Wednesday, 2 April 2014

Playing both sides...

The other day I watched the movie,  Promised Land.  The movie went about a normal pace with evidently the protagonist seemingly doing the wrong kind of job, but all the same passionate about it.  He is an employee with a multi-million dollar gas company out to convince the inhabitants of a village to sign a deal with the natural gas company permitting fracking.  He seems confident of his strategy and results until a senior person in the village questions the outcome of such a move.  To add to his woes an environmentalist lands up in the place and starts opposing every move of our friend.  From then on, it is a tussle to gain the confidence of the residents.

The elusive victory suddenly seems quite clear when he anonymously receives a package disproving the sole evidence on which the environmentalist builds his arguments.  The stage is all set now for the townsfolk to sell their land as the only possible arguments so far offered were all wrong.  On the eve of the final vote of the residents, the company representative comes to know that the environmentalist was a fake one himself and was sent there by none other than his own company.  The movie ends with the salesman turning against the very company he was so passionately representing.

My learning from this movie: to make a wrong into right, just propose convincingly the opposite, only to later reveal it as wrong.  The initial wrong then automatically appears right! 

I've seen tactic being used in a hindi movie too, Jolly LLB.  I know not who invented this strategy... it surely has to be either the politicians or the corporate brains, but it certainly is a very smart move!  I'm still to pin-point exactly what is wrong with this whole strategy... though I am certain that it is! 

1 comment:

  1. The initial wrong remains wrong. The mind is tricked with a red herring into meandering between an illusional right and then the illusion being proved wrong. The mind forgets that the original wrong is still wrong because attention has been diverted totally and it remains unaddressed. In such cases, it's pretty unethical.

    In this particular story, the company is crooked and wants to destroy any chance of any environmentalist being taken seriously in that place. It is entirely possible that a real environmentalist would bring up real issues but by discrediting one on true and correct grounds, the company totally changes the perception of the people regarding environmentalists and their knowledge, value etc. And the company is perceived positively for having endured the challenge. And perception is almost everything. Therefore this is a very subtle and dangerous strategy cause they are not fighting fair and openly even though seeming to do so. True cunning :)

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...