The anomalies and analogies in this world become a driving force behind our own entanglement. And there are no definite answers.
For example, the world of cinema. The world where whimsical fantasies see the light of the day; where ideas do not stay within the limits of our minds; where the thin line between subjectivity and objectivity is blurred to whelp out a product that not only is infinite but also infinitesimal.
The world of Art contrasts starkly with the worlds of Science, Business, or Management. Art does not have answers. Or, if I were to be more accurate, not one definite answer.
We live in a world that is driven by overlapping realities. The real-life world has answers to every question. And if they don’t already exist, there is an attempt to come up with a unified answer. Filmmaking is different. It hardly works on the concept of converging. Actually, it acts like a singularity that lets realities diverge to a distance, incomprehensible to other parallel realities. There are multiple interpretations of a single product. Take the example of the film “October”. In it, there was a spectrum of thoughts on display. each true in its own sense because each was perceived as a reality, different though it may be from another reality. There was a concept of nothingness, someone talking about OCD or another one mentioning Shiuli as a metaphor. The product was limited, the experience not so much.
The point I am trying to establish is that with a world that has no set pattern, no definite answer, no way of understanding the concept as a whole, and has dimensions at a number that exceed those of Science (M-Theory and String theory work), how do you get a hold of such differences? How do you continue to be a part of that world knowing you cannot come to a conclusion because there is no end, only a distant horizon?
The answer probably lies in our human psyche: The problem of curiosity and the sins of not being satisfied. The problem has a solution which transposes into another problem. The answer comes with uncertainty and a possibility. Uncertainty because of our insecurities. And possibility that drives us to explore further. Further exploration may only lead us back to square one, but with a different perspective, probably a different reality.
A film like “October” or “Dear Zindagi” or “Grand Budapest Hotel” contain worlds governed by individualistic laws, laws that can not be deciphered by an external universe because of our lack of understanding. That being said, there is always an effort to understand a film’s inner world or to give it a meaning from our own little understanding, simultaneously merged with our ignorance. I do that a lot. The most recent example being “The Post” by Steven Spielberg. I noticed the technique of blocking a scene and the very thought of revealing the bias of an actor through their positioning in the frame was an idea that fascinated me. Another film would come from an industry that has been churning out some deeply insightful films of late. The Iranian film, “Bodyguard”. It’s not nearly a perfect film, but the sheer exchange of dialogues that create conflicts within a viewer because of the maker’s understanding of multiple realities is a concept that attracts me. Or the always dependable Kalki playing an outsider in “The Job”, whose production design takes the lead in a band of storytelling.
These are worlds with infinite possibilities; worlds where changing the dynamics drastically or slightly would give birth to another world instead of destroying the original. An ‘External Reality’, then, becomes a foundation for our own realities. Yet, there is no final answer.
For the answer to take a form, the observer and the observed need to interact. It paves the way to multiple paths owing to the clashing of different worlds and each worldly law overlapping. Just like Young’s double slit experiment.
Not much different then, Science and Art, eh?