Interesting movie; given the fact that I watched this movie some 6 times at least. I have been getting a lot of flak over this at work since some members from my team watched this movie on my recommendation and did not like it. So what did I like about this movie?
Well I thought Saif's performance was awesome - both as the modern day Jai and as the young Veer Singh Panesar. While I can rave about Saif's performance especially as the Veer-avatar, what I like about the movie is the fact that it tries to show that love never changes over time, albeit the process of realising soul-mate has changed drastically even over two generations.
The complexity of the relationship between Jai and Meera - be it them dating and ending up in each others arms; or them acknowledging the fact that they need to break up to avoid "heart burn"; or Meera soliciting Jai's help to woo the other guy in her life; or each of them lying at crucial moments so that the other could move on (crap! I hate this "for the general good" business) - the process of finding soul-mates couldn't have been more complicated or time-consuming or heart-wrenching.
I have to admit that Deepika did give a very lame performance.
On the other hand there was Veer Singh who fell in love at the very first sight of Harleen (Giselle) - wonder if that happens any more. Being the cynic that I am, I attribute lust and not love ;-)
So what does the "title" have to do with the post: well the fact that guys are like Jai - confused; never decisive unless pushed into a corner; happy-go-lucky in general and very love-able. Yes I am a guy!!! But when forced to make a decision; they usually make the right ones, even if it's for the wrong reasons. Guys like Veer are rare - I think it's the generation gap - but he too was happy-go-lucky, love-able and when pushed in a corner, made the right decision.
Love "now" and love "then" wasn't all that different, from a male perspective!!!
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Beliefs
The dictionary defines belief as meaning something that one is convinced of. But I wonder if we really mean what we say, everytime we use this word. Not everything in life is a question of life & death. So you cant take the analogy of a man lying down on the road in the path of a truck (courtesy "God's Debris - Scott Adams", and claim that he believes in the danger of his predicament and hence chooses to move. What about beliefs that we choose to do nothing about?
Lets say I believe that its going to rain today. But I dont carry an umbrella, dont carry a raincoat and when it rains, I get drenched. Does this mean that I dont believe? Or does this mean that I choose not to do anything about my belief? I guess the latter is probably true.
Extending this further, lets say, you are completely unaware of the fact that its going to rain. And I dont impress upon you the fact that I believe that its going to rain. As a result of which you get drenched. Do I really believe that its going to rain, or am I deluding myself? I know I am not being honest by not sharing my belief, but thats a post for another day. The "moo point", to quote Joey, is whether "I believe".
I know its a harmless situation, but I deliberately wanted to pick on a harmless situation so that there are no other considerations when discussing whether I believe. And, also, cos its a gray area - in the sense that its not important that one acts on this belief. I did not want the focus of this discussion to be based on the magnitude of consequences of my actions; like life and death. Infact, one can choose to ignore this belief. The more trivial the analogy, so much the better for debating, from a purely academic perspective, whether I believe or not.
The pertinent question here is, if my actions dont supplement my suppossed beliefs, do I believe? And for the sake of completeness, I might be forgiven once, for acting foolish - but if I keep doing it again and again, then, do I believe?
--------------
Three and a half years later - here I am once again ... driving myself to write some more. And I keep coming back to this post; since this has generated a lot of interest of a very human nature.
After having read some of the comments, I still scratch my head; unable to grasp that so many of you already have.
Expectation - isn't is a belief that my actions will bear some fruit?
Social pressure - isn't that also a belief, that my actions will bear some fruit? Or for that matter, pressure of any kind?
Does this entire debate finally boil down to the same ideology as that of "value-for-money"; optimise on your returns; get something out of all the effort that one puts in; blah-blah-blah?
Maybe I am rambling - to elucidate I have a belief which requires me to act in a certain fashion. But "expectations/pressures/norms" force me to act another way. So do we calculate in a very cold-hearted rationale and choose our actions appropriately? The more weight-age a belief has, the more likely my action is influenced by that belief?
In which case, can we ever believe in anything at all? Or have I got this all wrong?
Lets say I believe that its going to rain today. But I dont carry an umbrella, dont carry a raincoat and when it rains, I get drenched. Does this mean that I dont believe? Or does this mean that I choose not to do anything about my belief? I guess the latter is probably true.
Extending this further, lets say, you are completely unaware of the fact that its going to rain. And I dont impress upon you the fact that I believe that its going to rain. As a result of which you get drenched. Do I really believe that its going to rain, or am I deluding myself? I know I am not being honest by not sharing my belief, but thats a post for another day. The "moo point", to quote Joey, is whether "I believe".
I know its a harmless situation, but I deliberately wanted to pick on a harmless situation so that there are no other considerations when discussing whether I believe. And, also, cos its a gray area - in the sense that its not important that one acts on this belief. I did not want the focus of this discussion to be based on the magnitude of consequences of my actions; like life and death. Infact, one can choose to ignore this belief. The more trivial the analogy, so much the better for debating, from a purely academic perspective, whether I believe or not.
The pertinent question here is, if my actions dont supplement my suppossed beliefs, do I believe? And for the sake of completeness, I might be forgiven once, for acting foolish - but if I keep doing it again and again, then, do I believe?
--------------
Three and a half years later - here I am once again ... driving myself to write some more. And I keep coming back to this post; since this has generated a lot of interest of a very human nature.
After having read some of the comments, I still scratch my head; unable to grasp that so many of you already have.
Expectation - isn't is a belief that my actions will bear some fruit?
Social pressure - isn't that also a belief, that my actions will bear some fruit? Or for that matter, pressure of any kind?
Does this entire debate finally boil down to the same ideology as that of "value-for-money"; optimise on your returns; get something out of all the effort that one puts in; blah-blah-blah?
Maybe I am rambling - to elucidate I have a belief which requires me to act in a certain fashion. But "expectations/pressures/norms" force me to act another way. So do we calculate in a very cold-hearted rationale and choose our actions appropriately? The more weight-age a belief has, the more likely my action is influenced by that belief?
In which case, can we ever believe in anything at all? Or have I got this all wrong?
Monday, May 08, 2006
Friday, May 05, 2006
Friday, March 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)