||Bonding with so called 'Intellectuals' #CC 29 (IO) - Page 6

Howard Roark

Howard Roark is the undisputed hero of The Fountainhead, and his story drives the novel. His name contains the words "hard" and "roar," both of which accurately describe his tough, determined character. Roark's buildings suggest his personality, for like Roark they are innovative and austere. Roark never compromises or deviates from his principles. Rand holds him up as everything that man can and should be. Consequently, Roark does not develop over the course of the novel"the ideal man does not need to change(Does this sound familiar?😛 😆😉). Although Rand despised religion, she often describes Roark as if he is a religious figure. Roark does not preach, and he never actively seeks converts, but he inspires absolute devotion and rapture in his followers. Cameron, Mallory, Dominique, and Wynand change their entire belief systems after meeting him. Dominique in particular exhibits a religious passion for Roark, racked by ecstasy and guilt as if inspired by a messiah. Like all Christ figures in literature, Roark's enemies persecute him. Despite the hatred of the world, Roark lives life as Rand thinks it should be lived.

-------------------

one who embodies the virtues of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. Roark is the antithesis of contemporary belief that an individual is molded by social forces. He is not the product of his upbringing, his economic class, his family, his religious training, or his social background. He is a product of the choices he has made. Roark is an example of free will " the theory that an individual has the power, by virtue of the choices he makes, to control the outcome of his own life. A man's thinking and values are not controlled by God or the fates or society or any external factor " but solely by his own choice. Others (like Keating) may choose to submit, but Roark will not. He is his own man.

Because Roark is his own man from the beginning, there is no change in the essence of Roark's character. He learns a significant amount over the course of the story " about architecture, but his fundamental convictions remain untouched. The essence of his character is an unswerving devotion to his own thinking and judgment. Roark is like this from the first moment of the story to the last " and, most likely, he has been this way since early childhood. An independent man like Roark learns a great deal of content in his life " indeed, because of his commitment to the fullest use of his own mind, he is the only type of person who can. But his method of functioning, his devotion to autonomous thinking, does not change. Because Roark's method of functioning doesn't change, he is able to create and successfully fight for revolutionary designs.

Further, Roark is a selfish man, in the positive sense that Ayn Rand means this. He is true to his values, to his convictions, to his thinking, to his mind, to his self.

Despite being destitute, he gives up a lucrative, publicity-generating commission in order to stand by the integrity of his design " and he calls this "selfish." To be true to his self, a man must first have a self. He must think independently, he must judge, he must form values and he must act in pursuit of those values. He must never sacrifice them. This is exactly what Roark does: The integrity of his design is far more important to him than the money or recognition that will accrue from the commission. In remaining true to his values and judgment, Roark is true to the deepest core of his self. This is selfishness in its highest and best sense.

-------------

I think I should stop here😛

This is the second part of my two-part interview with India's master storyteller SS Rajamouli, writer-director of the smash hit film Baahubali: The Beginning'. Part one can be found here.

You might expect a film director who has had 10 successful films in a row" including the highest grossing movie his country has ever seen"to be arrogant, self-congratulatory, or at least a tiny bit prideful about his work. But in my recent conversation with India's SS Rajamouli, the master storyteller behind the war epic/romance Baahubali: The Beginning, I found him to be humble, gracious and delightfully down-to-earth.

In this, the second part of my interview with Raja (as he asked me to address him), we discuss Raja's creative process, his perceptions about the contrasts between filmmaking in India and Hollywood, and his future film projects.In part one we talked about the making of Baahubali, about Raja's numerous collaborations with his screenwriting father, Vijayendra Prasad, and his lifelong love of India's epics and myths.

Rob: A lot of people have said that Baahubali has changed the Indian film industry. I sense that you're not an arrogant person (he laughs, "no") but do you think that's true in some ways?

Raja: It might do some help but it might do some harm also. If people get inspired byBaahubali as a film and they realize they can make a big film or a historical film which has good drama and good visuals, if they realize there are good stories to tell here, then it is good. But if they look at the box office numbers and get inspired by the box office numbers and try to do something only for money then it is bad. So I neither can take the credit nor blame for both the things. I did what I did because I believed there was a great story to tell. Any hit films, impact-creating films, leave their mark on the industry. It is in human nature to try to follow something that is creating an impact. So when a film like Baahubali comes along and it creates such an impact and becomes a hit, people will obviously be attracted to it and try to imitate it or do similar films. If they take the core of it then it helps them, but if they just look at the box office numbers and try to replicate it, that won't work.

As a writer and producer myself I never feel I've fully realized the potential of the original, perfect vision I had in my head. I always want to achieve greatness, and I always feel that I fall short. Do you ever feel that way, and if so, what stands in the way?

Definitely. No one can ever create art, even on a piece of paper, as they have envisioned it in their mind. Because there are no limits, you cannot frame the mind, it is completely limitless, you can imagine whatever you want, whereas putting it on paper, in writing form, in film, on celluloid, [each medium] has its own limitations, so you can never do complete justice to whatever you have created in your mind. That can never be achieved. But what I look at is whether I have given my 100 percent in trying to achieve what I have in my mind. If I have done it to only 95 percent of my ability or 99 percent then I curse myself, I feel very guilty, I feel bad that I haven't done justice to the story.

And what are those obstacles that keep you from getting to 100 percent.

I'm saying by default you cannot achieve it because of the physical limitations I've talked about. But other limitations can come in the tactics of directing a film. It starts from choosing your actors, choosing your theme, how well bonded are you with your producer. I would say the most important aspect of direction is that you as a director and your producer need to be on the same page, the same line of thinking. If that doesn't happen in the beginning of the film then that will show in the final product, 100 percent.

And if you're working at 100 percent are you able to fully control the result, or would you say that there's also a bit of luck involved?

I don't believe in luck. Everything is our doing or undoing. If something doesn't come out right, then as a director you have to take full responsibility. You can't just say no I gave this job to the music supervisor, they promised me they would do it and they didn't do it. You can't blame anyone else, every bit of it is your own responsibility.

I once heard a motivational speaker say, "I live my life with the belief that everything that happens to me is within my control." Whether I catch a cold or win an award or a tree falls on my head, it's all a result of my thoughts and my actions.

Yes, it is our doing. I wouldn't put luck in the framing at all. Luck and unluck are the words that are attributed to things that are not in our control. I don't bring the word into my dictionary at all, it is completely out. But apart from that whatever happens, if the tree falls on my head there is nothing I can do about it. I wouldn't say that's my doing, but I wouldn't blame luck or unluck. Apart from that everything that happens to me is my doing or undoing.

I heard you wrote Eega very early on in your career but had to wait until you had credibility as a filmmaker to make that particular film.

Eega, the basic story was by my father, he told us that story many years ago. A boy dies and is reborn as a fly and he takes revenge on the guy who kills him. It's true that I wanted to do it much earlier. The story was very exciting to me. But I had other commitments, other films that I had to make first. It's not that I had to wait for allowing for something or, other, it's just that I had to finish my other commitments first before making Eega.

Are there other stories you're waiting to tell?

So many, so many, I can't tell you. Anant Pai, the publisher of Amar Chitra Katha' comics, I think the way he has written the stories of Indian historical heroes, each and every story is so fascinating, emotionally rich and visually rich. Given a chance I would go on and make one film of each of those kings and queens and India.

Which story would be the first you would tell?

I love the stories of Sri Krishna Devaraya, he is a Telugu and Kannada ruler. He's such a great king, we have so many stories about that one king. His rule in the south is called the golden age of Andrha and Karnatka,' the Telugu and Kannada people. Then I have Chhatrapati Shivaji. then I have Maharana Pratap, I have Samrat Ashoka, so many great kings.

Have there any good, memorable films made about these kings?

There have been few films made about them, some were well made and some not so well made. But when you talk about mythology and history it doesn't bother me that the stories have been told or not because I have my own way of visualizing it and I'm pretty sure it is something that hasn't been seen before.

Baahubali is marvelous visually, and although your budget was very high for India (2.4 billion rupees, or about $US 40 million), the highest budget ever for an Indian film, it was actually quite low compared to what an American studio would have had to spend for the same result. What was your strategy for achieving that look?

Half of the director's job is in selecting his team, they really have to believe in you and the story that's been created. And as a director you have to believe in them and their capabilities. Trust is how it works here. I can't generalize about Hollywood because I haven't worked there, but from what I understand the system is quite rigid there with rules and regulations.

would say that's generally true.

I don't have any complaints about them, it's an approach that works for them. But here in India we work more on trust and we are quite open with each other. For example, if you take the Studio Makuta, which has done more than 50% of the visual effects work, and the visual effects supervisor Srinivas Mohan, and the producer and me, we started off with a certain budget and you'll do X amount of work and you'll be paid a certain amount amount of money. After we started doing the film I wanted to do something more and at the time we weren't in a position to calculate how much more it would cost and how much we had to pay. So we just made an agreement and Makuta said we will work how much ever you want and at the end we will tell you how much it cost us, and you'll give us whatever additional money you can. That kind of agreement, I think it doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. It is just trust, how do they believe that the producer will pay them, because there's no document or proof of the agreement. And how does the producer know that they're giving him the actual figures. It just goes on trust, we believe in each other. As we are progressing, just because everyone's focus is on the end quality of the film and nothing else, I think that relationship develops. So we were able to make the film within that budget primarily because of trust.

You're right, it is very different here, everything is documented. And it's not just with the major Hollywood studios. Even with the independent films I produce, most of my job entails creating contracts, reviewing them, dealing with attorneys, there are hundreds and hundreds of contracts, tens of thousands of pages, so much distraction from the task of actually creating the film.

Personally I won't even dream it. It just doesn't happen here, it's a completely different methodology.

India recently initiated a co-production treaty with China. Do you have any interest in working there or doing an India-China co-pro?

What makes me make a movie is when I come across a plot point or a story or a character that gets me excited to tell that story in a film form. I think I have to stay with that. So if I have a story which has maybe a Chinese hero and an Indian hero then maybe I'll make that movie. But I cannot make a movie just because I have a very good business proposition if I shoot a movie partly in China with Chinese actors and partly in India, if I start making the story because of business propositions then I think it won't be good filmmaking. I don't want get into that. But if there is something like the story we have of king named Harshavardhana and a Chinese traveler named Xuanzang who traveled during his time, and we don't have any text written by that particular Chinese traveler. So if I'm making a story about Harshavardhana then yes, it automatically fits into that film, then it might be a Chinese co-production. The idea should be exciting, then the business proposition should follow.

Any interest in working in Hollywood?

I don't know how to put it"you may say that I'm afraid to come out of my comfort zone in India. About 3 or 4 years back I wanted to do an English language movie. Whether I could do it or not was a different question but I wanted to do it. But as I met more and more people I realized the way Hollywood works on film production is very different from how we work here. So I don't know if I can adjust into that kind of filmmaking, not that I have any chance with offers from people coming to me offering me a film. But being used to this approach for 20 to 25 years, I don't know whether I can fit in there.

If you had all the freedom in the world and could make any film, without any financial or creative constraints, what would it be?

Mahabharata, without any doubt. That is what I would do. And ultimately, even if I have so many restrictions, if I don't have the freedom, I'll still make it one day.

+++++++++++++

There is a part 1 to this IV as well, but he has given those responses in most IVs, I found the part 2 IV specially fantastic and some great answers there😛

wow SSR - since he wants to himself, please please make movies on Pratap, Ashoka and Mahabharat

and googling about King Krishna devaraya now, I remember this name popping in the history books somewhere..😛