Oscars - a layman's viewpoint

Oscars - a layman's viewpoint!!
Its my another "after-a-long-time-entry" into Blog.. he he he.Let the wise souls (patient visitors of this pathetic blog!!) be blessed with more patience!!
Coming to the Oscars,its always been an extravagant fiesta, an interesting nostalgia of the year's happenings in the movie world..this year was the 77th academy awards with the Kodak theatre looking as beautiful as ever.some interesting changes in the entire ceremony (like all the nominees standing on stage for few technical awards and so on) were evident.I will try to split my oscar write-up in various parts

Part I
Best actress in a leading role

All expectations to see a gorgeous damsel walk away in all grace and flair with the 24 carat statue.. yes, true indeed. From Janet Gaynor in 1927/28, The actresses walking away with the oscar are nothing less than just Gorgeous!
but, have you ever wondered about the roles that fetched them these..sadly enough, from the time I have started following the Oscars..thats from 1994 to be precise, the actresses haven't ever been their beautiful selves in the movies save for Helen Hunt (As good as it gets). All the others were nothing close to their feminisque grace.This is a question that has been bothering me for a loooong time...To substantiate my claim..
1996 (69th)Frances McDormand -- Fargo {"Marge Gunderson"}
(See this movie. She is more manly in the movie than her co-male stars!)
1997 (70th)Helen Hunt -- As Good As It Gets {"Carol Connelly"}
(The only exception... she is good.. competing with the Jack Nicholson...she is damn good)
1998 (71st)Gwyneth Paltrow -- Shakespeare in Love {"Viola De Lesseps"}
(Close in denial of my claim...but she still plays a male in most of the movie)
1999 (72nd)Hilary Swank -- Boys Don't Cry {"Brandon Teena/Teena Brandon"}
(She becomes a boy in this movie, literally....what else to say!!)
2000 (73rd)Julia Roberts -- Erin Brockovich {"Erin Brockovich"}
(Julia Roberts... less feminine in her entire movie career...not the same 'all-beautiful' Pretty Woman, Sleeping with an enemy, Pelican brief... not Oscar-deserving stuff ?!?... or is that she looks beautiful and hence no oscars?)
2001 (74th)Halle Berry -- Monster's Ball {"Leticia Musgrove"}
(Is this the beauty icon from Swordfish, X-Men and Die Another day (the first heroine to be talked more than the Bond himself for a 007 movie)..every girl wanted to be like her with respect to the above mentioned movies... but will any girl want to look like the ordinary Leticia from Monster's Ball?)
2002 (75th)Nicole Kidman -- The Hours {"Virginia Woolf"}
(Oh my God...the ultimate let down... Nosy Nicole... an extension of the nose by a few millimetres can abolish the angeline look of the star in Batman returns, Days of Thunder, Far and away and Moulin rouge... and also fetch her the Oscar)
2003 (76th)Charlize Theron -- Monster {"Aileen Wuornos"}
(The name of the movie says it all... was it this girl who acted in Devil's advocate and Sweet November?!!!?)
2004 (77th)Hilary Swank -- Million Dollar Baby {"Maggie Fitzgerald"}
(This "Boys don't cry" star couldn't become a boy again, but can take on the testosterone-sport of Boxing!! and she gets the Oscar!!)

all the above illustrations are in noway aimed at questioning the acting prowess of these stars. This category is infact one of the most competitive and less-controversial.. The actresses are truly amazing and stunning in their performances.. no doubt about it.

but,
why is that these sweet ladies and beautiful women are nothing close to being sweet and beautiful... why is testosterone more appreciated than oestrogen in Academy...
Either they sport a boyish look or a manly attitude or have an extreme make-over (to the other extreme!!) or just refuse to play their selves.

Has there been no good looking ladies playing good looking characters .... still pretty and picturesque... yes!! who could forget Vivian Leigh from 'Gone with the Wind', Ingrid Bergman, Sophia Loren and Elizabeth Taylor?

Is the Oscar taking a wrong stand these days.. a wrong example..
can we still see attractive women playing charming characters... or
are we going to be continuously 'Boxed around by Nosy Monsters with excessive testosterone'?

Just a thought that flashed through my mind..

Comments invited..

(to be continued)

A Metabiophysical approach to explain Ghosts and Spirits!

Ghosts and Spirits! [not for the faint-hearted!]

Please check these pictures before you proceed!
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/ghost1.html
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/ghost2.html
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/ghost3.html
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/ghost4.html
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/ghost5.html
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/ghost6.html

Such paranormal unidentified images in these photos might be genuine or just a silly/stupid game by the photographer/concerned parties. But one common thing with all these photos..Ghosts and spirits appear like hazy images.. a cloudy shape.. [In Ghost linguistics this is called 'ectoplasm'], a bundle of particles with no definite form and shape [Yes! I am getting closer to my explanation] in physical terms, a colloidal collection of quanta!

Yes! My comprehension of spirits, if at all they exist, would be that spirits are energy forms.

My reasons!
1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. What happens to all the energy that a man possesses when he dies?
A man has atleast two forms of energy, a)the more perceivable physical energy that is enhanced by food intake and spent by physical work, and b)the less perceivable aural energy, a direct translation of his intellect and emotions. The aura a man possesses. The Kundalini psychic centres according to Yogi [Hindu myth] and the Force according to Yodha [Star Wars]. There are even cameras to capture the aura of a man. So, the existence of these energies is unquestioned. What happens to these after a man dies, if one accepts the fact that Energy can neither be created nor destroyed? The spirits are forms of these energy quanta disepersed in less definitive forms!

2.Ectoplasm is a colloidal congregation or aggregation of quanta with the capability of characeteristic ghost behavior such as telekinesis and teleportation. We have all heard of the cartwheel experiment to demonstrate that quanta possesses momentum and makes the wheel spin. Just translate it to this special ectoplasmic quanta, capable of specific agglomerative behavior [remember Terminator 2, where the Mercury man assumes his form from from a liquid state..the logic was that of smart metals which has the intrinsic memory to get back to its form], which can get teleported [quanta travelling at the rate of Light speed is still possible] and since they have momentum, they perform telekinesis!

3.Every ghost or spirit has an identity. You identify it with the person who lived. Thats because the ghost has its genesis from the energy of the person who LIVED. The soul, the desires, the intellectual capabilities, the personality and all such abstract energy forms transformed into this ectoplasm , when the person dies! Why are souls identified with one single person? Its similar to the aura of an individual..each individual has an aura, each individual has a soul..and similarly each individual has a spirit! The only factor that differentiates them is the energy level that correlates to the abstract energy of the individual!

to be continued....

Change of settings

Dear All,
Hereby, its informed that the settings of this blog has been restructured so as to allow email posting, which means that anyone who reads this blog and wishes to post their esteemed [genuinely appreciative] comments, can do so.

Thanks Theo, for alerting me on this bug!!

I will be honoured if you guys/gals can post your comments on previous posts too!
Thanks

Renunciation is meaningless if you have nothing to renounce!

We all know Prince Siddartha who renounced all his kingdom, family and wealth [in short, all his worldy pleasures] to attain the highest enlightenment, and become the Buddha. Do we know of Sadharana, the charioteer who renounced his chariot, his hut, and his family [his worldly pleasures].
Why isn't he in the history books? He too renounced! but it was only Siddartha's renunciation that is acknowledged! Why is that? [Sadharana is a product born of fiction!]

In tamil literature there were two princes of the Cheran heritage, the elder, Senguttuvan and younger, Ilango. Once an astrologer predicted that it was the younger one Ilango who had the stars to be the next king. But, Ilango for the love of his brother, renounced the kingdom and became a sage. His renunciation is still acknowledged.
But there has been many other brothers who had renounced their wealth for their siblings..why haven't they been acknowledged?

Now, the entire point of this write-up is..if you claim you renounce something, you must have something worthy to renounce. Whatever one renounces, it must be important to him. But I am not talking about that. My stake is, if you renounce something, it must be worthy in the eyes of the world. Otherwise it is not acknowledged or respected.

What you sacrifice should be of some standard, otherwise, the sacrifice is nothing.
Raise yourselves to better standards, and higher positions and if you want to..renounce or sacrifice then...if not, forget renunciation and related humbug!

People who claim that money, wealth, name and fame all are transient, without possessing them or experiencing them, are all hypocrites. Don't waste your time listening to them!!
Spend your time wisely in accumulating them!
You just have one life to live!

we grow..and while we are realizing it, we keep growing

I read a beautiful blog by one of my friends.
check out "I sought refuge in your open arms" in http:\\anantya.blogspot.com.
a very beautiful, thought provoking write-up


How true it is...we grow..we grow old..we mature..we realize...
while all this is happening [present continuous]..we keep growing..
It is a continuous process!

a b'day card from my Family a day ago reads thus,
"How time has whizzed past
transforming our little boy
into this grown up self"

Though I long to stay as the same little, mischievous boy...time doesn't allow me to be one.
Now I am a responsible self [or that's what the card claims], carrying 'the family heritage on my strong shoulders' [again..words from the beautiful card]

Growth is an irreversible process as it is a function of time!

As we grow, we assume different morphs..and we are bestowed with various duties and responsibilities.
As we keep fulfilling it, we grow amicably..but still

we grow..

[this was started as a comment for anantya's blog...but i felt it deserved to be a post in my blog...thanks anantya]

Words speak more than what they are intended to..

We talk 12 hours a day, 30 words a minute..that is 30X60X12=21600 words a day..it extrapolates to 473040000 words in our lifetime of 60 years...
Is it humanly possible to make sure that you speak the right word in the right context at the right time?
I am not very sure. We all try to be as politically correct as possible.
We all try and make sure that the person we are conversing with feels comfortable...but can you always achieve 100% consistency?..
Atleast to acquaintances, new people and official clients/customers, we are careful to meet the standards..but when it comes to our friends and close ones...we relax our rules and in that process, there is a high chance of a slip-of-the-tongue...which is going to make
a-hell-out-of-the-issue!!

Taking this into consideration, I believe we should not give any more respect to the word a person spills than what it deserves. You know the person..you know what he intends to say..you know what he means..then why should 'a word' or string of words strain a good conversation.
The person might be inarticulate, he/she might have a scarcity of words..infact each person has a different intensity scale for different words..
The word 'Thank you' means to someone much more than some other..
The word 'Stupid' hurts someone more than some other..
we have so many examples...

with so many clauses/causes/clashes, I sincerely believe that a person should not be put in trial for a word that he spilled!

after all, they might not have meant it

Back [with a bang? or after a bang?]

You don't post once a month in a blog! Why do you need a blog? Blogspot is going to ask you they should post on your behalf? Ela and Blog cannot go together! These are the esteemed comments from my esteemed peers! Sometimes, we go dry in thoughts!.. How is that possible? How can someone not think? Why not? You are wrong! No one can stop thinking, but they cannot organize their thoughts to create some meaningful product. Hmm, that does make sense! drops in an ocean! thats my blog... sometimes, it might drizzle, sometimes it might pour... My Blog Audience, await a downpour!! Thanks for spending time to read my blog!! I am honoured

the transience of superlatives --> when 'the best' becomes 'the better'..

How long can the best be the best? till something/someone betters it/him/her..! How long can one hold the supremacy? till the one is singular..! the power of superlative is definitely determined by time..the time taken for someone [let me stick to living things, specifically humans to avoid any parallax!] the highest, the fastest and the longest [Yeah! Olympic fever..] are set only to be surpassed! then why do the "temporary best" lose their feet to fly in the no space [not even thin air]? Of course, one has to enjoy his period of transient glory, but why don't they realize that it is only temporary? "My only competition is.. Gravity - Sergei Bubka" He was "a best" [not "the best"] before someone is going to take it away from him..well, it might take a long time though..then how can he be the Best..one of the best is a better arguement! why does temporary glory get the better of a person's head? atleast Bubka had the accolades to claim his ground.. Why do some people bask in temporary superlatives! Enjoyment is happiness! Realization is satisfaction. If you are satisfied, your happiness is enhanced! -- comprehend the above sentences in whatever way you want to.. Its quite surprising that though Superlatives are designated in the respective fields, the common leveller is always Time, at various spans though! [one more illustration of the significance of Time] according to the Language and grammar, the better becomes the best in course of time...[the next level of better is supposed to best..and it is also emphasized that it is the end point, hence the term superlative] well, what I see is "the best" in course of time becomes "the better"...the superlative eventually becomes comparitive...