Ship of Theseus

I recently watched the film by Anand Gandhi. the movie was awarded the Best Feature Film at the National Film Awards. The starting frames allude to the eponymous thought experiment that whether a ship which was restored by replacing each and every one of its wooden parts remained the same ship.

The movie is composed of three smaller stories. The first story is of a blind photographer who tries to visualize things through her camera. She listens to sounds and uses a camera aid to click snaps. She gets the photos etched, analyzes it with finger-touch and takes feedback from her friend/lover to confirm if the photos reflect the scene she perceived. When asked why she took up photography, she says first to document and archive, and secondly to explore, understand and see. But it's more than that for it gives her a purpose in life. She comes across as an unfazed indomitable spirit who refuses to keep any accidental good clicks for it represents something which she hadn't perceived at the moment. As she gets her eyes transplanted, she sees the world but struggles to get the same setting for her photographs. The snaps don't have the earlier substance. She tries to resolve this by clicking blindfolded and traveling to serene places seeking inspiration from nature.

There are couple of things which come out prominently from this story. Firstly, the indomitable spirit she embodies. She throws a challenge to her blindness by pursuing photography which is not an easy task but she is fairly successful. It motivates us who get perturbed by perceived disadvantages to get that thought out of our mind and fight the shortcomings so that they become our strength. With a strong will power, nothing is impossible. Secondly, her struggle with photography after transplant reflects the perplexity one encounters when situations change. The old way of doing things doesn't work anymore and one needs to reinvent and adapt to the situation. It's like surfing over waves one after the other and reemerge quickly even if you get under one.

The second story is of a monk well-conversant with English, educated and a rational being. He espouses the cause of non-violence. He is fighting a court case in form of PIL for better treatment of animals subjected to trial for cosmetics and medicine. A person of strong will power, he commutes through the streets of Mumbai barefooted. One day he is diagnosed with Liver cirrhosis and asked for transplant. He has been prescribed certain medicines for ailment but he refuses to take them as all alternatives have involved cruelty on animals for testing. He goes on fast unto death determined to give up his life and not forsake his principals. Despite lot of pleas and arguments by his well-wishers to change his mind, he continues with his fast. When someone asks him if soul exists, he says he don't know. When everyone has given up the hope and he has nearly death-starved himself, he decides he isn't going to die and agrees for a liver transplant.

The story raises several questions about ethics, non-violence, life and death. Firstly, it raises questions over cruelty to animals and compares with Indian idea of non-violence towards all lives. Can animals subjected to drug experiments be treated better ? To what extent one can follow one's principal. Should one be more pragmatic and not sacrifice self at the altar of a infraction when one has the potential to stop the larger transgression. Different schools of philosophy will have different answers to these questions.

The third story is of an enterprising stock-broker who recently underwent a successful kidney transplant. His grandmother believes is a social activist and believes in helping the society at large. He questions her if being happy and compassionate isn't sufficient in life. She quips what is the use of compassion if you don't even know who requires it. As he takes care of her grandmother in the hospital, he is intrigued by the cries of a lady whose laborer husband's kidney was stolen during an appendicitis operation. While confirming that kidney transplanted to him didn't come from the poor laborer, he stumbles upon an international kidney racket. Determined to get the poor laborer his kidney back, he lands in Stockholm and confronts a person he found was the recipient. The recipient after listening to whole story is guilt-ridden and agrees to pay for laborer's operation but settles directly with laborer for some compensation. When the stock-broker asks laborer to return back the money and get his kidney back, the laborer chides him stating why stock-broker wanted him to throw away the God-sent opportunity for a better living. As the stock-broker confides to his grandmother stating he failed, she lauds him saying his initiative had made a lot of difference.

This story too raises interesting questions. Firstly, are social activists' effort justified if they can't achieve their goals ? The answer given that even partial success is commendable makes sense. If everyone tries their bit, together a lot of difference could be made to the society. If everyone feels discouraged to take the first step for fear of failure, the society would be a worse place. The second question relates to the purpose of life and how should one lead it.

There is an overarching theme of organ donation as the three protagonists were recipients of organs from same donor (a cave explorer). The film touches several aspects of the issue. It also brings us to the opening question that are these people the original selves.

The films has beautifully written, directed and dramatized. It leaves you thinking about you and life. It's definitely one of the gems of Indian cinema.