Behind the lens- smiles and frowns

This is the second set of pictures I'll be putting up. Hope you like it!

It features the lines in one's face and how just a few shifts in the angles of the lines can completely change the whole context of a photograph.

wait, are you serious?

whaaaaaattt???

wishful sadness

thats too bad

and then they all laughed

huh?

Dont sass me!!!

And then Othello....

What is happening?!?!?!

Behind the lens.

I haven't really been writing much these days, what with exams and all, and I fear that I may have neglected my blog just a teensie weensie bit. This however does not mean that I now have any writing or review to display...So, just to expand my horizons, I'm going to start posting some of my amateur photography...

Hope you like it!

 This is in loving memory of my feisty yet stubborn, grand but grumpy beauty of a horse.

Old Meldrome 

I may not have the guts to tattoo you on me like I really want, but I will remember you forever.

what're you looking at?

Because hay is to be made while the sun shines.

Let us launch.

Nibbles.

Bright Star

I do not think it is often than one watches a movie and thinks about it for more than maybe 15 to 20 minutes after it is over, then moves on to the next agenda for the day. But 'bright star' has simply left me in awe. There is no scheming or drama, no action or thrill, no glamour or glitz. It was simple and raw.

John Keats (1795-1821), lived a short life, unfulfilled, and died thinking himself a failure. On his request, his epitaph was inscribed "Here lies a man whose name was writ in water". Quite on the contrary, Keats has been compared to the likes of Byron and Shelly and often surpasses them in his reputation as a romantic poet. The movie, Bright star focuses on a short excerpt of his life, preceding his death, where he meets and falls in love with one, Fanny Brawne.

The emotions Keats is able to convey with just a few words, the musings he states so simply makes me think for hours about things that would not have otherwise struck me. The poetry is beautiful, describing love and desires, admiring nature and overlooked nuances, seeing and imagining things that would not seem viable in todays context. But so much has happened since then to the world, that i do not think one can find a genuine contemporary romantic poet without feeling him to be somewhat of a sham. There is to much death and destruction and cynicism and cliche'  that fill the world today so that to actually admire a thing of beauty in hopes that it would last forever is futile for alas, it would pass into nothingness and possibly be replaced by a steel and glass concoction often found at a shopping mall or the shopping mall itself. He beautifully says in one of his letters to fanny, that he almost wished they were butterflies and would live but 3 summer days, for three such days with her was worth more than 50 dull years without her. Today, I would take the three days of summer as a butterfly because even 50 exciting years would not be satisfactory. There is something lovely about having a limitation or a deadline that makes you want to enjoy yourself and take full advantage of the little time. Too much time seems to me like a curse. If you have time, you have opportunity to delay for 'later'. And by missing out in hopes of later, a thing of beauty could pass into nothingness before you have had to opportunity to feel the joy of actually seeing it.

The love between Keats and Franny is epic. In the movie, it is appreciable to see Franny's side to it. The waiting and wondering, the anxiety of not hearing from him, and the thrill of receiving one of his letters is completely unimaginable and abstract to me. I think it is, in fact, the distance and lack of constant contact and communication that makes the story all the more sad and so much more romantic. To see the effect he had on her, slowly turning into an obsession of sorts, is a new experience all together. I am not sure what has intrigued me more, Keats and his poetry or Franny and her fascinations. Their relationship was exactly the definition of romantic. Sweet and soft and sad. The moments the share when they are together and the things they say to each other are so organic and honest and true, and so lacking in today's world where everything sounds like a 'line'.

All in all I would say it is a must watch film for all the romantics and closet romantics (much like myself) out there. It is a movie that has in-turned hooked me on to the subject of the movie, Keats.  It made me want to know more, read more and learn more about Keats, which is not what I can say about most movies. So i leave you with a quote and a link incase you want to see what I'm talking about!

Bright Star

Bright star, would I were steadfast as thou art -

Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night

And watching, with eternal lids apart,

Like Nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,

The moving waters at their priestlike task

Of pure ablution round earth's human shores,

Or gazing on the new soft-fallen mask

Of snow upon the mountains and the moors -

No - yet still stedfast, still unchangeable,

Pillow'd upon my fair love's ripening breast,

To feel for ever its soft fall and swell,

Awake for ever in a sweet unrest,

Still, still to hear her tender-taken breath,

And so live ever - or else swoon to death.

LINK TO 'BRIGHT STAR'

Just a li"l sugar, sugar!

Sometimes you know its bad when even a horse is mocking you!

After her mothers untimely demise.

What do you say to someone when their whole world comes to a grinding halt?
And they look around,
At life in motion, puzzled.
The people did not pause and busses did not break down.
The traffic lights were working and cars were honking.
The beggars on the road running up to cars performing amusing tricks for money.
People on the street walking, policemen in the corner talking.
Nothing stopped.

The world just ended, didn't they know?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely with respect to 'Animal Farm'

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So often has this quote has been associated to animal farm… the question is why?  What is it about power that it corrupts even the noblest of the noble and most selfless of the selfless? Be it napoleon or Mr. Jones in animal farm, the tsar or Stalin in the Russian revolution or simply the head of any institution, why is it that even the slightest power is received and often abused?

Shakespeare wrote, “To do a great right, do a little wrong”. In my opinion it is this logic that is the basis of corruption of power holders or leaders.  To say that all leaders are corrupt would be incorrect as even within animal we have the exception of snowball that was propagated against and ironically exiled for apparent corruption and scheming. Through various sociological experiments led by leading universities in the world such as Yale and Cambridge, it has been proven that leaders often turn corrupt when receiving perks of leadership, and when they learn they can take excess advantage of people without being questioned, they soon become corrupt. In animal farm we see how Napoleon soon turns corrupt though initially he was a part of and leading the revolution; however over time he seemed to be enjoying his power and authority so he started taking undue advantage of it. It was through the smaller things like only the pigs being allowed to eat the apples and drink the milk, he consolidated their apparent superiority. He was very particular about being the only one with power and his hunger for the same led him to extremes to ensure others did not receive any power. He did this by intimidating the rest of the animals with either his watch dogs or convinced them that they were wrong and he was right through the use of squealer. All those who opposed him were eventually silenced such as snowball and also the four little piglets. The same is to be said about Stalin and his regime. He fought side by side with Trotsky during the Russian revolution but soon, as napoleon did with snowball, he exiled Trotsky to foreign countries when he seemed to be too high a threat. Editor of his propaganda newspaper 'Pravda', Stalin used it shamelessly to distort the truth and promote himself, much as Napoleon used squealer where as napoleon's dogs represented Stalin's secret police. So between the two, Stalin was never really threatened or questioned and happily exploited the common man and took undue advantage of his position.

In my opinion, corrupt leaders are those who have an inbuilt sense of superiority and expect people to bribe or praise them because, according to them, they are more capable than others. This is commonly seen in the pages of history when monarchs who inherit their throne let the kingdom crumble economically or in war. They just expect things to work out and bask in the glory of their predecessor. Tsar Nicholas the second was one such leader. The moment his country faced hardship his authority crumbled. He did everything in his power to regain authority but failed drastically and spurred the Russian revolution. This description is strikingly similar to that of Mr. Jones who easily lost his farm to the animals. Despite his desperate attempt to regain control during the battle of the cowshed, he was rendered unsuccessful. His excessive exploitation of resources, Jones seems to be enjoying luxuries such as a comfortable bed and consumption of alcohol while his poor animals were eating bland grains and had no luxuries of their own. the animals representing the common man and working class of Russia who didn't receive any luxuries while the tsar and the elite of the nation slept every night in comfort without working or earning it.

The use of religion in the Russian revolution is seen when Stalin allowed the propagation of the Roman Catholic Church. though originally against the idea of religion being a contribution to the revolution, as it was a tool used by the tsar to keep the common man in check, Stalin allowed it back into the country when he needed to raise the moral of the public and faith of the  people in the work they are doing. The church enticed them with stories of heaven and created fear in the apparent repercussions of their actions if they do not follow the church. Moses the tame raven, also originally Mr. Jones’s special pet, used to tell the animals the wonders of sugar candy mountain and how if the animals work hard they will go to Sugarcandy Mountain after they die. Though he was unseen for a time after the revolution, the reign of napoleon brought his return to animal farm.

It does not stand true that all leaders are corrupted by power. This is because they choose to use their power for social welfare. With a target in mind other than self gratification and greed, great leaders of the world such as Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela have remained untainted and uncorrupted. Often these leaders are born out of necessity and suffering, having personally suffered losses and wanting change.  Trotsky was introduced to the concept of Marxism during his exile. Though he was originally against the concepts of Marxism he came out of exile a dedicated Marxist. Well educated and highly spirited, he went about the Russian revolution with great tact. He used his knowledge to suggest changes to improve the state of the common man, and propagated industrialization. It was against this that Stalin fought vehemently though after the exile of Trotsky he, hypocritically, fully supported it.

Snowball was also a similar character. Like Trotsky we see not a hint of corruption in his character. Through out the book he has been productive and motivational. A good orator, he came up with productive suggestions such as the building of the windmill but was sadly driven out despite his integrity and valour.

Though we have seen great and selfless leaders in the pages of history we have also witnessed few terrible, merciless and brutal, and scores of weak, corrupt and unmemorable leaders. So ignoring the few noticeable and remarkable exceptions to the rule, Does absolute power lead to absolute corruption? Absolutely.