Believe it or not

There is no neutral ground in the Universe; every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counter claimed by Satan

- C.S.Lewis

Do you believe in God? If yes, then please continue reading. If you don't then I am not sure how much of this is relevant but you can continue reading for academic purposes.

Do you believe in the Devil/Satan? I am guessing that a lot of people would answer this question as 'no'. I would like to argue here about the existence of a Devil.

First, let me try and provide a perspective about this philosophical discussion. As expected it is a movie which prompted me to raise this question. Sometime back a friend of mine had suggested a movie called 'The Exorcism of Emily Rose'. He told me that it's not the usual cliched horror movie. Recently I gathered the courage to watch this horror movie alone in my apartment.

The premise of the movie is that a priest is being tried for causing the death of a possessed girl by performing an exorcism. This girl starts having visions and is diagnosed with epilepsy. When the medicines don't help, her parents are convinced that she is possessed. They ask the local priest to perform an exorcism. One fine day the girl refuses exorcisms and stops taking her medicines. Naturally, she dies very soon, thereafter. The priest is charged with criminal negligence.

I found one particular scene in the movie particularly disturbing but worth mentioning. Although it may not add to the original purpose of the post but I think that was the one scene I will remember forever. When the priest is performing the exorcism, he asks the demon to name itself. Instead of speaking out the name she starts saying, "1,2,3,4,5,6 take your pick". Then she starts speaking 6 names and it dawns upon the viewer that there is not one but six demons inside her. The last name she says is that of Lucifer. Even the thought of Lucifer possessing one is scary to me!

After watching this movie I had a long discussion about the movie with the friend who had recommended it to me. I asked him what was it that he liked about the movie and this is what he said:

"The movie is not judgmental. It does not take a stand whether the "ghosts" exist or not it just tells two different points of views which are equally strong and leaves it to the audience. A very thought provoking movie "

He continued:

"Also, I have always believed that there is nothing absolute truth in life and this movie brings this thing to the fore. Second, I never believed in ghosts and supernatural things but this movie gave me a different tangent to think on. There are things which you might not have experienced till date but might exist around you."

Coming back to the discussion at hand. My argument in favour of the devil's existence is summarised in the lines I wrote to my friend:

"I really don't know why the world is out there to prove that there is no such thing as the devil...even the bible says that there is Satan...our holy books...The Bhagvad Gita gives instances of evil...from a more rational point of view...the world is bipolar...there always has to be two sides to everything...so if there is God then there must be a devil..."

What do you say?

P.S. - I started writing this post yesterday and it became a difficult night for me...hope it's not the same today...

Ahem Ahem...

Here is what a friend of mine said to me recently:

sometimes i feel india doesn't deserve ppl like singh and sonia gandhi...

Now it's very easy to figure out which Singh he was referring to...comments please...

Movies and Books

I used to be a voracious reader till I was in school but stopped after I got into serious studying. Recently I started reading books once again. The recent reading spree has a trend to it - I have been reading a lot of books which have movies based on them and have been seen by me.

There are loads of movies based on books. Some examples that come to mind immediately are The Godfather and Lord of the Rings. It is a widely held opinion that a book is always better than the movie based on it. There is no way to prove this.

The books that I have read recently include 'The Boy in the Striped Pajamas' and 'Silence of the Lambs'. Currently, I am reading 'The Reader'. I had also started reading 'Lord of the Rings'. My shelf has books like 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', 'Oil', 'No Country For Old Men' and 'Revolutionary Road' which are yet to be read. The only book I can remember having read before watching the movie is 'The Godfather'.

The reason I have written the above is because I find it no fun reading a book after watching the movie. I know the story and there is no suspense left. Since I do not have ample instances of watching the movie after reading the book I can't generalise that it's the same in that case too. However, my gut says that it should be a lot better in the latter case. What do you say?

12 Angry Men

Sydney Lumet's 12 Angry Men (1957) is one of the finest movies of all time. Recently I saw it again and just couldn't help writing about it. It is a movie based on human prejudices and emotions and how they affect our judgement.

If I were to tell you that almost the entire movie takes place in one room with just 12 people you might think that it must be boring. The truth cannot be any further from that. It provides a fascinating display of interaction between 12 diverse personalities and how one man (Henry Fonda) stood against the prejudices of the others and brings them on his side one by one.

The movie starts with a court scene where a young slumdog (couldn't resist using the term) is charged with the murder of his father and the judge asks the jury to come to a unanimous decision about the guilt or innocence of the accused. The case is heavily stacked against the defendant and seems like a no-brainer. The jury takes a preliminary vote and 11 of them think that the boy is guilty while one is not sure. Upon asked by the others he replies that he wants to discuss the case for a small period of time to see if there is any room for doubt, afterall the jury must be convinced that there is no scope for any reasonable doubt. Most of them are outraged by this but he says that it is a man's life they were deciding and they could at least spare some time to it.

The movie has some very fine distinguished characters in it. The jury comprised a person who was biased against the slumdogs, a person who was hell bent on giving a guilty verdict because he thought today's youth are spoilt, a person who wanted to go to the ball game and just wanted it to be over soon, a person who had lived all his life in the slums, a very polished gentleman, an immigrant, a person having prejudices against immigrants and a few others. You can imagine the task ahead of the juror who stood against them. He started evaluating the evidence one by one and found out the doubts in them. Each piece of evidence was examined to pose a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. Ultimately they return a 'not guilty' verdict.

Even though this movie is made in black and white I would strongly suggest people to see it. If you are not into black and white I suggest you watch 'Ek Ruka Hua Faisla', a 1986 TV movie which was an exact copy of this one. This has a fine bunch of actors including Pankaj Kapur and Anu Kapoor. I am sure that you will not be disappointed.

13 Tzameti

A few days back I saw this Georgian movie called '13 Tzameti' and there was something in the movie which I haven't been able to throw out of my mind. I warn readers that reading further may lead to spoilers about the movie, not that I expect any of you to go and see it :) However, reading further has more interesting things than just a movie review.

The movie starts with the young protagonist finding an envelope which was meant for someone else. Inside are some travel tickets and a hotel reservation. Sensing a way to make a quick buck he sets off on the journey. Somehow, he manages to reach the intended destination. Upon reaching there he finds out that he has taken a very dangerous path as what lay ahead was not something a sane person would do!

A bunch of rich men played a deadly game where all of them would bring a player and bet huge sums of money on their player. Our protagonist is forced to replace the originally intended player for whom the envelope was meant. What game can be so deadly? 13 players stood in a circle and played Russian Roulette! Everybody was given a gun and one bullet. After the bullet was put in the cylinder it was rotated so that no one knew which cylinder had the bullet. Each person aimed for the head of the person standing in front. As soon as the signal was given everyone pulled their trigger once. Some guns fired while others didn't. This game continued for a few more rounds till there were only 4 players left. What's interesting was the fact that the number of bullets increased in some of the rounds, highest being 3 bullets at a time. Of course only one shot was allowed. In the end 2 of the 4 people left were selected for a duel out of which the one who survived was declared the winner. What barbarism isn't it!

What happened after that is not too relevant for what I wanted to write here. The Russian Roulette left me curious about something. Say, you are playing a game where you have to shoot at a target. You are given a revolver and 3 bullets but only one shot is allowed. It is upto you to decide how you want to put the bullets in the gun cylinder, e.g. together or spread out. After you put the bullets in the cylinder it is rotated. How would you arrange the 3 bullets in the gun cylinder which has 6 chambers so as to maximise your chances of hitting the target. Remember you are allowed only one shot. Think of the answer before you read ahead.

I thought about this and my mind was confused. Intuitively, I wanted to put the 3 bullets together but mathematically speaking it doesn't matter how the bullets are arranged. There is an equal chance in case of any arrangement. Though I am a rational person who knows the laws of probability but given a choice I would still put the bullets together! What was your answer?

Solve this simple one for some brownie points. Let's just modify this and say you are given 2 shots instead of one. Also, in between shots you do not rotate the cylinder. How would you arrange the bullets in this case to maximise your chances?