All said and done the Indian team is looking down and out. The defeat in the tour game must be causing further distress. The bowling is just not there. The batting is struggling. The team looks in a disarray. The press is having a field day. Only a miracle, like someone said, could see an Indian revival.
To me the key is Dhoni and his mindset. He needs to do something to come out of his current mindset. Ideally spend time with himself and a pen and a paper and ask himself what he did right earlier and what he needs to do now. I am sure he will come up with the answers. He is an intelligent man and one who reacts quickly.
Team composition and injury problems are not an excuse because Dhoni has been a master at making complete rookies and novices deliver when it mattered the most. He trusted them and their ability just as he trusted himself and his ability. If there was one thing he made clear it was that no one was indispensable. If every one in the team believed in themselves, in the cause - a big job for the captain to make them do that because he himself must first believe and trust in himself and his team - then you have a resilient unit that can come back. There can be no favourites, no set decisions now - just a simple revisit to the days when it was all about survival. Dhoni needs to revisit those days and be as flexible as he was then when he had only what was given to him.
If the World Cup win is weighing on their minds, its better they drop it at the earliest. It's history. The conditions, the momentum everything was different. Now it is a new day. You are on the back foot, playing in the lion's den, in conditions that are suitable to the hosts, against a team that believes they are capable of pulling off a 4-0 result. Time to go back to the basics and look to seize control by attrition, not by force as in the second test, session by session, cut by cut.
Clearly the batting that is succeeding in England is the kind that relies on grit and technique, not flamboyant stroke making. It is time to adapt all batting to that strategy. In Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman we have batsmen who can graft and stay put for long hours. Sehwag can make his own plans as he does not belong to this school at all. I'd also go with Kohli and not Raina for the next test as Kohli is also a quick one to adapt and can lift the side with his freshness and combative attitude.
Dhoni's worries clearly lie with his bowlers. I think here he must go back to his old strategy of trusting what he has on his shelf rather than hoping that Zaheer will come back and rescue the team. Believe in your bowlers and work out the opposition by going back to the basics. If the Englishmen can swing the ball so too can the Indians - in Sreesanth, Praveen Kumar and Ishant (though I wish he'd cut down his pace and focus more on moving the ball in England) - we have bowlers who can swing the ball considerably ad pose questions to the Englishmen as well. The second test showed that. Get Zaheer into the mentor role for the next test and let the bowlers work around him.
Dhoni needs to go back to his biggest asset as a man manager - to trust his team and himself, to expect the world from them. Only then can the miracle happen. Because man to man I still believe, the Indian team is still better than the English team. It all now boils down to belief.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Stop Looking For 100% Perfection
One of the things that blocks our progress I feel is is the way we reject people or institutions entirely - because of some small flaw. Our parameters to judge anything is to seek 100% perfection - there cannot be a single flaw anywhere. And this way of judging makes life difficult for people who are nearly there, the 90% people, who have spent most of their lives trying to be perfect, by the book. We reject them gleefully the moment some mischievous contender (politician) insinuates that there could be something wrong. We instantly classify the 90% perfect with the 0% perfect. This lot is hopeless we say, there is no hope!
I think we are better off understanding that we cannot find the 100% perfection, in politics or any other place. Maybe we should recognise people and applaud them for trying their best to be as perfect as they can, their good intentions, their work. Just as we should recognise the mischief of those who have no claim to any good intentions nor any work to show for it.
It is not that we are condoning the 10%. It is that the small percentages are imperfections that could happen to anyone. But if we can forgive a small imperfection (mostly back in the past), which has nothing to do with his current intention which is for the general good, we are better off. That way we have many people who are 90% there, who have good intentions, who are doing some constructive work, to carry the work forward. If we don't we have a whole lot of people who have failed the perfection test and they are all in one cell - the condemned cell. The constructive with the destructive!
Maybe there is a case to be more tolerant and discretionary. To condemn Anna Hazare because of some mischievous remarks by the government is the same stupidity. It should not matter even if he has some serious issues in the past - what has it got to do with his wanting to eliminate corruption? To condemn anyone because of some imperfections is to completely ignore the good they do, they did or worse, can do in the future. It is the very famous frog-in-the-well mentality we are known for.
No one can be perfect. We are all guilty of small crimes, small corruptions. That does not mean we are all bracketed with the condemned lot and have no hope. We must learn to make the discretion between 10% and 90% perfect and give ourselves a chance. By looking at perfection we find no one. We can support no one. We are constantly disillusioned. On the other hand by accepting our mistakes and trying to be as near perfect as possible we can give ourselves a chance.
Several politicians have not been able to do what they could have done thanks to those who brought out irrelevant imperfections against them. Celebrities, movie stars, god men have fallen as well. The mischief maker who does nothing in Parliament except create mischief has done nothing to increase his points by slinging mud at another who has actually done some good work. But we instantly put mischief maker over the other based on his allegations alone.
We could do better and do away with this unforgiving, blinkered, one-size-fits-all mentality. It is time to accept the relative best and go with them. Same with the individual - stop looking for perfection and start hitting the nineties! It gives you so much freedom and allows much progress.
I think we are better off understanding that we cannot find the 100% perfection, in politics or any other place. Maybe we should recognise people and applaud them for trying their best to be as perfect as they can, their good intentions, their work. Just as we should recognise the mischief of those who have no claim to any good intentions nor any work to show for it.
It is not that we are condoning the 10%. It is that the small percentages are imperfections that could happen to anyone. But if we can forgive a small imperfection (mostly back in the past), which has nothing to do with his current intention which is for the general good, we are better off. That way we have many people who are 90% there, who have good intentions, who are doing some constructive work, to carry the work forward. If we don't we have a whole lot of people who have failed the perfection test and they are all in one cell - the condemned cell. The constructive with the destructive!
Maybe there is a case to be more tolerant and discretionary. To condemn Anna Hazare because of some mischievous remarks by the government is the same stupidity. It should not matter even if he has some serious issues in the past - what has it got to do with his wanting to eliminate corruption? To condemn anyone because of some imperfections is to completely ignore the good they do, they did or worse, can do in the future. It is the very famous frog-in-the-well mentality we are known for.
No one can be perfect. We are all guilty of small crimes, small corruptions. That does not mean we are all bracketed with the condemned lot and have no hope. We must learn to make the discretion between 10% and 90% perfect and give ourselves a chance. By looking at perfection we find no one. We can support no one. We are constantly disillusioned. On the other hand by accepting our mistakes and trying to be as near perfect as possible we can give ourselves a chance.
Several politicians have not been able to do what they could have done thanks to those who brought out irrelevant imperfections against them. Celebrities, movie stars, god men have fallen as well. The mischief maker who does nothing in Parliament except create mischief has done nothing to increase his points by slinging mud at another who has actually done some good work. But we instantly put mischief maker over the other based on his allegations alone.
We could do better and do away with this unforgiving, blinkered, one-size-fits-all mentality. It is time to accept the relative best and go with them. Same with the individual - stop looking for perfection and start hitting the nineties! It gives you so much freedom and allows much progress.
Thought for the Day - Creativity and Fearlessness
Is creativity to do with a lack of fear? I would think so. Why do people easily transcend boundaries and dare to look beyond into spaces, angles, worlds that no one has seen? Why do they not fear to examine thoughts never thought before, push the envelope? Why do they dare to dream so far, so wide, so high?
It certainly is fearlessness in its element. Most of us do not create because we fear. We do not want to see. We in fact cannot see. Fear blinds us. And hence we stick to the straight and narrow. We modify existing thoughts. We steal existing thoughts and hide behind copyright laws. We create nothing, as someone said, we merely plagiarise nature.
But the one who creates stuff that amazes the world with sheer audacity - he is the one who dares to go where no others have. He is the one who risks everything and still laughs at the world for not having the guts to go where he has. He is the one who can see that the world is full of blind people who have the power but cannot see.
Being corrupt, dishonest, valueless, insensitive etc are all different ways of being uncreative. The power of knowledge lies in the fact that it can create - honestly. A real creation that makes the world stand up and applaud by sheer brilliance, by its courage, its audacity.
For those who argue in favour of the world not working with the right values and ethics, I only say, don't insult your intelligence. For the one who has not had the opportunity to use it, that way could be the only way he knows. The uncreative manner. But if you really have the intelligence, the ba##s, show it through original, real creation. All else is accumulation and robbery!
It certainly is fearlessness in its element. Most of us do not create because we fear. We do not want to see. We in fact cannot see. Fear blinds us. And hence we stick to the straight and narrow. We modify existing thoughts. We steal existing thoughts and hide behind copyright laws. We create nothing, as someone said, we merely plagiarise nature.
But the one who creates stuff that amazes the world with sheer audacity - he is the one who dares to go where no others have. He is the one who risks everything and still laughs at the world for not having the guts to go where he has. He is the one who can see that the world is full of blind people who have the power but cannot see.
Being corrupt, dishonest, valueless, insensitive etc are all different ways of being uncreative. The power of knowledge lies in the fact that it can create - honestly. A real creation that makes the world stand up and applaud by sheer brilliance, by its courage, its audacity.
For those who argue in favour of the world not working with the right values and ethics, I only say, don't insult your intelligence. For the one who has not had the opportunity to use it, that way could be the only way he knows. The uncreative manner. But if you really have the intelligence, the ba##s, show it through original, real creation. All else is accumulation and robbery!
Friday, August 5, 2011
This One Stunned Me - 70% Do Not Believe That Honesty Works
While speaking to freshers at a Management College the other day I was shocked when 70% students said they believed that they could not make a decent or successful living by honest and ethical ways. 70% is a large number. There is something drastically wrong here.
I always encountered some opposition on this contentious issue but it was always in the range of 10-15%. There are bound to be cynics, there is bound to be disillusionment but this recent experience stunned me into losing my composure. I stammered and stuttered, as I tried to find out what had happened to them that they are so cynical, how they expect to survive in a world that is overwhelmingly disillusioned with honesty and ethics and values.
What have we done to these 20 year olds that even before they set out into the world they have such strong beliefs that they cannot live honestly?
It is obvious where their disillusionment stems from. The business world has no clean businessmen that one can quote as examples with all the stalwarts falling - one by one. The political world is replete with corrupt stories. The sports world has its own (though thankfully the reigning heroes the Indian cricket team is clean). All around they see flagrant abuse of power, of illegal money, of corruption, debauchery. No wonder the kids have given up this war even before they started it. That is what shocked me more than anything else - the lack of hope.
Unfortunately, we never get to hear of the good stories. Where are the good stories from business, politics, government, sports, movies in India that can show both success and honesty and ethics? There is no doubt that there are many like the story of R. Anandakumar the Collector of Erode who joined his six year old daughter in the local Government School. But we need so many more. More frequently.
I hope the media brings on a policy of showing at least one positive story whenever it brings on a sensational story dealing with dishonesty, corruption, conspiracy. Something that shows hope, honesty, integrity as examples to live up to. You owe it to these youth guys, they are the ones who are fuelling the ads on your channels. Give them something to hold on to. Same goes for movie makers, music makers, celebrities, teachers.
As far as the education system is concerned, it has failed miserably. If it has not been able to convey to its youth (the very youth that is the basis on which India becomes such a force to reckon with in these times) that education is about learning the art of discretion, about using the power of knowledge with long serving values and ethics to form a fair, just and equitable society where everyone lives with equality, harmony and dignity, Mr. Sibal, it is time to stop worrying about Anna Hazare's team and make sweeping changes and quickly. These are bigger problems that the country will have to address in he next few decades. The system as it is currently has failed, just as the parents have failed if our children are thinking in these terms.
If basic life skills are not taught, if the youth are not exposed to the right role models, I fear that we may not be in a position to claim a leadership position in world affairs - something that we seem to take for granted by 2020. We have a neighbour who is far more purposeful and who also has a clear intent on how the power equation should turn out.
I always encountered some opposition on this contentious issue but it was always in the range of 10-15%. There are bound to be cynics, there is bound to be disillusionment but this recent experience stunned me into losing my composure. I stammered and stuttered, as I tried to find out what had happened to them that they are so cynical, how they expect to survive in a world that is overwhelmingly disillusioned with honesty and ethics and values.
What have we done to these 20 year olds that even before they set out into the world they have such strong beliefs that they cannot live honestly?
It is obvious where their disillusionment stems from. The business world has no clean businessmen that one can quote as examples with all the stalwarts falling - one by one. The political world is replete with corrupt stories. The sports world has its own (though thankfully the reigning heroes the Indian cricket team is clean). All around they see flagrant abuse of power, of illegal money, of corruption, debauchery. No wonder the kids have given up this war even before they started it. That is what shocked me more than anything else - the lack of hope.
Unfortunately, we never get to hear of the good stories. Where are the good stories from business, politics, government, sports, movies in India that can show both success and honesty and ethics? There is no doubt that there are many like the story of R. Anandakumar the Collector of Erode who joined his six year old daughter in the local Government School. But we need so many more. More frequently.
I hope the media brings on a policy of showing at least one positive story whenever it brings on a sensational story dealing with dishonesty, corruption, conspiracy. Something that shows hope, honesty, integrity as examples to live up to. You owe it to these youth guys, they are the ones who are fuelling the ads on your channels. Give them something to hold on to. Same goes for movie makers, music makers, celebrities, teachers.
As far as the education system is concerned, it has failed miserably. If it has not been able to convey to its youth (the very youth that is the basis on which India becomes such a force to reckon with in these times) that education is about learning the art of discretion, about using the power of knowledge with long serving values and ethics to form a fair, just and equitable society where everyone lives with equality, harmony and dignity, Mr. Sibal, it is time to stop worrying about Anna Hazare's team and make sweeping changes and quickly. These are bigger problems that the country will have to address in he next few decades. The system as it is currently has failed, just as the parents have failed if our children are thinking in these terms.
If basic life skills are not taught, if the youth are not exposed to the right role models, I fear that we may not be in a position to claim a leadership position in world affairs - something that we seem to take for granted by 2020. We have a neighbour who is far more purposeful and who also has a clear intent on how the power equation should turn out.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Z - Movie Review
Watched a 1969 French classic 'Z'. It's a political thriller that starts with a 'claimer' which goes something like - 'If the characters resemble anyone living or dead it is deliberate'. From that moment on the movie cocks a snook at everything that goes on in the world of politics especially with relation to the assassination of Greek democrat politician Gigoris Lambrakis in 1963. It is a hard hitting, true blue account of not just the times when it was made, when Greece was military dictatorship, but of politics across the world as we see it today. It is hard not to feel a sense of outrage by the movie.
Th movie starts with the Chief of Police stating his views and the views of those in power, on how left wing ideology must be dealt with, and thus sets the framework for the state versus socialists. From there the action shifts. The leader of the Opposition, a democrat, is to address a rally supporting nuclear disarmament. The state is clearly against this line of thought and all places for the rally are mysteriously cancelled. A small hall is given for the leader to speak. Lumpen elements beat up the small crowd of his supporters, watched helplessly by the police. The police goes so far as to say that the rally is not wanted by a section of the crowd and the crowd could be agitated. It is obvious that the crowd is manipulated.
After the rally the leader, who has already been attacked once, and who has received a death threat that very day, is attacked in full view of the public and the police, in the middle of the road, by a careening truck. He suffers grievous injuries. A supporter chases the truck and manages to get on it, throw off the man who attacked the leader and hold the driver until a policeman arrives. The case becomes sensitive as the leader of the opposition is critical and another senator is badly injured. A case is built by the police that two drunks have been caught and the leader got injured in the subsequent accident by two drunks. Their case is backed by several witnesses. It is quite apparent that the police is behind the attack.
However things change drastically when the leader dies. The autopsy confirms a blow to the head by a club as the cause of the death and not by the truck accident. The investigating magistrate senses a rat. A witness comes forward to testify to his knowledge of how the plan was to kill the leader through an organisation called CROC which is used by the police to carry out such activities in return for petty favours. Meticulously meeting witnesses, disproving their claims, proving police complicity, the magistrate is helped by the stubborn witness, party members, a photo journalist who furnishes much information. Despite much resistance and threats from the government and the police the magistrate indicts all the top police officials, the actual murderers and everyone who was involved against whom there is reasonable doubt. One is glad that the magistrate sticks to his stand, does his job honestly - feels good that the justice that is being denied, hidden is delivered.
But in a quick epilogue the movie discloses that the magistrate has been removed from the case, the killers get small sentences, witnesses killed in accidents, the police officers let off, the photo journalist jailed. The government also bans several things including long hair, Beatles, Sartre, Beckett, sociology, free press and among many others the letter Z, which means 'he lives'.
'Z' is unlike any political thriller I have seen. It takes one incident and shows how the state can get into criminal activity to protect its own ideology. There are many moments which ring true to our society today. Politics is always the same. It is another case where reality proves that it can engage far more than fiction. A fine piece of work and a highly, pacy and enjoyable movie.
Th movie starts with the Chief of Police stating his views and the views of those in power, on how left wing ideology must be dealt with, and thus sets the framework for the state versus socialists. From there the action shifts. The leader of the Opposition, a democrat, is to address a rally supporting nuclear disarmament. The state is clearly against this line of thought and all places for the rally are mysteriously cancelled. A small hall is given for the leader to speak. Lumpen elements beat up the small crowd of his supporters, watched helplessly by the police. The police goes so far as to say that the rally is not wanted by a section of the crowd and the crowd could be agitated. It is obvious that the crowd is manipulated.
After the rally the leader, who has already been attacked once, and who has received a death threat that very day, is attacked in full view of the public and the police, in the middle of the road, by a careening truck. He suffers grievous injuries. A supporter chases the truck and manages to get on it, throw off the man who attacked the leader and hold the driver until a policeman arrives. The case becomes sensitive as the leader of the opposition is critical and another senator is badly injured. A case is built by the police that two drunks have been caught and the leader got injured in the subsequent accident by two drunks. Their case is backed by several witnesses. It is quite apparent that the police is behind the attack.
However things change drastically when the leader dies. The autopsy confirms a blow to the head by a club as the cause of the death and not by the truck accident. The investigating magistrate senses a rat. A witness comes forward to testify to his knowledge of how the plan was to kill the leader through an organisation called CROC which is used by the police to carry out such activities in return for petty favours. Meticulously meeting witnesses, disproving their claims, proving police complicity, the magistrate is helped by the stubborn witness, party members, a photo journalist who furnishes much information. Despite much resistance and threats from the government and the police the magistrate indicts all the top police officials, the actual murderers and everyone who was involved against whom there is reasonable doubt. One is glad that the magistrate sticks to his stand, does his job honestly - feels good that the justice that is being denied, hidden is delivered.
But in a quick epilogue the movie discloses that the magistrate has been removed from the case, the killers get small sentences, witnesses killed in accidents, the police officers let off, the photo journalist jailed. The government also bans several things including long hair, Beatles, Sartre, Beckett, sociology, free press and among many others the letter Z, which means 'he lives'.
'Z' is unlike any political thriller I have seen. It takes one incident and shows how the state can get into criminal activity to protect its own ideology. There are many moments which ring true to our society today. Politics is always the same. It is another case where reality proves that it can engage far more than fiction. A fine piece of work and a highly, pacy and enjoyable movie.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Ray - Movie Review
Watched 'Ray' a 2004 film based on the life of the famous R&B artiste Ray Charles Robinson. Jamie Foxx played the lead role of the blind, temperamental and highly talented musician who comes from a povery stricken conditions on a plantation in Florida and makes a name for himself in the music industry. This was in a time when racial segregation was very much in vogue. Jamie Foxx played the lead role and he played it wonderfully well and got himself an Academy Award for that performance.
The movie starts with Ray Charles Robinson standing at a bus stop in Florida. he wants to go to Seattle to play music. The movie keeps cutting back to his highly impoverished childhood of a six year old Ray and his younger brother George with their mother on a plantation with other black families. Ray learns to play the piano thanks to an old man who plays at the pub. Life is hard, there is no father around, the mother is very principled and never lets anyone, even life dictate its terms to her. And this is the greatest lesson she teaches Ray, that there is no place for self pity, a lesson that Ray learns very fast. In an unfortunate incident, his younger brother George dies as he drowns in a vat of hot water right in front of Ray's eyes. Ray holds himself guilty for his younger brother's death and in a seemingly related fashion, stops himself from seeing the world, the pain, and goes blind. But under his mother's pitiless, yet loving care, he learns how to take care of himself, gets some education and figures out that his talent lies in music. He also knows how to get by as he lies to the white bus driver that he has earned his bus trip because he lost his eyes fighting in the World War!
In Seattle the singer meets Quincy Jones among others, makes his talent speak for himself and more importantly makes it clear that he is a hard nosed businessman who is not going to take any nonsense from anyone. The moment he realises he is getting shortchanged he quits the safety and comfort of the job where he is playing and walks out. He plays in an all white band and realises that the Manager was cheating him - after which he asks all payment in singles - so he can count individual dollars. He also has a charm that draws women in flocks to him and he has a series of women on the tour. Ray gets married, makes money but is haunted all the time by his brother's death and visions of his childhood. To escape the pain he turns to drugs and a series of relationships that threaten his marriage. He gets arrested and gets away until one day he finally decides to quit heroin, gets into a rehab and fights the addiction out of the system. Ray never goes back to drugs and makes some wonderful music for many years to come until his death in 2004.
One thing stands out in the story is Ray's commitment to his music all through. Even as all others around him are falling to drugs or alcohol, he somehow finds time and energy on keep on playing, practicing and creating new forms of music. When his wife tells him on the day he decides to give up heroin that his drug addiction will take away the one thing that is closest to him - his music - Ray realises that it is not worth losing his music, the one thing that kept him alive. His love, commitment and passion for music is phenomenal. Another aspect that comes across is his business side. He is uncannily clear headed in business, ruthlessly changing sides, changing contracts with never heard of clauses, all with a 'country dumb' attitude he perfects and is soon known for. Somewhere as he overcomes his addiction he also makes peace with the fact that his mother and brother have forgiven him and he goes back to his music. Apart from being a leading figure in the fight for more rights for artistes, Ray also challenged the segregation of races in his audiences as was in vogue then, at the cost of losing his fame and money. The movie is full of his hit numbers and some of the songs were familiar but I instantly connected to 'Get on the road Jack' which I had heard in the eighties.
Jamie Foxx is brilliant as he changes the way he speaks, the way he walks to play the role of Ray. Apart from being blind Ray was also a highly strung, intelligent and passionate man who has to ooze charm, hide his drug addiction, play 'country dumb', show a ruthless side and also a vulnerable and lonely side. Complex as it can get and Jamie Foxx lives it. It was highly disturbing to see the scenes where young Ray loses his brother and his vision and then his mother as she sends him away to get an education. Those scenes have been shot powerfully and explain the full impact of those years on Ray, the pain he and his mother carried. I cannot see myself watching this intense movie again in the near future, but for those who have not seen it, Ray is a must watch.
The movie starts with Ray Charles Robinson standing at a bus stop in Florida. he wants to go to Seattle to play music. The movie keeps cutting back to his highly impoverished childhood of a six year old Ray and his younger brother George with their mother on a plantation with other black families. Ray learns to play the piano thanks to an old man who plays at the pub. Life is hard, there is no father around, the mother is very principled and never lets anyone, even life dictate its terms to her. And this is the greatest lesson she teaches Ray, that there is no place for self pity, a lesson that Ray learns very fast. In an unfortunate incident, his younger brother George dies as he drowns in a vat of hot water right in front of Ray's eyes. Ray holds himself guilty for his younger brother's death and in a seemingly related fashion, stops himself from seeing the world, the pain, and goes blind. But under his mother's pitiless, yet loving care, he learns how to take care of himself, gets some education and figures out that his talent lies in music. He also knows how to get by as he lies to the white bus driver that he has earned his bus trip because he lost his eyes fighting in the World War!
In Seattle the singer meets Quincy Jones among others, makes his talent speak for himself and more importantly makes it clear that he is a hard nosed businessman who is not going to take any nonsense from anyone. The moment he realises he is getting shortchanged he quits the safety and comfort of the job where he is playing and walks out. He plays in an all white band and realises that the Manager was cheating him - after which he asks all payment in singles - so he can count individual dollars. He also has a charm that draws women in flocks to him and he has a series of women on the tour. Ray gets married, makes money but is haunted all the time by his brother's death and visions of his childhood. To escape the pain he turns to drugs and a series of relationships that threaten his marriage. He gets arrested and gets away until one day he finally decides to quit heroin, gets into a rehab and fights the addiction out of the system. Ray never goes back to drugs and makes some wonderful music for many years to come until his death in 2004.
One thing stands out in the story is Ray's commitment to his music all through. Even as all others around him are falling to drugs or alcohol, he somehow finds time and energy on keep on playing, practicing and creating new forms of music. When his wife tells him on the day he decides to give up heroin that his drug addiction will take away the one thing that is closest to him - his music - Ray realises that it is not worth losing his music, the one thing that kept him alive. His love, commitment and passion for music is phenomenal. Another aspect that comes across is his business side. He is uncannily clear headed in business, ruthlessly changing sides, changing contracts with never heard of clauses, all with a 'country dumb' attitude he perfects and is soon known for. Somewhere as he overcomes his addiction he also makes peace with the fact that his mother and brother have forgiven him and he goes back to his music. Apart from being a leading figure in the fight for more rights for artistes, Ray also challenged the segregation of races in his audiences as was in vogue then, at the cost of losing his fame and money. The movie is full of his hit numbers and some of the songs were familiar but I instantly connected to 'Get on the road Jack' which I had heard in the eighties.
Jamie Foxx is brilliant as he changes the way he speaks, the way he walks to play the role of Ray. Apart from being blind Ray was also a highly strung, intelligent and passionate man who has to ooze charm, hide his drug addiction, play 'country dumb', show a ruthless side and also a vulnerable and lonely side. Complex as it can get and Jamie Foxx lives it. It was highly disturbing to see the scenes where young Ray loses his brother and his vision and then his mother as she sends him away to get an education. Those scenes have been shot powerfully and explain the full impact of those years on Ray, the pain he and his mother carried. I cannot see myself watching this intense movie again in the near future, but for those who have not seen it, Ray is a must watch.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Thought - Why Hard Work is Hard
Most things are simply not done because they are considered 'hard work'. But what is hard work? And why is it hard? And why does this hard work become enjoyable to some? What are the easy things? Why are they easy? And why is easy work looked down upon by some?
I think 'hard work' is the first state of non-acceptance of an idea, mostly an idea that needs clarity in the mind. Mathematics is hard work, finance is hard work, meeting strangers is hard work, writing a new report is hard work, starting a company is hard work, writing or composing something original is hard work, doing the bungee jump is hard work, grinding out a hundred is hard work and so on. The first thought is this - 'Man, I have to figure this out in my mind first!' That is the 'hard' part of it. Once you figure it out in the mind, one way or another, partly or fully, the rest of the work is pretty easy. One actually says, hey, its easy, I can tell you how to do it. Once you are in that space, the hours melt. It is not 'hard work' anymore. What looked like hard work earlier, when minutes appeared like hours, quickly transforms into 'interesting' work and the long hours are actually fun or 'enjoyable' as the champions say. Maybe the next time we think something is 'hard' we probably need to hold our freely wagging tongues, look at the issue carefully and try and figure it out in the mind.
And then there are easy things. Lying down, sleeping, browsing the net, playing games, watching movies, reading books, meeting friends. Most of these things are easy because in our mind there is no 'new' idea to the 'act' generally. You are in a known, secure space, with something you can choose to do or not at any given point of time - within your comfort zone so to speak. (Some books and movies that come with new ideas, new languages, even some friends with new ideas, can give you a headache, putting them in the difficult or hard work category). Nothing new here, all options lie with you, you are safe in your little world with a 'Don't Disturb' sign on it.
The reason why 'easy' is looked down by some is that it is mostly not conducive to growth (unless the person is independently exploring 'new' ideas). 'Hard' exposes you to 'new' ideas and makes you far more flexible, enhances confidence of having done the 'hard' things, enables constant growth and gives a balanced world view.
Hard work then is not so much in the work as in the non-acceptance of the idea. (At least not hard work as we know it, I am not talking of pounding rock 12 hours a day, so all those who are ready to pounce on me with that, back off! Even there, people figure out ways to be more efficient after realizing there is no way out!) Once you accept the idea, the work by itself, becomes easier and enjoyable. So engineers can understand commerce and finance, technical people can understand legal documents, artists can understand balance sheets, construction workers can do the ballet - it's just a mindset! Until you accept the idea, everything in the world is 'hard work'. And going by that principle, the more 'hard' work you do, the more ideas you are figuring out, and the more flexible and open your mind is to create!
I think 'hard work' is the first state of non-acceptance of an idea, mostly an idea that needs clarity in the mind. Mathematics is hard work, finance is hard work, meeting strangers is hard work, writing a new report is hard work, starting a company is hard work, writing or composing something original is hard work, doing the bungee jump is hard work, grinding out a hundred is hard work and so on. The first thought is this - 'Man, I have to figure this out in my mind first!' That is the 'hard' part of it. Once you figure it out in the mind, one way or another, partly or fully, the rest of the work is pretty easy. One actually says, hey, its easy, I can tell you how to do it. Once you are in that space, the hours melt. It is not 'hard work' anymore. What looked like hard work earlier, when minutes appeared like hours, quickly transforms into 'interesting' work and the long hours are actually fun or 'enjoyable' as the champions say. Maybe the next time we think something is 'hard' we probably need to hold our freely wagging tongues, look at the issue carefully and try and figure it out in the mind.
And then there are easy things. Lying down, sleeping, browsing the net, playing games, watching movies, reading books, meeting friends. Most of these things are easy because in our mind there is no 'new' idea to the 'act' generally. You are in a known, secure space, with something you can choose to do or not at any given point of time - within your comfort zone so to speak. (Some books and movies that come with new ideas, new languages, even some friends with new ideas, can give you a headache, putting them in the difficult or hard work category). Nothing new here, all options lie with you, you are safe in your little world with a 'Don't Disturb' sign on it.
The reason why 'easy' is looked down by some is that it is mostly not conducive to growth (unless the person is independently exploring 'new' ideas). 'Hard' exposes you to 'new' ideas and makes you far more flexible, enhances confidence of having done the 'hard' things, enables constant growth and gives a balanced world view.
Hard work then is not so much in the work as in the non-acceptance of the idea. (At least not hard work as we know it, I am not talking of pounding rock 12 hours a day, so all those who are ready to pounce on me with that, back off! Even there, people figure out ways to be more efficient after realizing there is no way out!) Once you accept the idea, the work by itself, becomes easier and enjoyable. So engineers can understand commerce and finance, technical people can understand legal documents, artists can understand balance sheets, construction workers can do the ballet - it's just a mindset! Until you accept the idea, everything in the world is 'hard work'. And going by that principle, the more 'hard' work you do, the more ideas you are figuring out, and the more flexible and open your mind is to create!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)