The crap that is Braveheart

The epic that portrays Scotland’s fight for freedom from England starring Mel Gibson.

This is not a review of the film. I am not qualified enough to review movies. What this is, though, is an expression of disappointment; disappointment over a lost opportunity.

Every nation’s fight for freedom/independence is an epic story. When individuals fight for their own freedoms, their own rights, it presents an intriguing story. Now, consider an entire nation fighting for its values. Consider how much poetry there is to it. Thousands, maybe millions, of people fighting together for a common cause. The emergence of leaders. When civilians take up arms, or sometimes fight a non-violent battle, leaders have to emerge from within the sea of humanity. These leaders are ordinary people who have made a choice from the multiple choices that circumstance offered to them. There is an internal struggle involved in overcoming the self-doubt, the resistance from within, the dilemma that the choice involves. That is the creation of a hero…a hero from an ordinary human being; and it does not happen through accident.

Far too many times, movies give this internal struggle a pass. I wince as I watch our hero William Wallace emerge from the shadows without so much as a warning. Where is the dilemma ? where is the agony ? where is the internal struggle, pray ?

Maybe it is my fault. I was expecting a character-driven narrative while what I was watching was a “shoot-em-up” westerner (albeit in a different landscape).
Alas, Braveheart does not have spirit ! Going by the box-office, nobody is mourning this lack of spirit apparently.

Powered by ScribeFire.

links for 2007-09-09

• 488 Smita Kishore, Ageing pains
  (tags: society)

How do you define racism ?

For no particular reason, racism crossed my mind this morning.
What is racism if not personal discrimination.

When you look at it that simply, it comes down to personal preferences; personal preferences that are not always logical. We have our choice of brands, our choice of holiday destinations, our choice of fruits…the list goes on. How many of these preferences are logical. More importantly, how many of these are subject to moral or ethical arguments ?

When you say that such and such a business establishment discriminates against such and such ethnicity, I believe you are only projecting a moral point. To take the concerned establishment to court based solely on this point is stretching things a little too far. I would go to the extent of saying that this is a violation of the freedom of the establishment. They have the right to exercise their personal preferences. (Whether these preferences contradict the interests of the stakeholders is a matter that needs to be looked at through a different lens)

Consider an uptown bar which does not allow blacks (in an imaginary country where such discrimination is still going on). Now, if you were to pass a law that such discrimination is illegal, you are preventing the bar from exercising its fundamental business right viz to be able to decide the profile of its clientele. Does this business practice leave a bad taste in the mouth ? maybe. Is this ethically wrong ? maybe..depending on what your ethical upbringing was like. Does it violate any freedoms ? not so sure.

Let me clarify myself. If it so happens that the government owns this bar and they have decided to discriminate against me based on my color, I have a legal point. Since the government collects taxes from me, it is legally obligated to discontinue this practice of discrimination towards me. Also, I have a way of putting pressure on the government till it discontinues its policies (the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa being a prime example of such pressure). I have a similar way of putting pressure on the afore-mentioned private-owned bar to discontinue its discrimination. There are ways of applying this pressure (subtle as in spreading a message of boycotting the bar across ethnic lines; or not so subtle as in organizing protests in front of the bar). But the judiciary or the government has no right to put pressure on the bar.

Unless I hold a regular job, no bank has an obligation to lend me money. Of course, I will overlook temporarily the fact that the bank has a business reason for not lending me money. Should I be allowed to go to court saying that the bank is discriminating against un-employed youth ? Can I term this racism ?

I am groping in the dark here. The more I think of it, the more unclear it is. The government has an obligation to treat all its citizens as equals since it taxes them all without discrimination and it gets votes from all without discrimination (a government by the people, for the people and so forth). That much is correct.
But to stretch that point further and say that all privately-owned business establishments should also treat all citizens equally, does not hold water. It may be an ethical or moral argument. In the end, it may even be a lousy business practice (very few businesses can depend on a clientele coming from a limited profile). However, there ought to be no legal point here.

I know we have laws, though. I am reminded of the famous case of Mahatma Gandhi being thrown out of a train in South Africa. There is a legal point here in so many ways. Number one: the railways was state-owned and the state owed Gandhi some privileges as a law-abiding citizen (or whatever his immigrant-status in SA was at that point in time). Number two: he had paid for his ticket and the railways was reneging on a business contract by denying him the services he had already paid for.
When courts look at racism, that is the point they should focus on: did the accused party renege on a contract with the accuser ? If yes, put the accused in jail. If no, please do not dig up a sentimental argument about all men being equal. It does not suit the supposed-to-be-objective judiciary.

Help me here….I so want my argument to be wrong..its in my flesh and upbringing. But my gut says that the above argument is correct.
Where am I wrong ? what do you feel ?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Use of technology in cricket

Sankar has this nice post on why we shouldn’t be shy about using technology in cricket:

I have been watching the US Open the last couple of weeks and was pleasantly surprised to find that players were given opportunities to challenge the referee’s decision. Once a challenge is made, the location of the pitch of the ball is projected, animated and displayed on the screen and the decision is reversed if required. All this takes less than 30 secs probably. I feel this is healthy to the sport. Even though each tennis court has about 5-6 people calling the shots and a referee, the technology that is available to enhance the sport is being used effectively.

I really wish that cricket also takes a cue from this and enables the use of technology

The debate is old and the both sides have held out strongly. However, Ian Chappell has a different take on the issue. I am replicating my comments on Sankar’s blog here to illustrate this take.:

I think you have a point … a very valid point.
However, I was listening to commentary yesterday on the TV. There was , expectedly, a lot of discussion over the decisions that Aleem Daar handed out. Ian Chappell came out and said that it should either be justice for all or justice for none.

Right now, it is the prerogative of the on-field umpires on whether they want to use technology or not (i.e call for the third umpire or not). In some cases, they do not have that option. So, there is justice for some (like for India against Collingwood in the 6th ODI) while there isn’t justice for others (like Sachin and Dravid the other night).

Even with a referrals system, a team could soon run out of the number of referrals they are allowed and may have to chose selectively on which decisions to debate (again selectivity).

So, the point is: you either run it totally with technology (no on-field umpires, decision by slow-motion replay) or you keep technology completely out of it and go back to the age before third umpire came in.

It sounds like an all or nothing call. I do believe, however, that we have spent a lot of time experimenting with the third umpire concept and it is now time to move to the next level. If people feel it is a useful tool, they should embrace it completely. If, on the other hand, it has not helped, it is time to ditch it and look for alternatives.
Half-measures will not help. Wouldn’t you agree ?

On an aside, I believe they pay Ian half of what they pay the other commentators because he keeps so quiet in the box. When he does have something to say, though, it is usually something really worth hearing. This is in stark contrast to the mono-drones that come from Sunil Gavaskar (I also feel “Sunny” is heavily partial to the Indian players which kind of gets tiresome after a while)..

Sample this from last night’s telecast:

Harsha: India have a history of defending low totals at Lords. In 1983, they successfully defended 183, against the WI. In 2004, they successfully defended 204 against England. This is 2007, so they should make 207. That is the magic number.

Ian: Harsha, the magic number is one more than your opponent’s score. That is all you need to win the match !

As India Uncut would say, immense joy unfolds !