Individuality

As we move closer and closer to election day, it becomes more and more apparent that our culture and our politics are driven by oversimplification more than anything else. When political season looms over us and political candidates start to sell their party brand to the public, they tend to reduce the ethically intricate issues that drive party politics into a populist message that is easily palatable to the electorate at large. As a result, what they sell to the public is a heavily distorted, simplified message that is sometimes so far removed from reality—from truth—that it becomes absurd.

Art is about the truth and about human individuality and the complexities of life and reality. Populism—whether in party politics, advertising, mass media or any other sphere—is about selling something—about promoting a brand or message—and, thereby, about oversimplifying complex realities and inducing conformity to this reduced "reality". It's about labeling people as "liberal" or "conservative", "blue" or "red", "left" or "right", whereas the reality is always far more complex and complicated—only because human individuality is complex and complicated. On the other hand, the mob or collective typically needs some oversimplified slogan to unite them to a common cause. More often than not, the "common cause" tends to degenerate into a "common enemy", which is how scapegoatism is often born.

Of late, I have been reading and re-reading some of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels and short stories—and I say this mainly because the new Bond movie is due in theaters soon. The original stories by Fleming are subtle concoctions of mood, personalities, ideas and, of course, nail-biting action, each with a unique, distinctive flavor that is hard to characterize or categorize. Of course, one can lump them into a broad category such as the genres of "spy fiction" or "suspense thriller," but that would be doing the stories a profound injustice, because they address so many themes and issues.

It's really interesting to see how some of the familiar characters from the movies were originally conceived in Fleming's imagination, as documented in the novels. For example, take one of the best of the Bond films, From Russia with Love—and the characters of Red Grant and Rosa Kleb, the "bad guys" in the movie. In the film, they are pretty one-dimensional nasties. Grant is a mindless thug and assassin, while Kleb is an evil Soviet harridan, both intent on murdering Bond for no clearly established reason. So Bond has, basically, to kill them before they kill him—which he does—and so the movie ends "happily ever after" for Bond and his hot Russian girlfriend.

True, the movie is an action film about visceral responses, so maybe one doesn't really care about the characters' back stories all that much, especially if you happen to be the average audience-member who is catching a popcorn flick after a long week at work. Yet, in the novel, these one-dimensional characters each are unique and distinct individuals with complex histories and motivations. They are not defined by their political allegiances, be it to the "evil Soviet Empire" or the "good old British Empire", or by their appearances or habits. Rather, Fleming goes into Red Grant's history and psychological profile in depth to paint a grisly portrait of a soulless, psychotic murderer recruited by the Soviet state, while rendering him a strangely empathetic figure at the same time. And he does much the same for Rosa Kleb. He explores the motivations of the characters in much greater depth, and the impression you get is not so much that the characters can easily be categorized as "goodies" or "baddies" but that each is a distinct individual with complex motivations and unique psychological profiles that define them—as opposed to their political allegiances or ethnic or cultural origins. That's what makes these novels interesting to read—and also, probably, why John F. Kennedy found this particular novel interesting enough to list it as one of his personal favorite works of fiction.

Some might argue that the complexity in the novel is due to the nature of the medium, and is, as such, not easily translatable into the medium of film. And this might especially be true of an action film, which is about visceral audience response, in which the complexities might only get in the way of the action. That is partly true, of course—films are about giving you an entirely different experience from literature. But that's not to say that films can't be about complex themes and characterizations while being visceral and entertaining at the same time. Hitchcock did it, Kubrick did it, Coppola and Spielberg continue to do it. Art, in any form, is supposed to do it—art is about exploring complex themes, personalities, ideas and issues. When it oversimplifies and dumbs down the complexities, it tends to become propaganda, not art. As John F. Kennedy put it:

We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth.

Propaganda is aimed at brainwashing the masses into conformity and subservience. Art is about awakening the human soul to the complexities of life. Propaganda is about inducing mindless conformity whereas art is about engendering human individuality.

Horizon Cybermedia aims to do just that. We are a company aimed at producing art—not propaganda or populist oversimplifications. We are about exploring the complexities of life, hence our flagship series, Exploration with Uday Gunjikar. We hope that you will continue to support our endeavor with your continued viewership and stay tuned for much more interesting content to come.

Wishing you the very best,

Uday Gunjikar,
Founder and CEO,
Horizon Cybermedia, Inc.