Sponsor PFCOne
(5 votes, average: 4.2 out of 5)
Loading ...
Dehumanizing cinema
There was a time when as a child I could imagine myself to be anything.
I could be a pilot flying a plane. but not too high. just high enough to see my mother drying clothes on the open roof of my house.
I could be a fish swimming in the pond with gold skin and transparent fins.
I could be a rickshaw puller who can pull a rickshaw with 3 fat men with ease.
I could become anything that amazed me.
I saw a movie with Sivaji ganesan and really believed that he was a police inspector and learnt what “duty” means. It means you can gun down your son even if he is your only son a son about to sell his soul, his country.
I saw another Sivaji movie and truly believed he is Lord Shiva sitting on the icy ranges of Kailash wearing just a rug made out of tiger skin and the third eye was fiery indeed.
I grew up a little and lost my imaginations. I could no longer convince myself that it is really the house of a barrister in which Sivaji thunders around in “Gauravam”. I can really spot where the set ends and where the painting of the horion and fake city lights began.
Later on I saw films with no sets, all outdoor locations and people with no makeup - all claiming to make “realistic” cinema. I appreciated them.
However when sivaji wore those makeup and eyebrows , he still felt like a police officer. The modern police officers in movies wear their stars right, have their caps and body languages all right, but still the impression of Sivaji as the Superintendent of Police in Thanga padhakkam is still indelible in my mind. When someone says the word “duty”, “honour” in movies, the only image to pop up in the silver screen of my mind is the stiff and upright SP choudhary and when someone says humility, devotion, it is only the image of the humble “appar” played so beautifully by Sivaji that pops up in the think box.
Sure we have split screen, sepia toning, bidirectional narrative, super slo mo, realistic love making scenes, real people playing themselves and what not. but at some level actors have grown smaller and we are beginning to see directors with their nose and a hollywood script and technique poke at us. I am beginning to wonder how Sivaji Ganesans, Gemini Ganesans, Dileep Kumars, Balraj Sahnis stood tall and attracted all the attention of the audience away from the fake sets and immobile but jerking cars and got us into the drama of the good old family story, making us cry for the brother who is lost from his sister or a son orphaned by fate from his loving parents or see Lord shiva inside a theatre in mount road chennai. I realize, cinema is a dream. It is an illusion, but illusion with human actors playing out our roles. Without an actor in the centre, cinema is at best a beautiful portrait that calls out for attention, but never managing to engage. My next post is going to be how the wonderful actors of the bygone era created moments of magic that is still a difficult benchamark to meet.
10 Responses to “Dehumanizing cinema”
Leave a Reply
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
- Hellboy II:The Golden Army
- Pusan: Rajesh Shera on AFC and his Ocean of an Old Man
- MIRROR
- Sinbad The Sailor
- Review: Taare Zameen Par
- Rab Ne Bana Di
- Drona R
- Kis Kone Se Vidya M La Lamba Ki Momma Dikhti
- Review: Taare Zamee
- Music Director Ravi : Beete hue lamhon ki mahak saath to
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
that’s intensity
is it a one way traffic. meaning an actor has intensity. and viewer is bound to feel it.
or
is is a two way traffic. meaning its not enough for an actor to have intensity, viewer should be easily impressionable.
if it is one way traffic. than modern actors doesn’t have it
if it is two way traffic than modern viewer is not that easily impressionable #-o
@ VP ….Cinema is a Directors’s medium,…not an actors medium….didnt u know that ?
Payback!!!
Cinema is a human medium as long as director doesn’t want to screw it up. Actors are the human elements and they provide the necessary human touch. A director is more successfull or truly successful if he lets the actor express the content better. There is no point in toning, digitally modifying the frame if there is no actor to convey. I feel it is essentially an actor’s medium. Director simply controls it (or manipulates it).
@P(L)AYABACK -Agree with you
@ Jaiganesh - What you are talikng about is Theatre Drama,
Film Media Advanced a Lot,.. You use Animaton , FX, and lot more things to enhance your Vision,.your story,
That is the Beauty of cinema,.
@ VP,
There is another way of looking at this. The audience have grown more knowledgeable over time. You and me have learnt a lot about what happens behind the screens. There was a time when I knew nothing what playback singing was. I always wondered how this guy chiru could sing so beautifully. I doubt, if our fathers would have cared a lot about the screenplay, technique, direction etc…
So, if you don’t connect to whats happening on the screen, if things are pretentious might also be due to the fact that u now know a lot now. It may not be just because the actors are any less when compared to yester years actors. IMHO it is not just to compare those timeframes on the scales you tried measuring with…
@ Jaiganesh…lol ! I guess in Bollywood its an Actors medium :D All across the world & throughout history its been, is and will be a Directors medium ! Dont comment on things about which you have limited knowledge ! Thanks :)
so here i go ranting
psychology divides consciousness in many levels.
in this ranting i will use three of them.
upper layer - superconcious
middle layer - consciousness ( here we live)
lower layer - unconscious
Freud discovered unconscious.
after Freud everything changed.
and so did the definition of an artist. an artist became a person who can tap on in his unconscious and present it in some form.
that’s what the whole modern art is. representaion of unconcious of artist.
question is how good it is to witness somebody’s else unconscious.
what good an artist is doing to society by showing them his pathology.
is it right? that i unload my madness upon you?
in the context of cinema.
whole of western cinema is outcome of unconscious.
it is unconcious cinema.
more auteur more unconcious
a link about Roberto Assagioli
and his psycosynthesis
http://home.wxs.nl/~brouw724/Assagioli.html
:-@
a link on J Krishnamuti
http://youtube.com/profile?user=KFoundation
don’t bother understanding, he is way too heavy
just watch, the man himself.
my reverences
:x
a link about art
warning - some paintings are there. objective art. after seeing those paintings you may not be able to rest your eyes on the ’so called’ paintings again. so proceed at your own risk. :o
http://www.oshoart.com
^:)^