Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Benny Thomas’

Ali Baba of our times is a business man whom no bank would allow credit for no other reason than he never repaid any in the past. His brother Kassim did business on a grand scale and always he got credit. Why? The banks loved the very sight of Kassim who brought presents. (The manager who worked in the city office never worked in the same place for more than seven years. All presents large and small, brought by Kassim were to his own use. The manager took them and extended credit facilities yet higher). So the manager did business with alacrity and Ali Baba cried in vexation. He did a little snooping around and found he had stuck to one bank through thick and thin. But his brother Kassim could afford bamboozle the Bank A and give presents to B so he got credit from manager of B at the drop of a hat (not to mention it was the manager who dived faster than the clerk and handed it back to him). He asked his elder brother if he ever repaid his loan to the banks A or B he did business with. “Oh no what for?” Kassim was flabbergasted, “I can always go to Bank C.”
Managers like birds of passage pick whatever they get(and sticky loans finally sink into the bottom of a sea no one wants to enter) so the kingdom is bustling with activities and all agree it is great to run through figures all neatly drawn up and certified by chartered accounting firms. Greatness for them was wealth you see and it changed hands on the mantra: ‘open sesame’.
Ali Baba understood the great mystery of public finances. He became known throughout the land as the master of making great deals.

You show first what it is to be great in ways others can accept as true.
Benny

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

95 min. French black and white

Aka. Les Bas-Fonds is one of the curiosities in the history of cinema that Jean Renoir who has been busy making Une Partie de Campagne left it for directing a film, theme of which was apparently against his grain. Une Partie is like a painting of his father come to life where nature takes hand in determining the life of a nubile girl in her first love. The lovers surrender to nature and to their emotions, but social circumstances determine otherwise. What had in the Gorky’s gutter play to wean him from the Maupassant story? In 1936 the rise of Hitler in Germany and the Popular Front in France created within the French Left a new sense of solidarity with the Soviet Union. In that context the Russian immigrant producer Alexander Kamenka asked Jean Renoir to direct a film of Maxim Gorky’s play The Lower Depths. Renoir accepted the offer and before agreeing to take on the project, Renoir insisted that the film be set in France (not Russia), and that some drastic changes be made to the plot. The most significant change was the ending; the tragic denouement in Gorki’s play was replaced with a happier ending, in keeping with the mood of the time.
Trivia:
Renoir was obliged to write to Gorki to receive permission for these alterations to the story, which was duly given (although Gorki died a few months before the film was released).
Plot

The story revolves around two characters that represent two ends of the society. One is titled and the other a common thief. The baron (Jouvet) has stolen 30,000 rubbles from the ministry and lost it gambling. Pépel (Gabin) has come to rob the baron’s luxurious house and finds nothing worth stealing there. The baron, returning home in a suicidal mood, interrupts Pépel’s theft. Here in their first encounter, each opens the eyes of the other to the possibility of change. Each glimpses a new possibility, the baron, a life without things; Pépel a life without thefts.
Soon the baron appears at the flophouse. The baron finds himself in the swim of things there. If thousand – rubble game in the casino had turned his world upside down he finds life there: he can still indulge his passion in the three-kopek game in the flophouse. If he has lost his class he has found his life. He sheds luxury and prestige without regret. When Pépel finds life in the lower depths unbearable and proposes to leave the flophouse, he asks the baron what he will do. The baron replies without hesitation, “I’ll stay here.” He has no desire to go. Unlike Gorky’s baron, his descent from aristocracy has not been degrading but liberating.
After Pépel leaves the baron’s home carrying the bronze horses he steals some apples, then gives them to a child and tells him, “And if someday someone tells you Pépel is a thief, you’ll set them straight.” The film ends with homage to Chaplin’s Modern Times as the lovers walk off down the road of life.
Acting: The film, apart from its dark theme, is carried by the acting of the two main characters. The Gabin-Jouvet pairing is a masterstroke, with both actors providing fine performances that are charged with conviction and humanity. Despite their different backgrounds and approaches to their art, the two actors complement each other perfectly, the down-trodden and passionate proletarian played by Gabin making a poignant contrast with Jouvet’s ruined but nonchalant aristocrat.
The scene where the two characters meet and, realizing the absurdity of the barriers which separate them, become friends is one of the enduring moments of the film, and is certainly in keeping with the ethos of the Popular Front.
The large supporting cast gives the film its richness and color, with notable performances from Suzy Prim, Robert Le Vigan.
I can still savour the wonderful opening shot of the film: Jouvet stands upright, the only figure on screen, in the centre of the frame, silent but with an occasional superior smirk escaping him as his unseen superior rebukes him for embezzling ministry funds to pay off his gambling debts; and the camera swings round him first to the left and then further and further to the right finally to reveal his superior reflected in a mirror.
This single opening shot keys us to all the important features of the film: the priority given to star persona and performance; the degree to which the narrative differs from (adds to, opens out) Gorky’s original play; and the significance of Renoir’s camera style of this time, characterized by deep-focus depth-of-field, the moving camera, and the revelation of off-screen space, the world extending beyond the limits of the frame” (brightlights films.com- Ian Johnston)
Akira Kurosawa and Renoir
Both Renoir and Kurosawa
 adapted it each with his distinct genius leaving its impress. Donald Richie calls Akira Kurosawa’s film of The Lower Depths a miracle of ensemble playing. In contrast Renoir makes of the play a vehicle for two fine actors, Louis Jouvet and Jean Gabin. The action of Kurosawa’s film occurs completely within the flophouse, as does the play, but less than half of Renoir’s Lower Depths takes place there. Still the flophouse remains, visually, the most interesting locale in the film, with its chiaroscuro lighting and dramatic shadows, its rough bricks, rude stairways, and old wooden posts that often divide the screen vertically or project diagonally across the frame and its length that lends itself so well to deep focus cinematography.
When Akira Kurosawa made his version of The Lower Depths in 1957 he had seen Renoir’s film. It was perhaps that which led him to try it himself. Unlike Renoir, Kurosawa follows Gorky almost scene for scene. In a style that resembles Renoir’s in its long takes and deep focus cinematography Kurosawa creates his flophouse as the locus of a world. But by the sheer vitality of the life in his film manages to overthrow the despair and pathos that permeate the play.
Kurosawa greatly admired Jean Renoir and his own decision to write an autobiography was prompted by reading Renoir’s My Life and My Films “and by the terrific impression Renoir left on me when I met him—the feeling that I would like to grow old in the same way he did.”
Kurosawa’s Lower Depths shows the power that could be achieved in cinema by staying close to the text and setting of Gorky’s work. Renoir did not see Kurosawa’s film until 1977. He watched it with great interest, then remarked, “That is a much more important film than mine.”
Although overshadowed by Renoir’s subsequent masterpieces (La Grande Illusion was made straight after this film), Les Bas-fonds is an impressive work, which, through its very evident humanity, remains a surprisingly modern film. This film was awarded the first Prix Louis Delluc in 1937.

Similar Movies

Dodes’ka-Den;
Die Freudlose Gasse;
Austeria;
The L-Shaped Room

Benny

Read Full Post »


GOP has heard the call from above and they want to hear James Comey and Loretta Lynch
Benny

Read Full Post »

In one fable posted some years ago I had posited an idea that at infinitesimal spaces while treating the headache of Zeus the spark created by the fire god must behave in such ways that the clot and the spark act as one. In that thought experiment, Erwin Schrödinger’s cat achieves a similar state: Cat in a box would be exposed to a radioactive particle that had even odds of decaying or not. Until the box was opened, the poor cat would be both alive and dead at the same time, which seemed clearly absurd to Schrödinger.In other words these are entangled. Entanglement as a quantum effect describes where particles separated by vast distances mysteriously link up their states. Scientists in 2016 have already created with quantum-entangled bacteria.
Usually, we describe quantum physics as a set of rules that governs the behavior of extremely tiny things: light particles, atoms and so on to which realm of livings things and bacteria belongs to another order. This larger world, at the bacterial scale (which is also our scale — the chaotic realm of life) isn’t supposed to be anywhere near that weird.

There’s just something about the quantum world that doesn’t seem to make sense in ours. Bouts of migraine in most sufferers seem to be triggered by solar flares. The light takes some eight minutes to reach us but it triggers migraine earlier than that. Why?
But scientists don’t agree on where the boundary between the ordinary and the quantum world lies — or if it even exists at all. Chiara Marletto, a physicist at the University of Oxford and a co-author on the recent paper, which was published Oct. 10 in The Journal of Physics Communications, said that there’s no reason to expect that there’s a limit on the size of quantum effects.

“I’m interested in studying the border where quantum rules stop applying,” she told Live Science. “Some people say that quantum theory is not a universal theory, so it does not apply to any object in the universe, but actually will at some point break down. My interest is to show that actually, that’s not the case.”

In 2017, a team of researchers based at the University of Sheffield in England said they had created a state of what’s known as quantum coupling in photosynthetic bacteria. They placed a few hundred bacteria in a tiny, mirrored room and bounced light around. (Based on the length of the mini room, only a certain wavelength of light persisted over time, known as the resonant frequency.) Over time, six of the bacteria appeared to develop a limited quantum connection to the light. So the resonant frequency of light inside the tiny room seemed to synchronize with the frequency at which electrons jumped in and out of position inside the bacteria’s photosynthetic molecules.
Marletto said that her model shows that this effect likely involved more than just quantum coupling. There was likely something going on even weirder than what those experimentalists described, she said.

The bacteria, she and her colleagues showed, likely became entangled with the light. What this means is that the equations used to define each of the waveforms — of both the light and the bacteria — become one equation. Neither is solvable without the other. (According to quantum mechanics, all objects can be described as both particle and wave, but practically speaking, in “large” objects like bacteria, the waveforms are impossible to see or measure.)

Like Schrödinger’s proverbial cat in a box, the whole system seemed to exist in an uncertain netherworld. How often we have seen rational man interacting with rational men as we would assume every delegate, who deliberated around the table hammering out the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and what did they produce? Just the opposite. Why speak of rational idea of man when he cannot fathom the weird world of justice and equality operating without? You deny justice with the most cogent arguments and quote instances out of the whole and what you produce is more misery and just opposite to your professed principles. This is entanglement on a moral plane. Between our physical universe and worlds created purely on abstract ideas only entanglement that is sustainable not by rules of men or by their material accomplishment but by moral laws. For me God is that moral being.

(Ack: Schrödinger’s Bacteria? Physics Experiment Leads to 1st Entanglement of Living Organisms-Nov.13.Rafi Letzer-Live Science)
Benny

Read Full Post »

A walk to the park
in a drizzle unhurried,
Oh, the heave about my throat
is gone.
And the asphalt gleams with desire-
My feet may slosh through
A puddle or two,-never mind
But autumn is at my feet:
The greens are gold and
Red flushed with fleeting clouds
Overhead.
Intimations
Of winter tousle my hair
Even as geese glides to their tryst,
Silent before a world gone to sleep.
Benny

Read Full Post »

Recently a high profile Saudi dissident went visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. He never returned. What excuses the Riyadh government gave became curioser and curioser but no body. Here is another that defies explanation. Enlightenment in Europe as a principle would separate State from Religion. Afterall when the Pope of the Holy See in 800 AD endorsed the Divine Rights of kings it was Religion legitimizing the rule of one bandit king and his family the exclusive rights to plunder the state finances with impunity. After much bloodletting and religious wars the beacon of enlightenment succeeded in throwing light into dark recesses of man who would publicly establish a principle but see to that something far different takes control over the rest of the proceedings. That is history for you, in capsule.
Is our mind that complex? Wars for instance was not sought out as the ape ancestor had nothing to complain of than hunting and gathering on an unwritten principle: share and share alike.

Evolution can explain why humans exhibit aggression because it is a primal emotion like any other, experts say. Dogs have it and apes also show it. Emotions are to be handled and for a social animal like man, nature provides them a safety valve in context of other life forms. Members in the same group come to learn very early there is safety in numbers. Maternal instincts of mother and suckling baby in need, forge a bond held more secure on account of the genetic push. Emotions of a mother and her infant, both benefit by emotions. Emotions can run the gamut of aggression and fear when threatened by outsiders. Evolution has primed primates and men to express appropriately so the survival of each group is in the best interest of each member and also a collective responsibility. Think of brain as a muscle that is well toned by constant use. Bodily exercise and mental agility benefit from constant use. Body and Mind as one. Think of members of the same group with same goals and sharing of genes as one organism.
Man, given his tool making capacity, has relied on channeling his emotions in the ways he whittled a piece of flint to serve his every day needs. By breaking it off he might hone the edge as sharp as a surgeon’s knife. In making that fine artifact, he has dissipated his bad emotions as well as found a new thrill of making a useful tool.
Somewhere along the line it became a lethal weapon and a weapon of war.
The same evolution that made man separate jumped the realm of biology found a new use for the tool, his handiwork.
Primal emotions when given expression consciously make even a piece of bamboo or flint as weapons of war. The use of weapons may date back well before the rise of humanity, given evidence that even our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, can use spears to hunt other primates. Man, as a social animal can rationalize his nature, his need to give vent to pent up aggression. Only he did not account for the destructive force he would unleash in evolving a simple weapon as a flint knife to the nuclear bomb that may wipe off all life from the face of the Earth. How did a flint as a tool to fell animals in hunt or skin the hides of animals or carve piece of wood became a weapon to murder? Blame it on his nature.

Biologists speak of ‘norms of reaction,’ which are patterned responses to environmental circumstances. For example, some male insects are more likely to guard their mates when there are fewer females in the population, hence fewer other mating opportunities. Natural selection didn’t just shape a fixed behavior, it shaped the norm of reaction — the nature of the response,”
In humans a bad idea when he can think rationally on it brings many advantages. Increasing his supply of food at the cost of one who is weaker is one way of doing it. Annexing a territory from a weak tyrant is worth the while of a chieftain if he has a superior force. He reckons that his success would silence others and make his position more secure. It must have come handy when others would take the same path to aggrandize themselves.
‘Just as compassion for your offspring increases your genes’ chance of survival, violent tendencies may have been similarly useful for some species’ observed biologist David Carrier, of the University of Utah(2012),” Humans certainly rank among the most violent of species.” In true nature-nurture fashion, though some kind of genetic preprogramming for violence, may exist in humans as a result of our evolution. The west has long felt as champions of liberty and free speech but when dissidents simply disappear in broad daylight it ought to warn all how a thin veneer of decency has coated modern man. It must sit oddly where civilization is on every body’s lips while civility is cut out from his heart.

Now in a very divided America evangelicals have come in droves to support President Trump. What excuse they have? They embrace Trump the policymaker, despite being uneasy about Trump as a man, says Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a prominent evangelical activist group. What kind of family Mr. Perkins has in mind, I wonder? When he supports a system the head of the family is fated to spend most of his waking hours into drudgery to the neglect of his family sounds hypocritical. He is more like the Popes of yore giving a thorough whitewashing of men whose moral turpitude knows no bounds. Never mind religion has a way of rationalizing Satan when he comes in the form of mammon. This is what Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell Jr. and their ilk want to see in public life.
Benny

Read Full Post »

“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six (Re.13:18).”

In order to understand the number that marks the beast we have to follow one hint given in the verse. ‘It is the mark of a man’. This man is only distinct from us by the fact given in v.4 “And they (world) worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast:…”Th dragon or Satan owns him.
As an introduction let us follow a few hints the Spirit has left for us.
In the Book of Revelation wherever the vision concerns the events on the earth the Spirit uses a tag that denotes the earthly ministry of our Lord Savior. Forty two months (Re.11:2) or a thousand two hundred and three score days(Re.11:3; Re.12:6). This works out to three and half years. This number is encrypted as it were, and tells about Jesus and his role as the redeemer of the world. Another tag which the Spirit uses is a time, and times, and half a time (Re.12:14). If we write this in numerals it is 1+2+1/2. This is another way of saying Three and half. This is the earth number.
The Spirit assigns a number for heaven.
What does seven signify? It is the number of days God worked and He rested on the seventh day. Here we have 4+3=7
The creation account as given in the Book of Genesis we can see God made in four days the next 2 he took for man his world. On the seventh day he rested from his labors(Ge.2:2).
Mathematics is human invention and the Spirit uses it in terms of man. As such we are to look for counting fingers as adequate.
So seven indicates perfection because He made heaven and the earth and its spiritual significance is fellowship with man.
Let us consider the Godhead. The Lord God is one. So the numeral is 1.
How do we explain trinity?
God the Father and God the Son is another way of referring the Lord Almighty. The numeral is Two where the Father-Son relationship represents the Will of God and its Fulfillment.
God the Father God the Son and the Holy Spirit is Three.
The same three is established as self-standing because the core value of heaven and the earth is built about fellowship of God with man. This eternal truth is represented by Body Spirit and Soul. Man is a tripartite being as Trinity.
When God has created the Seventh Day as holy whosoever stops short of hallowing it rebels against God. In short the Spirit indicates 6 as contrary to God.
When the man bears the name of blasphemy it is 666.
Consider the rationale of ‘time, times and half a time’? can it not be expressed as 6 6 6?
Benny

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »