The best war movie ever!

The Bridge on the River Kwai

If you are a fan of war movies no better treat than to watch the said movie which is ranked one of the greatest films of all time and arguably director David Lean's best film.
At the heart of the film is the performance of Alec Guinness as the obsessively principled Colonel Nicholson. In a lesser film, his character might be simplified into a heroic martyr, but The Bridge on the River Kwai revels in its moral ambiguity: no significant character is either purely a hero or purely a villain.
Filmed in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), the film features brutal prisoner-of-war work camps that are nonetheless considerably nicer than their historical counterparts, a good decision since it frees the audience to focus on the battle of wills, at first between Nicholson and Saito (Sessue Hayakawa), later between Shears (William Holden) and Warden (Jack Hawkins). The film's closing line ("Madness... Madness") is among the best-known and most enigmatic closings in screen history.
The film received seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (Guinness).

The coconut hawker

I went out of my place to freshen up myself from the tormenting studies that are what we master's student have to go through for our final exams. The idea to do that is to have a smoke in the pathan's 'dhaba' nearby with a soft drink. I got the coke and lit up my Marlboro cigarette and got myself seated to enjoy the smoke filling up my lungs.

Across the table, was a guy busy cutting coconut pieces and arranging them in a bowl. Definitely he was a hawker who sold coconut pieces at bus stops around the city crying at the top his voice "Narial waley, Narial ley lo".

My eyes were fixed on him as he cut and arranged the pieces while he effortlessly did the job oblivious to the fact that my glare was on him. He was a beared man, very slim -- somewhere around the age of 40.

Finished with the job, he satiated himself with tea that he had ordered and lit up a Morven Gold cigarette. If the cigarette brand was an indication of a person's social status, this was it!

Pakistan's lower-class population looks no further than Morven Gold, Diplomat or K-2 for a good-old smoke. The high prices of Gold Leaf, Marlboro and Benson & Hedges along with the inflation, lack of jobs and the restlessness amongst the people has certainly meant that a 4-5 rupee cigarette is somewhat of a luxury!

The man nevertheless seemed content with what he had. I could not resist the temptation of asking this man how his life was.

Abdul Sattar was his name, he told me. A labourer during the day-time, the man sold these coconut pieces from dusk till 1am in the morning to make ends meet in this day and age of rising prices.
Making an average profit of around Rs.250-300 a day from the sale of coconuts, Abdul Sattar was thankful to God. He went on, "Allah bara hai. Bus itni madad kar daita hai kay hamara ghar chal jaye."
For a guy who works seventeen hours in a rigorous schedule which makes him travel from Karachi's one corner to the other in this sweltering heat for a mere 300 rupees, that is some belief!

Cheeped up!

The genre of inexpensive advertisement

I switched on the TV and to my amazement, a not so bad looking local faced girl, hiding behind a wall of make-up, started walking towards me.

I know she was on TV but what’s wrong in some wishful thinking.

Draped in very uncomfortable clothes -- it seemed like that on TV -- she put out both her hands carrying a cell phone and started yaking the properties of it. The company of the cell phone 'ABC' is not that big or maybe it is non-existent at all, and the advertisement was confirming the doubt on the global-ness of the brand.

To go in a little detail of the add (advertisement), the girl was pacing around in a makeshift room cum drawing room (as it seemed from the advertisement) talking on the phone with someone.

While talking, there were quite a few raunchy poses, that she gets the attention of the audience with, and than all of a sudden start pointing out the features of the phone, including the fact that it has a very long battery time along with all the other hoopla.

In addition, why would an ad like this attract or lure someone buying the product? you ask.

Well people are people and some of them will do a lot if a girl asks them to do it, but for me, well, why would I listen to a girl who is already engaged in talking to another individual on the phone (for hours as per the advertisement).

So why would a company go all out for an advertisement like this?

Even the companies coming up with new products or brands sometimes opt for a cheaper or an inexpensive advertisement.

Well to filter out the obvious reasons, for one the company may don't have that big of a budget or better yet the company may be not that big at all. Smaller companies opting to launch their brand for a mere fraction of the giants spend on their single marketing campaign.

Is there a thin fine line for this advertisement divide, or I may say money is the divide to state the obvious. If money is the be all and see the entire advertising world, than I don’t agree with the entire thing at all.

Yes, money plays a major role in an advertisement campaign but creativity is not eager to be feed the buck.

Wonders have been and will be created with a piece of paper -- not the note of a million dollar.

When you are thinking about it, it suddenly hits your mind; we have been witnessing these rather adds since the beginning. With people trying to escape with a cheap Rs100 production in mix of some very creative and technical stuff.

You may remember, not so far back, it was dancing that attracted the audiences and sold products. Eventually some glamorous dancing sequences trickled down to outrageous moves and... Well they called it dancing. So was the case with many other trends that were going around.

Whatever is started by the big wigs of the advertisement industry, is soon copied by the second rated individuals calling themselves advertisers and what comes out as the result is a (as stated above) cheap Rs100 production.

However, the question really is; What motivates the entrepreneur to opt for inexpensive cheap advertisement rather than inexpensive and graceful?

Well, the answer is as harsh as the few candy ads. It is we the audiences, we tend to respond better to the cheapness than to the sheer elegance.

On a psychological note (my own findings), we might, after watching these adds, somehow cater to the cheapster inside of us and by buying the advertised product we try to nullify our cheapness -- keeping it with in ourselves.

Another issue considered to be tandem with in expensive marketing, is of self-made broadcasters. Major chunk of the inexpensive or cheap ads are on self-broadcasted channels.

Raising an eyebrow, that have we all together have lost our morals and what is keeping us going is the lust for money, and that is where we put the full stop.

Everything else, which goes along with, seems to have taken a secondary seat in our beliefs and ethics.

Few girls doing not anything in particular, wearing raunchy clothes and sometimes maybe dancing around to, maybe, digest all the calories they gained after eating all that candy: if this is, what our marketing is coming down to than I for one may have some serious reservation to follow my age-old dream of becoming an ace marketer.

On the contrary, when in a rebellious mood, nothing can motivate me more than a cheap advertisement to become a marketer. Well it clearly shows that the industry is far from reaching a saturation point. In addition, than there is always the thought that with all this crap being passed by as advertisement, a little creativity, panache and elegance may make it a lot easier to make a name for one.

U-TURN

You switch a channel to escape from the stupid backdrop song of the commercial and you realize that what is going on around in the world and the reality hits you.

The shock off the fact that the niche you thought you could have carved out in the small-unsaturated industry is just a hallucination of yours.

Now even the big buck spenders are opting for the cheaper way out -- no, they are not making the cheap commercials, they are not making none whatsoever.

Coca-Cola is the biggest spender on advertisements across the globe and when it comes to the Pakistani adds they would rather grab one of their Middle East commercial and run it in Pakistan.

I believe, and willing to debate, that this too comes in the realm of inexpensive advertisement.

Why you say?

Come-on, having a basket full of advertising agencies operating in the country and one of the biggest potential client is not willing to test their talents, than what’s to prove on the global scale that we posses in advertising.

Copy pasting should not be it.

In addition, looking from this point of view, you can easily justify the cheap ads. They have to keep the business running, they have to keep the clients happy the have to at the end of the day, in a real word, take something back home. You can't feed off elegance only.

When the big fish is not willing for the bate you have to go for whatever you can get. In addition, maybe that’s what our advertisers are doing.

Somehow, in a very vivid part of my brain I also have a conclusion that all this cheap advertising is doing me a favor. Favor of keeping the industry alive and kicking, until the time I mature enough to get my hands in it and maybe some (copy pasting) client walks in and offers a campaign.

In short, these copy pasting cheap escapes of the big fish is also helping the cause of inexpensive advertisement.

But, the predicament of the situation is how to trust that we may not end up with a low budget bar to play with in our advertisements or maybe copy pasting is what we may resolute our advertising to.

Than it will become a dead end as a career and an already suffering nation may lose its biggest escape of creativity.

This and a lot more courtesy the genre of inexpensive advertising.

Peek-A-Boo!

With this topic comes a strong and long debate about what concise as unethical advertisement, and to come up with one definition, of the term, which is globally acceptable for a student like me is not the wisest of ideas.

Instead of raging a debate about what should be and what shouldn't be in the realm of marketing we should rather look at instance which ca get as the global backing that either they were unethical or ethical.

Start looking at the things from the marketing perspective and it comes to you!

You start judging things from a different angle, you take the sale point of the product in view, and most importantly, you start evaluating the standards of the sales pitch... that too on your own standards.

Moreover, what your standards are remains to be discussed?

The overall environment around you and how you are raised and taught, curves your focal point of judgment. But, another long debate, bound to take us off the issue at hand.

So coming back to advertising ethics!

To pinpoint and advertisement to justify the debate on ethics would make the realm of this article limited, I'd never want that.

On talking about the global perspective of ethics in advertising, let us recall an artistic promotion, which has shaped our judgment, in some ways.

Well to raise the curtain over the mystery, we are talking about the great MONA LISA.

Background

Mona Lisa (also known as La Gioconda or La Jaconde) is a sixteenth-century portrait painted in oil on a poplar panel in Florence, Italy by Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci during the Renaissance.

The work is currently owned by the Government of France and is on display at the Musée du Louvre museum in Paris under the title Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo.

Arguably, it is the most famous and iconic painting in the world. Considered one of the world's most popular, hyped and researched painting by different artists, historians, and researchers.

The Research

Several stories nexus with this painting have come up over the passing centuries and yet no one is still sure about the true reality of the origin.

A lot many stories have been linked with and many are considered myths and fake anecdotes just created for tapestry’s popularity.

Following are some of the stories about Mona Lisa.

1. The painting is a half-length portrait and depicts a seated woman whose facial expression is frequently described as enigmatic. Others believe that the slight smile is an indication that the subject is hiding a secret.

The ambiguity of the subject's expression, the monumentality of the composition, and the subtle modeling of forms and atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the continuing fascination and study of the work.

2. According to an other story Leonardo supposedly well-documented homosexuality contributed to his enlightened perspectives on the need for balance between male and female characteristics. The secret of the Mona Lisa, it claims, is that it portrays the fusion of the male and female that the painted figure is androgynous.

The same theory continues that Leonardo Da Vinci himself was gay that's why he was always fascinated by the divine union of male and female. Some historians say that Leonardo was a grand master of Priory Of Sion (a secret society established several years back having one of the most popular personals of time as its member, this society is considered to be the pagan worshipers, those who worship divine feminine the mother earth Gaea. And as Leonardo was its grand master he painted Mona Lisa as hidden symbol and dedication to the sacred feminine.

3. Some claim that the painter has derived the name of the painting from the names of Egyptian gods Amon and Isis. Amon is the Egyptian god of masculinity and Isis is the goddess of earth. Therefore, as the painting is the union of male and female, the name is the union of male and female as well.

4. Other references say that Mona is a contraction of "madonna" (meaning 'my lady' or 'madam'); Lisa is proven to be derived from Lisa del Giocondo. Mona Lisa is named for Lisa del Giocondo, a member of the Gherardini family of Florence and Tuscany and the wife of wealthy Florentine silk merchant Francesco del Giocondo.

The painting was commissioned for their new home and to celebrate the birth of their second son, Andrea. Historians say that Leonardo painted Mona Lisa in 1503 and he lingered over it for 4 years and completed it after. They say that where he used to go, carried his Mona Lisa along with himself.

So now armed with the background of the painting -- very vivid indeed.

Now leaving the first and the last story aside, we can say we have been robbed of the true concept of beauty of a woman.

If the chosen two stories are considered remotely true than, it feels sorry to say that we have been beating around the bush to find the true beauty in our significant other (female).

Relating it to our debate, the question arises... Who promoted the painting? Alternatively, who advertised it as the true beauty of a woman?

Answer!

Leonardo himself had the biggest hand in creating the hype about his portrait for popularity purposes, what so ever they might be at that time.

So, now let us ask if the stories are true and the portrait is really of a man dressed up as a drag queen, than being a marketer what can be more un ethical than asking people to only believe in what is not true.

Asking people to base their ideology on what are entirely fake standards... where is the ethics in that.

Who is to ask the question now that a painting, which has set the global standards of beauty, and painting bearing a smile parallel or comparable to nothing -- as said?

Why rob us of our own idea of beauty, why enforce standards on us that are only true to the standards of a single individual have totally different and unacceptable priorities.

Well this is advertising 101.

You have to sell your concept and position your brand in the mind of individuals that they make your product the standard to compare things with.

So what, if in the mentioned saga it was all un-true.

No bars in what’s ethical or not as long as the idea is sold.

However, from a viewpoint of a common individual it was not something fair it was an advertisement promoted and sparked by personal bias... In addition, what is bamboozling at this point is to give kudos to the genius behind the promotion, who sold a very wrong idea very successfully. On the other hand, to sit with a grim on the face and curse the man for making us -- the straight men -- miss out on the undiscovered beauties of the world.

Whatever you choose to do… Do it with an understanding that when it comes to product promotion there are no limits to ethical or unethical -- at least in the capitalistic society that we live in.

The race is on to sell your product by any means necessary, a society in which moral values and ethics take a back seat you can expect many more Mona Lisa's on the way or better yet many are around us waiting to be discovered.

Who is to put a check on this all? Who is to highlight the customer values... maybe one of us?

If decide for once that money is important but earning it at the expense of defrauding someone or robbing someone his ideology of something is by far not acceptable.

However, what may have triggered Lenardo centuries back may still be around to trigger our sin of greed.

It may not just be the monetary aspect of the things it can be more than that... you know vanity is also a sin -- although not considered by many.

Nevertheless, just to prove a point using your power to change views is an art not possessed by many so for those who do have it... please consider some ETHICS first.