The other day we saw "3 Idiots".
The movie is a great fun to watch and in addition to the fun factor also brings out the problem with the Indian Education system which does not encourage innovation and out of the box thinking but is focused on regimented mugging of lessons in order to achieve maximum marks.
S and I started discussing the ending of the film and we both had the question as to how does one define success. If the ending had shown Amir Khan, one of the main protagonist, as being "just" a school master and considering the admiration from the students and the community he was working in as his "success" it would be too idealistic an ending for a "Tenties" movie. The actual climax where the schoolmaster's measure of success is depicted in the form that he has 400 patents and is being pursued by international conglomerates is the other extreme. The hidden implication is that the protagonist is successful from a material aspect too as he has money flowing in from all these patents and collaborations. The other friends are also successful as one has 5 books published in 4 years, one has a Lamborghini and a huge house in US, one has a very good job and is doing some research etc. which all reflect that in the material aspects they all are well endowed. However is monetary the only measure to define success?
It is an ongoing discussion between the two of us and it is becoming obvious that even in today's times it is as difficult to define success as it always was. Why do not you also join in and let us know your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I noticed that too. The movie makes a huge deal of our narrow definition of success and then falls to the same trap! It just wasn't enough if the protagonist was a bloody good teacher, he had to have documented proof of his genius and people chasing him.
Exactly like Taare Zameen Par. The whole movie peddles the philosophy of every kid being special (and hence deserving of unconditional love), and then ends by making that kid exclusive (and hence more equal in an another way).
I'm not sure if indian commercial cinema (and the audience too) is mature enough to handle difficult existential themes yet. I think we'll first need to solve people's basic issues here before we broaden definitions of self-actualisation.
I would call that the intrinsic desire of man to cheer the "underdog". We(at least most I have seen) always want the underdog to win. Its some kind of a social empathy.
We just cant stand to see an "Underdog" not win. Simple as that. Since that situation hardly manifests in true life, ppl love to fantasize that in movies. In the end, if a movie gets too realistic, we try to relate it to our normal realistic life which is depressing. I guess thats one of the reasons behind "Happy Endings". The definition of "Success" is different to different people and most of us are not mature enough to see that success doesnt necessarily mean more money/position/Social Status,etc.. Nobody wants to be a Loser(according to social mores) and that explains the success <-> money relation at the end of the movie. The thinking of the commoner has to change. Until then, we will have more such excellent movies with suger coated endings.
:)
Post a Comment