World 'Nothing' Day

Of the three sixty five days and the quarter of a day that a year is composed of,hardly a day passes by without it being one out of the ordinary.From anti-tobacco activists to forest conservation enthusiasts to animal fanatics to infatuated teenagers,all are having a field-day with each day on the calendar.So much so that each day is a World 'Something' Day for everyone.

Womens' Day is something that has been doing rounds for quite some time now.More likely is that a Mens' day should follow suit.Wonder whether it would be on the lines of the celebrations that the female of the human species indulge in on their chosen day.Booze,dance,hired strippers and unlimited sex,all to embark their empowerment.Poor are the millions of women living in impoverished circumstances ignorant about even the mere existence of such a day.They go on with their daily chores as if it's just like any of the other three hundred and sixty four days.

Why should people restrain themselves to commemorate something just for a single day? If some are so focused on women's empowerment,AIDS awareness,global warming etc, then shouldn't they concern themselves with these matters every day? World Mothers' Day made it to the headlines in the recent past and now everyone is supposed to gear up for World Fathers' Day too.Both electronic and print media go on lengths emphasizing the so-called importance of the day with ample dosage of homage paid by celebrities to their respective mothers/fathers,depending on the day.It seems that the world has shut its place for those who have always viewed their parents as a single entity.Why anyone needs a day or separate ones to remember each of one's parents is beyond my humble knowledge.Maybe it's one conspiracy theory that the sons and daughters who have comfortably tucked their parents into old-age homes devised.Maybe it has more to do with the business tycoons who are keen to sell each and every thing.Ever since Christmas and birthdays made exchange of cards and gifts a norm,the urge to cash in on seemingly trivial days on the part of these commercial barons has prompted us to believe that we need separate days to remember everything and everyone.

360'

Three sixty degrees is same as zero degrees,or so I've learned.What about three hundred and fifty nine degrees? How close is it to,say,one degree? If human emotions were analogous to geometry,then where would love and hate be featured? Where would one place zero or three sixty or where would one end and the other begin? I hear,that if we hate something vehemently,we may end up falling in love with the same thing and conversely when we are obsessed with something or someone,we may end up hating the very same thing or person.
Taking a look around I see examples galore justifying this theory.Why else would two people from the opposite sex with a history of a series of quarrels between them end up falling in love with each other? Why else would a couple who couldn't have been more affectionate to each other at the time of their nuptial,file for a divorce after a few years,or in some worse cases,a few months into their marriage? More often on screen than in real life I have seen an obsessed lover turn fiercely hostile against the very object of his or her desire.
The fact is,the more we hate something or someone,the more we find ourselves immersed in thoughts about the very same thing or person.The culmination of which may leave us shocked since it is not everyday that we take a U-turn in our approach,attitude and emotional inclination.And love is no different.The more we love something,the greater the chance to feel bored with the monotony of the very same thing.An overdose of love between two people may leave them prone to feel offended at the slightest of provocations from the other's side.That's where the analogy comes in.Some things should be restricted to within or around one hundred and eighty degrees.The existence of love and hate in that list of things is a pivotal one.

Transworld

A laugh is quite easily elicited from almost all whenever a man is seen in a woman's dress.A transvestite is,i understand,a person who dresses and acts in a style or manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex.This does not necessarily translate to a man in a woman's dress.If the definition of the word is anything to go by,a woman in the traditional attire of men is no exception either.Then why do such a sight instigate a reaction which is something other than a comic one?
Comedienne may be the feminine equivalent of a man who makes others laugh.But isn't it true that almost always the clown is a man?Picture the so-called comic situations,both in real and reel life.The differences in their gender play the least role in people's hilariousness whenever a man is caught unawares,seen crumbling,falling down etc.Both men and women alike laugh out loud at the sight of a man in distress,irrespective of the victim's awareness of the situation that,probably,he himself has brought upon.A far cry from the reaction of the public if a woman were to meet with the same kind of fate.Why is that?
Ever wondered why jokes based on gay relationships are more popular than their lesbian counterparts?Or why a woman who has assumed the role of a man towards another of her sex isn't met with humour as in the case of a man who goes for a reversal of role?
The answer to all these questions is that even in these days of gender equality,deep in our minds we have the strongest of beliefs that men are superior to women in all aspects.It's when a person who is supposed to be authoritative receives a set back that we are prompted to laugh.No such hassles in case of the female of the species because both men and they themselves consider them to be downtrodden.Both think that it's derogatory to be a woman.It's the 'stooping down' of a member of the dominant sex to the level of a woman that triggers the laugh riot as opposed to the skepticism that a woman receives when she 'elevates' herself to the level of a man.And as long as the hierarchy remains so,I have no qualms on being part of an audience which laughs at the feminine attire of a man or his presumptive comical antics.

Nomos is Names,Mania is Obsession-Do They Have To Remain Segregated?

Nomomania is a word whose existence I'm uncertain about.If there isn't one,then I request it may be coined at the earliest so that I'll be able to describe at least a section of the population from my state.Being in the show business is tough enough,I understand,bringing other's attention to one's own name,even tougher.But still why bore the general public by scribbling the name of each and every hand behind any work of artistry on every conceivable and unallocable space on the end product itself? This is one particular query of which i seek an answer from those working in the field of motion picture and music albums.
A quick glance at the global scenario brings forth a different perception altogether.Gone are the days when a movie began with it's credits lapping up a chunk of valuable celluloid space.Since it was mandatory for any Hollywood movie to roll out credits in the end detailing even the smallest of the crew member (in terms of responsibility),it was only logical to leave the audience on their own by not cropping up the names of those who had worked either in front or behind the camera.
I hail not from California,but Kerala and Mollywood (If I can christen it's industry so)is no Hollywood.But why keep such an obsolete ritual of crediting oneself which in no way complements the state's(or the nation's)effort to reach world standards in every aspect,of which art,i believe,has a definite niche?
In a nation where the music industry has always been part of the film industry since the latter's conception,music albums made their mark only in the last decade or so.In it's southernmost state,it's even more relatively a new phenomenon.Blame it on my lack of exposure to the outside world if I'm wrong on this,but among the videos in as many as six languages,that I've seen,there was only one among them where I had to squint my eyes to see what was happening on screen since most of it's space were laden with names,names and more names.And no prizes for guessing the right answer because I'm not too proud of my state,or a product of it,on bagging such a winner's trophy.
All this in a state where the system of naming is as diverse as anything could possibly be.A system which puts one's initials before or after the name,banished the more globally accepted first name-middle name-surname pattern,of which I too am a victim.Signs of an outbreak of a global naming system seen nowadays can be viewed quite apologetically since the guardian's first name doubles up as the surname for men and maidens and the respective husband's first name for married women.Of course there are exceptions where people use family names as surnames.However,the naming system might be the last thing on the minds of those who work in the movie/music video department as they strive to put up their names upon their work itself.
Is it such a cliched usage "let the work do the talking" so as to be applicable to these people who are obsessed with their own names?One of my friends is into direction.With a few short films,music videos,television and theatrical ads under his belt,i think he fits the bill for the right person for me to pose my concern.It will have to wait until we meet in person but in the interim i will leave you with a snapshot of his works which is on http://www.youtube.com/ideahub.

PS:My friend's works aren't bereft of a plethora of credits either and it corroborates with my theory.Imagine a Guns 'n' Roses video with the names of art directors or assistant cameramen displayed on top of everything!