Deconstructing the reactions to PAA
Print
(Warning:Some spoilers)
As I see the various reactions to PAA on PFC and elsewhere, it is truly a source of joy seeing different types of reactions and the extremities of these reactions. Whether it is for or against the movie, the reactions seem to fall under one common ceiling; that of love—of course, there are those reactions that have an ulterior and insidious agenda, but let’s be hopeful— for the art form of cinema. Everyone- from the person who has rated the movie a -1 to the person who has rated it as +4, is welcome.
The attempt of this piece is just to deconstruct the reactions that the movie has generated.
The Movie & the reactions v/s expectations
Reactions to the movie have been ranging from either a high positive to negative to intermediate; which is good since it denotes the independence of thinking on the part of viewers. Going the mathematical way, the audience seems to be ready to give the movie anything above +3. Ratings below +3 have been rare. But the ratings below the average are as important as the ones above average. For, I believe it is here that the film-makers can unearth what it is that is missing that stopped the film from being extraordinary.
There are people on PFC who are calling the movie clichéd and derivative. Cinematic and manipulative are other adjectives being used. The primary reason for these reactions, I feel, is the variance between the audience expectation and the actual delivery promised. This was also the case for KAMINEY which I personally experienced. My expectations from the movie were so humongous that I withered in embarrassment when I watched the movie. Of course, there were flashes of brilliance, but I was not watching the movie to be hit by lightning every now and then, I was there to be struck by a full-on assault by that poet Mr. Bharadwaj. The genre was caper, the references (as promised by Mr. Bharadwaj himself) were Mr. Tarantino and Mr. Ritchie, and the captain of the ship was Mr. Bharadwaj. But the variance between my expectations and Mr. Bharadwaj’s delivery was so huge that I felt almost like an orphan, a neglected child. That a person of Mr. Bharadwaj’s talent could give me such a movie was incomprehensible to me. And I see many reactions to PAA similar to mine toward KAMINEY. But I feel the negative reactions to PAA are unjustified, in pure sense of what was promised and what was delivered. Right from the onset, the teasers and trailers made it clear that the movie was a ‘rare father-son story’ and nothing ‘out of the box’ with regard to the condition of progeria. Of course, Mr. Amitabh Bachchan’s look and his characterization were promised to be something different from what the actor had attempted before. And insofar as the characterization of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan is concerned, I feel the movie-makers have achieved what they set out to make and what they promised the audience.
One of the more common examples of ‘clichéd situations’ being noted has been the ‘saath pheras’ or ‘round and round’ scenes as mentioned by the character of Auro. I would contest that the director or writer’s idea of making the couple enact the round and round scene around Auro’s hospital bed is not manipulative but genuine. Genuine, when understood in the context of Auro. When one analyzes the scene from the eyes and mind of Auro, the 7 pheras concept becomes all the more explainable and logical. The reason that the couple decide to take the 7 pheras is purely for Auro (note that it is the character of Ms. Balan that had been consistently rejecting Mr. Abhishek’s character for patch-up that actually initiates this act by grabbing PAA’s hand). Auro, given his age and his positioning, actually doesn’t quite understand the significance of 7 pheras in their purest form (note that there are no montages or insertion of scenes with pundits or any other marriage festivities); all that he knows is that this particular act of ‘round and round’ is something that will ease the fact of acceptance that he is his father’s son and that his mother is his father’s wife. That is the reason that his mother, having been resistant to all the apologies and explanations by the father, herself takes the initiative and enacts the 7 pheras scene. Hence, the scene does not amount to any emotional manipulation on the part of the film-makers. But then, we are talking of sensibilities, cinematic ones at that, from an Indian perspective. Did we really expect the sensitivities and sensibilities of Mr. Daniel Day-Lewis’ characterization in ‘My Left Foot’? If we did, then the disappointment quotient is completely justified – vis-à-vis fellow PCFians Mr. working class hero and Mr. Subin—in regard to the expectations. I did not expect that. I expected a wholesome movie that would no doubt resort to ‘Indianization’ of emotions and situations, but one that would not be overt and would not insult the intelligence of an audience that in today’s times, has been exposed to world cinema and sensibilities vis-à-vis satellite television and DVD collections.
Critics’ ratings and reviews
I am actually happy and surprised with the critics’ response to the movie. If one sees carefully, none of the critics have been falling over one-another trying to out-star the movie or pull down the movie. None of the ratings have been below 2 and over 4.5. The range is between 2 to 4 indicating a healthy trend. There are critics who expected something more or something more specific and did not find it, and hence the rating below 3.5. And then there are critics who really expected nothing more than a maudlin, manipulative, family drama but were surprised at the maturity in direction and presentation and hence did not hesitate to give a 3.4 to 4 rating. The fact that makes me happy is that nobody has given the movie a 5 star rating or a 1 star rating. And that is a healthy trend. Not that it is a problem if one were to give it a 1 star rating. But then, I hope there would be strong explanations as to why it deserved 1 star while AJAB PREM KI GAZAB KAHANI was given 4 stars. Ditto would be the case if it were awarded a 5 star. Fine, but what we would need is a strong analysis as to what is it that the reviewer felt when he/she felt that PAA deserved a 5 on 5. It’s mainly the reviewers from abroad that seem to have missed the point. Ms. Rachel Saltz of the NYT – the regular Bollywood products’ reviewer— calls Mr. Bachchan’s Auro creepy and the performance stunt-acting. Infact, she totally missed the point since she titled her review, ‘PAA: A TALE OF INDIA’!! http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/movies/04paa.html?ref=movies
Mr. Singh (the author of the now-famous ‘apprehensions of PAA’ piece) presented a link to the UK’s Guardian that said the prosthetic make-up made Mr. Bachchan give a totally ineffective performance.)http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/04/paa-film-review
What more could be a better example of the fact that cinema viewing and absorbing is purely a matter of subjectivity?
Mr. Amitabh Bachchan’s performance
Mr. Bachchan, as Auro, finally lays to rest all those apprehensions about not being able to do justice to challenging roles post-AAG, post-BLACK, and post-ALADIN. He blows to smithereens the punching bags of ‘over-the-top’ acting and ‘ham’ acting—about which I would like to write something too— that were used against him very frequently. The process of being covered in mounds of make-up is a tight-rope walk. For one, there is the disadvantage that the make-up would hide his now famous usage of eyes and facial muscles that convey a gamut of emotions. Look at what he was able to do in Nishabdh and Sarkar specially. A single facial emotion of his conveyed a thousand words. This ‘facility’ was out of scope in PAA. So he had to use something else to make the character of Auro animated. He cleverly uses a different body language: his style of walk, shoulders drooping on one side, joining his hands together while walking, slouching most of the times when sitting either in his house or in the classroom. Hence, I do not agree with the theory that making Auro suffer from progeria is nothing more than a gimmick. It presented cinematic challenges and they have been met with competence.
I am short of words to describe this class-act of Mr. Bachchan. I rest my case.
The social acceptance comment/Why Progeria?
There have been accusations that the movie could have done with the character of Auro being afflicted by any X fatal disease. To that, I would like to reuse my take which I posted as a comment in Khalid Saab’s review section.
Agreed, it could have been Mr. Bachchan playing a person with disabilities and suffering from some kind of fatal disease. But then, the desensitized citizens of this world that we are, how many of us would really care about the issues we already know of? (I did not know of Progeria before PAA happened.) Just gaze for a minute beyond the windows of the local train in Bombay and you will see people not having even the basic of human rights to a decent place to eat, sleep, and defecate. Have we given anything more than a second thought to the plight of the deprived people? We, the Indians of today, are a highly desensitized lot. What is more solid proof of this that the minister Mr. R.R.Patil, who was asked to resign post 26/11 last year, is back as the minister with the same portfolio within one year of the ghastly event! And what are we doing about this? Are we even able to do anything? Is there something called ‘conscience’ left in such people? There was once Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri who took ‘moral responsibility’ and resigned as Railway Minister for a train accident which was purely a technical glitch, and now we have a minister who is back to mock us with his failure even before the elapse of 12 months. To rouse us from such lethargic emotional reactions, maybe, the film-makers hit upon the idea of making the actor play a progeria affected child. And then, what about the cinematic challenges posed by attempting to project a 68-year old actor as a 13-year old ? Maybe the director in Mr. Balki got excited about this; maybe the actor in Mr. Bachchan got excited about the challenges of physical and mental transformation involved in the role and hence agreed to take on the project. Actually, by the yardstick that some members are imposing regarding the use of progeria in the film, the conclusion would then be that unless the movie depicts a scientific/highly-researched attitude toward progeria, the movie shouldn’t be made. Aren’t we then restricting the cinematic freedom of a creator? What is wrong if a human/emotional angle is added to the condition?
Regarding Gaurang’s exception [Warning – mild scene spoilers in this paragraph] to Khalid Saab’s statement that ‘the film screams for social acceptance of the deformed and the ill’, the only problem I find is the language; the film does not ‘scream’ for social acceptance but makes a subtle plea for social acceptance. On a cinematic level, the scene showing the girl screaming at the sight of Auro during her first accidental meet constitutes a part of ‘being accepted.’ On the broader/social front, there is the scene wherein the insensitive and byte-grabbing media lands up in front of the school because it now has an ‘object’ that could help the channels up their TRPs. The reaction of the principal of the school-‘Please, this is not done. He is just a boy,’ is both sensitive, to-the-point, honest, and pure. It is one of the most naturally enacted scenes which make a plea for social acceptance of people that are not ‘normal’ according to society’s imposed standards. When Auro’s mom comes to pick her son up after the media melee, the principal apologizes to the mother saying he shouldn’t have invited a MP since they would always be followed by the media entourage. How many principals of schools do we know who would go to this extent to care for the feelings of a child? And that too in today’s times where the one who shouts the loudest is the one who is heard and any publicity is good publicity? In times where a person who happens to be wealthy and thus has a high social-standing but is illiterate is called in to release a book! Also, consider the way Auro’s classmates treat Auro at school. There is no pretense or sympathy in that. Infact, the joke is on us, since the character of Vishnu, a normal healthy boy, who says he is not interested in Algebra or Physics but in being ‘different’ from what society expects; by wanting to be a dancer. In one of the scenes, consider what the character of Mr. Paresh Rawal thinks of Auro; he calls him a ‘boodha-baccha.’ Now, being an aged man himself, isn’t this a highly insensitive comment? We live in an ageist society and what better proof than that? Agreed, the rediff comments’ section is not really an ‘informed’ comments section, but I am using that as a statement regarding the common pulse-of-the-people thinking. There are a plethora of comments asking Mr. Bachchan to retire from filmdom because he is no longer young in body. Isn’t this ageist? So when Auro is accepted as a normal child, but one requiring some special needs, isn’t that a depiction of social acceptance? Infact, the whole film could be bracketed as a plea for social acceptance in the sense that there is not a single scene in the film that invokes pity for the character of Auro. He is shown as a kid being able to attend classes, being able to desire for play-station and spicy food, being able to participate in pranks played out by kids his age. All the scenes in the movie command empathy; not sympathy.
Personal opinion against the movie
The character of Mr. Abhishek Bachchan was too good to be true. But that might be because in a society where the tag politician equals corruption, we have yet to see a MP—young one at that—totally committed to social development. We, as a society, are more at ease with the character of his rival than Mr. Abhishek Bachchan’s Amol. Mr. Balki suffers here because in an otherwise subtle movie, he goes for a full-on in-your-face approach in scenes depicting Mr. Abhishek Bachchan’s sincerity toward his profession and the country. His calling of news reporters to confess that Auro is his child is the singularly most idiotic, irresponsible, and ridiculous scene in the entire movie. On television, Amol is shown promoting safe-sex! After 13 years and having had a son, he now talks of safe-sex! And in full-view of his son! Imagine the trauma that a child goes through when he/she realizes that he was conceived, initially, only as an act of carelessness! His confession that Auro is his son is fine, but why harp on safe-sex at that moment? In a single scene, he decimates the happiness of Auro at his social acceptance with this ‘education’ on safe-sex. And pray, what is this obsession with toilet jokes? After a certain point, it really starts getting on the nerves. It deserved to be toned down.
And finally…
As a movie, this one is more than decent and has delivered what had been promised. The opening credit sequence by Mrs. Jaya Bachchan is innovative. It might work for some audience and it might not for others. But it is innovative. To be frank, even Hollywood hasn’t showed much innovation when it comes to credits or even previews. Look at Hollywood previews; they all appear the same in format and construction. This is definitely a better movie from Bollywood stables and represents a step in maturity. Savor it personally, without being affected by the clouds of perceptions and others’ thoughts. React to the movie as honestly as you can – either hate it or love it. But watch it once for sure.
Tags: Film Criticism, Paa, Reactions
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Rahul Dholakia
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Varma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Sachin Kundalkar
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Very nice Aneesh! A well written post.
loading...
Sorry. I left it mid way. its way looooooooooooooooog An Jo
loading...
No worries; you can read it when and if you have time. Thanks.
loading...
This will be the first thing i’ll read after watching ‘PAA’
loading...
Good dissection of the reviews. I personally found the movie to be a servicable watch, and Amitabh Bachchan was just brilliant.
P.S: Rediff comments Seriously? Those things are only good for watching flame wars start, not for intelligent commentary
loading...
Well written I like the honesty and clarity witnwhich you present your point of view and unlike a lot of writers you seem to have a lot more objectivity and accuracy in your writing. Keep it up
loading...
Although I haven’t yet seen the movie due to exams. Am I the only one who thinks that the amitabh bacchan doing the. “paa (deep cinematic pause) haw haw ) ” thing is amitabh bacchan being amitabh bachhan ? And honestly it’s more like “eating footage” and show offy to me. Itching to watch the film and then do a deconstruction of his performance !
loading...
Loved the movie overall….the only glitch being the mother allowing her son to go for the Delhi trip when it’s clearly established before that Auro has spells where he becomes weak and also that he is sensitive to spicy food….just looked very illogical and convenient
loading...
@ Sandeep –
Well, by the time they let Auro go to Delhi, Amol is already sensitized to the fact that Auro has progeria. So I guess it would be safe to assume that he would be in safe hands? With regards to his food and medicines, they do show his folks pestering him about that upon his return.
loading...
At last I got a reasonable answer to: Why Progeria?
Good thinking, good analysis.. [:)]
loading...
I’m pretty much convinced by your take on social acceptance.
But still not on the ‘Why Progeria??” front. How does Progeria bring anything new to the script??? If the progeria just served the purpose of getting Bacchan saab undergo physical transformation, was it not a gimmick?? Nobody’s restricting anyone’s cinematic freedom. Making bad movies is also part of the cinematic freedom, but does that mean we shouldn’t question the thought process behind that movie. I’m just annoyed by Balki’s gimiccky intentions. Now, if the focus of the story was actually on Amol-Auro relationship, I would have given leeway to Balki on the grounds that he executed a real life role reversal. But my problem is theere is no focus in the movie. It is trying to tackle too many issues at a time, which resulted in me not feeling strongly for anyone in particular. The aspect that worked strongly for me was Abhishek-Vidya issue. And thats what annoys me, wasn’t the movie about Auro or Amol-Auro?? An Jo, tell me one thing ekdum frankly, did you really get moist eyed when Auro died? If you say YES, then the movie worked ekdum differently for you, and I would end my argument.
loading...
@ Gaurang:
I admit, unabashedly, my eyes became more than moist in the final scene. But you should understand that the reasons for that are not ENTIRELY based on fact that I was a witness to scenes leading to that. Sometimes, the effect of a singular scene can be very strong. Especially when it has multiple elements of performance, background score, camera work, and the ambience. I was moved by many scenes in SWADES but the one that really broke me was the scene where Mr. Khan’s character gives 1 rupee or something to the boy selling water in earthen pots at the railway station. Mr. Khan’s expression so honestly and brilliantly brought out his inner turmoil regarding the paradoxes in the country called INDIA that I, literally burst into tears and had to stop the DVD to let the moment complete my catharsis.
I understand your disappointment with the movie but I strongly feel it is a question of expectations. I saw an interview of Mr. Balki wherein he said that the genesis of making Mr. Bachchan play Abhishek’s son was one of the moments of playfulness of Mr. Bachchan who seemed to be behaving more childish and young-at-heart than Mr. Abhishek. The idea of progeria, he says, came much later. Now tell me, with the basic engine of doing a role-reversal, how do you fit in the other compartments? What are the ways in which Mr. Bachchan could be made to play a son to a person younger to him by more than half his age? I at least cannot think of any other plot ideas. My only concern is the titling of this process as a ‘gimmick’ since, the thought that I would be getting out of the theatre with more knowledge of progeria than the one I already know from the net was never existent! Infact, after I saw TZP, I realized I knew more about dyslexia than Mr. Aamir Khan! But the movie still engaged me with its sincerity and succeeded in reaching out to a wide demographic. And I am not denying even for a moment that the usage of progeria was entirely cinema-based and not issue-based. Also, if Mr. Balki had taken the decision of making progeria more of an issue in the movie, don’t you think the movie might have ended up with more of a gloomy look than it as now? In one way, isn’t it a success that a person afflicted with progeria is shown being affected and hence reacting with the same emotions that you and I might have?
You and I, Gaurang, can only discuss about the ‘intentions’ of Mr. Balki. It is only Mr. Balki who can tell us what he set out to make and whether he has been honest to his vision.
And the Auro-Vidya sphere I feel, always had the potential of being more touching to the audience because of the fact that bringing up a child–and one with needs at that– alone would definitly throw in more emotional dollops for the audience.
loading...
Wow. this is reactions to reactions. Reactions to reviews are what directors/actors come out with. What next? Reactions to reactions to reactions…
loading...
Nice post, An Jo and kind of different than just posting another review. Since you brought me up in your post, i cannot help but react. I was holding back because i haven’t seen the film yet and wouldn’t be able to until the DVD comes out. Nothing against Paa, just my personal constraint, now a days, i get to watch films on DVD only.
But, I have read all the reviews, read all the comments and comments on comments. I am curios about this film in a strange way, almost fixated on it. Because, as i wrote in my post, this film could represent everything that’s bad with Bollywood.
All reviewers seem unanimous about AB’s performance, that’s hardly a surprise and i sincerely believe that. I mean, the man doesn’t need to prove anything to anyone. But the reviewers also seem moved by the story and keep defending how it’s not about progeria, but about a father-son story. Critics like Gaurang raise a good point- why progeria at all, what difference does that make to the story.
I say, why not progeria, man, why not. But then, therein lies the rub. (Based on the reviews, haven’t seen the film yet) Balki uses progeria to publicize his film, as a gimmick, gives a life time role to AB (how elese, he would get to act as a 13 yr old boy) but doesn’t focus on progeria, why? If that’s not lazy writing, what is? If you are making a film on a character who suffers from this unique but terrible disease, why not do some justice to it, why not touch upon issues related to it, why not educate viewers about it, why not weave it into the story, or is that too difficult because that would require work on the script, and you Mr. Balki were too keen to just go, make the film. At least TZP did justice to the problem they picked, it may have sounded preachy at places, but they educated us all about dyslexia. (i found the characters and situations in second half of TZP caricaturish, but that’s a different problem)
In a way, this is similar to the crime SRK and Santosh Sivan committed in Asoka, where they missed the opportunity to capture the greatest character from India history and instead made a tuchhi love story.
Why every film of ours have to have a love story? a family drama? a tear jerker? Why can’t we do full justice to a topic we pick for a film, once we pick it? Why that stops with hiring the best technicians from Hollywood and technicalities such as prosthetics etc., but not enough research, not enough work on script and detailing. Why we believe that we have to make a sub-standard product because of commercial considerations. If Hrishikesh Mukherjee could weave all aspects of cancer and death, and an unforgettable character into a story, not make it into a love story, and still make it a commercial success, 30 years back, why the film makers of today don’t seem capable of doing that.
Why, we in the audience seem happy that the film is above average, better than run of the mill? It seems, we didn’t expect a classic in Paa, is it? Why not?
loading...
@ Singh:
Now you are raising questions beyond the boundaries of PAA. My effort so far has been to analyze within the parameters of this movie.
Your concerns are valid. And they call for discussion beyond this movie. And so I am transgressing beyond PAA.
While we in the audience are highly demanding and ready to blast Mr. Balki or any other xyz movie-maker based on our expectations, there should be, I think, some thought spared for people behind such films. You ask, why not go that extra mile and deliver a much superior product? Our films, basically, are an extension of the nautanki form of story-telling. That ‘organic’ form of creativity is just not something that can be completely wiped out of our essence and replaced with the ‘sombre’ and ‘serious’ feel of American or European movies. When done, it might result in a very pure form of cinema, but one that runs the danger of being heard of only at film festivals. (The multiplexes might have changed that, but is the extent enough?)Ultimately, one is faced with the not more than 2 choices; DO not compromise, make movies with the conviction of Mr. Gopalkrishnan or Mr. Kasarvalli and pat yourself on your back with a feeling of ‘not being sold out’ and be happy with the multitude of awards and feathers from film festivals. There are hundreds of directors who have ambitions like this AND the ambition of commercial success—both equally strong; and nothing wrong with that—and hence try to find a mid-stool realize their creation. Mr. Balki falls in that section and so do Mr. Amin and the recent Mr. Ayan of Wake up Sid. I did not personally like Wake up Sid but I saw that spark of fine talent in Mr. Ayan’s debut.
We do not have the strong research ground and sense of purpose of the west. And our industry DEFINITELY does not have the economics. Mr. Clooney can go on and make keep on making not 1, not 2, but 3 (was there ever a need for the 3rd one?) and then turn back and give us GOOD NIGHT and GOOD LUCK. Why? The economics are strong. A fraction of the ‘escapist’ money earned from the Ocean’s series is then invested in a brilliant script and project like GOOD NIGHT and GOOD LUCK. He cares two hoots if the movie is watched more in a theater in downtown Chicago or in a Movie History class at Stanford. Primarily because there is the Hollywood studio system; there is the Hollywood pioneered ‘direct-to-DVD’ business model in place. These models give more freedom to a film-maker where he/she is free of the commercial trappings. Till the turn of the century, our film-makers used to depend on ‘bhais’ from Dubai if they wanted to make an ‘expensive’ project!! What creativity can you expect in such environments? Look at the kind of movies we were subjected to from ’84 to ’88 and you will realize this. And now, we have MBAs and business analysts and marketing gurus as intrinsic part of film-making. And hence you have AAMIR, PAA, or even CHAK-DE. This is a huge progression. And what about our audience demographic? You have an audience that comes out of the first show of KHAMOSHI: THE MUSICAL and laments,’ Nana jaise actor ko liya aur usko goonga bana diya!! Kya soch raha tha director?’ Contrast this with Mr. Paul Thomas Anderson who took an actor like Mr. Day-Lewis and made AND THERE WILL BE BLOOD where-in no character speaks AND there is no background music for the first 23 minutes! In a setting such as ours, it is very difficult to achieve such feats.
The primary strength of PAA is that its emotions are not farce. In the entire movie, the ‘connivance’ that most of the audiences felt they saw was the ‘saath’ pheras section (I am not talking about Mr. Abhishek’s political and media tirade since they do not merit deeper discussion; their depiction fails on the cinematic front itself which I have mentioned in my write-up).
Some day, Mr. Singh, we might reach a day when Mr. Gopalkrishnan CAN dream of making a movie that would fetch Golden Globes ALONG with the real gold. Someday, they can be mutually inclusive.
loading...
Aneesh,
Thanks for the long reply. I don’t consider myself a serious student of cinema, just an average movie buff who loves good films when sees one. Having said that, I don’t think format is a problem here, neither is money. I am not asking for dry films that are only made for festivals. But you can make good films, make them entertaining, tell a good story and still do justice to a subject if you pick it. That’s what i would like to call middle of the road cinema. Our own Hrishikesh Mukherjee, Bimal Roy and even Gulzar sab used to make such films and even make them commercial hits. If Balki and others aspire to it and deliver on it, that’s great.
I did hear those stupid comments about Nana in Khomoshi, which i thought was his best work. But let’s not blame the audience for the failure of Khamoshi. There were basic problems with Khamoshi as a film itself. It only worked in parts.
Why speak of And There will be Blood, our own Pushpak delivered it too.
And you don’t have to make a hutke art house film, make an ultimate masala like Sholay, damn it. I don’t care. But make it well. The point is, it’s not the format, it’s the content. Our film makers of today have money and all other resources. But they seem plain lazy when it comes to story writing, scripting and dialog writing. Too much focus on technology, glitz and gimmick and then use marketing to force it down our throat.
loading...