He couldn't say 'no'

"It wasn't because I didn't like the material or the people involved," says Harris. "I just didn't like the idea that if you said 'yes' and you did it, then you were committed if they did seven, and I would have to do seven. I hate that kind of commitment. I hate the idea that my life in any way is sort of restricted." Twice divorced, Harris adds: "That's why my marriages broke up. I hate commitment, and I'm totally unreliable anyway." In the end, though, Ella held sway. 

"She called me and said, 'If you don't do it, papa, I'll never speak to you again,' and I thought, I can't afford that. I have to do it." And so Harris found himself broadening his fan base some 38 years after his ornery rugby player in Lindsay Anderson's "This Sporting Life" brought him the first of his two Academy Award nominations for best actor. 

During the 1960s, Harris appeared with Marlon Brando in "Mutiny on the Bounty" and trilled semi-tunefully as King Arthur opposite Vanessa Redgrave in "Camelot," later reprising the Lerner and Loewe musical on stage. Within the last decade, he has appeared in two winners of the best-picture Oscar - "Unforgiven" in 1992 and last year's "Gladiator," playing the war-weary Emperor Marcus Aurelius, father to Joaquin Phoenix's venal Commodus. 

Harris' three sons are all in the business — Jared and Jamie as actors; Damian as a director. "Look," he says, "when I commit to a movie, they drag me on to the plane screaming, to location, and there I am thinking, 'Why am I doing it? I don't need the money."' 

Then, he continues, "I get on the set, and I want to be no place else. Once I get there and start to work, I want to be doing nothing else." But when he's done with the film, he's done. "When we finish, I always say to the actors around me, 'We had a wonderful time, we had great weekends and some great boozy nights (but) the movie's over. Don't call me, because I will never return your calls."' 

It helps that Harris' home is in the Bahamas, well away from Hollywood. 

Part of it is that Harris - in contrast to many stars - has never stuck to a single screen image, even if his roisterous and colourful life offscreen has over time become the stuff of legend. 

With "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone", as with "Gladiator," says Harris, "people say, 'a great comeback,' and I say, 'What comeback?' I haven't been anywhere. What does it mean, a comeback? So I'm in a successful movie; so what?" 

The fact is, he says, "I think it's amazing I'm in a successful picture. 'Gladiator' was, and I suppose 'Unforgiven' was ... " 

Whatever the critical reaction, the "Harry Potter" film franchise may keep Harris busy as he approaches 80. 

Chat room fire: a burning consumption

The cursor blinks. I have entered a chat room. Will anyone chat with me, I wonder? Before long messages pour in. "Hi, how are you", "What are you doing today", "Have I spoken to you before" and even just the simple straightforward "Wanna chat?"

What am I doing here? Good question. Curiosity. No, even better, it's an attempt to try to understand what is so alluring about this phenomenon that seems to have taken hold of much of Colombo's youth. 

So I start hitting the keys. My initial "Do you chat often?" is, owing to the quick response I'm getting, quickly followed by the next, "Why do you chat?" The most common responses "bored" and "there's nothing else to do" flash across my monitor, leaving me a little bemused. 

America Online Chat, a popular chat system reports that more than 100 million messages are sent every day. And this does not include the millions of hours spent by users in public and private chat rooms daily. In addition to that there's the amount of time spent sending messages back and forth in discussion groups. 

If you think the maths is over, think again. There are millions of others who use other popular online server systems and those who use chat servers on the Internet. That overwhelming calculation is roughly about how many people around the world spend their time indulging in online communication daily. And according to what the local users told me, the majority of them are "'bored". 

What exactly is this online chat?

"An online chat is a simultaneous text communication between two or more people via computer," cites the Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopaedia 2001. Unlike the process involved in sending emails, where the messages one person sends take some time to be delivered and then hours, or even days to be read, with no guarantee of a reply, a chat is instantaneous. In this form of communication that is carried out over the Internet, two or more people are connected and can type in their messages, which appear, almost immediately, on the monitor. The user has the option of sending the message to all other users or just to a specific recipient, who will promptly reply the message. Thus a 'conversation' of sorts takes place.

In order to chat, users must have a computer connected to a network, in addition to the relevant software, most of which is free. The type of software is similar, however users can chat only with those who use the same type of software. Some popular forms used when 'chatting' are Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and World Wide Web based chat. IRC requires specific software that can be downloaded from the Internet, while web based chat can be carried out with an existing Web Browser (usually Netscape or Microsoft Internet Explorer). 

A chat room holds innumerable numbers of 'chatters' spread out through an equally innumerable amount of chat rooms. The subject matter discussed in such rooms is varied and usually can be identified by the name given to the chat room. 

The user has the option of choosing which room he or she would like to join, depending on how interesting or informative the room promises to be. There are some chat rooms that are designed to disconnect people from a chat room if they don't adhere to the specified regulations of that page. This feature is useful for it prevents unwanted guests whose sole objective is to disrupt a conversation with inanities.

Sometimes a chat room is designed for certain groups of people like weight watchers, for example, those looking out for a support group, parents who may like to share, compare and contrast parenting techniques or even creative writers who are interested in sharing their experiences, aspirations and challenges. 

Others go by the subject and that range is enormous: from politics to Bollywood movies, from technology to computer game strategy, from books to fans of the big names in popular culture, there's 'room' for just about anyone. 

The greatest advantage of chatting is the ability to communicate affordably over long distances. For instance you can keep the family ties intact and carry on those bonding sessions with friends all over the world without worrying too much about paying a thumping phone bill at the end of it all. Although the e-mail, of course, achieves the same purpose, many opt for a chat room because of its instant, interactive nature. Another possibility is to speak over the Internet without long distance charges, provided that each person has a sound card, microphone and the same brand of software needed for a 'voice chat' installed on their computers. 

According to Ranjan (20), he has the option of either hooking up with friends miles away or chatting with someone who lives around the corner. Some guys may be only a phone call away but he prefers to meet up in a chat room. "When you call someone you talk to just one person whereas four or five guys can meet up at a given chat room at a specified time. Naturally that's better than phoning up someone." As for international calls, chatting in comparison, "is dirt-cheap; it comes to about one tenth the price."

However, for many of today's urban youth, a chat room is a place for "social interaction"; it's a zone where young people 'meet' other young people and make new friends. It's popularity lies in the fact that, because of the chat topics, it's easier to find people who share their interests. "You don't waste time befriending people you're unlikely to hit it off with", is one response.

Is the process of making friends, even if you are not quite on the same wavelength, a waste of time, one wonders? 

And does a person whose eyes you can't look into, shoulder you can't punch, or laugh you can't hear, really qualify as a 'friend'? 

Anonymity: that's the other attraction in the world of the online chat. Here it's easy for the user to invent names and hide who he really is, which leads to the unquestioned conviction that as a result of these assumed identities a person is no longer vulnerable. Under the banner of privacy, casual misrepresentation is justified, young people end up making friends with someone whom they don't really know at all and secure in the knowledge that they can never be found out, others reveal their souls to complete strangers.

For Shehani (18) chatting is a chance to 'be herself'. Within the confines of society Shehani feels that no one can really be who he or she really is. "You live by the norms of the society you live in, so most often your views and actions are really not your own. In a chat room you can express yourself freely and people will listen." Is there then some inherent defect in society that leads a young person to believe that it will not tolerate the person she really is? "Probably," she replies, "but it's more that you don't feel inhibited in a chat room." 

So in this inhibition-free area, people are doing things they normally won't do in society. Some barge into others' conversations with the rudest of comments, others scream (that's when they type in capitals) obscenities on entering chat rooms, while still others wilfully mislead people they chat to for their entertainment 

"Alright it's lying," says Ashok (19) who finds it exhilarating that you can be someone else on the net, when you're sick of being yourself. "But it's not like people don't lie in the physical world. In the real world everyone doesn't know the 'real' you. So you're not exactly telling people the truth there either."

Dangerous?

It's funny how we guard against talking to strangers under normal circumstances and warnings given by parents ring in our ears when faced with such situations, but enter into an online chat and we display little caution and have absolutely no ground rules regarding chatting to strangers online. What we need to be constantly aware of is that although the medium may be different, the concept and the dangers involved don't change. While the Internet is a great place that allows a person to keep in touch with friends and family and develop relationships with individuals around the world who share similar interests, it comes with a fair share of risks. 

Says Ashok: "The problem is that when kids chat, they don't realize that people don't always tell the truth. The barrage of offensive language and adult conversation is not that great for them either."

Or worse still, they may interact with those sicker members of society whose ambition is to harm them. Paedophiles use the Internet; as a result children need to be supervised while on-line. Although we are unaware of the dangers involved when chatting with strangers, paedophiles well protected by a screen assumed through the cover of anonymity on the Internet, can and do mislead children. They can pretend to be just another confused teenager and so gain the confidence of those particularly vulnerable children who search for friends on the Internet. 

They can pretend to be a girl or a boy, depending on which is more suitable, they can pretend to be miles and miles away when in reality they just may be living down the next lane. Once they gain your confidence they will attempt to meet you, with or without your consent. Their strategy is to trick you into giving out a little information here and there on-line. And without even realizing it you've given them enough information to find you.

In Ashok's opinion it's paedophiles and confidence tricksters who pose the real danger when chatting. "Maybe we aren't facing this problem on a large scale in Sri Lanka as yet but usually there is a cyclical pattern in such things and we may as well be prepared for it because that's the direction we are heading in." 

But are paedophiles the only real danger of chatting? 

Is it okay to abandon all caution and go hurtling into a responsibility free zone, even if it's only for a couple of hours? Do we need to exercise a certain degree of responsibility when we are chatting?

For Ashok, responsibility defeats the purpose of chatting. Because, for him, what's alluring about chatting is the "break from responsibility". But maybe there is a great need for 'safe chatting'.

I've counted as many as 60 teenagers on local chat pages everyday looking for love and have had chats with teenagers on sites marked 'adult'. 

Are we playing with fire? Think about it. 

As for me - I think I'll just shut down the computer and find a friend who's in the mood for a cup of coffee...and a chat.