Eugene O’Neill completed writing this play in 1942. When he had already won the Nobel and three Pulitzers. He was a living legend. He was credited with bringing modernism to American Theatre. He was an institution in himself. His influence over American Drama was so profound that Time in his obituary in 1953 upon his death wrote, “Before O’Neill United States had Theater, after O’Neill United States had Drama”. Despite all this today he is remembered the most for his last play. (And many trivia enthusiasts know him as the unhappy father-in-law of Charlie Chaplin).

The play ‘Long Day’s Journey into Night’ talked about real-life situation in Eugene’s life around 1912. When the play was completed it ended up becoming a mirror image of a lifetime of plight. The play was so painful for him that in his will  he prohibited any stage adaptation of the play, not only during his lifetime but for 25 years after his death. However three years after his death his wife Carlotta Monterey had allowed to stage the play.

Such an estranged relationship between a creator and his own creation is not unusual. So often an artists sublimates personal emotions, stories, pains and complains in pieces of art. However once completed, it becomes difficult for the artist to confront that very personal pain again. Hayao Miyazaki, famous animation director from Japan, who probably has made the sweetest animation movie of all time, ‘Tonari no Totoro’ (my neighbor Totoro) had to deal with such a situation. The movie ‘Tonari no Totoro’ is a movie about two young girls, Satsuki and Mei whose mother is in hospital and they meet ‘Totoro’. Miyazaki once said that the same movie would have been too painful for him if he had two boys as protagonists instead of girls because the situation of the girls reflects very much the situation he and his brothers were in as kids.

Art is tough. Creating art is tough. Imagining art is touch. And once your creation is out, confronting your own creation is also tough. O’Neill, Miyazaki and many other artists confront this dilemma frequently. “Should I use my plight as my inspiration? or should I just let it disappear in the amnesia”. For the sake of their obsessive love for their art, they choose to suffer.

Jonah Lehrer on Creativity

It was 15^th January of 1999 and we were celebrating ‘Vasi-Uttarayan’ at Chintan’s Nani’s place.  India had just finished a three-test series against New Zealand and Rahul Dravid, was the best batsman for India. He had scored two wonderful centuries at Hamilton in the last test and saved the test for India. Something he repeated on numerous occasions for the next 13 years. Salil, my friend and an underrated cricket talent himself was telling me, “Rahul Dravid is the find of the tour” but soon we started talking about Sourav Ganguly’s flamboyant century in the same Hamilton test. That was the summary of Dravid’s career till 2001. He was the most reliable and the most consistent batsman of the side but was always overshadowed by Tendulkar’s legendary status and by Ganguly’s glamour.

Rahul Dravid is the second highest run scorer in the test history. According to many he is the second best batsman of the modern era after Sachin Tendulkar, and that has been his fate always, or definitely was so for the first half of his career. He was always the second best. Even when he was the best, he was the second best. It started with his debut. He played a gem of an innings at Lords and missed a century by five runs and followed it with a flawless eighty at Old Trafford. But another Test Debutant Sourav Ganguly scored two centuries in the same consecutive tests and Rahul was the second best. Dravid was a master of defence. He valued his wicket. Unfortunately that led to him being tagged, quite unjustifiably, as slow or a ‘test’ batsman. Had Sourav Ganguly not insisted on him using as Wicket Keeper, he might even have lost his place in the one-day squad.

But Rahul Dravid never complained. He symbolized grit and determination. He just hung on. He kept playing beautiful match saving silent knocks in every condition. If there was one game which served as tipping point that made converted India from a decent side to a champion side it was Kolkata test, 2001. After following on India were still trailng by 44 runs and had already lost 4 wickets. And Rahul Dravid went out to bat at no.6. He had to vacate his favourite no.3 position for in-form batsman VVS Laxman. Dravid joined Laxman in the middle and what followed is history. Dravid made an impeccable 180. Once again he was overshadowed by 281 by VVS Laxman – One of the greatest innings in the history of the game. After this series Dravid established himself as the most reliable batsman of the squad and the year 2003/04 placed him among the greatest batsmen of Indian cricket. In the successful tours to Australia and Pakistan (where he even captained the side in two tests) Dravid played a big role. In fact his innings of 233 at Adelaide not only proved to be match winning but sowed seeds of confidence and courage that later Indian sides showed overseas.

He had all the qualities to be a great leader. He was well respected, he was a fantastic performer and he had a deep understanding of the game. Unfortunately his tenure as captain coincided with one of the controversial coaches that India had had, Greg Chappel. But even during such a tumultuous period he didn’t allow his batting to suffer. In fact his two half centuries at Sabina Park Kingston not only got India a victory but inspired Brian Lara to remark that it was the finest piece of test batting that he had seen.

Rahul Dravid has been so consistent over years that it’s difficult to remember a lean patch of his. His brilliance lies in the fact that he always looked comfortable while batting. He succeeded where everybody else failed. His posture and stance with eyes oozing determination and the left elbow with an outward kink were a symbol of graft. His technique was so sound that even when he faced the first delivery of the innings it looked as if he had been there for hours. In the age of shortening attention spans and increasing influence of T20 cricket, he protected value of grit and technique.

Long back Kapil Dev used to present a series called ‘Different Strokes’ where he interviewed a young Rahul Dravid. By the end of the interview Kapil Dev asked him, “You were a good student in school. You were the best in cricket. You were a nice kid at home. How is it possible? How can anyone be perfect in everything?” Rahul Dravid had just smiled in response. But that’s what Rahul Dravid has been for all of us all these years. A great batsman, a gentleman cricketer, a fantastic team player and a humble individual. We may get better batsmen than him in future, but will there be another gentleman like him?

Thank you Rahul. Thanks a lot!

The Artist: Some reviewer had written that ‘The Artist’ is a bold movie. It indeed is bold and courageous. It indeed takes a lot of courage to express your love at such a large scale. The Artist is a bold statement of love for cinema. In many ways, ‘The Artist’ is not an original movie. The basic storyline – ‘A glorious successful man and his career are destroyed and he with the help of his secret lover rebuilds himself’ – has been repeated a zillion times. The very premise of private lives of movie stars, their rise and fall have been shown zillion times. What makes ‘The Artist’ really different and unique is the fact that it has been presented without colors and without sound today. However, the movie is neither just about a silent movie star’s struggle to adapt to the evolution of the industry nor is simply a love story. This movie is a story of lost love. This movie is a silent movie’s ardent admirer’s statement of love towards glorious silent era of cinema. This is a movie about nostalgia.

Hugo: In my humble opinion ‘Hugo’ may lose Oscar to ‘The Artist’. But Hugo is a homage to all those creators, dreamers and artists who converted a technological advance called ‘Motion Pictures’ into a genuine form of art and entertainment, called Cinema. One of those mavericks was George Méliès. The two central characters of the movie Hugo and Papa George are in a constant philosophical tussle. On one hand Hugo is constantly trying to find answers to his questions in the past – in his memories – in the old worn out notebook of his father; on the other hand George (majestically performed by Ben Kingsley) is trying very hard to run away from the past, because it’s just too painful for him to revisit those emotions. The movie is about a constant struggle between denial and acceptance of nostalgia. Finally, acceptance wins and denial loses. Hugo finally finds the answer to his questions in George Méliès’ house and he successfully drags Papa George out of his protective shell of routines and takes him to the land of memories. The deep buried past is unearthed, recognized and finally celebrated. Scorsese has masterfully made the movie in 3D and has shown the tremendous potential that 3D holds beyond animation and blockbuster movies.

Midnight in Paris: I am sure, among glittering tales of The Artist and Hugo; this little gem may be lost, overlooked or even forgotten tonight. But years from now, when some philosopher would study the conceptual depth, width and breadth of nostalgia, he will refer to this movie. For some romantic dreamers, nostalgia means a strong craving to live not just in past, but in a completely different era; the era that we have never seen, the era which was long over when we were born, the era that we have only imagined, read about or seen in movies, the era that despite everything said before, dominates our imagination. The nostalgic sensation so beautifully elaborated and celebrated by Woody Allen in this movie is one which strikes a chord with many. Because so many of us have at some point in our lives have felt this yearning to live in another era; either because the present doesn’t satisfy us, or because the unseen past seems more interesting, or simply because we are curious. In other words, we all have been nostalgic at some point in our lives. This movie is an ode to nostalgia and all those who cherish being nostalgic.

I have been late by about 12 hours in posting this piece and the Oscar ceremony has already begun, and within a couple of hours Oscar will have gone to…..Nostalgia.

Samuel Aranda’s winning entry for the World Press Photo – 2012.

Steve Jobs 1955 - 2011

Steve Jobs, one of the most creative entrepreneurs of the 20th century, the man who single-handedly revolutionized many lives, the man who has left a deep impact on the computer industry, software industry, motion pictures (animation movies) and the music industry, is no more.

He was diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer in the year 2004. A year later while delivering Commencement Address at Stanford University, he shared his experience of being diagnosed with cancer and of being dangerously close to death. Reflecting upon those moments this is what he had to say, “

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. …..Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary……Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked; there is no reason not to follow your heart.”

Good Bye to the man who always followed his heart.

Fernando Birri, Argentine Filmmaker

Fernando Birri, one of the earliest movie directors of Argentina, sometimes called ‘Father of Latin American Cinema’, once was invited for a talk along with Eduardo Galeano, Uruguayan writer, by a University in Colombia.

After the talk a question-answer session followed. One of the students asked Fernando, “What purpose does utopia serve?”

Fernando, after a pensive pause responded, “I wake up everyday of my life asking myself the same question. ‘What purpose does Utopia serve?’. Utopia afterall is like the horizon. You can never reach the horizon. You walk towards it and it keeps going away. You walk ten steps and horizon goes away by ten steps, at times twenty, at times five. Utopia is no different. You walk towards it, keep walking towards it and it keeps going away. But then I tell myself, that’s the purpose Utopia serves. To make us keep walking. To make us keep walking towards it. Just like the horizon.”

(As told by Eduardo Galeano on Radio 3 of Spain)

Belgian comic artist Peyo (Pierre Culliford) (1924 – 1992) has been touted as the chief creator of Smurfs (or Les Schtroumpfs in French). The character Smurf appeared in a Belgian comic series ‘Johan et Piroulit’ in the episode La Flûte à six trous, in the magazine Le Journal de Spirou in October, 1958. However the idea was born during a casual lunchtime conversation between Peyo (Pierre Culliford) and Andre Franquin (1927 – 1992), another famous Belgian comic artist.

It was summer of 1958 and Peyo and Franquin were having lunch while enjoying their coastal vacations. Suddenly Peyo asked Fran

Pierre Culliford "Peyo" (1924 - 1992)

quin to pass him something but momentarily forgot the name. So he asked, “Give me…….Smurfs“. According to Peyo he had created the word to mean ‘a thin, anything, any thingy’ – whatever. Franquin replied, “Here you have Smurfs, when you are through smurfing, you resmurf it for me”. It became a common joke for them and they spent a few days ‘Smurfing’. In their free time they recited classic french fables by La Fontaine and Racine in their  ‘Smurfed’ versions. It gave them sentences like, “Master Smurf on a smurfed tree had a smurf in his smurf”. And so on…..

Eventually by autumn Smurf had appeared in their comic series and in a few decades it emerged as one of the most successful comic series franchises of all times. An interesting example of where ideas come from.

Source : http://mashable.com

It was in news yesterday that a village in India named Shivnagar, changed it’s name to ‘Snapdeal.com’-Nagar. When I read the headline, my reaction was, ‘What? How much would they have paid to sponsor the entire village? For how long?’

However, I soon realized that my hypotheses were absolutely wrong. As TechCrunch pointed out, it wasn’t a cheap marketing stunt. Truth is that the village itself changed its name as a sign of gratitude towards the company.

Shivnagar is a small impoverished village in the state of Uttarpradesh in northern India. Like many other villages in this region, Shivnagar also suffers from poverty, lack of infrastructure and lack of attention from authorities. Villagers get electricity only for a couple of hours every day and there has been an acute lack of drinking water in the village. Kunal Bahl, Founder of Snapdeal.com – India’s answer to Groupon (And the leader in Indian market) – got to know about this village from one his employees. He decided to help the villagers by installing 15 hand pumps across the village. The act didn’t cost the company more than $5000 but had a profound impact on lives of the villagers. Finally villagers, decided to change the name of the village from Shiv Nagar to ‘Snapdeal.com’ Nagar. (Nagar meaning Town/City in languages of  Sanskrit-family).

Research on Strategy for dealing with ‘Bottom of the Pyramid’ (Prahlad, 2002) has explored different sources of value creation in low-income or poor markets. (Sanchez & Ricart, 2010). One such source of value creation could actually be the business model itself. Sanchez and Ricart (2010) have shown that in low-income markets, firms may choose an interactive business model, whereby the firm would not just interact but establish strong relations with fringe stakeholders and seek long term positive impact. The philanthropic gesture of Snapdeal, despite being a truly altruistic deed, will definitely bring about positive results for the company in the long run. These positive results may not be visible in the bottomline numbers but would be in terms of positive social capital that the company would build up. Many Indian companies have in recent times, shown a greater inclination towards indulging in community initiatives and bringing in fringe stakeholders within the purview of their business models. Yes Bank, the fastest growing private sector Bank, for example has an initiative called ‘Yes-Community‘ wherein they organize ‘micro-events’ in their branches for people living in the neighborhood and try to help them about prevention of pollution, management of waste and more efficient energy management. Positive signs indeed!!

Prahalad, C. (2002). Strategies for the Bottom of the Economic Pyramid: India as a Source of Innovation Reflections: The SoL Journal, 3 (4), 6-17 DOI: 10.1162/152417302760127192

Sanchez, Pablo and Ricart, Joan Enric (2010). Business model innovation and sources of value creation in low-income markets. European Management Review, 7 (3), 138-154 DOI: 10.1057/emr.2010.16

I tried to look at two dimensions of experience of having played in a semi-final. The first dimension is how many semi-finals has the country already played. The logic being, more a team plays in games like semi-final more it’s equipped to play and win such games. Another dimension is the gap between two semi-finals. Here the underlying argument is that if a team plays a semi-final in a consecutive world cup it is mentally more prepared and equipped to win the semi-final.

Given that there have been only nine world cups so far and hence only 18 world cup semi-finals no sophisticated statistical analysis was feasible. However I just did a simple tabulation. I classified winners and losers as per the experience (number of semi-finals played) and continuity (number of years between two semi-finals).

The numbers in brackets in the winners' table indicate teams that went on to win the World Cup.

Some of the conclusions of the analysis are really interesting.

This time we have four semi-finalists. India is playing their fifth semi-final and thus joins the club of teams having played 5 or more semi-finals, which comprises Australia, England, New Zealand and Pakistan. Sri Lanka plays their fourth semi-final and interestingly their third consecutive semi-final. On the other hand New Zealand and Pakistan both are playing their sixth semi-final (the only other nation to have played six times in a world cup semi-final is Australia). Pakistan are playing their semi-final after a gap of 12 years. This is only the fourth such instance. When Australia played against Pakistan in semi-final at Lahore (having played their first semi-final in 1975) , it was for the first time that a team was playing a semi-final after a gap of 12 years. Next it was New Zealand in 1992 and then it was West Indies in 1996. Except Australia both the other teams playing in a semi-final after a gap of 12 years or more, lost the semi-finals. Now let’s see what picture the data juggling shows us.

Apparently, number of semi-finals played prior to the current one doesn’t have much of an impact. One can say that a team playing it’s 4^th, 5^th or 6^th semi-final has a greater chance to win than a debutant. (Interestingly except the first world cup, only twice a semi-final has been won by a country that was playing a semi-final for the first time. India in 1983 and Sri Lanka in 1996. Both went on to win the cup.) Neither the numbers are that strong nor they are quite relevant for making any prediction in this world cup.

What is interesting though is the impact of playing consecutive world cups. Interestingly in semi-finals there has been 15 such instances where a team was playing a semi-final in consecutive world cups, that is the team was in the semi-finals within a span of just 4 years. Let’s call such a team a ‘Continuing’ team. Out of 15 such instances, 10 times the ‘Continuing’ team has won. In fact a when a ‘Continuing’ team plays against a ‘Returning’ team that is returning to the Semi-finals after having missed it for a world cup or two, the ‘Continuing’ team is expected to win. The only exception to this rule has been the semi-final between Australia and Pakistan in 1987, where Australia was playing after 12 years and against Pakistan was a ‘Continuing’ team having played a semi-final in the previous world cup against West Indies. Interestingly out of 9 world cups, 5 times the winner was a team that had played semi-final in the previous occasion. Four times when it didn’t happen so was in 1975 (obviously the first world cup), in 1983 (when India reached semi-finals for the first time and went on to win), in 1987 (Australia playing a semi-final for the first time since the inaugural tournament), and in 1995/96 (Sri Lanka).

Let’s see if any other team has been in a similar situation as the semi-finalists of this World Cup and what has been the result.

• India : India is playing its 5^th semi-final and that too after a gap of 8 years. Two teams have been in a similar situation before. New Zealand in the previous world cup – and they lost in the semi and Pakistan in 1999 (they won the semi-final against New Zealand with absolute dominance and went on to lose in the final to Australia).

• Pakistan: Pakistan is playing it’s 6^th world cup semi-final after a gap of 12 years. No other team has been precisely in the same situation. However Australia has experienced both these dimensions in two different world cups. In 1987 Australia was playing after a gap of 12 years and went on to win the world cup. While Australia again, played its 6^th semi-final in the previous world cup (but after a gap of 4 years only) and once again they won the world cup.

• Sri Lanka : After Australia, Sri Lanka could be the most successful world cup campaigner in last four world cups. In fact, Sri Lanka are playing their third consecutive world cup semi-final.

• New Zealand : New Zealand are playing their 6^th world cup semi-final and are playing after a gap of four years. In a similar situation like Australia in the previous world cup. Australia was the eventual champion.

However there are a few interesting facts that every team can rely upon for moral support.

1. For Pakistan & New Zealand supporters : Except England in 1979, no team has ever managed to win a semi-final on the home soil. (England in 1975, 1983; India in 1987; Pakistan in 1987; New Zealand in 1992)
2. For Sri Lanka supporters: New Zealand has never won  a World Cup semi-final.
3. For Indian supporters : India has never lost to Pakistan in a world cup game.