graphics and special effects, camera and editing techniques, etc. to heighten the experience of violence.
Thereby, creating their own form of violence in order to win over audiences like us. And, in the process, garner some fame for themselves. But then, where would they be without us?
31 January 2007
Can films influence our lives?
The recent film ‘Blood Diamond’ attempts to influence our ethics, our sense of morality, as consumers while selecting a diamond for purchase (see my previous post). Does it stop us from buying diamonds? Certainly not. It only persuades us to choose a legitimate diamond over one that emerges from a conflict zone, such as those from the mines of Sierra Leone where thousands of the poor shed their blood, sweat and tears to search for diamonds which hope to transform their lives.
‘Blood Diamond’ is an example of a new breed of films, like ‘Syriana’ (from Hollywood) and ‘Rang De Basanti’ (from India), which are likely to influence our lives. Going back 25 years, a film like ‘Gandhi’ had done something similar. It not only presented a point of view of one man’s struggle for his country’s independence from British Rule, but also reflected the sentiments of an entire nation against colonialism. Its message of nonviolence has been universal.
Or, going back another 20 years before that, to a film like ‘To Kill A Mocking Bird’ which brought to surface the deep-rooted racism and injustice that prevailed in a small town, and in the hearts and minds of the White people, in the United States in the 1930s, and helped usher in a sense of equality for all citizens in that country.
Films like these and many others, and the books and stories that these films mostly originate from, help us understand events, emotions and human predicaments through the ages in various parts of the world, which we have no knowledge of or may never encounter in our lives.
Sometimes films, like fiction, have greater powers of persuasion than actual social or political debates, or protest marches, or strikes, or violent uprisings. After all, they shed no blood. Yet, they use the mechanisms of speech and drama to communicate their messages, to empathise with the experiences of those who lived and/or suffered – whether the films depict real-life people or fictional ones – to influence our minds and bring in changes in our attitudes, emotions and in our lives.
In short, to help us believe that, if we try, we can find solutions to global problems… even to those in our localities and in our families. Yes, I do believe films can influence our lives.
‘Blood Diamond’ is an example of a new breed of films, like ‘Syriana’ (from Hollywood) and ‘Rang De Basanti’ (from India), which are likely to influence our lives. Going back 25 years, a film like ‘Gandhi’ had done something similar. It not only presented a point of view of one man’s struggle for his country’s independence from British Rule, but also reflected the sentiments of an entire nation against colonialism. Its message of nonviolence has been universal.
Or, going back another 20 years before that, to a film like ‘To Kill A Mocking Bird’ which brought to surface the deep-rooted racism and injustice that prevailed in a small town, and in the hearts and minds of the White people, in the United States in the 1930s, and helped usher in a sense of equality for all citizens in that country.
Films like these and many others, and the books and stories that these films mostly originate from, help us understand events, emotions and human predicaments through the ages in various parts of the world, which we have no knowledge of or may never encounter in our lives.
Sometimes films, like fiction, have greater powers of persuasion than actual social or political debates, or protest marches, or strikes, or violent uprisings. After all, they shed no blood. Yet, they use the mechanisms of speech and drama to communicate their messages, to empathise with the experiences of those who lived and/or suffered – whether the films depict real-life people or fictional ones – to influence our minds and bring in changes in our attitudes, emotions and in our lives.
In short, to help us believe that, if we try, we can find solutions to global problems… even to those in our localities and in our families. Yes, I do believe films can influence our lives.
30 January 2007
Blood Diamond explains why This Is Africa (TIA)
It’s not everyday that you find a Hollywood film influencing social change. But, with ‘Blood Diamond’, director Edward Zwick may make a difference so global that his film may actually initiate political and economic change across the world. In fact, from the message at the end of the film and from reports in the media, I hear that, although the concept of a ‘blood diamond’ has already tainted the international diamond trade, Zwick’s Hollywood film is likely to carry this disgrace further.
The disgrace is the origin, or source, of blood diamonds: how thousands of the poor in Sierra Leone are forced to mine for diamonds in muddy pits, in the heat and the rain, for less than Rs.4 per day. Many of these diggers (as they are called) succumb to an early death or, as in the 1990s, either killed or get their hands chopped off by the rebels (the Revolutionary United Front – RUF). These poor live on the hope that if they find a diamond, and can take it out of the pits to the nearest buyer (the first point of purchase in a long trade channel), it could transform their lives forever.
At the end of that trade channel is the consumer, the woman, in the upper echelons of society, to whom a diamond is the epitome of love and beauty and glamour… forever. Little does she know that that sparkling little diamond on her ring is the product of blood shed by one, or many more, of the poorest of poor struggling to survive in a small country in Africa. To be fair to her, it’s difficult to know. It’s difficult to separate the blood diamonds (i.e. conflict diamonds) from the diamonds legally mined and traded in the world diamond market. After all, millions of diamonds are traded each year. The diamond industry is a US$60 billion a year business.
What makes the film ‘Blood Diamond’ extraordinary is that it aims to create an awareness of blood diamonds internationally, with the hope of influencing end-consumers into checking the source of the diamonds they purchase, and rejecting a blood diamond in favour of a legal one. This is, indeed, a mighty task since there are millions of diamond consumers across the world, and the World Diamond Council is not going to take all this negative publicity lying down. There is, of course, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (established in 2003) to monitor any abuses that may take place.
However, our film’s story relates to an incident in 1999 (much before the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme came into being), when a Sierra Leonean fisherman, who is forced to become a digger, discovers a large pink diamond in the Kono mines. Perhaps not the incident, but the history certainly checks out… adding authenticity to the film. That, in the 1990s, rebels in Sierra Leone (the RUF), with help from Liberia, financed the blood diamond trade, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, maiming just as many, and creating brigades of child soldiers who were brainwashed into committing atrocities, the seriousness of which they were too innocent to realise.
‘Blood Diamond’, the film, which stars Leonardo DiCaprio (as a White Rhodesian mercenary diamond smuggler), Djimon Hounsou (as the Sierra Leonean fisherman-digger who finds the large pink diamond and hides it), and Jennifer Connelly (as a journalist pursuing the blood diamond story), brings all of this to the surface in proper Hollywood style, with ample doses of heroism and thrill thrown in… along with love, introspection and some spiritual philosophy… amidst the brutality and the killings. It’s a grand film, over two hours long, highlighting the context of blood diamonds rather smartly. What I found missing in the film – as it was definitely downplayed – was the role of the conniving diamond industry executives who had allowed (and still allows) this to happen.
Perhaps there’s a reason for this. According to a recent Fortune magazine (cover story) on blood diamonds, titled ‘Diamonds Aren’t Forever’, Vivienne Walt in writes, “Diamond producers and dealers did not need Hollywood to reach that conclusion. As war raged in the past decade, they realized that so-called blood diamonds carried a risk to their business that was far out of proportion to the tiny number of stones. Even during the bloodiest years no more than 15 percent of the world’s diamonds were controlled by rebels in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
15 percent still amounts to a large sum in the US$60 billion a year business. So, how effective will ‘Blood Diamond’ be in stirring up a global controversy, persuading consumers to morally evaluate their diamond purchases, bringing about social change, and offering hope to those millions of the poor in Africa who are suffering because of this bloody trade? No-one knows. The real question is, does anyone care? After all, This Is Africa (TIA)… and God left this continent long ago.
The disgrace is the origin, or source, of blood diamonds: how thousands of the poor in Sierra Leone are forced to mine for diamonds in muddy pits, in the heat and the rain, for less than Rs.4 per day. Many of these diggers (as they are called) succumb to an early death or, as in the 1990s, either killed or get their hands chopped off by the rebels (the Revolutionary United Front – RUF). These poor live on the hope that if they find a diamond, and can take it out of the pits to the nearest buyer (the first point of purchase in a long trade channel), it could transform their lives forever.
At the end of that trade channel is the consumer, the woman, in the upper echelons of society, to whom a diamond is the epitome of love and beauty and glamour… forever. Little does she know that that sparkling little diamond on her ring is the product of blood shed by one, or many more, of the poorest of poor struggling to survive in a small country in Africa. To be fair to her, it’s difficult to know. It’s difficult to separate the blood diamonds (i.e. conflict diamonds) from the diamonds legally mined and traded in the world diamond market. After all, millions of diamonds are traded each year. The diamond industry is a US$60 billion a year business.
What makes the film ‘Blood Diamond’ extraordinary is that it aims to create an awareness of blood diamonds internationally, with the hope of influencing end-consumers into checking the source of the diamonds they purchase, and rejecting a blood diamond in favour of a legal one. This is, indeed, a mighty task since there are millions of diamond consumers across the world, and the World Diamond Council is not going to take all this negative publicity lying down. There is, of course, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (established in 2003) to monitor any abuses that may take place.
However, our film’s story relates to an incident in 1999 (much before the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme came into being), when a Sierra Leonean fisherman, who is forced to become a digger, discovers a large pink diamond in the Kono mines. Perhaps not the incident, but the history certainly checks out… adding authenticity to the film. That, in the 1990s, rebels in Sierra Leone (the RUF), with help from Liberia, financed the blood diamond trade, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, maiming just as many, and creating brigades of child soldiers who were brainwashed into committing atrocities, the seriousness of which they were too innocent to realise.
‘Blood Diamond’, the film, which stars Leonardo DiCaprio (as a White Rhodesian mercenary diamond smuggler), Djimon Hounsou (as the Sierra Leonean fisherman-digger who finds the large pink diamond and hides it), and Jennifer Connelly (as a journalist pursuing the blood diamond story), brings all of this to the surface in proper Hollywood style, with ample doses of heroism and thrill thrown in… along with love, introspection and some spiritual philosophy… amidst the brutality and the killings. It’s a grand film, over two hours long, highlighting the context of blood diamonds rather smartly. What I found missing in the film – as it was definitely downplayed – was the role of the conniving diamond industry executives who had allowed (and still allows) this to happen.
Perhaps there’s a reason for this. According to a recent Fortune magazine (cover story) on blood diamonds, titled ‘Diamonds Aren’t Forever’, Vivienne Walt in writes, “Diamond producers and dealers did not need Hollywood to reach that conclusion. As war raged in the past decade, they realized that so-called blood diamonds carried a risk to their business that was far out of proportion to the tiny number of stones. Even during the bloodiest years no more than 15 percent of the world’s diamonds were controlled by rebels in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
15 percent still amounts to a large sum in the US$60 billion a year business. So, how effective will ‘Blood Diamond’ be in stirring up a global controversy, persuading consumers to morally evaluate their diamond purchases, bringing about social change, and offering hope to those millions of the poor in Africa who are suffering because of this bloody trade? No-one knows. The real question is, does anyone care? After all, This Is Africa (TIA)… and God left this continent long ago.
27 January 2007
Preaching to the converted
In the past week, while writing about film directors Francois Truffaut and Satyajit Ray, I had brought up the matter of films influencing our lives. The question is (or was then): Do they? And, as an extension to that, what relevance do films have in our lives? More importantly, is there a connection between storytelling, truth, art and films? For, like Truffaut, Ray and many others, I, too, have spent weeks on end thinking about these questions.
Fortunately, as I see now, I’ve not been alone. Recently, while surfing the Net, I came across an interview of Indian actor (and Minister of Parliament) Shabana Azmi by Nermeen Shaikh on AsiaSource, going back to October 2002. In the interview, Nermeen Shaikh asks some pertinent questions on whether, and how, films influence our lives… and Shabana Azmi answers them competently, giving examples from her own life.
Here are some excerpts from that interview:
“…if the whole purpose of art is to sensitize people, how can you say that this sensitivity is only going to be directed towards yourself and giving a better performance? This is simply not possible since the best resources of an actor must come from life itself. So when you are in films playing characters struggling with social injustice and exploitation, then a time comes when you can no longer treat your work like a nine-to-five job.”
“I grew up in a family that believed that art should be used as an instrument for social change. Both my parents practiced this principle: my father, through his work as an Urdu poet of great repute, as a film lyricist and also the scriptwriter of films like ‘Garam Hawa’, and my mother as a stage actress in India, who also worked with the Indian People’s Theatre Association.”
“Films have such a strong influence in India but when you try to bring about political or social change through art cinema, you are really preaching to the converted. In mainstream cinema, on the other hand, you have a much wider audience and a large number of issues to cover.”
There’s more, of course. To read the full interview click here.
Fortunately, as I see now, I’ve not been alone. Recently, while surfing the Net, I came across an interview of Indian actor (and Minister of Parliament) Shabana Azmi by Nermeen Shaikh on AsiaSource, going back to October 2002. In the interview, Nermeen Shaikh asks some pertinent questions on whether, and how, films influence our lives… and Shabana Azmi answers them competently, giving examples from her own life.
Here are some excerpts from that interview:
“…if the whole purpose of art is to sensitize people, how can you say that this sensitivity is only going to be directed towards yourself and giving a better performance? This is simply not possible since the best resources of an actor must come from life itself. So when you are in films playing characters struggling with social injustice and exploitation, then a time comes when you can no longer treat your work like a nine-to-five job.”
“I grew up in a family that believed that art should be used as an instrument for social change. Both my parents practiced this principle: my father, through his work as an Urdu poet of great repute, as a film lyricist and also the scriptwriter of films like ‘Garam Hawa’, and my mother as a stage actress in India, who also worked with the Indian People’s Theatre Association.”
“Films have such a strong influence in India but when you try to bring about political or social change through art cinema, you are really preaching to the converted. In mainstream cinema, on the other hand, you have a much wider audience and a large number of issues to cover.”
There’s more, of course. To read the full interview click here.
26 January 2007
Blurred vision
“I would like to suggest that the educated audience often uses ‘art’ films in much the same self-indulgent way as the mass audience uses the Hollywood ‘product’, finding wish fulfillment in the form of cheap and easy congratulation on their sensitivities and their liberalism.”
– Pauline Kael, American film critic
It’s not surprising to learn that Satyajit Ray’s films do not find a large audience in India (see my post ‘A Ray of stories… and films’). Indian films, largely represented by the Hindi/Bollywood film industry, have always catered to Indian mass audiences and have been symbols of Indian mass culture since India’s independence.
In the Hindi/Bollywood framework, the film structure, the plot, the acting style, and much of the dialogue are standardised… engaging the audience in a fantasy world of good versus evil, and human melodrama, in fairly clear terms. Complications are sometimes introduced in the form of sub-plots, but they are resolved soon after. As far as film directors and producers go, Hindi/Bollywood films are functional – they satisfy audience needs and make box office cash registers ring.
The ‘art’ film from the independent director, such as Satyajit Ray, presents (and, therefore, represents) an alternative world. A world of films motivated by their richness in terms of aesthetic quality, realism, dialogue, acting, cinematography, editing and music. Most art films weave in a social commentary on the state of our country, on our culture, on human relationships… sometimes, even making a political statement.
As far as Indian audiences go, I would have expected these art films to be relevant and popular. To stand tall on integrity and human values… in a country which badly suffers from these. Yet, these art films are unsuccessful in stimulating Indian audiences. On the contrary, they seem to work in direct opposition to the needs and expectations of the audience… floundering at the box office. The mainstream Indian audience is repelled by art films, preferring their usual commoditised Hindi/Bollywood formula.
In turn, Bollywood happily churns out several hundred films every year in a standardised organised manner as popular entertainment for the masses. Asserting a hypnotic control over them, influencing almost all aspects of their lives, defining the cultural norms that Indians should live by.
I wonder if this Hindi/Bollywood and art film divide is just a matter of our blurred vision… or a representation of something more permanent in our culture.
– Pauline Kael, American film critic
It’s not surprising to learn that Satyajit Ray’s films do not find a large audience in India (see my post ‘A Ray of stories… and films’). Indian films, largely represented by the Hindi/Bollywood film industry, have always catered to Indian mass audiences and have been symbols of Indian mass culture since India’s independence.
In the Hindi/Bollywood framework, the film structure, the plot, the acting style, and much of the dialogue are standardised… engaging the audience in a fantasy world of good versus evil, and human melodrama, in fairly clear terms. Complications are sometimes introduced in the form of sub-plots, but they are resolved soon after. As far as film directors and producers go, Hindi/Bollywood films are functional – they satisfy audience needs and make box office cash registers ring.
The ‘art’ film from the independent director, such as Satyajit Ray, presents (and, therefore, represents) an alternative world. A world of films motivated by their richness in terms of aesthetic quality, realism, dialogue, acting, cinematography, editing and music. Most art films weave in a social commentary on the state of our country, on our culture, on human relationships… sometimes, even making a political statement.
As far as Indian audiences go, I would have expected these art films to be relevant and popular. To stand tall on integrity and human values… in a country which badly suffers from these. Yet, these art films are unsuccessful in stimulating Indian audiences. On the contrary, they seem to work in direct opposition to the needs and expectations of the audience… floundering at the box office. The mainstream Indian audience is repelled by art films, preferring their usual commoditised Hindi/Bollywood formula.
In turn, Bollywood happily churns out several hundred films every year in a standardised organised manner as popular entertainment for the masses. Asserting a hypnotic control over them, influencing almost all aspects of their lives, defining the cultural norms that Indians should live by.
I wonder if this Hindi/Bollywood and art film divide is just a matter of our blurred vision… or a representation of something more permanent in our culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
