My last post sounds more complex than it is. Theory always does, and theory comes for me in hindsight often as I look back at my films and wonder ‘what was going in my mind when I made those decisions’. ?
The central focus in Elizabeth was Power. The PLOT conflict was between Elizabeth and her Catholic detractors, in their struggle for Power. The PSYCHOLOGICAL conflict was between Elizabeth’s desire be in love and therefore retain innocence, as against the need to have power to survive, and therefore to be ruthless. The MYTHIC conflict was about whether it was possible to be Divine and Human at the same time. Focusing on interpretations of Virginity as a fact, or as a political/mythic statement. Virginity was explored not only as a political need, but as a Mythic idea of Elizabeth’s desire to be (perhaps) a representation of the Virgin Mary.
The Design of the film is complex as it covers lighting, costumes, colors, camera choreography and the architectural design of the film.
The Architectural design of the film was telling another story, almost contradictory to Elizabeth’s rise to Power. By constantly showing Elizabeth as a tiny individual in relationship to the immense stone architecture, it contradicted her rise to Power, often through the very high angle shots of the stone arches in the places that I shot in. The attempt was to introduce the idea that their is greater Power operating beyond the human conflict going on in the plot. I called it Destiny but it could go by many other names. All the antagonists and the protagonists were ultimately equal in Death and subject to their Destiny.
The Costume design showed Elizabeth’s gradual denial of her sexuality through the elaborateness of her costumes – which became more and more ostentatious even as they covered more and more of her skin and body, while all the time she was struggling to stay the young princess in love.
The Make up design too. For example in the last shot of the film where Elizabeth had her face painted in white, was about the loss of individuality through merging into the mythic icon that Elizabeth had become/ turned herself into. But at the same time emerged as one of the most powerful individuals in History. What was she at the end then ? A Myth, an Individual ? an Icon ? Or all at the same time ?. And was this of her own volition, or was she, like everyone else, just a product of the forces of Destiny ?
Constant contradiction and search for possibilities in every aspect.
Film Design in relationship to Film Narrative
Peter asked :we are concerned with and focused on the role of design in relation to narrative. Every great director is a genius with narrative, that’s a given. This issue in relation to any filmmaker would be – what is their relationship to design, and to a cross-media discussion that might exclude conventional linear film narrative, and therefore force a different discussion of world-building
From Shekhar :Peter, we are the stories we tell ourselves. We are our own Mythology. And stories are us being thrown into moral conflict at many levels. Political, plot, psychological and mythological. And the most effective stories are those in which we are so achingly close to finding resolution and therefore harmony within the conflict, but the moment we find that harmony we are confronted by another conflict –
But isn’t all art and poetry and music also the yearning for harmony in conflicting words, notes or colours ? And greatest artist provoking us in and out of that harmony, causing us to shed tears of discovery and emotion.
So what’s different in design ? Design of a film must add another dimension to a film, but also create conflict and encourage us to search for harmony in that conflict. Within the broader vision of the film, but at the same time adding another dimension to the plot. Sometimes even in conflict with the plot but not in conflict with the central conflict of the film.
And if that’s for something as immense as a film, is it not the same for a design of a pendant or even a chair ?
If there is no conflict, their is no curiosity. But if there is no suggestions of harmony, there is no beauty or joy. But constant harmony will be boring, so the conflict must be provoked every time u sense he design.
Harmony and disharmony
For those that define Harmony as the natural state of existence, or a state that we should aspire to, I have a question. :
Does the Universe not exist in constant battle between contradictory forces of Harmony and Disharmony ? Like the sunspots of the Sun, the Universe too tends to explode out of itself and then is pulled back by a contradictory force ?
Would the Universe and everything that existed in it not be completely dead and non creative if there was a continuous stable non moving state of Harmony ? And the same would go for us, in any form you may decide to see ourselves. Our consciousness, our soul, or our ‘five senses self’. The one law of creativity, of existence, of consciousness, of life itself, all that exists, or potentially exists, does so between extreme contradictions.
After all, Good can only be described in the context of Evil and vice versa. So what is that state that is one of complete acceptance (oops – here we go again in that word) which is neither good nor evil, nor moral or immoral, nor active or inactive, that is neither violent nor non- violent ? That has form but no recognizable form ? A state that defies all adjectives, nouns or verbs we can think of , a state that exists without context with anything else, that is complete within it self yet completely infinite and incomplete ?
For those that claim to have found that state which is often described as ‘nirvana (Hinduism) , or ‘shunyata’ (Buddhism) , or the eternal life (Islam and Christianity), I assume have encompassed the forces of contradiction and disharmony within themselves, battling neither, so experience themselves as the Universe and Eternity themselves. They are neither one nor the other, but part of a stillness that allows the battle to rage within. Knowing it to be an eternal battle, but able to smile upon it.
For me, I am still part of the battle, but learning that being buffeted by contradiction and giving into the contradictory forces is just the first step – the step that gives into the unknown without resistance. Or atleast active resistance, for the mind and the ego still rebels. The first step is to accept Chaos as the natural order of things, before reaching and yearning for that which is called ‘enlightenment’ or inner stillness, or whatever word and religion or philosophy chooses to use.
So forgive me if I question those that seem to emphatically KNOW. I don’t. I yearn to experience, and wonder at people that say they know. Is it mere knowledge ? Or is it experience ? Is it intellectual or is it emotional ? The only people I meet that seem to be completely comfortable with contradiction (or duality as it is commonly called) are children , who have not yet been taught to separate completely that which is imagined and that which sensed.
I see everything I write here as huge question mark. A search and questioning, and sharing that yearning with others.
James Baldwin on Michael Jackson
James Baldwin, writing in an essay in 1985 in his essay Here Be Dragons, where he says :
“The Michael Jackson cacophony is fascinating in that it is not about Jackson at all. I hope he has the good sense to know it and the good fortune to snatch his life out of the jaws of a carnivorous success. He will not swiftly be forgiven for having turned so many tables, for he damn sure grabbed the brass ring, and the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo has nothing on Michael.”And he goes on to say, “Freaks are called freaks and are treated as they are treated—in the main, abominably—because they are human beings who cause to echo, deep within us, our most profound terrors and desires.”
Micheal Jackson’s Angelic Spirit
Did Micheal jackson live in his human self or his spirit self ?
Without the energy of his spirit, it could not be possible that every human being on this planet knew his music, his dance. It did not matter that you were in innner Mangolia, or a potential suicide bomber in the Gaza Strip, or an Israeli soldier, or an kid from the most remote rural India. Everyone knew MJ, every one knew his song, and everyone knew his dance.
In judging the show “India’s Got Talent” I was amazed at the amount of young people from small town and rural India that did Micheal Jackson impersonations and called him their Guru. In fact the most brilliant one was an 11 year old adivasi boy, who claimed that Micheal Jackson’s spirit entered him when he danced.
The few times I met MJ through my friend Deepak Chopra (they were good friends), I met an extremely humble man. One who made me feel like he was my fan rather than the other way round. He reminded me of a few others that I met, who’s spirits were obviously uncomfortable with the limitations of their bodies, the spirits were dying to soar and to be Universal. Heath Ledger and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan were like that. Spirits not wanting to be limited by the body. All died young. Like Angels.
And what is it about us that we cannot handle strong spirits. Do we have to crucify them ? I saw the agony the Micheal Jackson had to endure in last years accused of crimes against children based not on proof but on flawed accusations.
When Angels appear amongst us, we are compelled to crucify them.
making life simple
‘P’ asked “Shekhar, why do make life so complex. Why don’t you just “be”. Acceptance is beautiful once you truly understand it…keep living in the moment….”
Your statement ” Acceptance is truly beautiful if you understand it” is so beautifully stated. It is what I am trying to do. Understand what acceptance means and strive towards it. Acceptance cannot just mean cowardice or inaction. Acceptance must lead to purity of action. Where action is separated from the result of that action. And how do I separate myself from the result of my action ?
That was what I was trying to come to terms with in my last post. That what we call ‘result’ of our actions is often independent of our action. It has an individuality of it’s own. It has it’s own life and often the relationship is the other way round. We are caught up in the Karma of the event (the result s we call it), and assume ourselves as one of the cause.
In fact the Universe in it’s true nature has no place for words like ’cause’ and “result’. The result and the cause are intertwined in an eternal bond, which is part of a universal matrix of the play of the universe.
So what does “Acceptance is beautiful when you truly understand it” mean unless you experience the the idea that time has a linear value only if you desire it. Or your Ego does, for it needs to see a distance between cause and result. The Ego needs to contextualize it’s actions by the result (or imagined result) of it’s action to know that it exists..
Yet this duality was what Buddha meditated over – trying to come to vision of Shunyata, of a vast emptying of the mind off our Ego and experiencing ourselves as in Unity with existence, where time and space have only imagined existences.
Yes, you are right ‘P’, ‘Acceptance is beautiful when you truly understand it’ ….. but I have a long way to go before I can truly get there. The journey began as a little boy reaching out to the idea of forever, and still goes on. You sound like you are much further ahead than I am, so I would love for you to share your experiences with our community,
shekhar
Does the event create the cause ?
Does an event create a disharmony, a ripple that provokes us into action so that we become part of the creation of it ? Mistakingly assuming we created the event ? Are we slaves to the event while we think of ourselves as creators of the ‘it’ ?
Nor are we separate from the event. The event and us, inseparable part of the same play being imagined by the Universe in all eternity. The event itself part of a ripple caused by another. And so on, but circling right back, the ripples being the eternal cause and effect of each other. Enclosed in nothing but timelessness.
Part of discussions that came up as I opened my installation at the Swarovski museum in Austria
Were Einstiens’ equations in his brain or outside ?
“The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ( Albert Einstein – The Merging of Spirit and Science) — ”
Thank you manav, for sharing this. It’s beautifully put by a person who’s brain is under constant study by scientists all over the world. But maybe Einstein accessed his equations from a source much higher then his own individuality, his own brain ? Is creativity the ability to access a source of universal consciousness ?
To see or to sense ?
Do we sense things beyond the world we construct from our ‘five senses’ ? I am sure we do, and there is enough scientific data to prove that. But does our reliance on our ‘five senses’ hinder our ability to truly sense things. Are the yogi’s right when they say that we should shut out the world to truly ‘see’ the world.
All of us have had such experiences, and most of us deny ourselves those experiences. By calling it a play of imagination. But in my experience, these moments have been of extreme simplicity and clarity. The sensing is of the unity of all things beyond analysis and understanding, in the realm of experiencing. These are meditative moments that force you into the clarity of ‘now’. Not always in meditation – but events that can lead to that which meditation is hoping to achieve.
In one such moment I actually decide to write at random, without imposing my intellect upon the writing, even without imposing my imagination. Just write. And I wrote something I have shared before :
I search for that which I see
and when the searching stops
the seeing begins
Goodbye Rajeev Motwani, Google Mentor and friend…
No one that met Rajeev Motwani could leave without being touched by this man’s humility, his gentleness and warmth. For someone that was instrumental in the creation of Google, and who was one of the most brilliant and respected minds in the silicon valley, Rajeev was the most simple person you would meet. Always smiling and always ready to help, Rajeev and I would spend hours discussing the next great developments in computers, in physics, even spirituality. Rajeev was a prolific investor and nurtured many great movements and companies. We would always dream up ideas for new companies to create or invest in. From his army background and relatively humble beginings in Delhi, Rajeev became one of the most respected persons in the Silicon Valley,
The last time he and his wonderful wife Asha met me, Rajeev insisted that I come to the Silicon Valley and stay with them for a few months, to discuss new ventures we could do together. He even wanted me to come and teach for a few months at Stanford.
Rajeev was died in his home two days ago in a swimming accident. In the pool by which we would sit and dream of new worlds. He left behind two daughters and a very very brave and wonderful wife, Asha. And memories……