A Microcosm within a microcosm (WARNING: Contains spoilers for 'The Lego Movie')

Let me begin this rant by explaining what a microcosm is. It is a miniature world. It is our society represented in a smaller example or scenario. We all create microcosms in our daily conversations when we use illustrations or talk about hypothetical situations. There are many movies or books that are microcosms. Animal Farm by George Orwell would neatly fall into this category, as it is a microcosm of the then Communist USSR. Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller portrays a microcosm of the American society pointlessly pursuing the American dream. 'Lord of the Flies' is a novel by William Golding where he builds a microcosm of his idea of a world without an older or superior authority. 'The Breakfast Club' is a movie that is a microcosm of the entire society and the different types of people in it. A lot of sci-fi and fantasy stories have the same theme as well. For example, in 'The Hunger Games,' Suzanne Collins builds a microcosm of her idea of the future, if things progress as they are doing so now.

Upon watching 'The Lego Movie,' microcosm is the first word that came to my mind. But, what really struck me was that it was quite different from the typical movies or stories that are microcosms. What these stories usually do is that they just build the microcosm without claiming to do so. However, that is not what 'The Lego Movie' does. It claims to be a microcosm. It even shows the bigger world that the Lego world aims to portray. Towards the end of the movie, the characters of the father and son are shown. The characters of President Business in the Lego world is representative of the character of the father in the real world. The 'master builders' of the Lego world somehow represent the creativity of the son in the real world. And through this microcosm, the film sends out its message. Business and work kills creativity, whereas they ought to work together. Every viewer can easily make this connection. But interestingly, by making this idea of the microcosm blatant and explicit, the focus is removed from another microcosm.

The real world in the movie is a microcosm in itself of the society at large. The relationship between the two is representative of a delicate balance in our society between the market and art. And with the market and business, there is shown to come a lot of unpleasant elements, such as lack of individuality, existence of  'popular' culture, an excessive reliance on 'instructions,' and a lack of creativity. These elements are shown in the character of Emmet when he first meets Wyldstyle. The present is shown to be the result of such an industry driven world. The past, on the other hand, is portrayed by Wyldstyle as something that is far more freer. Instead of drubbing the entire system of industry, the movie ends with an idea of the two working together. The order and consistency of the business industry or the market is something that is needed along with the wild, free, unrestrained, creativity of the artist. The characters in the Lego world are shown working together at the end, along with the father and son working together in the real world.

Whether in the larger society, this model can be implemented is another question altogether. The movie would suggest it highly within the realms of possibility, if only one would 'believe.' That is the message the movie aims to send out. But before asking that question, one more question to ask upon encountering such microcosms would be whether they are truly representative of our world. How accurate are these depictions? I am not making any statements about whether they are accurate or not. I am merely saying that they may or may not be. It is just the author or the filmmaker's view of the world. Some might say they are accurate, and some may say they are not. Though the microcosm by itself cannot say anything about its own accuracy, it can say a lot about the creator of these microcosm, and about how he/she views the world. And that is what I'm thinking of writing about in my next post. (Don't know when that'll come out though, even if it will.)

How do monkeys balance themselves on trees?

Recently, I've been reading a manga about boxing. Hold on, hold on; before you go running to google for help, I shall enlighten you. Mangas are comics drawn in a certain style developed in Japan. Japanese cartoonists who draw mangas are called mangakas. As I was saying, I've been reading a manga about boxing. The story follows a young boxer, Ippo, as he struggles to win matches and become like Mike Tyson, whom he adores.

In one of his earliest matches, his opponent used a counter punch. When Ippo tried to punch this opponent, the latter dodged it and punched Ippo at the same time. This counter worked well for two reasons. Firstly, the force of Ippo's punch made his face move forward and hence added to the destructive power of the counter. Secondly, whenever Ippo was on offence, his defence was weak. That got me thinking. If a person defends, he cannot attack. If he attacks, he cannot defend. The solution, of course, would be to have the perfect balance. That, I believe, would be the aim of every boxer.

Upon further reflection, I came to the conclusion that striking the perfect balance is the aim of every human being. Psychology says that all humans always try to be in a state of homeostasis, which is just a fancy word for equilibrium, which in turn can easily be explained as balance. The consumption of food, or, in other words, the act of eating, is an attempt at restoring the homeostasis, which, as I said, or rather typed, is equilibrium or balance, of nutrition. Similarly, quenching your thirst by the consumption of liquids is merely an attempt to restore your body's hydraulic equilibrium, or, balance. (I really love using big words. It makes me feel smart.)

Venturing beyond physiology, I would make the claim that even the act of socializing is an attempt to gain balance (I'm tired of typing the same thing in three different words.) If one observes well enough, one could easily see that people try to make friends with the person who complements them well, or, with whom they attain equilibrium. The practical man and the idealist are good friends in many cases. The cynic and the romantic often get along well. The introvert and extrovert may easily be seen having coffee together. And so on and so forth. Well, you do have the occasional black sheep. But on a general note, that is the trend. On an individualistic front as well, we are all constantly in the struggle for balance. One day we are puffed up with pride and the next day, dealing with an inferiority complex. So, if you, and by you, I mean the three readers who will read this post out of an obligation of friendship, are struggling to find a balance with anything, it might help to know that others are going through the same thing, and also that you might never actually achieve that balance.

Happy Balancing!

A Reasonable Greeting

Greetings!

Here is an interesting fact I learnt this weekend: eating a lot of biryani with kebabs at 11 PM is not a good idea. It might provoke one to acts which he (or she, because I don't want to be called a sexist, although I may be one) would under normal circumstances avoid. This point was well illustrated to me this weekend when I returned home at 12 PM after a heavy dinner of biryani and kebab, and started a blog for no particular reason (because we don't have an excess of pointless things in this universe.)

Speaking of reasons, I wonder who came up with the idea that everything must have a reason. A declaration of any fact would immediately be followed, in most cases, with a question of 'why.' For example, upon being told that pumpkins have shadows, my mind asked, "why should they?" Interestingly, while agonizing over the fact of seeking for reasons in everything, I myself am demonstrating the point. I am asking the reason as to why there must be a reason to everything. But in all honesty, I have no issues with people seeking reasons to physical and social phenomena. The curiosity of humans has benefited us in many ways. The internet and Paracetamol being good examples.

What I do have an issue with, however, is being questioned 'why' I do whatever it is that I do. Be it singing in the middle of the road or having a conversation with myself (which is a very healthy practice that I encourage you all to follow), I should hardly be required to give reasons for my actions. Similarly, if an Indian student (God save his soul) should choose to pursue a career other than engineering or medicine, he should, I believe, be allowed to do so without being interrogated by every member of his family. Now that we agree, you shall not henceforth ask for reasons behind this blog; nor for any content written on it. Similarly, every person has the right to call the blog, or anything in it, a stinking piece of dog poop without being asked for reasons as to why he did so.

I thank you for reading (it must have hurt a lot!)
Until next time,
Sleep in peace (unless you have an exam tomorrow; in which case, go study.)