FILM EVALUATION: “Youth of Today”

Plot Analysis: The plot of this short film highlights the views and thoughts of today’s youth. There are five young people from different walks of life who express their views on five different current, relevant topics. The five persons are: Payal who is a fashion designer from Pune, Rahul a gay photographer, Shivani a 21 year old T.Y. B.Com student who has just ended a relationship and is now pregnant, Martin a 29 year old free thinker and Peter a young man who is HIV +ve. The topics they share their view about include: relationships, God, lifestyles, family and regrets. The climax of the movie highlights the underlying need for love in a passionate appeal from Peter to be loved and cared for.

Technical Analysis: The camera work is quite good. Though the settings are repeated, the different angles get you thinking that it might be a different place and this keeps your interest piqued. The sound track is just right. It fills in at the right times and matches the emotion of the scenes to perfection.

Sociological Analysis: The problems highlighted are all youth issues. The method of presentation is morally good. It gives the impression that no judgments are being passed but the message is quite clear in the last line by Peter. The shallowness and superficiality of the individual’s choices is also quite evident in their choices and the reasons for these choices. There are varying philosophies behind the various individual characters. Martin is a free thinker. Payal believes in the maturity of the individual and common moral standards.

Educational Analysis: The film can be used to raise awareness among young people of the pitfalls of the choices they make. It can be used to highlight certain social issues, to form in the young healthy attitudes to life and to make them realize the true source of happiness. Watching this film was an enriching experience for me as it presented the essence of life as the need for live, care and belonging.

Cl. Swithin Moraes SDB

The Problem of Double Meaning as Hermeneutic Problem and as Semantic Problem

In this essay, Paul Ricoeur delves into the problem of the different approaches to symbolism which represent different strategic levels. Hermeneutics is a single strategic level of texts, whereas semantics is on two levels: the first being the level of lexical semantics (referring to words or names), the second being the level of structural semantics (referring to molecular units). The approach taken up is an interdisciplinary one (phenomenology, psychoanalysis, structuralism) wherein the problem of multiple meaning (called as allegory in language) i.e., while saying one thing to also say another without not saying the first. There is a conflict between philosophy of interpretation and structural science. Employing the way of analysis discovers the element of signification and employing the way of synthesis he reveals the function of signification.

            The Hermeneutical level: The length of the text, the internal organization (relation between internal and external form) and the entire signifying whole of the text articulate multiple meanings which Ricoeur approaches on a single strategic level (the homogenous plain of the text). There is diversity in various hermeneutics based on the technique used, intent, the rules of interpretation and the sense drawn from it. Symbolics is the means of expressing extra linguistic reality. Language is a closed system whereas hermeneutics is a open state. This open state is essential for interpretation to operate. Thus double meaning is the means of detecting a condition of being and symbolism is a breakthrough point of a text towards something other than itself. This breakthrough/opening is saying and this saying is showing. This is both the strength and weakness of hermeneutics. Hence he concludes that symbolism reveals the equivocalness of being.

            Lexical Semantics: Here Ricoeur breaks up the text into lexical units (lexemes). Polysemy, the possibility to have more than one meaning, is a synchronic concept (holding different meanings at the same time). Polysemy and symbolism are a part of the constitution and functioning of all language. Thus he manages to keep semantics and its problem of multiple meaning inside the closed system of language. The philosophical import of symbolism is that in symbolism equivocalness of being is conveyed by means of the multivocity of our signs. The science of this multivocity (science of linguistics) requires that we remain within the enclosure of the universe of signs. Thus Ricoeur draws out the relation between hermeneutics as philosophy and semantics as science.

            Structural Semantics: Language object, the language in which the elementary structures of the previous level are described, language in which the operant concepts of this description are elaborated and the language in which we state axioms and define the preceding levels form the clearly articulated hierarchical levels of language of structural semantics. Here one takes the analysis of the underlying structures instead of words (lexemes). This is called semic analysis (analysis of semes). Ricoeur seeks to outline semic systems where the object terms would be wholly defined as a collection of semes containing only conjunctions - disjunctions and hierarchies of relations. He uses analysis of contextual function to begin anew his explication of the problem of symbolism.

            Through this change of levels Ricoeur pursues the Leibnizian universal characteristic through a scientific method. With a twofold explanation he ends the enigma of symbolism: First through lexemes he shows how symbols just like any other word could have multiple meanings without being exceptional. Second he explains how in symbolism’s relation to discourse equivocalness exists. 

            There are two ways of accounting for symbolism: by means of what constitutes it and by means of what it attempts to say. What constitutes it is dealt with in the realm of structural analysis. And what it attempts to say highlights the mystery of language (expressivity).

            In conclusion he says if there is an enigma of symbolism, it resides wholly on level of manifestation, where the equivocalness of being is spoken in the equivocalness of discourse. 

Bibliography

Ricoeur, Paul. “The Problem of Double Meaning as Hermeneutic Problem and as Semantic           Problem”, The Conflict of Interpretations. ed. Don Ihde (London: Athlone Press Ltd,         2005) 61-76.

F - A - M - I - L - Y

What makes a family a Family??? Let’s take a closer look at the word FAMILY!!!!

F - Free. A family is a place where we are free. We don’t have to wear masks. We can be who we are and still be accepted. We know that if we go off track we will be gently pulled back.

A - Advice. A family is the place where we find our best advisors.   They are the people whom we can turn to for inputs at crucial junctures, trusting in their honest feedback and desire for our good.

M - Moulded. A family is a place where we are moulded into the persons we are. They influence us during our most tender years when we learn fast. They instil in us the framework on which we build our ideas of what’s right and wrong.

I - Identity. A family is a crucial part of our identity. It represents our roots, our background, our culture, language and values.

L - Love. A family is held together by mutual love. As is always the case when different individuals live together, there are contrasting ideas and conflicts arise. Yet, what keeps the family together is love.

Y - Yearning. A family is built on the foundation of faith, a deep yearning for God. The family prayer is an expression of this yearning. A family that prays together stays together.

            Finally, the family is about US, it’s about putting the others at the centre. If anyone puts themselves at the centre, the family will struggle to be a family.

            So, let’s put the others before us and let’s build our families…Let’s build better and stronger families in 2016!!!