Yes-PK
When I positioned that I was going to the movie with our son to my wife, I said, "it appears to be a social satire that exposes charlatan behavior. Would be good for our son to see.'
Indeed that was exactly how it turned out to be. Our son who is fifteen was absolutely engrossed in the movie. He was laughing loudly. Appreciated the music, the colors and the acting.
Usually he and I engage in a good conversation (such as we did with The Godfather recently when it was screened at a nearby theatre) - where I try to draw out ethical dilemmas and other plot points.
In this case, I let him do the entire talking and describe it to his mom, when we got home. He was all high praise.
For the social message it provided our son in an entertaining way, I am pretty satisfied.
I would not think of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Mary Poppins and question flying cars or flying nannies. They are fantasies. Thus if we accept PK as a young adult fantasy, with a bit of social satire thrown in, then it is Yes-PK.
No-PK
If you went to the movie thinking of it as an adult science fiction topic, or adult social satire, then the movie missed by a mile (and a half).
 |
| That's a quarantine! (E.T.) |
 |
| Much better take on the matter! |
No room for science in a 21st century movie: There was nary a physicist, biologist, psychologist, scientist of any sort to be seen in this movie. Golly, the country just sent a automated probe to Mars, and this movie is still focused on religious customs. What a HUGE opportunity to discuss science completely laid to waste. Instead of pointing forward to the future, the movie was pointing backward to the past.
Swiss cheese: There were more plot holes than swiss cheese. Everything from why an alien needed a mouth if it did not speak to why they spoke to each other at the end when they did not need to. In fact plot wise this movie was more holes than cheese!
2001 Space Odyssey or Close Encounters of the Third Kind, this in not.
So an an adult, this is No-PK.
Net-Net-PK:
I am glad I went to the movie, with the right idea in mind - an exposure of culture and entertainment for our son.
31 comments:
Firstly, we must remember that it is a Bollywood movie. To expect anything more than a mediocre representation is not warranted. I was interested only in the way a subtle message is conveyed about our perception or lack there of GOD. To ridicule faith is foolish and wrong. But a low level interpretation of what God is also wrong. Further the assertion that God is the only one we describe and define is equally wrong. If faith can be sustained without one dictating what or who a God is it will be great. May be perhaps clumsily, it was a humorous attempt to do that.The concept of an alien is mainly introduced for political correctness. Otherwise who ever brings up that idea will be condemned.
Nice to read. I see films only thro' reviews. It is years since I went to a theatre,
My take is that "Yes-PK" is what you got to look for because that is the intention of Aamir Khan. Predictably, there are many Hindu groups who want to ban the movie. The State of Maharashtra almost did it, but then refrained because I guess they realized that they will lose the support of Bollywood.
Many in our group liked the film immensely, so that's another affirmation that we are still young adults...:)
I enjoyed the movie very much for his satire than the focus on alien aspect of it.
In fact, I will argue that the whole movie is not a science fiction at all. It is a gentle but clear reminder that we are missing the boat in the search for god.
Think about for a moment that the hero is really not an alien and he had a mental disorder of some sort.
Now remove 203 science with the alien and reading language etc. Then watch the whole movie.
I have not seen the telugu movie.. Let me try..
However even with your caveat my one quibble still stands. Search for God assumes existence. There was no room for an agnostic in the equation - which the Telugu film I point to does in superb style.
understood on the assumption of search for god, is based on existence of the same..
I liked one message in the film - when you search for God, search for the One who created us, not the one created by us.....!
Ramesh & I keep mentioning the movie now and then. We went to a neighborhood temple today for Vaikunda Ekadasi - and it was fully crowded. So was Vaitheeswaran koil which we visited during Xmas vacation to complete some pending dues there, and we could not enter the temple for 2 hours, due to the crowd. Same situation in Shirdi, which I visited in September. Melmaruvathur, Sabarimala , Tirupathi - all temples are so crowded....We wondered what life in India would be like without religion. We spend so much time on it, I shudder to think of a life here without religion, whichever one it is, unless there is something better to consume all those man hours.... Otherwise, wars will consume them and cause more gruesome disasters. Our generation is blessed because we have religions, and thankfully many are moderate, and not fanatic.
PK pokes at God men, and I liked the tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement to Srisri Ravishankar in the title rolls...
And look the furor it has created in India, with Baba Ramdev and VHP protesting, and Akilesh Yadav making the film tax free so everyone can watch...!
That message was indeed the one I liked it too and it is very personal.
When I was young, I went with my mom to visit a great Hindu guru who was visiting our home town. Since my mom was a widower, the organizers will not let her and me approach closer to the stage get ashirvadam. That left a bad taste in me about all God men and pushed me to the notion that the end point of reaching God is completely personal.
Then my mom told me about an episode of a king who kept his devotion to God very secret. He never wanted, any one, including his wife to know about his Bakthi or pursuit of finding God. One day, in his dream he yells out "oh god" his wife becomes so happy to note that he is indeed religious. But when he hears about this, he immediately passes out and dies.
Therefore, I agree that we need to come out with a new way of approaching God through service to others and art. We need not declare our pursuit in certain branding. All the temples had that mission in the old days, somehow it has given away to rituals and things we may not understand the true value. The wrong number concept or the communication method is lost.
With reference to the crowd at temple and lack of religion leading to war is indeed a thought provoking statement. I think that religion and blind following without question leads to war as we have seen so far. I believe the grouping or branding is human nature. I see it all around me.. For example, we cheer for our university team to win the football game, like a war cry. At the same time, when there is a natural disaster, we also come out in big numbers to help each other. I am not a philosopher, but keep wondering why this happens in living beings, is it emergent behavior or intelligent design to survive the harsh environment.
I read in a book that if we live longer, say immortals like gods, we will not have the urge to pass on our traits, therefore there will be no competition for resources and other things.. Then eventually, the God becomes observer and see other beings find a way to become like them on their own without help? Possible?
Great discussion, Swarna and Suresh - I fully see what you are saying. Additionally, I would be a hypocrite, if I did not admit to participating and taking joy in many cultural rituals like Diwali, Thanksgiving, Naming Ceremonies etc.
However, can you kindly accommodate this other view that I am proposing?
The 'search for God' presupposes God exists. Additionally, we suppose this world was 'created', and thus assign creator-like abilities to God. Here is what I am saying - the very exercise of searching for God is possibly man-made and that there is potentially no difference between a search for God and search for a man-made God.
Thus, what I am proposing is there be a search without an object. This search is for understanding of ourselves, understanding of the universe and our place in it. Why do we need to put in a variable such as God into this search?
As I have admitted before, I am more in the scientist-agnostic camp, where the starting point is 'I don't know', rather than 'I know'
I hope this point of view is acceptable to bring into this discussion? (and hence my No-PK part of the review).
Can't agree more.
Yes, we don't need the notion of God, if we had the maturity, or the higher level of consciousness , while conducting our daily lives. Those who have a higher plane of thinking, can do, without God.
But for those of us who need something to hold on, when all hopes through our limits of logic or reason are lost, then the notion of God comes as a saviour, just as a plank of wood for a person battling in the ocean from submerging.
And for many who are in very rudimentary levels of spirituality or understanding true nature of self, religion and this notion of God aid in promoting consciousness. Methods like chanting a japa, for example, if one does not have the mental capacity to understand nature by contemplation, yield results atleast in strengthening the will and calming the mind.
Seeking God or one's inner self, therefore is very personal, as Suresh said, and would depend on the capacity and ripeness of one's soul, I think.
Your twin commentary of Yes-PK and No-PK was novel. Yes (largely) to Yes-PK. Not sure about No-PK.
Why the girl is being irresponsible:
The girl is not a scientist. Even I am unlikely to contemplate quarantine idea if I came across an alien. That too if the alien first got introduced to me as a gullible native! Simply, we Indians –even if educated- do not have such awareness of alien contamination issues.
But the main point here is - it is NOT intended even remotely as a science fiction. The alien is only a metaphor! It is a tool to exemplify total objectivity in looking at the hypocrisy of the religions and the fraudulence that takes place taking advantage.
Why it is not bold enough to tackle conception of God and takes on God-men instead?
You cannot take on God directly. You can only take on the religions which conceptualise gods, advocate and set rules variously. May be he could have been bold enough to declare ‘Why there should be God’ rather than ask in the final scene “…if we are talking about the God who made us, or the God the men make…”
In my opinion, if the question were more straightforward, it wouldn’t have been as poetic as it was.
By asking the various questions that he did at the end (i.e.,.is the God asking us to hurt ourselves in paying obeisance etc..) what is being driven at is if God existed, would it be important to pray to him even?
I think that was subtly conveyed.
This is not to say the movie was flawless. Far from that. I wouldn’t rate its impact anywhere close to other Raj Kumar Hirani cult Munna Bhai or even 3 Idiots…
The movie is, no, not a science fiction, yes, a social satire, but not just that, something that emphasizes love as the overarching basis.
For me PK – Promise Kept.
I actually liked the approach/reviews of Swarna ,Suresh,Venkat and Rahul (very specially)...this movie should not be viewed at elderly adult approach making things more complexity...
When we give a cool entertaining approach as the way kids gets dwelled into we see the religious facts displayed in the movie are innocently questioned....this movie gives a fresh perspective of looking things better with more clarity in life...
I am in your camp Swarna.
Surya and I may have quite a few things in common - both Bostonians, both have names of celestial objects, both turned 50 in 2014, both won awards in 2014. He has an only son, Rahul; I have an only son, Anjanesh. But when it comes to our religious faiths, we are poles apart. Still, each of us are entitled to our beliefs, and continue to have healthy debates, and I think that is what makes our forum go long and strong.
My husband and I were at the temple early morning for Vaikunta Ekadasi/ New Year celebrations. Braving the 18 degrees Fahrenheit, it was great to see a huge turnout of devotees with tiny tots in toe. The delight of the kids as they went thru the 'Sorga vaasal' was so endearing. We definitely feel rejuvenated with all the positive energy in the sights, sounds, aroma, and cheer all around.
Religion is a way people explained the happenings of Nature. That may be how different practices came into being. As we discussed in this forum, many of the practices do have scientific/ logical reasoning. One of my bucket list items is to visit all the major places of worship - Amristar, Angkor Vat, Jerusalem, Kanchi, Lhasa, Nagur, Vatican, and many of the ancient tribal places around the world.
Coming to the PK movie review, as Suresh said, it was directed against the God-men and not against God. But instead of questioning practices (mostly of the Hindus), the movie should have come out against the atrocities committed by God-men in the name of religion - like the Nityanandas, the Imams who inculcate terror in young minds, the Bishops who abused little boys for years, etc. Maybe a PK Part 2!
I could not but concur with some of the viewpoints of PK. For example, the milk abishekam that we do. On Pradosham days, cans of milk are used up for nandi abishekam. Can't the milk be better used for the poor? Of course I don't deny that many temples have annadhanam schemes and poor get good food there... I appreciate several good points of religion and temples, and the societal advantages of having a temple with a huge water body attached...At the same time, I recognize some practices which can be given up or modified to better benefit society.
I don't mind if anyone points out the flaws or shortcomings in our religious practices. But as you pointed out, those which have relevance in today's world and a benefit to the society should go on...
The point you make about wastage of crucial resources such as milk (a basic food) in the practice of religion is hugely debatable.
There are some practical perspectives to look at and then there is core ideology.
What does the amount of milk wasted constitute as a percentage of consumption or production? I bet it would be miniscule, a small fractional percentage on the overall. We are a milk surplus economy. So, there is no question of this having a depleting effect in meeting basic needs. Also using another logic, more the consumption, better the economy.
On your other point of whether we should use such saved resources for free feeding of people is totally a separate debate. Whether it does good for the society other than helping vote bank politics is questionable. That is not within the purview of this thread, so we will not tackle it here. In any case, I wonder if more milk is being used up in the abhishekam of Rajni and Vijay posters during their movie releases!
The core idea to be debated is whether state should do anything to regulate such things. I am a big supporter of non-interference of state in religious matters unless such activities go against the security, health care, essential morality and societal order. These religious customs have a great impact on individual gratification/motivation and as such should be allowed in the larger interest of society. Allow me to quote two examples of TN Govt interventions in the last decade on such matters. One which I support very much and the other I am not. The one which I supported is the banning of burning camphor in the temples for aarathi. This was a health hazard (toxic fumes), and even though this has been practiced for centuries, this was replaced with oil lamps (nei vilakku to be precise) and this is a positive intervention. It does not take away anything, but merely forced use of a substitute which cannot be thought of as a poor compromise in any case.
But on the other hand Govt imposed ban on slaughter of animals for worship is not something I agree at all. This practice was not widespread, only prevalent in rural Tamil Nadu and that too declining. However state intervention on the pretext of prevention of cruelty to animals is not something I am able to wholeheartedly support. This interferes with religious freedom. The slaughtered animals are anyway turned in to food offering which eventually is consumed. And Govt did this only for the Hindu temples and did not interfere in other slaughter festival of another religion.
But looking at a bigger picture, there is really food for thought. As you rightly mentioned, the temples have become so crowded. When I first went to TVM in 1990, I could enter sanctum sanctorum in no time. There were hardly a handful of worshippers on the premises. Today, you cannot imagine a quick darshan on even a non-festival day. The more educated the society is, the more economically advanced the population is, the more is the attendance to religious worship. Is it entirely rational? (I suspect it may be completely the opposite in the west; and that is interesting!)
There is something fundamental here. It is not just about numbers. There is some transformation going on. Before I table my views on this, would like to know what you and others think about this.
You've brought out some points that strike a chord with me.
Milk offerings (generically, any Abhishekam) has always been one of my pet peeves. I hope someday, I get a convincing explanation that justifies it. Just being a milk surplus economy doesn’t automatically give us the right to waste dairy resources. But then again, I thought in some temples, after the Abhishekam, they are salvaged and offered to the devotees (Correct me if I’m wrong).
I also get fascinated by people who fall head over heels (pun intended) on Alangaram – but I believe it is completely justified since it not only appeals to the aesthetic sense but also serves as the means of livelihood for the flower vendors.
Coming to think of the camphor usage, I read it somewhere that it purifies the air! Was surprised to learn from your email that it emits toxic fumes! I’m not the authority on this subject – however, I’m curious – Is a slight exposure to burning camphor any more toxic than the second hand smoke or the large scale smog/emissions found in big cities?
Slaughtering of animals in the name of religion? Sorry, a big No! We could debate on this for hours. Speaking of which, did you see the movie ‘Saivam’? (I hope I got the movie name right).
With regard to over-crowding in temples, the answer is simple. I think people are naturally inclined to be drawn towards things/places that are branded or high in popularity. For example, a typical tourist in the US is more likely to visit the Grand Canyon than the much smaller and lesser known but equally breathtaking Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Another instance I recall from my days in the Gulf eons ago. Folks used to pay premium to get the Sony TV ‘Made in Japan’ even though the ones (Sony TV) made in Singapore or Malaysia were equally reliable and less expensive. Branding is the name of the game!
To start with, ANY search for God is initiated only by humans! So, whether it is for a search of GOD, God like etc is all human creation. The real question is why there is creation at all! Different approaches by religions as well as science is only to find this. Each of the camps try to steer people to their point of view to gain some kind of power over them. The laughable part of it is that all try to assert that they know the answer. The truth is that these tiny creatures in the third insignificant planet of the minor solar system whose Sun is not even a major star are not even specs in the universe. To claim that they know who or what God is ridiculous. But to alleviate pain and suffering, some kind of solace is required. So concept of God is useful as long as it is not misused.
es Susee, Karpooram actually has medicinal properties. Originally Karpooram or Camphor was obtained from gum of a specific tree and this was burnt in temples. This has long been replaced by synthetic Camphor which is a chemical obtained from the distillation of turpentine. The synthetic camphor has similar properties of natural Camphor but is harmful in the long run for environment/health. Therefore banned. The natural Karpooram also called pachai karpooram, is now used for cooking purposes. (I use it in Chakkarai Pongal/akkara vadisal).
Flowers for temple alangarams should be totally non-controversial, isn’t it? After all, flowers are meant for that. Decoration of women included!
On animal sacrifice:
I very much understand the emotion and the humane intent in opposing the practice. Nonetheless, please allow me to argue against this as a political philosophy.
Animal sacrifice has been practiced in both Vedic and Tribal traditions for many millennia. The Vedic practice gave this up during renaissance, Adi Sankara and Bhakthi movement are all part of this. But rural Tamil Nadu continues to practice this. It is part of the belief system of people. Why tamper with this? If we think it is cruelty to animals, 1000 folds more animals are slaughtered in the same way in abattoirs for consumption anyway. Are we going to legislate against this? If we think it is barbarism in public not befitting civilized behavior, who are we to determine that? This is an idea based on our perception that in the act of animal sacrifice, the emotion of violence is dominant. We are not the best people to relate to that experience. I could argue the feeling could be the same piety that we draw from offering milk. (“Earthlings” is a documentary movie I hugely recommend watch. You will know which camp I belong if you watch. It is conflicting with my argument here, but I am merely arguing for Govt non-interference in Religion). The Vedic religion evolved out of this, and I am certain the remnant practice in some sections of Tamil Nadu (mostly fowl) will vapourise eventually, soon. But it should be the natural evolution and not Govt intervention.
Kanchana, please don’t feel any guilt in doing paalaabhishekam. It is miniscule, miniscule of lacto consumption comprising of milk, curds, cheese, butter and ghee in India.
I have been sitting on this definition for a year now - I hope this conveys my point of view without giving offense!
Religion - a story we construct, but with no facts
Science - gathering facts, but no story!
However Science + Religion isequivalent to oil+ water
Ok - I am now gathering my helmet and shield and ducking for cover to avoid incoming hostile missives!!
science without religion is lame : religion without science is blind..^^who said this...??
also the great Darwin explained that
^the myriad species inhabiting earth were a result of repeated evolutionary branching from common ancestors^^
going by what you say ^science answers facts, religion answers morality^ but both arises from the same human hemispheres each having its own dogma...all the above generates within an individuals experience...
how you elaborate on the above and how you seperate them as an independent entity within human spheres ^^^ could you throw some light on above ?
Kanchana - perhaps 3 circles in a Venn Diagram Asa framework:
Circle 1 - religion
Circle 2 - morality
Circle 3 - science
They may intersect, but don't have to be the same.
ie an atheist could be moral or
a scientist could be spiritual - and
perhaps a religious person 'could' be devoid of morals or spirituality.
But each circle is in the human DNA and coexist as intersecting circles - no escape!
COEXIST...that's the pivot..^^
Superb...thanks...^^
The Venn diagram approach makes a lot of sense.
Even assuming you feed milk to starving humans. Suppose the man fed on such milk goes and commits grave crimes with the energy provided, then is the action of feeding the man noble or ignoble. The effect of actions is not that easy to judge. May be it is the 'bhava' with which abhishekam is done which counts. How many of us would pluck out our eyes at the sight of a bleeding (from eye) shiva lingam ? Also close to 40% of food we produce is lost due to various inefficiencies, consumed by rats, (in europe) dumped into sea (including dairy products). But we don't really bother much about such wastage. But there is another underlying principle. The cow that yields milk often yields more than what a calf needs and is relieved when the excess milk is take out. But for this the man who draws milk from the cow should also have fed it with love and affection, bathed and kept it free of flies and worked for its welfare before he can claim his right to draw the excess milk from it. Then it seems ok to me that he may do what he feels like with the milk he has drawn.
All the gold / silk / crackers / expensive crafts, that is bought in the world is not waste of money ? (of course i know you are not crazy for these except for the presence 'gold' in your name !) why should your temple going lady friends of Mumbai not give up these before pondering on the milk wasted on abhishekam ?
Don't get into this angle and earn our ire....
The gold and silver are "used", and not "wasted", and they are preserved with great care for passing on to our progeny...
Whoever asked you to donate what you had meticulously chosen for your personal use with your own hard earned money? The point is, after you have taken care of yourself and your family, when you think you can spare something for the society, can't you do better (than pouring milk down the drain?).
his is a random thought!
Probably, in the year 4000 BC, there was a village where they had a village with a temple of "a GOD".
Not everyone was wealthy enough to eat a great meal daily. So one day, a bright mind came up with a bright thought of "sharing" what is available amongst the village amongst all atleat one in a month, and said " on the next full moon day, we shall have a feast for all in the village! Each household shall bring a liter of milk, some fruits, some jaggery and some rice. Half of the milk shall be poured on the GOD as Abisheka and the rest shall be made into eatables for the feast!
Those of you who cannot bring all the stuff shall bring whatever they can.... Yadhashakthi thulasildhalam.... Or shall participate in the coooking, serving and washing chores"
We still follow this, but partially. We pour milk on the idol, but do not necessarily share the prasadams with the needy but share it with Those who are "not needy".
Even assuming you feed milk to starving humans. Suppose the man fed on such milk goes and commits grave crimes with the energy provided, then is the action of feeding the man noble or ignoble. The effect of actions is not that easy to judge. May be it is the 'bhava' with which abhishekam is done which counts. How many of us would pluck out our eyes at the sight of a bleeding (from eye) shiva lingam ? Also close to 40% of food we produce is lost due to various inefficiencies, consumed by rats, (in europe) dumped into sea (including dairy products). But we don't really bother much about such wastage. But there is another underlying principle. The cow that yields milk often yields more than what a calf needs and is relieved when the excess milk is take out. But for this the man who draws milk from the cow should also have fed it with love and affection, bathed and kept it free of flies and worked for its welfare before he can claim his right to draw the excess milk from it. Then it seems ok to me that he may do what he feels like with the milk he has drawn.
I can relate to this quid-pro-quid type socialism as the root of many rituals.
Seriously? What a juvenile movie!
Post a Comment