मेघदूत: "नीचैर्गच्छत्युपरि च दशा चक्रनेमिक्रमेण"

समर्थ शिष्या अक्का : "स्वामीच्या कृपाप्रसादे हे सर्व नश्वर आहे असे समजले. पण या नश्वरात तमाशा बहुत आहे."

G C Lichtenberg: “It is as if our languages were confounded: when we want a thought, they bring us a word; when we ask for a word, they give us a dash; and when we expect a dash, there comes a piece of bawdy.”

Friedrich Nietzsche: “Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.”

Martin Amis: “Gogol is funny, Tolstoy in his merciless clarity is funny, and Dostoyevsky, funnily enough, is very funny indeed; moreover, the final generation of Russian literature, before it was destroyed by Lenin and Stalin, remained emphatically comic — Bunin, Bely, Bulgakov, Zamyatin. The novel is comic because life is comic (until the inevitable tragedy of the fifth act);...”

सदानंद रेगे:
"... पण तुकारामाची गाथा ज्या धुंदीनं आजपर्यंत वाचली जात होती ती धुंदी माझ्याकडे नाहीय. ती मला येऊच शकत नाही याचं कारण स्वभावतःच मी नास्तिक आहे."
".. त्यामुळं आपण त्या दारिद्र्याच्या अनुभवापलीकडे जाऊच शकत नाही. तुम्ही जर अलीकडची सगळी पुस्तके पाहिलीत...तर त्यांच्यामध्ये त्याच्याखेरीज दुसरं काही नाहीच आहे. म्हणजे माणसांच्या नात्यानात्यांतील जी सूक्ष्मता आहे ती क्वचित चितारलेली तुम्हाला दिसेल. कारण हा जो अनुभव आहे... आपले जे अनुभव आहेत ते ढोबळ प्रकारचे आहेत....."

John Gray: "Unlike Schopenhauer, who lamented the human lot, Leopardi believed that the best response to life is laughter. What fascinated Schopenhauer, along with many later writers, was Leopardi’s insistence that illusion is necessary to human happiness."

Justin E.H. Smith: “One should of course take seriously serious efforts to improve society. But when these efforts fail, in whole or in part, it is only humor that offers redemption. So far, human expectations have always been strained, and have always come, give or take a bit, to nothing. In this respect reality itself has the form of a joke, and humor the force of truth.”

विलास सारंग: "… . . 1000 नंतर ज्या प्रकारची संस्कृती रुढ झाली , त्यामध्ये साधारणत्व विश्वात्मकता हे गुण प्राय: लुप्त झाले...आपली संस्कृती अकाली विश्वात्मक साधारणतेला मुकली आहे."

Thursday, January 30, 2020

चित्र जणू रामायणातले.... Machiko Hasegawa@100


 सोबतचे चित्र जणू औंधचे राजे भवानराव श्रीनिवासराव पंतप्रतिनिधी (१८६८ - १९५१) यांच्या (ज्याची दुर्मिळ प्रत आमच्याकडे आहे) चित्र रामायणातले...

माकड आणि मानव यांच्यातील चित्रातल्या इतका प्रामाणिक संवाद मी पहिल्यांदा त्यांच्या रामायणातच वाचला / पहिला असेल. 

 Artist: Machiko Hasegawa drawing for Sazae-san

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

Tax revenues certainly don’t come from schools...Anton Chekhov@160


"....Both adults and children may go to pubs, but only children can go to school.
Alcohol relaxes the metabolism, aids fat deposits, gladdens a man’s heart. School isn’t capable of all that. Lomonosov said: “Science nourishes youth, glee to elders grants.” But Vladimir the Great often said: “Drinking is the joy of Rus.” Which of the two to believe? Surely the older one.
Tax revenues certainly don’t come from schools.
The uses of enlightenment haven’t been established, but the harm it brings is clear.
Rousing the appetite calls not for a diploma but for a shot of vodka.
There’s a pub everyplace, but schools are far from everywhere.
All this is sufficient to conclude: pubs shouldn’t be abolished, but schools merit reconsideration...."

(The Idle Meditations of Shtyck-Junker Krokodilov)


Friday, January 24, 2020

शास्त्र-काट्याला येउं दे गा / भावनांची कसोटी...B S Mardhekar, Hume, Russell, Conrad

David Hume:

"We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
मर्ढेकरांची माझी तोंडपाठ असलेली कविता म्हणजे प्रार्थना : "भंगु दे काठिन्य माझें..." (पृष्ठ ७२, 'मर्ढेकरांची कविता', १९७७)

त्यातील एक ओळ: "भावनेला येउं दे गा  / शास्त्र-काट्याची कसोटी."....

आजवर लक्षात न आलेले मला अलीकडे लक्षात आले, भावनेला शास्त्र-काट्याची कसोटी लागणार नाही! कधीच!
बर्ट्रान्ड रसेल यांच्या 'स्केप्टिकल  एसेज', १९२८ या पुस्तकाला नवीन प्रस्तावना लिहताना जॉन ग्रे म्हणतात:

“...In his letter commenting on (Bertrand) Russell’s book on China, (Joseph) Conrad wrote: ‘I have never been able to find in any man’s book or any man’s talk anything convincing enough to stand up for a moment against my deep-seated sense of fatality governing this man-inhabited world.’ Russell’s passionate admiration for Conrad may have had a number of sources. One of them was surely his suspicion that Conrad’s sceptical fatalism was a truer account of human life than his own troubled belief in reason and science. As reformer, he believed reason could save the world. As a skeptical follower of Hume he knew reason could never be more than the slave of the passions. Sceptical Essays was written as a defence of rational doubt. Today we can read it as a confession of faith, the testament of a crusading rationalist who doubted the power of reason...”

महत्वाचे शब्द < reason could never be more than the slave of the passions>.... शास्त्र-काट्याला येउं दे गा / भावनांची कसोटी ... ही मानवी जीवनाची अवस्था आहे. 

फार व्याकूळ करून टाकणारी प्रार्थना, मर्ढेकरांच्या या एका विचारामुळे थोडी हडबडते. 

Reason (Central figure of Basilica of Notre-Dame de Fourvière on the hill in Lyon.)

सौजन्य : wikiquote

Monday, January 20, 2020

साठीतील 'ल डोलचे व्हीटा' चे निर्माते फेल्लिनी शंभरीत...Cartoonist, Journalist, Gag Writer, Script Doctor- Federico Fellini@100

#FedericoFellini100   #LaDolceVita60

Anthony Lane, The New Yorker, Jan 17 2020:
"...Fellini is also the great divider. “La Dolce Vita” was the film most loved by Roger Ebert, for whom it was transformed with every viewing, whereas Pauline Kael likened Fellini’s efforts to “poking your head into a sack of fertilizer and then becoming indignant because you’re covered with excrement.” The director, she said, was “shocked and horrified” by the antics of the idle rich that he surveyed. If so, the shock has not survived; what lingers, after sixty years, is a lazy amusement at mortal foibles, which are scarcely confined to the wealthy. It is the poor who flock to a strip of wasteland where a couple of kids, for a giggle, claim to have beheld the Virgin Mary. Any hint of holiness is wrecked by a rainstorm, and by the glare of the arc lights under which TV cameras hope to catch the miracle, yet Fellini does not rage at our credulity. He smiles...."
Satyajit Ray, interview to Cineaste magazine, 1981:

“I think I achieved maturity at a pretty early stage. It has been my preoccupation to achieve as much density as possible within a superficially simple narrative structure. I don't think of the Western audiences when I make my films. I am thinking of my own audience in Bengal. I am trying to take them along with me, and this I have succeeded in doing. At the beginning, this audience was extremely unsophisticated. They were used to trash or the naive Bengali film. You had to take them along slowly. Sometimes you took a leap as in Kanchenjungha or in Days and Nights in the Forest, and lost them. These kinds of risks, especially in relation to their audiences, haven't been taken by Bergman or Fellini. Bergman is fairly simple, although he can be very austere and rigorous, and he is often aided by some marvelous photography. As for Fellini, he seems to be making the same film over and over again. There is a lot of bravura in his films, in spite of the fact that he's not so interested in the stories, and people go to see that bravura. I can't do all that Bergman and Fellini do. I don't have their audiences and I don't work in that kind of context. I have to contend with an audience that is used to dross. I have worked with an Indian audience for thirty years and, in that time, the general look of cinema hasn't changed. Certainly not in Bengal. You'll find directors there are so backward, so stupid, and so trashy that you'll find it difficult to believe that their works exist alongside my films. I am forced by circumstances to keep my stories on an innocuous level. What I can do, however, is to pack my films with meaning and psychological inflections and shades, and make a whole which will communicate a lot of things to many people.”
'Shallow people demand variety -- but I have been writing the same story throughout my life, every time trying to cut nearer the aching nerve."
(quoted by Marathi writer G. A. Kulkarni as epigraph  to his book 'Pinglavel', first published in 1977)

जी. ए. कुलकर्णी ज्यावेळी हे उद्धृत करतात , त्यावेळी असे वाटते की हे (एकच गोष्ट पुन्हा पुन्हा सांगणे) त्यांना मान्य आहे. त्यांच्या मते कलावंताच्या दुखऱ्या नसे पर्यंत जायचा तो एक राजमार्ग आहे. 
पण सत्यजीत रेंना ते मान्य नाही. फेल्लिनी तोच सिनेमा कायम काढत आले असे त्यांना वाटते. त्यांची ह्याला नापसंती दिसती आहे.

Shawn Levy, 'Dolce Vita Confidential: Fellini, Loren, Pucci, Paparazzi, and the Swinging High Life of 1950s Rome', 2016 :

"...Federico Fellini was starting to be recognized outside of Italy, and Michelangelo Antonioni was gaining a significant constituency of his own.Antonioni was, in many ways, the anti-Fellini, cool and austere where Fellini was gregarious and cluttered, taciturn and intellectual where Fellini was garrulous and fantastical. The two respected each other and got along well professionally, but they were destined to run on parallel tracks, never intersecting and, at least in the eyes of the world, always competing with one another: an auteurist incarnation of the civil wars between Vespa and Lambretta, Coppi and Bartali, Loren and Lollobrigida....

...Fellini was also cagey about his relationships with his films, claiming that his creative impulse wasn’t one of joy but loathing, agony, struggle. “I make a film as if I were escaping,” he once said, “as if I had to avoid an illness. . . . when I am overcome by hatred, when I am full of bitterness.” And when it was over, he continued, his feelings about the finished work were rarely positive: “With each one of my films . . . our relationship is one of mutual dislike. I feel like a criminal. I want to leave no traces of what a film has cost me. I destroy everything.”...
Worse, still was his attitude toward the film business. “The movie business is macabre,” he would often say. “Grotesque. It is a combination of a football game and a brothel.”And worse yet, worst of all, were producers. Fellini would tell anyone who would listen to him—dinner guests, journalists, waiters, psychotherapists—about the wars he fought against producers over film subjects, casting, budgets, salaries, sets, props, music, editing, publicity: everything. He loved to share pointed anecdotes about producers and damning jokes, like this one about seeking financing for Le Notti di Cabiria: “The producer says, ‘We have to talk about this. You made pictures about homosexuals, you had a script about an insane asylum, and now you have prostitutes. Whatever will your next film be about?’ . . . I respond angrily, ‘My next film will be about producers!’...

(Anita) Ekberg was the very type of woman that Fellini was always drawn toward with an almost infantile eroticism: big-bosomed, blonde, glamorous, unattainable. She was, as he said, a creature from his imagination or from a movie screen, descended to Rome in mortal form: “healthy as a shark,” Fellini said of her, “emanating the heat of a summer day.” “Oh my God,” concurred Tullio Kezich, Fellini’s friend and biographer, who had permission to witness firsthand the gestation of the new movie, from the script stage through production and editing to the release, “her splendor was incredible, her outsized, totally exaggerated beauty!” To marshal a bona fide sex goddess into the film—with all the personal trappings and implications she bore—was, in many ways, the very point, as Kezich would later say, of what Fellini was doing: “The idea for the film is inseparable from the idea of Anita Ekberg.”
And yet, at some deeper level, the film was unimaginable without Marcello Mastroianni in the central role. Mastroianni had been a front-row spectator as his frequent costar Sophia Loren launched a Hollywood career right when the two were devloping a truly delicious on-screen rapport. The actor would recall his costar going home to study English every night after shooting, a habit that he, inveterate lazybones, took to be an enormous waste of time. “They wanted me to go, too,” he recalled. “But I couldn’t imagine for what. What was I supposed to do there, play a Hollywood cabdriver?” (He understood, too, that Loren was always going to be a bigger draw at the box office and, thus, earn more than he. “It’s only fair,” he told Time. “Bosoms are bosoms.”)..."

एकबर्ग यांचे स्फोटक, उन्मादक सौन्दर्य 'ल डोलचे व्हीटा' साठी किती महत्वाचे आहे हे वरती आलेच: “The idea for the film is inseparable from the idea of Anita Ekberg.”... big-bosomed, blonde, glamorous, unattainable... “her splendor was incredible, her outsized, totally exaggerated beauty!”

Anita Ekberg in the Trevi Fountain scene of La Dolce Vita
Photo courtesy: ALAMY

Marcello Mastroianni and Anita Ekberg in La Dolce Vita (1960)

Credit: Astor Pictures Corporation