Filmakers Beware- We Are The Audience & Investor!!!!
Hi Folks,
This one is for the audiences of the world. Films must be the only service industry where if the product is rejected, it is almost always because the audience is at fault. At least that is what our desi new breed filmmakers seem to believe. This thought astounds me. Whether we like it or not, ANY film, is a mass communication and an entertainment services industry product (yes including docs and short, you are looking to reach an audience for it, like a newspaper, it might contain news, but it definitely needs readers). The one rule of thumb of being in the services industry is “acknowledge the power of your audience,” as opposed to make them feel that you are doing them a big service by serving them.
So one hears of terms like “they did not get it.” Get a life pal. YOU DID NOT GET IT. The audacity!! Imagine going to a restarurant, let’s say Urban Tadka and ordering Tandoori Chicken and if it turns out to be crappy to taste, and you complain, what would your reaction be if the response given by the management is “oh but you don’t get it, the chicken that you just ate, taste nothwithstanding, was reared in the farms of the Nawab of Oudh, ” …….Oops! Ouch!! Exactly, cause that seems to be the justification of our “we are so intelligent” filmmakers.
Then the other one- ” My movie was rejected because it did not appeal to the taxi drivers and the front benchers.” Well, I have news for this “knowledgeable, I know the world” piece of filmmaking flake, the taxi driver probably is more qualified to script, cause he or she experiences people and life, day in and day out and certainly way more than one kilometer of land called Yari Road, or the Coffe Cafe Day or the Barbarian Gym or the Barista or the DVD stores on that piece of Geography can provide in a lifetime. So really, who better to asses and qualify your movie and script, than the “lowest common denominator.”
Of course the newer tirade against the audience and audience centric critics (the non Khalid Mohd types), “first make a film, then critique or reject it.” BULLSHIT!!! You don’t have to make a samosa to reject it for bad taste, you don’t have to develop Microsoft Vista for calling it “non user friendly,” well ditto for your movie. It is meant to keep us on our seats, you are beacuse of what we make you, so never forget that and don’t tell us to make movies, let us though tell you, whether you earned our time and rupee or dollar or pound. Cause that is the rule of economics and consumer behavior.
This is also the industry where the “other bread provider” that is the investors, corporates and producers are given the maximum “stick” by the “we are different” filmmakers. One constantly hears complaints like “nobody has the balls to fund my different and neo age film of the dog that went past the Barista on Yari Road and on to the Versova beach, but instead of making a left on the beach, made a right and was sucked in the tide…a la modern day…Dogantic!.” Well news for you !! Nobody gives a rat’s arse to your doggone tale nor should anyone give a frog’s fart to it. If you so strongly believe in your “Day of the Dog,” FUND IT YOURSELF. Go work in a BPO in India, or a Seven Eleven in LA, save the money and put every penny into it…but of course you won’t, cause you are smart, and we are suckers. Well the game is up, pretty boy and girl. The irony of these filmmakers is that they are at every given opportunity looking to “curse the corporates and the corporate types.” Yet when it comes to making and viewing their work or their service or their product, it is these very “corporate types,” that the filmmakers rush too….wonder why? Since the whole mantra is “who cares about audience….and now add to that…who cares about the people who help me reach out to the audience.”
Summing up there are a whole lot of Commerical, Documentary and Arthouse filmmakers, who acknowledge that they are who they are and their craft is what it is because, of the audience and the investors, but one does come across that occasional disdainful soul, who think that the world should be thankful for their existence.
This one is going to sound crude. But it is a fact. Airpilots are described as best being “glorified drivers,” and air cabin crew, “glorified waiters” and accountatnts like me are glorified “munims,” in that way ALL filmmakers at best are glorified camera operators, who owe they existence to only two things a) money and b) audience and that’s it and it does not matter who you are……and of course to that marvellous day of the late 19th century (1827) when Joseph Nic'©phore Ni'©pce took 8 hours to obtain the first fixed image…..from there on ALL that has happened has been as a result of the audience and the investors….and not the folks who subsequently learned how to handle the camera.
Filmamkers who get the fact that they are in an industry to serve the audience, generally get it, filmmakers who think the audience is because of them, generally get out.
Sincerely,
Vivek “passion for cinema is fine, passion for cinematic audience is even better and passion for the protection of the film investors cash is the best” Kumar
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Well Said Vivek. I have always been a staunch believer of what you’ve just said.
But then there are a few cases when everyone who’s seen the movie loves it but then the movie doesn’t work. Like for eg.”Superstar” or “Johnny Gaddar”…
There are cases of everyone hating the movie but the movie is a hit… “Aap kaa surroor”, “Saawariya”, etc. Agreed that these movies have got a huge opening, and they recovered a lot of their costs in the opening week itself.
When you say that the public in general have liked the film, it doesn’t really mean that the film is a box office success.
And vice-versa.
Filmmakers are right in saying that their films were made for a discerning audience. But then it’s ridiculous to expect it to mint a lot of cash. Or Release it on a large scale basis with massive promotion and grunt when the film has failed.
Hi Sameer, without sounding as if I am arguing, but more as a discussion, I actually thought Johnny was a hit and Saawariya a flop. Of course I should have clarified, and actually have discussed this with the corporates in Mumbai, that a hit is one that recovers it’s cost and a little more. The impression given to me was that JG did do that, not sure about Superstar and also that Saawariya did not. Most corporates are looking for cost recovery and actually, again on heresay, as opposed to any facts or numbers, that even movies like Aamir, did pretty ok financially and corporates are happy supporting these kind of numbers, with limited release and word of mouth (to keep costs in check and increase chances of recovery)and also get an audience.
Good article .. agree with most of it.
Anurag Kashyap are you reading this
Hey Vivek, its an interesting point you have taken up and I am surprised that no one has commented unfavorably on it so far.
Allow me to be the first one.
Vivek, I strongly disagree with you. Consider me to be one of those idealists who still believe that Cinema is art. The Indian film industry HAS become a service industry but it is not a film’s inherent nature to entertain, in my opinion. I am also one of those who think that filmmakers are so much more than “glorified camera operators”. You don’t need to make a film, but you can at least take a three-day filmmaking workshop over the weekend to see for yourself.
I am also one of those who still think that the ultimate purpose of art is not to seek the approval of the audience but to be a representation of the artist’s own value-judgments, a concretization of his ’sense of life’. Maybe you are one of those people who learned to play guitar to impress girls(don’t we all?), but I make a film because I have an idea and I want it to take a material, concrete form, SHARING IT WITH OTHERS IN THE PROCESS. That way, I AM doing them a favour. The audience is free to like or dislike it according to their own value-judgments but their opinions must not affect me as an artist.
My job is to convey my idea as clearly and lucidly as possible and I would like everyone in the world to see it, not for approval, mind you, but as a declaration of my idea to the world. If you didn’t like it, it is obvious that you don’t share my view of life but that doesn’t necessarily make me a bad filmmaker.
Lets get one thing straight, economic potential and audience-approval can NEVER be a measure of artistic ability. Singh Is King is NOT a better film just because it generated immense profits. It may be a POPULAR film, but not a good film. Kaagaz Ke Phool will always be Kaagaz Ke Phool, its up to us to ‘get it’ or not.
Vivek, there was a lot of anger in your post. I know the frustration that creeps in when you spend so much on a movie ticket only to find out what a waste it was. But that risk will always be there. Doesn’t the mere possibility of watching a great film on the big screen overshadow any risk that it may not be a good one? I, for one, believe in this method and that’s what brigs me back to the theater even if the last experience was bad, again and again. Therein lies the magic of cinema.
A last question Vivek – Are you a communist, by any chance?
Sahi kaha……..apna kaam karo aur chup raho……..agar na chale to ro mat aur audience ko gaali mat do….
I disagree with a few things that you have to say. I think it is important for a critic, any critic to understand the medium that he is criticizing. Now i’m not saying he needs to ‘get’ the film he is critiquing. That is subjective and everyone need not like/dislike a film but for someone who is a film critic its important to understand certain things when going into a film like composition,lighting etc now these aren’t things that are inherently difficult for anyone to grasp but for people to be conscious of certain things while watching a film is pretty important especially if you are an established film critic. e.g. Do you think that its important for a film ‘critic’(Critic remember not audience) to understand and be knowledgeable about a film before he/she critiques it. I think its important especially in the case of something like a western or noir. The audience of course are NOT bound by any such restriction.
You mentioned that the guys who make a film are nothing more than camera operators that’s kind of a disservice to the hard work they put in to make a film. If it were all about operating a camera kids in film school would not be studying why Kurosawa operated it in a certain way or why Lucas raped the Hero’s Journey and turned it into Star wars. A film might be good or bad but it is either of those because of the creative decisions made by the crew behind that film they aren’t just a bunch of dope heads going through the motions. There are plenty of filmmakers who get their films done on budgets that are virtually non existent. So the only reason they exist are not money. but yes the reason that films do well financially is the audience and the audience alone. not all films are made for the masses though, some are made to cater only to a niche and are never meant to be released to the public at all. This is of course the minority by and large most people think that they are going to reinvent the wheel and bask in the glory that follows.
i agree with everything else that you said though film makers should not fault the audience for not understanding a film.
@Vivek:
Thanks for the reply. And yes movies like Aamir, Bheja Fry, Mithya(even Murder minted money) are making money but my point is something else. Like see, Andaaz Apna Apna was a good movie… but it did not run for many days. A few years later, it went on to become a huge success in the world of Home Video. In the words of Aamir, it’s his biggest home video hit ever.
Well as for, Saawariya was released with a lot of prints… and thus recovered its cost in the opening week itself. Agreed, that the exhibitors and some other people may have lost money… coz the movie ran to empty theaters after a while. So if a hit means that no one is at a loss… then saawariya is a flop. If you just look from the producer’s POV it made money. Karzzz is already a hit that way… what with 1200 prints being releazzzed.
As for Johnny Gaddaar,
It was appreciated by a lot of people. But I was under the impression that it was a mighty flop. What with Anurag telling that the movie was killed. A lot of people were cribbing about it’s fate right here on PFC if I am not wrong.
@judgegag:
I think there’s no problem in making a movie that’s not for the general masses. But then you shouldn’t blame the public if it doesn’t do too well.
Anurag Kashyap’s to be blamed for the failure of No Smoking. Not the audience for not getting it. But i think for Anurag NS was just an economic failure, not a cinematic one.
Hmmm… somebody has read Ramu’s blog and is quite angry…..c’mon man, everybody has right to justify his/her mistakes/deliberate hoodwinking. But whether these justifications are justified…that’s a moot point.
Anyways who gives a fuck about these film makers who don’t know their shit from their brain matter – good movie, some hrs of escape; bad movie, chill man shit happens
Well written….
And a quite sensitive issue!!
Speially “glorified camera operators” part!
:P
“ALL filmmakers at best are glorified camera operators”…dont really agree with you on that…there’s a whole lot more that goes on in the making of a film than just simply operating a camera. Just speak to a “filmmaker” and you’ll know…
“ALL filmmakers at best are glorified camera operators”
Whoa, whoa, whoa- now that IMO, is really taking it a bit too far!
BTW, Vivek, yaar ‘filmmakers’ ki spelling toh theek kar de bhai
Seems like Vivek is pissed off at the film-makers for finding faults with the audience. I say its just a matter of perspective. At times, you get the perspective of the film-maker and at times, you don’t. Something that appeals to me might not appeal to you. Because probably you don’t get it or I don’t. So, a film-maker is not really wrong, when he says that the audience did not get the film. We didn’t really understand or think about Anurag Kashyap’s ‘No Smoking’ they way he did. Agreed, it was his fault. But its also possible that had we ‘thought’ a little, we would’ve got it.
To create something requires a lot more than to observe it. If you think that a truck-driver being the lowest common denominator has the ability to make a film/write a script, you have serious issues of perception. I do not intend to be rude, but you sound more like an anguished and immature teenager when you call film-makers “glorified camera operators”. Your article does try to stand up for the audience, and I do agree that there are film-makers who make crappy stuff which doesn’t work and they blame the audience. But the way you undermine a film-makers talent reverses your credibility.
Film-making is an art. And art necessarily is not what entertains, art comments on how things are and tries to project how things should be. A lot of people do not follow classical music. So if a failed classical musician blames the audience will you stand up and say that its the musicians’ fault and that everyone should play pop, dance and party numbers?
All- My post is not directed at Anurag or RGV. I write and talk pretty straight, if it was towards them, I would say so. PFC seems more obsessed about them than I am. To me they are two filmmakers in the current lot, nothing more, nothing less. My post was at ALL the filmmakers who blame the very reason they are surviving and finding a living in the Mumbai film industry for their products, aka, the audience and the investors.
Immature teenagers, rarely talk about the industry as a whole, I was under the impression they are more into hero worshipping, but maybe my thought is of an immature adult.
Yep, my spellings suck and I don’t blame the world at large for them, but take responsibility.
The artists out there, absolutely, go ahead and create and do as you desire…..with your money!! Since my post was on the film INDUSTRY, I am going to give a perspective of the whole eco structure of that INDUSTRY and the main reason for that INDUSTRY’s existence is the AUDIENCE AND THE INVESTORS, not the “audience disdainful filmmakers.”
Sure, there is a lot more to filmmaking than camera operating, and that was the point of the post, sure there is a lot more to flying planes or being a CA or a Cabin Crew, than being a driver, a munim and a waiter. But almost all of the more challenging or equally challenging professions as filmmaking, are never as abrasive of the reason the profession exists, as are the “audience and investor blaming” filmmakers. The Mumbai film industry, via it’s audience and investors provides a livelihood to these filmmakers and that point is almost always missed, by them.
Also in the larger scheme of life, there are a lot more challenging things than filmmaking, protecting a country’s defence, furthering it’s economy, adding jobs, running it’s finances, keeping people alive and well, transporting people, cleaning homes, etc, etc, but almost none seem to complain about their “sources of revenue” as these filmmakers do, hence the analogy of, “you are nothing more than a camera operator, so stop cribbing and get on with it.” Finally, for the taking offense against “camera operators” as my post said, the hardest thing in this whole element of evolution of filmmakers, was the development of the camera and the still image, way harder than filmmaking. Just like the development of the Mac was way harder than the Final Cut Pro used on that and nobody hears the people doing the hardest part, being as disdainful of their “reason for existence” as the cribbing filmmakers (again not all, just those who are not appreciative of the people who help them pay their bills and give them the profile to rant and rave).
On me being a communist, then this “teenager” thinks that when I talk about, RoI, Winning the Market, Risking one’s own money and Risk and Reward and Consumer (Audience) being king, than those are pretty capitalist theories, or maybe the “teenager” in me, needs a renewed sense of education, cause having worked in 7 countries and 8 blue chips, perhaps it was “pure luck” and a “lack of understanding of basic economics” that kept me around.
Vivek, could you please let us know the context in which your article was written, and what exactly prompted it.
Comparing Films with food is a bad idea!!!
[Editor Note: Comment partially deleted. Please Dont attack anyone on personal basis and discuss the issues and not the filmmakers]
Great Vivek,
” My movie was rejected because it did not appeal to the taxi drivers and the front benchers.”
even i belive.. making a movie is not the charity. it involved with huge money.. if any investor or called producer investing the money in making movie for your script (why he need to invest.. better he can donate to charity)
i only beleive one kind of cinema.. whr every one need to watch alteast once.. perodical movies, movies on history.. bcoz to make such movies there is huge money involoved.. if producer didn’t gets returns, he stop making such movies..
do get ur angst through your article.The fact that this industry offers these people a livelihood is missed and often taken for granted by many filmmakers.But when i just check the progress made by other “developing nations” in the field of cinema, i am distraught …and not thrilled coz we are eons behind ..be it in animation,the so called “creative cinema” and the list could go on!….More than 80 % of the movies we get to see are nothin but a rehash of ideas “developed” by filmakers from these “developing nations” …..why do we lag behind….be it cinema,sports,or in production of nuclear power…..!!cos i feel there is a serious lack of originality in how we go about our duties!lets take aamir n jane tu ya jane na for instance…these mmovies were released at the same time….aamir had everythin to offer….good music,briliant plot which reflects the present milieu we live in and yet it was a sombre hit…where as jtyjn was nothing but an example of “old wine in a new bottle” sta.I do agree , it had all teh “freshness?”(donno wt that means anymore)one looks out for, with few good nos from rehman surely helping its cause!….. but why is aamir so far behind jtyjn when it comes to grossing at box office…now shall i question audience attitude here or what!Filmaker, after months of racking his head comes up with an original plot to find that he’s turned down……!!so he is bound to rebuke audience for not opening up to the movie.People are still ignorant about movies like aamir or mithya….if ppl want to watch “different cinema” why don’t they go and do it …why are they so fuckin partial to a certain sect of movies.Why is it so tough to create a common platform in the land of cinema(this is a sureal word for many aspiring directors ..if u r away from reality!)…..Say you came up with a product which runs on linux platform …now 3/4 th of the people (including me) arent even aware of a linux platform….so wt do u do then!…trash your product just because there are no takers!….no you would fight for its value and somewhre deep inside you feel that you were deprived.Is ignorance blissfull ?….shall i talk dirty bout your product w/0 knowing wt linux is all about….if u want to draw comparisons then there is no point buddy….just see what kind of movies cater ot the “general ” audience in otehr parts of the world!!…..
judgegag @ 5, I THINK YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG THERE. Film is a medium which, by nature, loses its meaning if not seen and understood by people. Also it must have a coherent storyline with unity of time and space. Thats why I believe that MF Hussain’s GAJA GAMINI kind of stuff is not cinema.
“I do not intend to be rude, but you sound more like an anguished and immature teenager when you call film-makers “glorified camera operators”. Your article does try to stand up for the audience, and I do agree that there are film-makers who make crappy stuff which doesn’t work and they blame the audience. But the way you undermine a film-makers talent reverses your credibility.”
very well said, Saurabh. That was my only issue with the article. I do not usually comment but I was forced to stand up for my beliefs after the insults. “Glorified camera operators” !!!!! Did you really mean it Vivek or did you deliberately want to create an outrage by posting such comments on a Cinema blog? What audacity yaar!
…and sanjeev, you just didn’t get the point i wanted to make. It IS important for people to see the film and understand it otherwise it won’t have any meaning. All i’m saying is that the filmmaker should not be bothered much about the masses, as long as some part of the audience understands it. To each his own. Some people did like No Smoking but almost no one had a favorable opinion on Aag.
RGV, therefore, does have a reason to worry.
I apologize for the communist comment Vivek i obviously didn’t know what I was saying there. It seems you are a true blue capitalist. Congratulations!!!
As far as your article is concerned, I still beg to differ on some points. Call me a commie, a teenager, a purist, a crackhead, an idealist or whatever, I will still state once again that audience reaction must not be the ONLY yardstick to measure an artistic achievement.
Sadly, so many people have made a living out of making extremely crappy but extremely popular movies for so long. I feel offended when when these people call themselves filmmakers and artists.
I respect my audience and its sensibilities but I refuse to let them dictate what I create. I have a responsibility to deliver good cinema to them, but but they cannot stake a claim on my life.
@judgegag, clearly you don’t read my post in it’s entirety. Here is an extract of the original post, ” Summing up there are a whole lot of Commerical, Documentary and Arthouse filmmakers, who acknowledge that they are who they are and their craft is what it is because, of the audience and the investors, but one does come across that occasional disdainful soul, who think that the world should be thankful for their existence.”
Now then-
My tirade is against that disdainful soul(s), who have the audacity to make statements like “the audience did not get it, etc” when it is a known fact that in that audience are intelligent folks who perhaps run that disdainful soul’s business, look after his/her health, design the software that he/she uses to make his/her crappy product, etc, etc.
If that disdainful soul can have the audacity to call all these intelligent humans, morons, then we the audience can certianly call that ego ridden, god complex, individual(s), nothing more than a “glorified cameraman/woman,” whose being or not, makes no difference to the world or humankind. Absolutely I would love to continue, as an audience, to have this audacity, yaar!!!
hope you got the parallel i made when i was quoting “linux” example!!!!….
well concuded…
Filmamkers who get the fact that they are in an industry to serve the audience, generally get it, filmmakers who think the audience is because of them, generally get out.
Naveen, I believe that cinema is a way of telling a story, an art. Now if you consider Aamir and Mithya better than JTYJN, then it is your lookout. Most of the people did not think so. Atleast I liked the old wine (JTYJN) much much more than the other 2 movies. My top 3 this year are MMJ, WTS & JTYJN. It is not that I did not like Aamir or Mithya, but somewhere in the movie I lost interest.
Also I agree with Vivek’s article ( except the comment that they should make movies with their own money ….yaar somebody, somewhere needs to “compromise” in this industry. lets give people a chance and try to find out the good things in their movies. )
kcp,thts true man…..the point i was tryin to make through “linux” paralell was there are still many genres w unexplored in the space of indian cinema….when people are exposed to a kind of cinema which they are not used to …they genrally rebuke w/o actually looking through the depths!when a filmmaker tries to make his point through a version of his own …audience generally don’t get it as most of them are generally rooted to a typical mindset of entertainment!…..say u and ur friend attend an exam …ur friend cheats during the exam and scores a top notch mark…where as u who prepared the whole year tryin to maintain integrity scores less…..!that is what the general trend in our industry ….ppl who take the easy route score where as one’s who work their ass of lose….am just try to explain u the source of a filmmaker’s angst!
i dont hate jtyjn ….but wt i hate is the fact aamir wasnt given a treatment it deserved (am sorry if i cudn get this point across in a fittin manner)!!!!
bas yaar khatam karo…….will the filmmakers and the audience pls make up? I thinks everybody has stated their own viewpoints clearly and its getting repetitive now. Let the filmmakers make good cinema and make good money, and let the audience have their money’s worth by appreciating good cinema. Lets keep the magic alive.
And Vivek, keep up the audacity, yaar!!! I’ll be watching you closely…..
friends,i just got into your site by accident.i am not a filmmaker,yes but i love movies/cinema/flicks in my own way.i am not even sure where i stand with regard to such profound debates being held over such non starter of films.now i know why bombay films remain so insular.do they know about films being made elsewhere in india or the world.anyway,i stumbled upon a a non bollywood fim called “the terrorist” about which i had heard great things.when i saw it i really thought it was the work of a glorified cameraman.would anyone agree!
I think Mr. Vivek Kumar’s samosa makes him cry, laugh, chocks him, makes him think…makes him ponder…makes him nostalgic…gives him goose bumps…makes him talk over it….makes him discuss it….and gives his opinion and debate over why it’s good bad or ugly…he talks about the experience of how and when the crisp/hot edge touched his lips…the first samosa he had…the words…. the excitement that run thru his mind when someone says A1 SAMOSA…WHEN HE thinks about the 100s who toiled to get it right…maybe failed maybe succeded…talks about the great chefs who over the century made them….the masters..The Master Samosa Makers….
I think of all this when I think CINEMA…not SAMOSA…if Mr.Vivek Kumar does that when he eats his samosa…good for him…..have fun with your Rs.6 samosa(New Guru Krupa rate for a single samosa)…..
Vivek Bhai, I agree with the heart of your post, however I don’t think it’s all that simplistic. Also, I can not agree with some of the references. And yes, I do know you were simply trying to make a point with the “glorified cameraman” comments. Oviously much much more goes into the making of a film, any film, big or small, in any language. And trust me, I speak from experience, being on both sides “the screen” so-to-speak.
That being said, I agree that taking the audience for granted is wrong. Audiences are your “consumers”, but then isn’t a film much more that just another “product”? Maybe that’s what Vasan was getting at with his bizarre “Samosa/Cinema” comment.
I can see how some film-makers could become frustrated when certain films, especially those films which may be low on logic but appeal to the masses, like say a “Singh Is Kinng” go on to become blockbusters, when they strongly feel that their films are “better” in terms of merit cinema fundamentals.
There are certain parameters, within the film-making fraternity, which are used measure how “good” a film is. Many film-makers, though not all, do understand and appreciate this.
Most audiences don’t care about these technical aspects, they’re not interested in debating the credentials of a film as much as they’re interested in being entertained by the film and getting their “money’s worth”. If “Singh Is Kinng” kept them entertained for 2.5 hrs, that’s paisa vasool for them and so for them, that’s a good film.
It all comes down to the purpose for which the film is produced, whether that’s for commercial or critical appreciation. At the end of the day, whatever the verdict on either front, it is what it is, and it will always be that way.
Appreciate the details on the samosa Vasan.
Although fried foods like Samosa, is bad for me, like a bad and boring film, so I will avoid that.
Unlike Tandoori chicken, which is grilled, hence good for me, like an interesting and good film, so I will have that.
@ Tony, agree with what you are saying and that is also what I was getting at. End of the day, whether we like it or not, a film, feature or a documentary, is a business plan or a grant seeking plan. You lay out the pros and cons, the target audience (yes TARGET, not ALL) and then you go for it, seeking funding and releasing it, in the hope it catches the audience fancy. Some do, many don’t. Like business, or life, somethings work, some don’t. If they don’t…tough…life is a school of hard knocks. Get on with it. A “filmmaker” becomes a “camera operator” when instead of saying “tough..let’s move on,” makes nitwit and dumb comments like “the audience did not get it” or the “audience are morons” “my investor did not spend enough” etc, etc. In effect conveniently shifting their LACK of ability as a FILMMAKER…aka…caputure the audience with your narration and style or at least attempt that….and their HEIGHTENED sense of ability as a CAMERA OPERATOR…aka…letting the camera just roll and expecting the “dumb” audience to NOT GET IT.
Also, yes, filmmaking is more than operating a camera. But the audience is also made up of people who lead just as challenging and a higher achieving sense of life, as the person telling the story. So when a “lesser” achieving being becomes God and tells it’s “subjects” how to behave, then to me, those are pretty “camera operating skills and nothing more.”
Summarizing, playing in the real world of life for India in hockey is way more challenging, as opposed to making a movie on it (and I loved Chak De), being Phoolan Devi, is way more challening than telling her story, living through the injuries of a Black Friday is way more challenging than telling a story about it (again loved the film), etc, etc. So when the people doing the lesser challenging thing, start making godly comments, to the very folks who let them play god in the first case, it is highly demeaning.
And finally, I see nothing wrong, if an audience member, experiencing the stress of living life and doing what it takes to go through it, finds that “relief and destress” in a SINGH IS KING, or a WELCOME or a KARAN or YASHRAJ film. To me it does not make them less intelligent, than some cocaine snorting, whisky drinking, self pitying “camera operator” who thinks they have the answers to all of the needs of humanity and those who don’t like the answers are a group of “lesser humans.”
…tell me wt happened to swades? ….asutosh gowarikar had no qualms with the audience reaction, he surely was jilted but he din express it …..great …thts how one has got to be …taking defeat in ones stride!….but if u remember the time then,a few articles floated around questioning audience’s attitude.With few personal experiences i can tell u that, people are hinged onto wierd notions when they watch a movie.Just because this certain actor is from their community or caste ,they tend to watch it.So whom should u question here? when i talk about argument from the opposite side, that is when i feel ur post has lost the balance…..i agree with the concern u had showered for the audience….but there where umpteen no of occasions when audience “din get it ” and a filmmaker rightly expressed his angst against audience in missin the same!.
Am quoting this example again and do bear me for the redundancy!Say you came up with a product which runs on linux platform …now 3/4 th of the people (including me) arent even aware of a linux platform….so wt do u do then!…trash your product just because there are no takers!….no you would fight for its value and somewhre deep inside you feel that you were deprived!this is wt happens to a director who makes movie on a platform which is still a rarity amongst his consumers!….And when rgv first made his movie in telugu, it was turned down coz ppl wernt used to that kind of cinema … later after ages “kshana kshanam” became a classic.So instead of trashin it , ppl cud have done much better(bear in mind tht am no rgv fan)..In thhe field of cinema no place is utopian…. A majority of people are conventional about one kind of cinema, but the ability to open up to a different kind of cinema is relatively higher in the west or far east …and that is where i feel we kinda lag behind.Finally , i hope that both audience and filmakers agree upon these adages that “art is objective” and “beauty always lies in the eye of the beholder”…if both move forward taking this into consideration…then lots of fires can be doused w/o hate!
@ vivek- above response is for you!should admit that ur style of abuse is pretty cool…!
its no abuse
its truth
.
forget artist being worshiped
those days are gone
if he thinks that he is god
he can fuck himself
west worship there artists
.
for them they are the most valuable human beings among them
and it is right
.
but india knows something more valuable , then the artist
the mystic
.
we can not worship an artist like he is worshiped in west
because we have something even more valuable then him
.
that’s why
in india
kalakar ho, theek hai
per sar pe chadoge, to joote padenge
kalidaas kuchh bhi hon
kabir se uper nahien hain
vishrant ji; thoda vishranti lo!!!!
samjha abstract shayari!