The Night of January 16th

Who was Bjorn Faulkner?

That is the premise of the wonderful play written by Ayn Rand. I have just finished reading it in one sitting and thoroughly enjoyed it. The play asks the audience ( who play the role of the jury) whether Bjorn Faulkner, a wealthy aristocrat, who had swindled millions, been murdered by his mistress or others ( wife, father in law) and for what possible motives. The beauty of the play is that there is no ending to it. The jury/audience gets to hear both the viewpoints, which balance the evidence against the accused, Ms. Andre. And on the basis of such testimonies, the jury is required to come to a conclusion, after which, the author has written the two contrasting reactions of Ms. Andre.

I would not like to go into the details of the case, but would recommend this play to everyone. It is simple, and like past Ayn Rand writings, brings out the individuality of the protagonists and their conflict with the socialist, do good for all, believe in "WE" mentality of the society. And like past Ayn Rand writings, it makes you question the need to follow certain social norms, unless you believe in them. For example, she questions the need for lovers to get married. But do not assume that she questions the institution of marriage, instead, she questions why people accept the institution on face value, and instead not follow it because they believe in it. Sounds complicated, doesn't it? Well, I would say read the play, and maybe these lines will become clearer.

So what is the verdict according to me? The question asked of the jurors is whether Ms. Karen Andre is guilty of the murder of Mr. Faulkner. I think not. I would say that there was no evidence provided in the case. Using the ever popular line, it was all circumstantial evidence, with no character ever revealing the whole truth, as is evident from the convenient revealing of certain pieces of the puzzle by the witnesses.

But is Mr. Faulkner really dead or is he alive, waiting to be joined by Ms. Andre? Now that is a question which would bewilder quite a few now!!! My take is that Mr. Faulkner is alive,but has faked his death not only to the world, but also to his lover, Ms. Andre, with whom the plot was conceived. A man like Mr. Faulkner would not like being tied to anything, even to love. Hence, he would have gone on to re-start his life, away from all the people who ever knew him. Why would he do so? Simple, to LIVE ON!!! And also because all Ayn Rand Protagonist males are supermen. They do not have a weakness, and have a simple mandate...which is to LIVE.

In a nutshell, another cracker of a story from Ayn Rand. Enjoy it!!!

All Corporate Managers should be Physically Fit

The only Group Discussion which I was not able to make it through during Day 0 of my placements at IMT was that of Vodafone. The topic of the GD was the title of this post. At that time, I was mentally tired and almost not able to think about what was going on around me. It did not help me either that my name was being called out for the Bharti Airtel interview while I was inside for the Vodafone GD. But excuses aside, a major reason behind why I did not function well mentally at that GD was a simple one : I was not physically fit!!!

It has taken me a couple of months to realise this truth, and it has been a bitter pill to swallow. But I have decided to move on. I am back to playing tennis almost daily and I am walking everyday as well. Yes, at my age it should have been jogging, but somehow I am just not able to get to that level of physical exertion as of now. So brisk walking for 40 minutes it is every evening. I do about 5 to 6 kms of it everyday ( a rough calculation) and I am feeling really fit these days.

Coming back to the topic of the GD, I totally realise now how physical fitness is so very important for a corporate manager today. It is important to feel fresh both mentally as well as physically, and I am enjoying the feeling of freshness which has come over me due to the physical exertions of the past few weeks.

Needless to say now, all corporate managers should be physically fit, and I am surely on that route now.

जोधा Akbar

It has been only 5 days since Jodha Akbar was released and I have seen it already twice. The movie is certainly a good movie, though as has been said elsewhere by many critics, a tad too long.

A major reason for me seeing the movie for a second time were quite a few. Not only am I a fan of Hrithik Roshan, but I wanted to see the movie again for the apparent hurt it has caused the Rajput clan and as claimed by some Hindu Sentiments. Besides this, I wanted to see exactly why people had gone ga-ga over the battle sequences, which I had found mediocre in execution initially.



Well, Hrithik Roshan did impress me the second time around as well। The actor is one of the few actors today who emotes and communicates more through his eyes, than his actions। I remember my Grandmother saying that this fact was the big difference in the actors of the yesteryear, such as Raj Kapoor, Dilip Kumar, etc and the actors present today। Well, I think Mr. Roshan's acting skills would find approval from my Grandmother as well. He has quite nicely brought out a younger and temperamental side to Akbar, which would be quite a huge differentiation from the Akbar we have all read in history books.

Which clearly brings me to my second objective of seeing the movie again. Hurt Rajput sentiments is what we have all heard about for the past few weeks. Apparently, Jodha was the name of the daughter in law of Akbar. Hence, this distortion of fact by the director had hurt Rajput sentiments. Well, the director did say so in the opening slides of the film, about the liberty he had taken in choosing Jodha as the name, while history had recorded the name of Akbar's wife by many other names. His explanation ( and certainly not apology, as is being construed by some) was that the most famous and common name he had come across was Jodha, and hence used it. I totally agree with him on this point. Now, we have all studied the Mughals when we were in primary school, and our parents have always told us stories about the mughals, since they have had such a major impact on the history and culture of our country. Jodha was indeed the name we all read in our books, and was also the name we were always told of by our parents. So I fail to understand how the critics of the name have suddenly realised that, wait a minute, Jodha was the daughter in law and not the wife! I would put it down to some people/organization unnecessarily trying to attract attention. On the other hand, throughout the film, the Emperor Akbar praises Rajputs to no end. Describing the Rajputs as the bravest clan he has seen, I am sure, Akbar ( read Director) meant all the dis-respect he could show towards the Rajput sentiment. In a nutshell, there is no way this movie has dis-respected the Rajputs.

Also, some organizations claim that the movie has dis-respected and hurt Hindu sentiments. Again, where has it done so??? The Mughal emperor is shown taking off his shoes before entering temples; The Hindu traditions are observed during the wedding; all in all there has been no scene where Hindu sentiments could have been hurt. So my friends, another publicity stunt is what I would conclude.

Talking of stunts, the action sequences which I found mediocre initially, were really anything but. Though people will compare it to the Troys and the Gladiators, what must be appreciated is the scale on which certain sequences have been shot. The opening battle scenes are superb, but do contain a few bad shots, basically due to inattention to the extras fighting lamely. Besides that, the climax/concluding fight between Akbar and his Brother in law, or the sword fight between the emperor and his queen are superbly shot and technically quite sound, from my limited knowledge of such sequences.

Hence, I would recommend this movie to all movie-buffs, but saying that would also warn everyone that this is not a lesson in History. It is a romantic movie, which explores the relationship of the Emperor and his Queen. Try appreciating the differences in the cultures of the Mughals and the Rajputs and what Jodha & Akbar had to adjust to, and I am sure you will appreciate the movie much more.

Like Akbar keeps saying , " हुकुम की तामील हो ".

A new start