You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2005.

A Clockwork Orange: 1971, Stanley Kubrick.
Based on the novel of the same name by Anthony Burgess.

These are my own comments about the movie. For plot, expert comments etc, please go to or
Well, to be frank, this was my third attempt to watch the movie. On the previous two occasions, I gave up of the movie inside the first thirty minutes into it. THis time I was more determinant to complete the move. So I called up vimal also to give me a company.
As far as the movie is concerned, Kubrik has done a great job, to bring out the movie in the present state. A few striking afterthoughts from the movie.
1.The dialogues of the drunken old man, saying that the society is not for them, reflects to the attitude of the popular punk culture towards old people.
2. After having undergone the aversion therapy, when Alex was put into a demonstration to show his abomoniation towards violence,he is shown to lick the boot in order to get away from pain. This shows his blind, mechanical detestation towards the attack than anything else. It hardly reflects his actual wish, as rightly pointed out by the priest. A very valid concept here is,it is not worth living in the world, where we are forced to take decisions out of dread than anything else. Our free thoughts should not be clogged by the fright of the consequences, then human being cease to exist.

3. When Alex comes out, into the real world, where people are waylaying to pounce at him for revenge and political vendatta poor unsuspectable, phobic Alex is left with nothing but to get himself into precarious situations. This, I feel is a mockery to the real world society, and their stubbornness towards accepting a change.

The movie, I should say, after all, is worth watching. But I have a strong feeling that if he had to convey the above message to the masses, this was not the exact way of going about it. He should have restrained from showing so much violence and rape in the beginning, just to show the mental state of Alex. This shows, that Kubrick, although an exceptional movie maker, does not stand for the society or masses, rather, he makes movies for a particular set of audiences, who will always remain as his die hard fans. This is a selfish “money minded” motive, which makes me to think that after all, we are materialistic…..


For the past 3 yrs in my college, I never argued vehemently with anyone. I used to argue for two or three minutes and let someone else to take over from the instance where I stopped. After a light argument with one of my friends back in Bangalore, I was given a feedback to have a retrospection on why I never carried on with an argument.What I realized on that session was

1. The first and foremost reason was I was too lazy to continue an argument. I always had a bad notion that I am wasting my energy and time in arguing on trivial issues, which neither affect me nor the other person arguing.
2. I always have been outwitted by the other person giving some idea which I felt, needed a verification from a third party, and by the time I am convinced with the credibility of that idea, the verifier, who was drafted in to give me a neutral view on the other person’s idea would
have taken over.
3. I always felt my friends take the argument too personally, that I feel an air of uneasiness the next time when I meet/talk with him.

On further analysis (true, I did that), I felt my 1st reason has to be got rid of. I felt the need of giving a farewell to my laziness. I realized I am not wasting my energy as long as I am able to pitch my ideas forth in the discussion. The second reason is very tricky, and it need a little more thought to be put into it. In some way, it always happen so that I get some new ideas during these arguments, irrespective of the correctness of the fact being pushed forth to.There are two aspects to be analyzed here
a. Most of the times, the arguer is very stubborn about his viewpiont, and won’t give any attention to the idea being pushed in by the other. He will simply close his eyes to this fact and still continue with his argument as though nothing has happened. Still I need to put forth my points, and it will be satisfying for me to make him listen to what I say, even if he/she might not take it at that time. At some other point of time, he/ she will be in a position to accept not
(may be not openly) to my view point.That idea was very satisfying for me.
b. I need not implement the above idea in all situations. I can give it a shot to look for instant thoughts to counter the argument, which is a very good mental exercise.If not I should not be hesitant to accept his viewpiont or I can hold that point by saying, “I am not commenting on the issue without cross verification”. This is very much effectiveThe third reason was a very bad one that needed to be ripped apart. If I/he/she tends to still rememeber the argument and consider it as a personal attack, it shows the mental block in the concerned person. Thas has got nothing to do with not arguing and conveying my message.
This was a great lesson to be learned and this resulted in my birthday resolution to argue whenever I felt so in any of the ideologies of my friends, and it has so far proven great to me….

All the ppl who haven’t read Harry Potter and Half Blood Prince are not advised to read further

i guess Snape is still with d’dore coz of 4 reasons which i can remember

1. In the beginning, when he was at the house, there was wormtail (peter pettigrew). I mean, u can’t expect any of the order of the phoenix members or atleast d’dore himself sometimes dropping into his house… tht means, this is done with d’dore’s knowledge. Moreover he had the unbreakable vow with Narcissa, which he had to keep…

2. In the end, remember d’dore begging to snape.we don’t know the meaning of that begging. we r jst guessing it is to save him. But I should say killing him then was the most sensible thing snape did . Else Malfoy would have been killed, so would have been he. In that way, he was able to keep his undercover identity not revealed

3. After HBP, we know snape is one of the most brilliant wizards alive, apart from voldemort. And we should believe tht rowling is not dumb enough to make Harry a super hero who can kill v’mort by himself. He needs a very powerful guy to help him. It could be none other than snape, as it will be something that v’mort hasn’t ever dreamt of. that will be a big blow for him..

4. Moreover, snape tells in the beginning tht voldemort is satisfied abt him and his actions, he explains in detail to bellatrix (Narcissa’s sister). And mind u, he has an emotionless face, which can trick anyone…

This was the mail which I sent to my sis anagha… n i’m adding her reply also…..

“w/e u sed wuz completely rt….i tot dt eitha snape n malfoy(or both) ll join hands wid hp. snape iz reeely gd at makin xcusz, n all dt stuff wuz probably 2 convince ynw(u-noe-hu) n d’dor izn soo dam dum 2 b wiv snape if he dint av a reezon, he sed he did…it cud b netin…snape killd d’dor cuz he had 2….bt he probably mde planz 2 help harry l8r…mus b noza ting 4 ynw 2 gt foold….
so i dun reely tink snpe iz evil…n der az 2 b som1 reeely gd 2 help harry wiv da horcruxz nw dt ddor iz ded…so it ll b snape most probably….bt bellatrix iz nt sooo bad nw dt u tink abt it….so u neva noe…it cud b ne1″

An incomplete list of things to be tried out for a change… while riding a cycle..

1. Ride the cycle standing, leaving both hands from the handle

2. Pedal really fast, on reaching a downward incline, get down from the seat and sit on the rod where we sit while taking a lift

3. Ride the cycle holding the right handle with the left hand and vice versa*

I was dreaming today morning about this (really, i fell from the cycle a few times though) when Vinay (Raavan) came and woke me up at 4.00 am for a broom stick. Don’t know how to resume a dream, else i would have done so….

* This thing I have personally tried out and have made my friend Kiran to try out. As expected, both of us fell down…

August 2005
« Jul   Sep »

Blog Stats

  • 32,336 hits