Two is a masterpiece by the master himself, the pioneer of Parallel Cinema in India, the torchbearer of a new vision in the film world, the Oscar-winning filmmaker Satyajit Ray. The silent film is available on the YouTube channel safely maintained by the Academy Picture Archive.
TWO: SHORT FILM BY SATYAJIT RAY
A short-film worth watching in a lifetime. The film hardly spans some twelve minutes but presents a picture of the wide gap that rests between the humans belonging to two different classes, the rich and the poor. The class divide does not end up making any of the two classes happy is a hardcore message of the film.
In every shot of the film, childhood exuberance is crafted beautifully. The film rests on the concept presented to the world by the great Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their Communist Manifesto, where class-conflict is a continuous struggle. Amidst, this clash between the classes, natural selection and the survival of the fittest, concepts provided to this world by the great biologist Charles Darwin in his magnum opus 'The Origin of Species', published 1859, plays a key role in shaping the future of the next gens, and also considerably helps us to comprehend the depths of the dialogue-less short film 'Two' by the master craftsmen Ray himself. The short film stars two actors from their respective rich and poor real-life backgrounds.
On an average, if we look around ourselves, we find, only five per cent of the world is rich, and here, by rich, I mean materially rich, materialistically rich solely, and not intellectually rich or spiritually rich. What does this demonstrate? The majority of the world is in a continuous struggle, a constant feud with these five per cent people for the resources that exist in the world.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, rightly remarked once, "There is enough resources for everyone's need but not for anybody's greed." Moreover, human greed is insatiable mostly in those humans, who are already the possessor of a lot of material things. What greed would a poor have? He has hardly been able to make ends meet. The world is an endless treasure, only when we work upon our Superego and Ego, and not on our Id(Impulse) that works on the pleasure principle drive, unlike Ego and Superego, that work on the reality principle, and morality respectively.
Keeping in mind, the viewpoint of the poststructuralists, or the deconstructionists, anyways you say, there is no fixed centre, the centre keeps on moving, the centre keeps on rotating, one place thereafter to the next, it keeps on changing from one position to the other. When talking about the other, let us try to understand the concept of 'The Other.' The other can be anything and everything, that is sidelined from the mainstream and is not considered as the ideal mark or parameter for comparison. Whosoever is in power, is in the centre. The power, the throne, the authority itself is the centre. Whosoever is away, far away from the centre, i.e. on the margins or the bordered outlines, is nothing but the other. The popular instance that could be drawn from our history is the position of the poor as subalterns, like the ones on the margins, who do not exercise any rights of their own, not even the basic or fundamental ones. If we go through the pages of Animal Farm, the allegorical novella by George Orwell, first published in England in 1945, we would find, whosoever gets the power in one's hands, starts to rule like a dictator, an overexploiting ruler, a snatcher of the happiness and well being of the majority earlier talked of.
In this whirlwind of the world, even kids are not an exception, they are also tagged as subordinate, subaltern, the other, if not economically and financially that strong as the ones they are keeping touch with. Although, ultimately, as the result of the unhappiness caused to the so-called other, whom the rich think is not one of them, the rich also suffer and end-up being in misery(emotional), being a loner, or only standing with a handful of companions, who are more or less in somewhat the same state as he is in.
TWO: SHORT FILM BY SATYAJIT RAY
A short-film worth watching in a lifetime. The film hardly spans some twelve minutes but presents a picture of the wide gap that rests between the humans belonging to two different classes, the rich and the poor. The class divide does not end up making any of the two classes happy is a hardcore message of the film.
In every shot of the film, childhood exuberance is crafted beautifully. The film rests on the concept presented to the world by the great Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their Communist Manifesto, where class-conflict is a continuous struggle. Amidst, this clash between the classes, natural selection and the survival of the fittest, concepts provided to this world by the great biologist Charles Darwin in his magnum opus 'The Origin of Species', published 1859, plays a key role in shaping the future of the next gens, and also considerably helps us to comprehend the depths of the dialogue-less short film 'Two' by the master craftsmen Ray himself. The short film stars two actors from their respective rich and poor real-life backgrounds.
On an average, if we look around ourselves, we find, only five per cent of the world is rich, and here, by rich, I mean materially rich, materialistically rich solely, and not intellectually rich or spiritually rich. What does this demonstrate? The majority of the world is in a continuous struggle, a constant feud with these five per cent people for the resources that exist in the world.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, rightly remarked once, "There is enough resources for everyone's need but not for anybody's greed." Moreover, human greed is insatiable mostly in those humans, who are already the possessor of a lot of material things. What greed would a poor have? He has hardly been able to make ends meet. The world is an endless treasure, only when we work upon our Superego and Ego, and not on our Id(Impulse) that works on the pleasure principle drive, unlike Ego and Superego, that work on the reality principle, and morality respectively.
Keeping in mind, the viewpoint of the poststructuralists, or the deconstructionists, anyways you say, there is no fixed centre, the centre keeps on moving, the centre keeps on rotating, one place thereafter to the next, it keeps on changing from one position to the other. When talking about the other, let us try to understand the concept of 'The Other.' The other can be anything and everything, that is sidelined from the mainstream and is not considered as the ideal mark or parameter for comparison. Whosoever is in power, is in the centre. The power, the throne, the authority itself is the centre. Whosoever is away, far away from the centre, i.e. on the margins or the bordered outlines, is nothing but the other. The popular instance that could be drawn from our history is the position of the poor as subalterns, like the ones on the margins, who do not exercise any rights of their own, not even the basic or fundamental ones. If we go through the pages of Animal Farm, the allegorical novella by George Orwell, first published in England in 1945, we would find, whosoever gets the power in one's hands, starts to rule like a dictator, an overexploiting ruler, a snatcher of the happiness and well being of the majority earlier talked of.
In this whirlwind of the world, even kids are not an exception, they are also tagged as subordinate, subaltern, the other, if not economically and financially that strong as the ones they are keeping touch with. Although, ultimately, as the result of the unhappiness caused to the so-called other, whom the rich think is not one of them, the rich also suffer and end-up being in misery(emotional), being a loner, or only standing with a handful of companions, who are more or less in somewhat the same state as he is in.
