You draw an analogy to a minute hand of the watch, but, organ replacement isn’t that simple, for this you need an understanding of the human biological systems to get to terms with the “continuation of the form” aspect. There is significant genetic mapping for the organ to be accepted by the body, so that should take care of the continuity of the form part. You will understand this point as you read further.

Coming to the” complete disassembly” part. Well it is subjective to evaluate what constitutes “complete”. If criticality can be used as a test, then yes, “liver”, “heart”, “Kidney”, etc. from my perspective can be called “complete” because without them a person can’t survive. So thinking “complete” in terms of complete disassembly is rather a naïve proposition. I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that mere a replacement of “planks” amounts to “complete”, a ship after all has many other parts as well.

All the people undergoing transplants were “Ship of Theseus” in their own right. “Continuity in form” can be evaluated from the biological perspective, while, “complete disassembly” can be put to the test of principle of criticality.

Further, by not delving deep into each character, Anand Gandhi just highlights the existence of this paradox rather than resolve it.

It’s good to be critical but a movie which such international acclaim should not be subject to such naïve analysis. However, your defensive posture can and does help your case.

My take on this is somewhere precariously perched between both your takes.

Arghya, agree with you, in that, having heard so much about the “thought” behind the movie, the “addressing” and “treatment” of the titular philosophical issue was itself, somewhat underwhelming. When I walked out of the theatre, the eager anticipation with which I walked in, was replaced with a quizzical expression, more like an itch whose existence I was only vaguely aware of, let alone being able to identify its position and then reach out and scratch it.

You will note the excessive use of “somewhere, somewhat” in the para, but in my opinion, there’s no better way to describe the movie. It IS vague, it is even absurd at times (how can the stockbroker ask the poor guy to return the kidney), not to mention a little slow and tedious (like for instance, the bedpan scene – but I know what to do, if an elderly relative needs that assistance). I even think the connection in the end was tenuous (also, is my memory playing tricks, or was the monk dressed in a shirt and trousers in the end?). I would even say some of the dialogues were a little forced, especially the ones mouthed by one of our kind (so smart-alecky, with the ‘masturbation’ thrown in, thinking it’s a masterpiece of a rejoinder).

BUT, the movie sure as hell, makes one feel the questions that exist (and walks with us side by side) as we go about our lives, thinking we’ve figured out our calling. At least, it identifies the complexities (pardon the cliché) and nudges us to feel the life both within us and outside us. The life of others inside us (not only the organs literally but also the polarized thoughts and priorities (the granny and the stock broker, the boyfriend and the photographer and the monk and the lawyer) and us in them (the grandmother ultimately ‘getting’ that maybe the grandson has inherited a bit of her activism and the monk ‘getting’ that his purpose is not simply fasting unto death as innumerable people have tried to drill into him). So, in that sense who are we? What makes an individual, the same individual? Is it just the organs? Is it the ability of perception? Is it handicap? We are us, yes, but we are also what others think of us (the stockbroker thought that the labourer did not care about material benefits and only wanted his kidney back– but that’s not what it turned out to be). And the most beautiful point the movie makes (in my opinion, of course) is that the single purpose of life is to appreciate it in its very many forms (including how they co-exist with each other) and then go on living, renewed and assured that we are not alone – we never were and never can be.

Isn’t the movie reflective of how we incorporate philosophy in daily discussions?
Essentially, extrapolating our daily lives to suit an enquiry, rather than thinking about a realm of thought and then examining whether we conform or deviate? In that sense, how can there be a literal application of the ship of Theseus paradox to the movie? The movie is almost like what train of thought, a ship of Theseus paradox can trigger off. But yes, I wish the strangeness of feeling when one realizes that he is living his life by using another’s organ was explored further. Also, how would the labourer feel if his stolen kidney was re-transplanted into him?

Kunal, fantastic observations. The only point I disagree with you is that the movie was not a set of characterizations. I think it was nothing but that. And the whole thingamijig of its being reflective of ancient Greek philosophy is a bit overdone. So yes, if you go looking for the paradox in movie, daresay you may be disappointed. But the movie does the details very well. About people, their particular frustrations, their inadequacies, fears, strength of conviction (or not), sensory stimulations, all within the larger realm of trying to do change-the-world type activities (capturing every sight and sound of Bombay, fighting against animal testing or doing a re-donation of a stolen kidney)

Think the film deserves multiple views – sure more layers of interpretation will be unearthed.