http://couplewriters.blogspot.com/
It would be an interesting research if made over the pattern, overtime, that Bollywood movies have illustrated individuality and portrayed the relation of individual and society. Obviously, just like any other form of art, the movies also depicts the appropriate nature and situation of the society of that era but some art forms not only depicts the current situation of society, but also succeeds in providing a new trend a new idea for the society to be leaded and made practical, and such movies becomes the masterpiece. Objectively speaking, Art is a careful re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgements. Obviously, that selective re-creation is not meant to depict the things as they are, as Aristotle said that fiction is of greater philosophical importance than history, because “history represents things as they are, while fiction represents them as they might be and ought to be.”
Movies, being the indisputably strongest medium of art, if meant to show the things, situations, people and individuals as they ought to be, then they become the leading force of change in society and strengthens the values of individuality.

Current trend of Bollywood movies

With the liberalization of Indian economy, the civil liberalization is also gaining strengthen and bollywood flicks are portraying the essence and importance of liberty quite well. Ashutosh Gowariker and Amir Khan portrayed the inhuman nature of taxation in the movie Lagaan while Mani Ratnam portrayed Abhishek Bachchan as “Guru” struggling for economic freedom against socialistic governmental odds. The contemporary artistic subjects were merged with the colours of popular cinema and very odd individualistic tales like Tare Zameen Par and Black gained huge success. Such flicks obviously provide a sense of liberty in the individual to seek for his own freedom, his strengths, and his right for living with honour of independence. One can say that bollywood is providing artistic masterpieces depicting the importance of individual liberty and issue of individualism and in the same league, the two big movies of 2009, “Rocket Singh the salesman of the year” and the hugely successful “3 Idiots” confirmed that now Indian society is ready to appraise the libertarian attitude and the Indian youth is daring enough to raise the issues of collectivistic problems and is ready to denounce them, to fight against them. Even “Rang De Basanti” portrayed the current depleted morality of society and the struggle of youth against the social political tyrants, yet it was full of anger, violence, frustration and exhaustion. One may not group “Rang De Basanti” with the other Bollywood films of libertarian approach.
Rocket Singh, while struggling to maintain his honest behaviour and ethical strength, manages to portray the basic factual difference between the corrupt corporatism and honest capitalism. So meaningfully and with such an ease, the movie establishes the golden rule of free market, “consumer rules and honest producer wins”. The movie also clarifies that to win over the evil, one does not need to pick up the violent means, nor one need to be evil by himself, Rocket Singh and his band of rebels tells us that ultimately honesty and hard work is a sound business decision. The movie suggests that irrespective of corporative and governmental corruption, if market is allowed to be a free space for the mutually beneficial dealings and agreements between people, producers, service providers and the consumers, than the most honest, prompt, hardworking and innovative one will gain maximum success, that is, a free market ultimately provides the required moral environment where honesty pays and dishonesty causes suffering and losses. While the boss of Rocket Singh robs him of his own company based on free market principle, consumers forces the villainous boss to learn the better way and accept the path of honesty and hard-work and ultimately, he goes back to Rocket Singh to accept the defeat of evil, wrong and immoral.
3 Idiots is yet again a masterpiece of Amir Khan. The movie is said to be based on the novel Five Point Someone yet, after watching one may thought of a laughing, rollicking Howard Roark represented as Rancho and a babbling, confused Peter Keating represented by Chatur Ramlingam (Silencer)¹ . It is an exquisite story of a man from nowhere, who wanted to learn and create, who wanted to produce and who loved himself and his work. It is a lovely story depicting the win of a morally strong character who wanted to live for himself according to his own standards, who needed nobody’s sanctions and who inspired others too to live by their own standards. Rancho as Phunsukh Wangdu seems no less than a Roark who won over all odds to be what he wanted to be and to do what he wanted to do in exactly the same free rational and honest way he needed to be.
For some, these movies may seem like fairytales or impractical, yet they show the heights of individual freedom and its importance that Indian youth needs and the success of the current trend of movies confirms that Indian society is passing through a huge change in the mindset where the individual will seek for liberty and will fight for it intelligently and peacefully, to gain the freedom of his soul to establish his existence at his own standards, confirming that I, the Individual needs no sanctions, that “I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.”
On the same libertarian trend, Shahrukh Khan and Kajol’s latest flick My Name is Khan also portrays a simple libertarian fact that collectivism is evil and collectivizing individuals is greater evil, as SRK said in one of his interviews for promoting the movie—

We are only trying to say that there are only good people and bad people. There are no good Hindus, bad Hindus, good Christians, bad Christians. Either you are a good person or a bad person. Religion is not the criterion, humanity is.” SRK

Collectivism is not the criterion, individualism is, Individual is.
Another movie “Wake up Sid” depicts the quest of person searching for his existence, rationales, aims, setting his goals and winning over them.
Movies are the mirror of society and more than that, movies are a strong way of propagating the right rational idea. With the current libertarian approach of Indian movies and arts where the art forms with their fictional attributes are depicting the things as they might be and ought to be, one may say that Indian society is progressively improving and is set to accept and evolve as a free society looking for further establishing Individual freedom, his quest for his existence, happiness and letting him win his way against all odds of collectivism.

1. Howard Roark is the central character of the epic novel, the masterpiece of Ayn Rand, the Fountainhead Peter Keating is another character of same book, there’s a movie based on the novel with same title The Fountainhead [↩]

Last night while watching a TV interview of Amir Khan, I heard his views about art, his art and I realized why people call him Mr. Perfectionist.
According to him, the basic principle of arts is to provide entertainment, but if the artist can provoke thoughts in the audience for progress, for change, if the art promotes the viewer to “think” then it is better art.
I do not think that entertainment is the basic purpose of arts.
Art, any kind of art be it a painting, sculpture, literature, music, dance or acting is the selective expression of reality, it is an exercise of integrating the abstract ideas about life and existence and expressing them. Entertainment is an essential by-product of the arts; it is not the main purpose of the arts though.
The artist exhibits his ideas and value judgments about reality and the sense of existence through his art, his work, and it needs a great extent of integrity on behalf of the artist as an Individual.
May be that is why Amir Khan is famous for his search for perfection and integrity.
Well, the way Amir chooses his projects and the depth he likes to get involved with the characters he plays on the celluloid, clarifies his understanding of arts, Arts, as a means to objectively express whatever is his thinking, and he stand by.
Whenever an artist takes his profession in arts, as a means to objectively put across his thinking and perceptions about a particular subject and provides a reasonable sequence to integrate the thought process about an issue, a light entertaining situation, or a drastic problem, it becomes a masterpiece of arts.
Quite often, the artists who involves with their profession so deeply, appears to be obsessed with their approach towards their art.
Luckily, Indian plethora got many such obsessed artists who kept sparkling from time to time to exhilarate the Bollywood celluloid.
From the excellence of Guru Dutt, to serene yet strong acts of Balraj Sahni, from the youthful exuberance of Kishor Kumar to gracious presentation of Amitabh, Bollywood provided a stream of artists who worked on the simple definition of arts, Art as “the selective recreation of reality”.
Now a piece of arts provides full freedom for the viewer to deduct his own meaning from it. The artist do conveys a strong message through his art in a distinctive way clearly showcasing his own thought process about a particular subject, discussing the various reason for the deductible conclusion of his art piece, yet, he provides full freedom for the viewer or the audience to think more and further.
While watching an old sculpture of Natraj, someone may feel the spiritual essence the artist wanted to convey, on the other hand, some other person may enjoy the simple presentation of Human Power along with agility portrayed by the sculpture.
It is because of this freedom, which the artist provides to the audience that he cannot be restricted from expressing whatever he thinks about any particular subject.
If some Deepa Mehta makes a movie (like Water) on a social issue, she only expresses her own Individual view point about a topic in an objective way. The audience can disprove it, but since the artist never exploited the freedom of the audience to have his own perception about the topic, the audience also does not hold any right to ban or restrict that piece of art.
Artistic immensity is measured by the artist’s ability to express his thought process about a subject or story objectively. His thought process may be reasonably right or it can be wrong too.
Talking about Amir Khan, he has presented many shades of arts and character.
Some of the characters he played exposes a sound reasonable metaphysical philosophy well-established on ethics of liberty and Individual freedom, while some other characters shows the extent of stupidity a person can achieve if he ignores the reason. Yet, what makes Amir Khan one of the best artist of Bollywood is, his integrity and obsession towards expressing meaningful objectification of his own thoughts and values, which are important to him, because he chose them.
This is something, which I find common in almost all great artists of any stream.
They all remain very selective about their work and they all devote themselves completely to express what they think about an issue or a story and provide a space of freedom to the audience to either to accept the idea about the issue behind the art piece or to reject it. They all produce thought-provoking art.

“Art is inextricably tied to man’s survival”
“Of all human products, art is perhaps the most important”
Ayn Rand!

After the success of blockbuster movies like “Lagaan” “Rang de Basanti” and “Taare Jameen Par” his first movie as a director, the Bollywood chores started comparing Amir Khan with Manoj Kumar, the Indian Hero of yesteryears. Manoj Kumar has had strong “nationalistic and socialistic” fervour in his movies. The characters played by him were really impressive and illustrious showing of the nationalistic and socialistic values, often talking of hard work, honesty, loyalty towards society and nation, presenting the case of weak and poor people. Obviously all of his movies did well, but two of them were exceptionally acclaimed by the public and the government (UPKAAR & ROTI, KAPADA aur MAKAAN) which were written and directed by Manoj Kumar himself while he played the central role too.
Those were the days when socialism was the call of whole nation. In the strategic compliance with USSR, India was slowly changing towards full-fledged socialism with major purpose to reduce and remove poverty and bring economic equality along with equality of rights. It was the era of leaders like Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi. Those were the times when the word “socialistic” was added in the preamble of Indian constitution. Central theme of his movies used to revolve round the proud and honest hard working labour or farmer, or student struggling for his righteous living against the odds, which obviously were presented as capitalists. His movies were not only praised but were given accolades and financial support too. The movie UPKAAR was properly designed to express the then famous quote “Jai Jawaan Jai Kisaan” by former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. Stories used to depict how the honest government and leaders want to help the individuals by bringing socialism while the corrupt industrialists and capitalists are trying to dislodge the government “by the help of some mysterious foreign forces”.
In the movie “Roti Kapada aur Makaan” the major villain (obviously a corrupt capitalist) clearly says that their main motive is to dislodge the socialistic government which has exploited the businessmen of India. That movie also exposed the cause of inflation as the result of black-marketing and “lawless businessmen” who opposes government and government laws. His movies used to depict the government as the only force to safeguard individuals and remove corruption and crime.
Such wrong and misleading ideas about capitalism and anarchic thoughts were being induced in the society via media which obviously was under the governmental hands, that such themes used to get an instant hit rank.
Capitalism was always presented as a curse on society. Those typical “Sahukar” and Baniya’s of those types of movies, including “Mother India” presented the case of capitalists as corrupt unjustified and money-hungry people who, for their own profits will go to any lows. That is how although the slogan of “jai jawan, jai kisaan” favoured Indian youth and farmers, but the entrepreneurs and businessmen were posed as wrong. Anyone looking for his own profits and progress was posed as a danger for the nation and society. Through media and movies, socialism was taught; it was taught that if inflation is there, the reason is blackmarketeers and capitalism. The governmental plot, to keep Indian public under economic slavery was well integrated by these movies with a emotional touch towards poverty and nation, while Capitalism and demand for Individual freedom was typically discriminated and prohibited. The major theme used to be, you save my back. Nobody ever thought that privatization, and the “right” drift towards Capitalism only will save the weak nation and poor individuals from the socialistic political dishevel.
If poverty is there, it is because someone is looting the public, and that looter is anyone who is not living for the public but trying to live for his own.
Anarchism wasn’t criticized even than. Many movies depicted the anarchist as looters and dacoits fighting against businessmen, in main roles as in case of Sunil Dutt’s Mother India, there remained an emotional facet behind that. It was suggested that a person becomes anarchist and extremist because of bad governance and middlemen and the corrupt capitalists, but if provided proper chances and better situations, even anarchists will get back in social archaic realms. It was almost impossible to even think of the fact that even the new form of government is just a fraud and corruption.
I wonder what difference it makes if farmers sales their crops to the private dealers, or to government unless they are getting right price for their hard work? What difference does it make if agricultural products remain in private owned cells or government owned go-downs? But to keep agriculture in its hands, government always fooled public by suggesting that private owners are meant to exploit farmers and the consumers. To keep agriculture, the biggest economic sector of India in its hands, government did its best and always denied agriculture an Industrial status and hence forcing subsidies and taxations on food articles. Farmers themselves never got any chance to improve their financial status, because even after removal of those “Sahukars” and “Baniyas”, things never changed, although the government itself started playing the same corrupt role.
A farmer cannot decide the price of his own products, government decides the price. Obviously, government assumes that farmers are not intelligent enough to ask for right and profitable price and will be cheated and exploited if government allows them to deal for their own hard work and products, or the farmers will hide the daily use food grains for making more profits. As a matter of fact, until force is not applied, no one will think of making a deal of no-profits, and who can be bigger coercive force than the government itself?
Since agriculture is no business, it has got no industrial status, and it is assumed as a national-social work, farmers remain in realm of poverty. Not the market forces, but government decides what to produce and what to sell and at what price. Result is the numerous suicidal cases by farmers because of poverty and hungry.
In his article, Subhramanyam Aiyer clearly explains how the water policy of socialistic government failed and caused havoc to the water resources of India, similar is the case of agriculture. The poor and weak state of Indian farmers is government and its coercive interference in agriculture and market.
With time the scenes are changing. Now the public is not innocent enough to be fooled by government for its ill and corrupt ideologies and policies.
Lagaan was totally different movie from those movies of Manoj Kumar.
Lagaan properly raised the question, why to pay tax? It actually doesn’t matter if the tax grabbing authority is foreigners or Indian government. If it is government, and it is taking non-voluntary taxes, than it is corrupt and the public under such realm is slave community. There is no wrong in democracy if people want to have a common consent for a cause, but to force it economically irrespective of Individual’s choice is just coercion and is typically wrong. There must remain freedom for the Individual, the smallest minority of any public domain, to deny or reject the majority ruled democratic government or similar system, and there must not be any force on anybody to follow that. What can be forced is reasonable objective law based on Individual rights, obviously property rights are the most sound and only reasonable way to express Individual rights, and any system which denies property rights, is actually exploitative and coercive against the individuals.
“Guru” was another movie in same realms where an individual just denies letting the authority to exploit his rights to earn profits freely. Individuals do invent ways to live free and uninterrupted by any archaic dogmatic government or authority because anarchy is the proper way of living “if Individual rights being respected for each and every person”. If one is not infringing any others Individual rights and domain, he is just and honest. It is a need to have security system for Individual rights of the people of the community. That security system can be democratically accepted and assigned system which will work voluntarily to protect the individual rights and will earn its expense by means of voluntary taxations or other financial programs (there can be allot ways to earn the expenses and profits) or the security system can be private security systems. There cannot be and should not be any force against any individual if he wants to have democratic security system or privately owned security services. It is individual choice. But the law should remain proper, objective and unambiguous.
Indian media and movies kept showing of the changing tracks of ideas, and from the start of government and socialism praising movies like “Mother India” “Roti Kapada aur Makaan” and “Upkaar” there came a trend in Bollywood which courageously explained and show-cased the ills of government and started demanding for freedom against the so-called democratic government itself and showed how police and politicians acts against the individuals on the name of common good and exploits them, or how police just becomes a toy under corrupt politicians. Sunny Deol’s “Arjun” was such movie, which can be termed as very first attempt by Indian movie makers to raise voice against government and demand for freedom and liberty.
Nobody wants lawlessness, nobody demands for anarchist naxalism and anti-nation terrorism, but that doesn’t mean that government is a necessity as many depicts it as a “necessary evil”. In “Rang de Basanti”, while Amir Khan tried to put up the anarchist case against the government and the ills government causes, the mode and method wasn’t right and proper, it was more like naxalite way of terrorism and violence, which is strictly wrong and prohibited and should be condemned in any case (except in case of self-defence”). With his latest movie “Tare Zameen Par” Amir Khan properly exposed how we turn our children in slaves, and takes the freedom out of their life even before they can think and start demanding for liberty.
I must say that Indian media and movies are slowly but strongly traversing towards the “right” way.

Atlas Shrugged

“This is John Galt speaking…”
PART ONE

PART TWO

PART THREE & FOUR

PART FIVE

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. (Ayn Rand)

Answer to it…

Generally I don’t watch romance and love movies. But this movie in particular always attracted me. Jude law, Nicole Kidman and the sweet Renee Zellweger produced a magic in every scene of that movie.
At dawn of American Civil War, the men of Cold Mountain, North Carolina, scuttle to join the Confederate army. Ada (Nicole Kidman) has vowed to wait for Inman (Jude Law), but as the warfare drags on and mail goes unreciprocated, she ought to find the motivation to stay alive. At war’s conclusion, hearts are dashed, thoughts rewarded, and the vigor of the individual courage hardened…but not broken!It is one of the movies based on novel which I watched before I read the book. The novel Cold Mountain is written by Charles Frazier.
Cold Mountain is a real mountain in Haywood County, North Carolina America located in the Pisgah National forest However, the Village of Cold Mountain as referred to in the movie did not exist. W. P. Inman (his first name was William Pinckney, was a real person from Cold Mountain who served in the Confederate army, from which he desolate twice, and is reputedly buried in a local memorial park. His offspring still live in the area. The real Inman served as a confidential in Company F of the 25th North Carolina Infantry. He was the great great uncle of the novelist, Charles Frazier, and his regiment did contribute in the warfare in the Siege of Petersburg, together with the Battle of the Crater. Frazier, a native of western North Carolina, very loosely based the award-winning novel on his ancestor’s story.
Kidman (Ada) plays the part of a urban lady lately shifted to the countryside farm, named Black Cove. Just after she reaches, her father who is the minister of countryside dies, parting her unaided on the farm and among little hope for aid, as the youthful, able-bodied men are off at war. She is totally incompetent at managing the farm, having been raised to become an urban woman and is fraught to carry on at the farm. She manages to survive with the kind help of her neighbors, one meighbor finally sends Ruby (Zellweger) to her, a young woman who is adept for a hardscrabble living and is skillful at the farm duties needed to run the ranch.
Ruby lives at the farm with Ada and jointly, they take the farm from a state of failure to working order. They form a close friendship. Swangers, who live down the road from Black Cove is also their friend. At the Swangers’ well Ada “sees” Inman coming back in the snowstorm and a flock of crows comes with him. All through the war, Ada and others suffers several tense encounters with ruffian men who are members of the confederate home guard. Even though the home guards had the purpose to protect the south and its citizen population from the North, they becomes vicious vigilantes who hound and often kill deserters from the Confederate army and terrorize people they believe are housing/helping the deserters.
Inman experiences many battles and losses of friends, and as he is recovering in a hospital from a battle wound, decides to set off on foot for his home on Cold Mountain, in North Carolina, and to the woman he loves. On his journey, he meets a crooked preacher (Hoffman), an old and wizened woman, and a youthful widow (Portman). In the course of these people, he becomes capable to carry on his passage back to Ada and finds a little out about himself.
I specifically liked the encounter of Inman with that young widow woman. Her desperate try to live and save her child made me feel like crying. The way the corrupt soldiers tried to devastate her and use/loot her and threatened her of killing her child showed how inhuman man could be at the times of war. I wonder from where such psychosis comes in human behavior but I surely know that what was depicted in the movie was not at all impossible or ridiculous. Anyhow, the movie brings to me a deep sense of mixed feelings of integrity and appalling character of human.
How wonderful is to be human can be easily understood by that movie. A human can actually be a devil incarnated while human also comes forward to save the victim from any danger like an apostle. The horizon of darkness and light is the human.
And when Inman reaches Ada, the love they feels, the warmth by which they devours each other, makes them complete. However, the Oneness does not last for long, although it remains forever.
.
Cold Mountain–The Last GoofBye

Bollywood Director

why should He or anybody care about your or any others standards of low and high?
He makes that, which he prefers. He lives for his own his taste.
It may suit you sometimes, may never suit you too.
I was never a fan of his films after Raat. And after Satya I blocked his films to come in my way.
But, should my likes or standards of good or bad affect him anyways?
Forget about Roark, but answer it to yourself.
Why the heck he should make that which you will like?
Well. Roark for me is not a name. But an idea, an ideology…
And I believe in that ideology. To be what you are. To be at your best,
My sense of choosing my Dharma, devoting myself wholly for my Karma based on my dharma, letting the nature to adjudge my Dharma(Ethical lines), my Karma(action/work) and My devotion, and making myself ready for whatever will be the result the Bhoga.
I was not happy when last year people were comparing Ram Gopal Verma with someone like Howard Roark.
Nor I am happy now when people are ridiculing that idea that his movies are now below standards.
Ramgopal Verma’s AAG!
Who could have thought of making a remake of ABHIMAAN or SHOLAY?
Amitabh Bachchan is a phenomenon, a live bag of talent. Who could have exploited that talent the way Ram Gopal Verma did in SARKAR?
Was the role of SARKAR any lesser than that of the role of Amitabh Bachchan in BLACK?
Was not it a way better than any other role be it in BAGHBAN or CHEENI KUM?
What about DARNA MANA HAI? Who other could have exploited the talent of IRANI and SAIF in just 15 minutes the way Ram Gopal Verma did?
NAACH, another flop movie of Ram Gopal Verma, with same story line of 70’s super hit ABHIMAN.
We all know that the talent of acting which JAYA BAHADUDI and Amitabh Bachchan possess is rare. But was NAACH not a movie which could have touched any heart?
ABHISHEK BACHCHAN was a third grade actor of a superman father before that.
It was Ram Gopal Verma who exploited his talent to the levels where he should be, and what about ANTARA MALLI? Could she have performed any better role anywhere with any other director?
I am damn sure that not a single person in whole Bollywood would dare to make any kind of remake of movies like ABHIMAAN or SHOLAY and present them in a way which Ram Gopal Verma did with such an ease.
I am no fan of Ram Gopal Verma as a director, I never was. I have complete different taste of movies.
But one thing which I am sure of is, whatever Ram Gopal Verma likes and performs, he do so with utmost easiness and perfection. I did watched NAACH and I liked it very much. I didn’t watched SHOLAY because I was afraid of the original SHOLAY imprints on me. The way he projected Urmila and gained the best creativity out of her is well known.
It might have some very basic flaws, no one is perfect, neither have I expected anyone to be perfect, but if I decide to make a GARGI’s world, I would surely take Ram Gopal Verma away there because he deserves a place. He is best at his work.