logo

38 Responses to “Khamosh : Once upon a time VVChopra had made this Thriller”

1. Ratnakar Sadasyula on October 15th, 2008 9:19 am

   Hey RK, thanks for writing this post on one of my fav movies. I would rate Khamosh as one of the best thrillers made in Bollywood. The way VVC, keeps up the tension and suspense till the end, is exemplary. And even the camera work. This was clearly a movie way ahead of its time, and stands heads and shoulders above the standard crap, of the 80’s. Great BGM too by R.D.Burman for this movie.

   “Camera captures the beauty of Kashmir and river creates an impact.
   Camera should not over rule or over shadow the vision of the director and vision is dependent on the script”

   Exactly, this was what VVC did later in Kareeb and 1942-A Love Story, when he let those wonderful shots of the mountains overshadow, the actual story.

   Though i feel 1942, is among one of his better movies.

2. Santosh Kumar T K on October 15th, 2008 9:32 am

   “though he was meant to work with the likes of Naseeruddin Shah and Pankaj Kapur”….

   “meant to”, RK?!?

3. Rk on October 15th, 2008 9:49 am

   @Ratnakar,
   His earlier three films are thrillers and though Parinda is given more focus but his earlier two films are better than Parinda in thriller genre.
   With Parinda he enters in to the territory of Man Mohan Desai and Prakash Mehra in the portion where he shows the childhood of Jacky, Anil, Madhuri, Nana and Anupam Kher. Those portions were seen by us in many of MMD and PM’s films. They were exact replicas.
   Then when film was taking a grip suddenly that song comes wehre Anupam Kher is going to meet Anil Kapur. Focus is deviated and so many such things.
   While in some scenes expriments of camera look appealing but in some scenes it looks like he had a competition with Pankaj Parashar who was becoming famous for different use of camera movements.
   1942-A love story was his first love story and Inspite of flaws in story and thus in films it gives more satisfaction than Parinda.
   Those General Dyre’s repetitive “Hang him” etc were quite repulsive.
   But film has its own merits.

4. Rk on October 15th, 2008 9:51 am

   @Santosh Kumar T K,
   you dont like, will change.
   if you dont mind, will address you with abbreviated form of your name SKTK, at present its very long (if we meet on some post)

5. Kunal Sen on October 15th, 2008 11:06 am

   @RK

   “Then when film was taking a grip suddenly that song comes wehre Anupam Kher is going to meet Anil Kapur. Focus is deviated and so many such things.”

   ‘Kitni Hai Pyaari Pyaari Dosti Hamaari’ is in fact one of the high points in Parinda IMO- a wonderful RD Burman song, with deft editing, touches like when Anupam says ‘Zindagi hum uski’…the car goes over a speed breaker and the scene manages to catch the rhythm of the song. I think in their love for Khamosh, we bound to underrate Parinda. Why? Well, because it is such a talked about film. Not that it was box office gold- but Parinda with its technical polish, brilliant performances, memorable characters (Anna, Munna, Paaro, Moosa, Francis, Ahmed, Prakash) and the par excellence screenplay (even though the core idea resembles ‘On the Waterfront’ to an extent) was quite possibly one of the best films of the worst decade in Hindi films- VVC’s conviction behind crafting each frame is almost child like and the cumulative effect is infectious. I’d give the film a strong 9/10- and as well as Jackie did in the film (performance of his lifetime), I wonder what’d have happened, had Naseer said yes to it….(he was also the initial choice for this role which was written with Amitabh in mind)

   Now, coming to ‘Khamosh’. I’d give it a high 8.5/10- I like it a lot. One of the few good whodunits which are also character driven as someone rightly pointed out. The plot isn’t groundbreakingly creative but is charming throughout. Beautiful camera work, good screenplay(which has the ideal combination of intelligence and accessibility), low key direction (VVC’s not shouting out his stamp just yet in this)- I guess, I didn’t find the background score all that memorable and that ‘Psycho’ homage through having it run on a TV was a bit silly as was the ‘Godfather’ novel Shabana reads- a bit naive. But overall, the film has such an outright friendliness to it that it’s hard to dislike its few flaws

   I have DVDs of both Khamosh and Parinda. I’ve also downloaded and seen Sazaa-E-Maut (which as you may be knowing is a loose remake of VVC’s very own National Award winning ‘Murder at Monkey Hill’)- for a low budget feature, it boasts of a great Naseer performance, a good plot and it’s first evident here that VVC has an eye for aesthetic visuals

   I wouldn’t call him a case of serious depreciation of qualities but a rather curious case of peaking too early and not doing much else later- a bit like Tarantino.

   VVC made Parinda at 33. So, at 33- he had 3 very good films behind him (the 3 I mentioned). Add to that his Oscar nomination for ‘An Encounter with faces’. The world was at his feet and then what did he do

   In the next 20 years- all he directed were these 4 films:-

   1) 1942 A Love Story- 6/10- He didn’t have much contribution in the songs- they were RD Burman’s, SLB’s and Farah Khan’s children- with the rest of the film, he mostly faltered- Jackie’s entry scene at the interval point still give me the goosebumps though. Yes, the General was too loud. Oft late, loud characters populated VVC films- look at Jackie in Mission Kashmir…..
   2) Kareeb- 5.5/10- I LOVE the first half. The second half rambles- the songs are very nice
   3) Mission Kashmir- 6/10- yes, I got the allegory with Hrithik and Kashmir but in retrospect, the film needed more than that
   4) Eklavya- 7.5/10- I for one really liked that- it is beautiful, layered and I like that it takes its own time- t hell with pacing conventions

   All below average to above average films- middling territory and 20 DAMN YEARS for them- such a waste of once burgeoning talent. He’s now 53 and that early sheen is lost. He seems too nervous and fussy now. But he DID make those excellent first 3 films- so NO DOUBT about his talent. None at all. And at least, he didn’t make a terrible film or join the rat race of inane comedies and stupid action films.

6. kaafir on October 15th, 2008 12:04 pm

   i saw Khamosh after I heard a lot of people praising it and its highly impressive starcast….didnt like it much though….cud probably guess Amol palekar was the culprit long before the movie revealed….abt the impressive starcast….these guys made it big much later than this movie..but wen i saw it they were huge names…so may be i had more expectations frm them

   ..dont know how anyone can like khamosh more than Parinda….
   I think the mind set with which we see a movie has a lot to do with our reaction after it….very honestly speaking i loved KAREEB, havnt found anyone liking it….to me the best movies which VVC made were Parinda, Kareen and Khamosh to some extent….to say khamosh is one of the best made hindi movie thrillers is to go a bit to far….it was a good movie but not tat gr8….
   Abt the 80s being a bad deacde for movies….this decade has given us some of the best made hindi movies….people may call them art cinema or parallel cinema….this decade has shown us the struggle a guy goes to make a picture…

7. Mitch on October 15th, 2008 1:28 pm

   “This was the time when Vinod Chopra’s camera person was using camera to create an atmosphere suitable for the viewing of audience and its movements were not used to distract the attention of audience to show some special command in cinematography as later his cameraman does in Parinda at some places.”

   RK could you elaborate on this further coz I find this statement a bit vague esp when the DP of both the films was Binod Pradhan and Parinda is considered one of the landmark films of Indian cinema.

8. rabindro on October 15th, 2008 10:56 pm

   Vidhu Vinod’s is a tragic case of a talented filmmaker losing his way. It is almost 20 years since he made Parinda. Something that was followed up by a succession of bad films (irrespective of their flop/hit status). His post-Parinda movies clearly show that he didn’t know anymore how to tell a good story. The script sense was gone. To be replaced by grandeur, beautiful shots, fancy starcasts etc etc.
   There is this fantastic Bombay book by Suketu Mehta called ‘Maximum City’ and Vidhu Vinod is one of the key players in it. It’s an extremely affectionate portrayal. He comes across as somebody warm-hearted and crazy in an artistic sort of way.
   But what is very much apparent there is his fatal flaw. He makes movies with the mindset of ‘will it sell?’. ‘What combination of stars will bring in the audience?’ ‘Who is the more saleable star now?’ So much so that the distributors are in the loop right from the beginning as to what kind of film he will be making for them and why they should invest in it.
   He doesn’t know it but the film is killed right at this point, before even the script is ready. If you start out thinking about selling even before you’ve created your work, it is bound to tank.
   What makes it worse is that he has both the ‘artistic germ’ in him courtesy FTII and also the ‘what-will-sell germ’. This is a lethal mix. If he only had the ‘what-will-sell germ’ (equated with success in Bollywood) things would have been vastly different for him.
   There is however one good thing that he has done after Parinda. His masterpiece, in a way. Raju Hirani. We should be thankful for that. It is great that he launched someone who had something he himself had lost long ago: the storyteller’s gift.

9. Ratnakar Sadasyula on October 15th, 2008 11:22 pm

   On top of that, his massive ego, also made things worse. He once said, he benchmarks only with Hollywood directors. And this was parodied in RGV’s Rangeela, where Gulshan Grover’s character Steven Kapoor, is a clear take off on VVC.

   “Hamara comparison, Hollywood se hote hai”.

   1942- A Love Story had some fabulous camerawork, and great songs. However cliched characterization and a muddled screenplay, ruined it.

   Kareeb was a yawn fest for me. It again had great camera work and music too. But the story and screenplay were totally mediocre.

10. Arthi V on October 16th, 2008 12:06 am

    Eklavya was such a godd film. Each scene was so defined, kind of described so well what the characters were going through then. The camera work and the pace - apt.

    It was after quite some time I saw a film where not only the actors but the story, the direction , the approach all were in sync.

    I really enjoyed it..

11. Santosh Kumar T K on October 16th, 2008 12:27 am

    Eklavya for me was a brilliant mix of fantasy (somewhere), realism, and drama. Barring a Jackie Shroff who now mumbles for a living (sorry!) the rest of the star cast was perfect.

    Nataraja Subramanian’s work which includes, apart from a rich visual treat, supposedly the longest dolly shot with ample help from Nitin Desai is simply marvellous. Such a fine blend of kinetics and visual imagery in terms of lighting! phantasmagoric!!!

    All apparent arrogance of VVC is justified when he doles out stuff like Eklavya.

12. Rk on October 16th, 2008 3:08 am

    @Kunal Sen,

    As you have touched many things so under the fear that I may forget what you have tried to mention, will address issues in parts.

    First Parinda in general.

    Parinda has a length of more than 2 hours and 25 minutes but emphasis is not on character development but on events so we have to take things as they are shown. I had seen it first in 1989 in the very first week of its release, perhaps on Saturday so next day of its release. There was nothing in the film which I could not get in first viewing and which I got in second viewing. Unlike other layered films where you get something in each viewing, Parinda is an example of a film where every viewing drops something from the film and its merits shrink with every viewing. Hardly a sign of a very good film.
    Other than camera use, no subtlety is there which one can miss in first watch. and Camera plays circus at some places which is quite distracting.

13. Rk on October 16th, 2008 3:21 am

    @Kunal,
    Coming to song Kitni pyari dosti—–
    Film starts with a great visual of sun set and an impressive sound of drums in the background and enters into a gangster genre. Good. But when its taking momentum in that area enters Anil Kapur. JS tries to keep him away from criminal world. While Anna’s men are following them. Great things and great use of camera by showing car following them in back mirror. Jacky takes AK inside the house and closes the door behind them. Director is taking a great care of these small things. we feel good.
    Though performance wise film starts becoming weak in these moments but still a tension is there in the atmosphere because we know Flute player criminal Suresh Oberoi and his criminal partners are waiting outside on road.
    AK comes on road and that tension is disappeared because of the song. Not fault of audience but director is to be blamed.
    Then it does not matter that how song has been picturised or Jeep or car takes a jump because of speed breakers and top of this they (AK and AK) are singing the song its not played in the background. VVC is following traditional commercial filmmaking rules here so his film has to be judged on that basis only. Song is like sand comes between the teeth or like that speed breaker. Inspector AK is busy in raiding the places of Anna and in between these hectic operations he takes out time to sing this song. Perhaps it was thought that it will work as a relief valve but tension is hardly that intense that a song is needed here.
    Clever filmmaking will rule out this song, no matter how good its composed or picturised, as its affecting the tone of the film and that too in the very first 30 minutes of the film. VVC leaves his own treatment which he had opted while making Khamosh and Saja-e-Maut. Acceptable, a director has to evolve but not in downside.
    Tumse Milke song is played in parts and this technique was needed here in this place also. One two lines of a song which they used to sing or hear in childhood could be played in the background to show they are becoming nostalgic but Parinda has blending of many usual masalas.
    –

14. Rk on October 16th, 2008 3:42 am

    @Kunal,

    Film certainly could have been better with inclusion of actors like Naseer and Amitabh. Better actors do make a difference as they can bring their own input also even if director is not exclusively interested in extracting something extraordinary but their understanding of characters is always better than actors having average skills.
    —
    Regarding VVC’s filmmaking journey or early acheivements we can not forget that VVC is a filmmaker who is trained in a proper way at FTII and who had seen thousands of world class films during his training days only and he was given understanding of those films by able teachers.

    So if did good in his initial years but could not do in later years then it has something to do with his personal skills. Technically he is as sound and even more.
    A director’s vision is a combination of technical and emotional imagination and his technical side is better than emotional side and that detachment is obvious in his films and many important scenes in his films which look outstanding from technical point of view dont establish a connection with audience. Students learning technical side of filmmaking may find those scenes appealing and educative but they have less connection with audience.
    Obviously his mind works more in technical side.

    He has always not only said but truly believed that he has been the best in India among other filmmakers.

    He may be in the league of top directors who have better technical skills but not over all as his films dont support his self given statements.

    His grip on story and screen play can hardly comed under the category of best.

    Now he says that Kareeb was supposed to be debut film of Sanjay Leela Bhansali, who was his assistent for some years but SLB left his camp and started making Khamoshi so he made Kareeb and lost the interest mid way only.

    Losing interest in a subject is fine but casting is an important factor.
    Such a nascent love story can not have a star Bobby Deol.
    It was a perfect launching love story for Abhay Deol.
    Character needed an actor who could look belonging to that set up and who could look struggling to get what he wanted. It was not larger than life role which VVC and Bobby Deol made.

    Its not mistake of audience.

    Imtiaj Ali still could make a better film on same story though screen play should be changed atleast in the portion where hero goes to another city where heroine is staying near the hospital.

15. Rk on October 16th, 2008 3:47 am

    @Kafir,
    Khamosh progresses within its boundaries and thus an audience may accept it as such while Parinda is a blending product and where technical sides are give more emphasis than other factors hence audience may feel alienated at times.

    VVC has yet to make a completely great film. His films may have greatness in portions. He is talented and experienced filmmaker so may be some day we get what really can be called a great piece of cinema. Had curiosity about his Move 5 but that seems to be a never ending story only.

16. Rk on October 16th, 2008 3:59 am

    @Mitch,
    I mentioned ” …..as later his cameraman does in Parinda at some places“.
    Pay full attention to “some places”
    Because you have asked so will give one such reference with respect to Parinda.
    ———————-
    “Anupam Kher’s dead body is lying in a room and an Inspector is telling Madhuri about murder of AK and he accuses Anil Kapur that he knowingly took Anupam Kher to kabootar khana so that Anna’s hitmen could kill Anupam Kher and Anil’s elder brother jacky also works for Anna”.

    While telling this Anil Kapur’s shadow is seen through light coming through the open door.

    This is a crucial and emotionally conflicting time for Madhuri’s character and to some extent for Anil Kapur’s characters also but where Camera of Mr Pradhan is wandering?
    Its fixed at height and showing the topography of the room and we see all three characters standing around the dead body of anupam Kher.
    No room for emotions of a character whose brother has just been killed and his dead body is lying there. a charcter’s best friend’s dead body is lying there and he has been accused as accomplice and whose elder brother is accused as one of the murderers.
    Technical emphasis over much needed emotions. Have no idea cameraman did it himself or Director instructed him to follow this trapeze kind of action.
    —–
    I think its quite elaborative response.
    I have no clue why you think Parinda is a landmark film.
    Or you mean to say that people call it landmark film of Indian cinema.

    Its a good film but Landmark?
    I have no idea if it changed anything in Indian cinema and people followed it so much that it could be treated as landmark.
    Landmark in which sense?
    Performances? story, screenplay? extraordinary direction? or cinematography? Such cinematography was seen many times in many films belonging to parallel cinema but there it was used to solve some purpose.
    May be you could write a post to point out why it is a landmark film.

17. Rk on October 16th, 2008 4:11 am

    @Rabindro,
    Have heard about that Suketu Mehta book but have not got a chance to get it. But VVC is found against that book so we can not give much weightage to such book to have an authentic impression about the man and it can be case of two old friends or known people whose relation soured somehow and one included his old pal in his book and made it a colourful character.
    His brother in law is a novelit but its strange that story part remains weak in his films especially.
    Almost whole world (World of Hindi cinema lovers) know very well that he knows how to make a film and his talent is accepted but still his efforts are obvious in every film that he can beat anyone.
    Have no idea but due to his technical compatibility perhaps his films are tought in Indian film schools as students studying technical areas can learn a lot from his films and wise learners surely can learn how and where to use those rich techniques.
    Or if he makes a team with a great cinematic writer then future can be great for his films.

    His passion of filmmaking is recognised by many. His technical competency is unquestionable but something is missing and he should be the best person to know it.

18. Rk on October 16th, 2008 5:41 am

    @Ratnakar(9),
    I did not know that Gulshan Grover’s Steven Kapur was RGV’s take on VVC.
    RGV has done it in Naach also where Manoj Pahwa was modeled on a famous director of yester years and a dance director was shown from the backside and she was resembling with a dance director cum director of this era. Even attempts were done to make her voice resembling with the woman director. Then RGV was God, producing films in Factory and making careers of newcomers:)
    I have got to know that he is trying to change his image completely through his blog. Make over mission.
    So many blogs are around. How readers are coping? It should affect publishing business.

19. Rk on October 16th, 2008 5:43 am

    @Arthi V(10),

    You actually did not find any weakness in Eklavya?

20. ANINDYA on October 16th, 2008 10:16 am

    Vinod Chopra may have lost his brilliance in direction but as far as producing film with good stories is concerned he is still on the right path and that too with the right people.I am not sure whether Yash chopra or any other production house would have agreed to finance Munnabhai Mbbs.Same goes with Parineeta.

21. Mitch on October 16th, 2008 1:27 pm

    RK
    LMAO. I haven’t laughed this much all week. That particular scene which you think is bad cinematography is actually a primer of visual filmmaking and how to let the visuals tell the story. Parinda is a textbook study of mise-en-scene, decopauge and montage.

    Let’s analyse the scene you mention.

    It’s a top angle shot which emphasises the vunerability and emotional isolation of the characters. The lighting is beautiful Chiaroscuro with two sources of light ie the overhanging bulb and the daylight from the door providing motivated light. The mix of color temperatures make it realistic and the fact that Binod was doing it 20 years ago before it became a hip technique is awe inspiring.

    To have the master shot in which one doesn’t see the the characters speak the dialogs but we understand their emotional state due to body language is a triumph for staging actors. After the master shot we go into classical shot reverse shot which is pretty standard for coverage.

    You use the word trapeze and by that can I assume you would like the camera to constantly remain at eye level without any expressionist touches ? That style of filmmaking hasn’t thankfully been seen in Hindi cinema since the days of Hum Log. The framing and movement in Parinda is always motivated by the characters emotional state.

    In addition to the scene you mention, Parinda also contains till date the best shot lovemaking scene in the history of Indian cinema. The top angle shot which you object to is a recurring motif in the film and in the climax makes for a incedibly powerful shot when Anna is on the swing and being engulfed with flames.

    I call the film landmark coz it’s along with Satya and Hathyar the best made gangster films. It’s also been a source of inspiration to some of the top film directors in the country like RGV,Raju Hirani, and Rakesh Mehra. 3 directors with totally contrasting styles but all of them recognize the genius present in the film. It’s also widely considered to be Renu Saluja’s finest work and to contain the career best performances of Nana Patekar and Jackie Shroff.

    As a final word pay full attention to the scene if you care to watch it again, this time with the sound turned off. You will still be able to get the context and subtext of the scene without the help of music or dialogs. That’s what great cinematography and visual filmmaking is about.

    I’m curious if you have seen “Children of Men” and what’s your take on it.
    Also in the climax of “Ab tak Chappan” when Nana delivers his soliloquy with his back to the camera would you consider that to be bad cinematography and direction as well ?

22. Jaiganesh on October 16th, 2008 3:27 pm

    this movie was remade in telugu with Dr.Rajasekhar doing the role of Naseer. I (as usual) dont remember the name of the film - can anyone shed light on that movie too pls.

23. Ratnakar Sadasyula on October 16th, 2008 7:41 pm

    @ Jaiganesh: The Telugu movie was Aarthanadham, starring Dr.Rajshekar and Seetha. Telugu actor Chandramohan, played Amol Palekar’s role. The Telugu version was directed by M.V.Raghu, one of the best camera men, in movies, who had worked with directors like K.Viswanath and Vamsi, but the movie was pretty much okayish. It was stuffed with all the standard masala.

24. Rk on October 17th, 2008 3:10 am

    @Anindya,
    Yes as a producer he gave chance to Raju Hirani and Pradeep Sarkar to direct their debut films.
    But it also can not be said that he has lost his brilliance in direction because his craze for technical comptency is rather increased from Parinda onwards. This surely can be said that technical sides of his films have become too heavy on rest of the filmmaking. When films come out before audience then they dont remain only technically competent products and a soul is also needed in the content of the film.
    Audeince may remain in awe when see a sweat drop falls from the forehead of Amitabh Bachchan and falls on railway track and evaprorate or disappear and camera captures it beautifully but are such things adding anything to the film’s content? or they look additional patches on an otherwise ordinary going content?
    and then it seems that he keeps a aloofness from emotions of his his characters.
    and things are so complex that on other hand films coming out of his production house where he is credited as one of the script writers also maintain overflow of emotions.
    LRM is not based in Malgudi days or Sajjanpur like small village or place but in Bombay like metro city but every time same police officer is appearing on scene and he is the one who is listening the MunnaBhai’s radio programmes and wiping his tears. and he is not a character taking ahead the story and is just filling the space. But he is shown atleast twice following same behaviour. Its done to increase the EQ of the film.
    Perhaps VVC will not do this when he directs his own film but his produced film keeps this.

    Somewhere a balance of technical and rest of the factors associated to present a film is must and this balance is disturbed in his films.

    to incorporate those kind of technical excellence perhaps he needs different stories and different films.

    that sweat drop scene will work so excellently in a mythological film where Hanuman is swiming and his sweat drop makes a fish pregnant.

    He needs to search characters what Jude Law had played in AI. Because there his technical completency will be needed too much and audience will not have to demand for human emotions as character is not human.

    All those big names of Hollywood which he takes had suitable stories to present and technical competency was helping in carrying the soul of the films and it was not coming up on surface as a different entity.
    —
    I guess Rajkumar Hirani is not making his next film for VVC’s production house.
    —
    We dont know if Raju Hirani had approached Yash Raj films also. Because Yash Chopra has produced small budget films in the past also. Noorie he had produced for veteran actor Manmohan Krishna who had been working with him since his first film Dhool ka phool and he produced Nakhuda for his long time assistent Dilip Naik.
    Before that he had produced a film Doosra Admi for Ramesh Talwar also. and after silsila he again produced a fiklm Sawal for Ramesh Talwar.

25. Rk on October 17th, 2008 3:35 am

    @Mitch,
    Scenario: a scene in Parinda.

    Take 1
    ———
    Mitch Sir, your approach
    ———————————————————-
    Mitch on October 16th, 2008 1:27 pm
    RK, LMAO. I haven’t laughed this much all week. That particular scene which you think is bad cinematography is actually a primer of visual filmmaking and how to let the visuals tell the story. Parinda is a textbook study of mise-en-scene, decopauge and montage.
    ———————————————————–
    Sir, your laugh and then mentioning it can be a product of some special state of mind which a person can pass through at a given time or it may be because of a personal habit.
    Though not a decent manner to participate in a discussion but lets leave it.

    ————————————————————
    But another thing is: is this understanding coming from a mind which is consistent in understanding the cinema?

    Yesterday I got a chance to read a comment, for which I have not found any adjective and its very special because its coming from a person who is actively involved in filmmaking field and is going to make or participate in making a film in future.
    Its registered on the one line review post on Lost in translation.
    ———————————————————–
    1. Mitch on October 8th, 2008 9:49
    I agree with Dewi. If you can get bored in Tokyo then you prob shouldn’t leave Baltimore in the first place.
    ————————————————————
    So a learner of cinematography can object on the prerogative of a filmmaker to select situations in the subject?
    This objection on the situational content can lead to anywhere.
    How the hell a person can fall ill in most developed nation and most rich nation of the world? He has every possible facility around him.
    How the hell people can fall into the depression in the world famous cities where there is a lot to see and live in day time and where night life is just so interesting?
    ———————————————————–
    A great logic to watch the film!
    ————————————————————

    Now you are trying to prove your points about Parinda and in the end you are asking me what is my take on “Children of Men” or what I think about Ab Tak Chhappan’s climax?

    You are bringing these films in and you have to describe them to say something in the favour of your points.
    If I have to quote any film I will quote the scene and will describe and I will not ask you your take on that?
    I am not following any argument with you. If you are deliberately having an argument then Its a useless exercise.

    Discusssion can be taken place. For arguments you have to search people around you in real life.

    So where this “take1″ take us?

    We covered a topic but proper issue is not analysed and infact not given proper attention.

    This is like the scene we have been considering. It does not serve any purpose. Great technque but soulless method.
    ————————————————————
    You are using the word “bad cinematography” I have not used it. I have tried to mention that at some places cinematography in Parinda distracts audience and this circus by camera was not necessarily required to convey the content.
    ———————————————————–
    Rest in Take 2

26. Rk on October 17th, 2008 4:13 am

    @Mitch,
    You say “Parinda is a textbook study of mise-en-scene, decopauge and montage”.
    Very true. I have mentioned in one of the comments that learners of technical fields can learn a lot from its watching.
    Its very simple saying that sword always can not work inplace of a needle.
    Great technique is not always needed to present a scene.
    This is really a wishful thinking that someone watch the scene with sound off and he will be able to understand what director is trying to convey. You have invented this theory so please try with a person who has no idea about Parinda and let him watch the film without sound and what he understands but you will say make sound off only in this particular scene, then please try this also. As soon as scene takes audience into that room, make it mute.

    Overdose of everything can make a problem and too much use of a technique can decrease the effect of the film or a scene.

    Satyajit Ray etc were not mad when they kept a right balance between technical aspects and human emotions in their films.

    To make whole thing interesting: VVC and Binod Pradhan present a scene in 1942 - A Love story with adequate and suitable use of camerawork and technique.

    ” Manisha Koirala and AK have fallen in love and though Anupam Kher has yet to object on her personal love towards AK when everybody is involved in freedom struggle but scene indicates about the immediate future.
    She is on one side of a road and Anil Kapur is shown riding a horse on on other side, song is played on Turu na turu na turu na,
    a crowd of freedom fighters is making a march and these people pass through the road and fill the space between MK and AK. All shown from a height and all of a sudden camera goes to the face of MK who has to pass through the mental conflict to decide between personal love and freedom struggle in near future.
    a great technique is used and emotions are also conveyed. a good job is done. Nothing has been said and only visuals have done the job.

    Nobody has objected on using the technical approach in Parinda in that particular scene. Everything is great. Light, shadow of AK and then camera shows from the top. Everything is great but its not written any where when a director is using mise-en-scene approach then camera can not go for few seconds at right time on the faces of the characters also. To show face is also a visual method and it does not reduce the technicality of the scene.
    Your thinking could have been fine if characters AK and MD were not going to follow a loving relationship after this event.
    Its beyond comprehension that how a so called great film can miss the chance to capture the emotions, even for few seconds of the main characters, at right time.
    I can guess about your approach because you are watching it from the side of cinematographical excellence.
    Different directors (having same technical competence as VVC has) may have different approach towards this scene.

    This issue can be discussed in more detailed manner by bringing other films in, and you have touched few of them.
    —–
    I fully agree about love making scene of Parinda. Beautiful in every aspect and when camera is needed to cover the faces of AK and MD it goes for close ups and does not remain only at a height.
    ——
    When you try to make everything look great in Parinda then micro analysis is needed.
    You really have to consider the scene where Anna is firing at AK and MD. You have to consider was it also one of the best shots in every manner. As soon as bullets pierce the white quilt and enter the bodies of AK and MD.
    If you have fired bullets and that too on a jacket or quilt like thing, you would know the point.
    Cinematic liberties are taken all the times. and we accept on screen presentations because we know the limitations.

    Renu Saluja before Parinda also had done very good work in Ardha Satya and New Delhi Times and after Parinda also she did Bandit Queen etc. Her editing is always top notch and there can be 3-4 films which can be included in her finest works and it can not only be Parinda at top.

    When you say Parinda contains career best performances of Nana Patekar and Jacky then its not justified in case of a powerful actor like Nana. It can be one of the best films and he has given many times such powerful performance.
    Apharan being the one in recent years where he is not playing a marathi character like Parinda but a Bihari mafia cum politician hence his job was relatively tough here.
    Actors can not be judged on the basis of one film only.
    Parinda is one if the good works by Jacky also. Its not his only best work.

    Hum Log has different use and you can not ridicule Hum Log simply because you have to prove something. Audience of Hum Log were watching Karamchand also where director was using dynamical motions of camera.

    Its not necessary that text book materials bring joy also for all and its the best possible way to convey something. Its about proper use of a technique.
    we all are not studying cinematography only and specially. Films are coherent products and seen as such. If only camera work has to be praised, or audio or any single apsect is coming out as single impressive thing then nobody call these films as great pieces of cinema.
    Parinda has its importance but at times its classic example of overdose of technique also.
    and if we like we can search meaning in anythiung and you may come up in support of high speed or swirling camera work in the song Sehra bandhega where Jacky starts dancing after talking to Anil Kapur about his marriage. You can say that because Jacky is so happy thats why camera is moved so fast.
    Its not possible that everything can be great in a film. The dreamy dialogues given to Jacky ahen he says to Anil K, gaanv mein ek chhota sa ghar ho, Ak’s bachche mujhe chacha chacha (actaully Tau, as he is elder brother) bulayenge.
    He could have fulfilled this wish any time. what was the need to be a gang member of Anna.
    Characterization part is not in synchronization but perhaps these are not interesting areas for you being a student of cinematography.

27. Mitch on October 17th, 2008 10:10 am

    RK

    I don’t see the logic of bringing up comment I had written for another movie in a wholly diff context with regards to a discussion about whether Parinda is a good film or not. I don’t like Lost in Translation because I feel it has a condescending attitude towards Japanese and their culture. Are you questioning my criteria for judging a film ? I’d be more than happy to tell you if you are interested but kindly don’t qoute me out of context. That’s a very Republican thing to do.

    You reiterate that VVC should have shown a close up in that scene where in fact he does immediately after the master shot so I’m not getting what your objection to the scene is. The part about watching a film without the use of dialogs isn’t my pet theory but in fact some of the greatest directors in the world edit their films with the sound turned off to see if the story is being told visually.

    I’m not a fan of 1942 and have no wish to discuss each and every film of VVC so if we can contain this discussion to Parinda I’d appreciate it. As a student of cinematography who has also previously worked as an AD and directed films I am probably more aware than a lay person that great cinematography won;t make up for a bad film. Parinda in my book is a triumph of both form and content. It was a tremendous flop at the time of it’s release but now it’s considered a cult film. Surely that’s not possible for a film which you maintain doesn’t emotionally involve the audience. If it’s just you that’s not emotionally invovled then it’s a matter of personal pref and taste and you are entitled to it but your logic right now as to why Parinda is not a good film is akin to me going to a thumri recital and saying “I don’t like this coz it’s too refined and has way too much craft involved for my taste.”If you wish we can discuss Parinda scene by scene and shot by shot with both of us giving our view points.
    PS - I didn’t understand the bullet and quilt ref. I’ve never even held a real gun in my life let alone fired it on a quilt. I’d hoped I’d never have to but if you insist I will take my quilt to the firing range and have someoene shoot it.

28. Mainak on October 17th, 2008 1:38 pm

    RKji

    I have a very interesting story about Khamosh. When I was 12 years old we went to Kashmir for vacation. We stayed at Pahalgam Hotel for 11 days. 2nd day we were watching Khamosh & we realized it was completely shot in Pahalgam. Then we realized it was shot in that very hotel. In fact the crew stays in the same hotel in the film. They played that film every day on the Hotel Network. I always remembered it as a great film. Only last year did I find out that it was VVC’s film.

29. Rk on October 21st, 2008 2:48 am

    @Mitch (27),
    I have already exlained in (25) why I included your comment on LIT.
    You started something and I simply showed you that these are futle attempts while there is always enough scope for a constructive discussion around cinema.
    You have been associated with cine making process so it looks more odd when such a person makes a statement which you made on LIT. You may like or simply hate a film for any reason but nobody can make that kind of statement regarding a book, film especially when situation is related with 1 or 2 characters.
    Boredom is specially related with a personal state of mind of a person and what you are saying will look a crime if somebody comes and say how can Prince Sidhartha and Prince Vardhman felt odd and boredom when they had all the facilities and luxuries available in the world.

30. Rk on October 21st, 2008 2:54 am

    @Mitch,
    Anyway, Coming back to Parinda and VVC. I have been watching all VVC’s films and I have watched them in same order as they were made and released and I have not watched them later when some of them became famous or cult film/s for some people.

    This is quite funny that you can bring in Ab Tak Chappan and Children of Men while putting up your points regarding Parinda but You object if I give example of 1942-A Love Story which is again a film presented by the pair of VVC and Binod Pradhan and reflects their progress :).

    You are using these words ” Parinda is not a good film” Yourself and I have not used them. I have mentionmed earlier also that I am not interested in argument.

    When you compare Watching parinda with a Thumri recital and wish to say that Parinda is too classy and thus difficult to be deciphered by ordinary souls then you think you are sitting on a high pedestal as far as understanding the Parinda is concerned.
    Parinda is a good case study. It has many good things but at many places technique has over shadowed the content and this is the point and these things can be discussed. If as a student of cinematography or filmmaking as general you feel that everything is just perfect in Parinda then its fine, you may live happily with that impression.

    For me discussing Parinda is like discussing any film inside a classroom of a film school and this is different PFC plays an open school and comments and views are seen and read by anyone whoever is visiting the place.

    When a film can be discussed for merits and demerits inside classrooms of film schools then why and how its a crime for PFC like forum in your eyes?

    “Sound off” technique, while editing a film, can be adopted by some great directors and some great directors may find it a less effective or even unnecessary activity and you conveniently forget here twoe basic factors.
    (1)Director has captured that scene and he knows the exact meaning behind it and
    (2)scene will go with sound and dialogues before an audience and will make an impact on him in a collective manner.

    There are always scope for improvement and nobody can be sure that if today VVC himself wants to take a similar or that particulat shot then he will repeat the same technique and its more than possible that he will improve his previous take on the scene.

    Student’s learning, understanding and victory live with the possibility if s/he can search a room for even slight modification in the scene recorded in the past for any scene in any film.

    and if we leave common audience for a moment, there can be and will be different approach towards this scene if its watched by students of writing, cinematography and direction sectors of filmmaking.

    Parinda presents a very good opportunity before learners, as at some places its great, at some places its good and at some places its bad too.

    Learners have to discuss these things. Film is neither defied nor defiled because of this discussion.

    Today screenplay writers will not find its screen play as ideal.

    Learners can not go on adoring everything in a film because that will make a full stop on their learning ability and desire.

    Thats a noble idea of yours that you can discuss Parinda scene by Scene.

    I am not sure if I can mention it because you have mentioned it sometimes that you dont write reviews, but if in any manner you can write all those good things then it will be a good thing for many to read and participate.

    If even few of us are ready to have a constructive discussion around Parinda then it surely presents a great study case.

    Different people targeting different aspects of Parinda may make this study interesting and fruitful.

    Scenes can be discussed, film can be discussed but arguments can not be done over whether film is good or bad.

    There is a room for discussion irrespective of its good or bad status.

    No I am not insisting on anything leave alone bullet and quilt. Hopefully this issue will be covered when we discuss Parinda separately.

    There are some inconsitencies involved in the film and they can be discussed and it does not harm Parinda.

    We can discuss certain things about Parinda. 19 years after Parinda and we have impression that its just a perfect film!!!!

    Even VVC has left it behind. Filmmaking and presenting process of VVC in Parinda and Eklavya bring interesting scenario.

31. Rk on October 21st, 2008 2:59 am

    @Mainak (28),
    Mainak@PFC?
    Sir, ek din aur thahar jate to 12 saal kee umra mein 12 din ka pravas ho jata pahalgam mein:).
    Missed just by one single day.
    Did you find out whose room you were given? I mean if you can identify in the film? You stayed in the Amol Palekar’s room or Soni Rajdan’s room?
    It should have been a thrilling experience for you at that age to realise that actually this is the same place , actually hotel is also same as seen in the film and certainly joy will be doubled if you occupied the room occupied by your favourite character/actor in the film.
    Interesting memories!

32. Mitch on October 21st, 2008 12:41 pm

    RK
    With regards to LIT my contention remains that it takes a very superficial look at Japanese culture and uses the most commonly known cliches to create the stranger in a strange land syndrome. I watched the film for a second time with my then Japanese gf and she absolutely hated the movie. The same way I hated films like Gunga Din and Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom which reduces the Indian characters to caricatures. It’s endemic of the American trailer trash attitude who will seek to find America wherever they go in the world. The characters in LIT are the same people who will visit Paris or Venice and eat McDonalds there instead of trying the local cuisine. Lotsa Indians are guilty of this as well and they have an equal share of my contempt.

33. Mitch on October 21st, 2008 12:58 pm

    Coming to Parinda you may or may not be aware that a Hollywood remake is in the works to be directed by VVC himself. It’s a certainity that the script and shooting style will be more contemporary given the fact that it’s been 20 years since the original was made. Does that make the original faulty ? No of course not. It is what it is for the time period it was shot in and is one of the few films of that genre which have aged well.
    The reason I reacted to your comment was that you commented upon the aesthetics of cinematography and said it was bad in places and i was curious why you would feel so. In all your responses thus far I haven’t been able to garner any valid points to support your claim apart from the fact that you prefer a more dialog oriented filmmaking style rather than a visual one. That’s a personal pref and does’nt make the cinematography of Parinda patchy as you claim. You also stated that because i have actually made films before that makes me feel I’m in a better position to understand the nuances of filmmaking. You are absolutely correct and let me give you a personal example. I work on a lot of films and also see a lot films but I learn more about what is good vs bad filmmaking by being on set for one day rather than watching and analysing a dozen movies. I learn more by writing a single page of a script than reading the best scripts in the world. It’s the diff between an armchair general and a soldier in the trenches my friend. So all I ask of you is that you not be so cavalier and dismissive of what we do before understanding why we do it.

34. Rk on October 22nd, 2008 4:14 am

    @Mitch(32,33),

    Re: 32 I will maintain that under no circumstances a person, leave alone a filmmaker or would be filmmker will make that statement with respect to LIT. You may find it racial or a c grade film as that is different matter.

    This is quite Funny when you bring food analogy in. This is a general tendency among humanbeings and especially while they are travelling in a different place that they search known food initially because they are familiar with it, with its impact on their body and they know their bodies are used to of this kind of food.

    This is though interesting area but its unnecessary also because it can be stretched to any human habit. Why an European or American should search their kind of facilities to live when they visit asian countries? They should try to live like local people and should start a day in morning as they do?
    No why to remain limited to cuisine only?
    It can go to learning first the different language also before entering a different nation.
    A completely vegetarian should start eating meat in a different country because its local cuisine?
    anyway, this is not my concern what you think in real life about such issues and where freedom of an individual exists for you.
    ————————————————————

    Re:33,
    You write “(So all I ask of you is that you not be so cavalier and dismissive of what we do before understanding why we do it.),

    Who are the people included in this “We”? You mean you are representing whole of the cinematographer’s community?

    I dont get this nature of yours and I now believe that this is your personal nature to try to include words on your own and I have been repeating in every comment that “cinematography is bad” are your own words and no where I have mentioned this.

    I specifically mentioned in the post and in the comments, which I made later, that I am talking about few scenes of parinda.

    VVC is making Parinda for a hollywood production, I am aware of this news and I sincerly hope that he will maintain more consistent approach this time.

    Because you have clearly sidelined the issue to cover Parinda as a study case so whenever I get time I will write few issues associated with Parinda.

    You are very right that practical teaches a person more than theory. But even an ordinary mind will understand it that understanding films, and making films are two different areas.

    and I dont understand that why you are confused between two things.

    VVC and his cameraman did their best (or perhaps it was not best in their eyes also). they tried something in 1988-89. Now can it be discussed if it is the best way to handle that scene?

    They thought to handle the scene in a way which can be innovative (perhaps not because many gangster films follow this approach)

    You must be in touch with directors also. Every director would like to handle the scene in similar way? or there can be bit different approaches?

    With your thinking pattern I am bit surprised and though its not necessary but if you may then please quote atleast 5 weaknesses in Parinda which you have found in repetitive watching or five scenes where you think as a cinema person living in 2008, 19 years after Parinda’s making and releasing, that these scenes needed improvement or as an audience you did not like these particular scenes or approach?

    and why you forget to make a differenbce between Cinematography work done while shooting the film and its impact on the audience when scene comes as the part of full film and now its associated with a continously evolving pattern of a screen play shown visually.

    And why you think that being a cinematographer what you think about a particular scene in a film is the last possible thought to handle the situation?

    A slight variation in the approach can make this scene a powerful scene for all kinds of audience and then it does not remain limited as an attractive scene for students of cinematography only.

    You will be knowing better than many people that film is not merely a show of camera work else every photographer (and that too good one), would have made a wonderful film.

    You are not a fan of VVC and you dont wish to consider his other films but you treat Parinda as just superb case which has no weakness and therefore its an unquestionable case?

    I am very well ready to understand why a cinematographer is doing something but sorry to say your explanation of that particular scene, which you gave in comment (21) is not completely true to the nature of the shot. Scene deserves more explanation.

    Technically an impressive shot was taken but did it fulfil the nature of the film also at that particular moment? This is a questionable thing.

    In scenince: Some years ago some people, who had learnt animation features of power point before others, used to include them even while presenting their R&D results and some people used to take those presentations as wonderful presentations because technique was involved in the presentattion.
    But could those animated ppt presentations cover up the weaknesses in their R&D results? Yes for some people only who were in management and who were not directly related with research work. For scientists, what mattered was solid R&D results and these ppt presentations were not able to cover up the weaknesses in their results.

    End product is something different thing. You are learning or have already learnt great things of cinematography but you can not be sure that with all your technical knowledge you always can carry emotional or philosophical meaning of a scene also. Sometimes you can imagine and sometimes your imagination can be with some weakness and there comes a scope for improvement.It has less to do with your real experience with filmmaking.

    You are very right that real writing efforts teach more than reading lots of scripts. But it has other side also. Not all can be writers. Anybody can develop a good skill to understand the scripts but perhaps personally he can not write a good script.

    and it has been seen that writers who had written a good book could not give a good script also based on same book.

    You are a man related with cinematography but dont we find you commenting on other fields associated with films also?

    we find. so where it leaves you?

    If I have made a film, then you will think that I am making a sense while discussing that scene or any scene?

    Your approach defies all those people working in any field of any subject in whole of the world who are not taking classroom based training.

    Your approach will trap you because tomorrow if I find you commenting on working of politicians or commenting on a book or any other thing where you are not associated directly then I can question your approach and interference.

    Just for the sake of argument dont try to tread on something where your own actions become questionable.

    Just other day you had an opinion that only two cinematographers (Murthy for Guru Dutt and Balakrishna for V Shantaram) have used camera fantastically.

    so there is actually a progress because today you have Binod Pradhan’s work where you are defensing everything he has done in Parinda.

    Life is full of possibilities.

    But your approach leaves a big question.

    You are dealing with real filmmaking but you dont write on PFC Main page. Perhaps its below your standard to discuss things at main page and when people are discusssing films then you have problems.

    Discussion can motivate many people to watch Parinda again and which is a good thing and thats the purpose of PFC : i.e. to discusss the cinema.

    Views and impression can be right or wrong and they can be improved with better understanding.

    After reading your views in (33) I am certain that you have not fully understood the issue and your focus remains on technical excellence of the scene only.

    So lets leave this here. You are not going to write what you find in Parinda because you are sitting on an opinion that you know why it was done and matter should be finished with that association.

    when Parinda is dicussed by few, you can correct some people and some thoughts or you can constructively contribute.

35. Mitch on October 23rd, 2008 1:36 pm

    RK
    I find you approach even more bewildering as you see fit to comment on the aesthetics on an art form you clearly are ill equipped to understand. I know you consider yourself an expert on cinema but a real expert is omnivorous in his appetite. He also doesn’t condemn what he doesn’t grasp but seeks to enhance his knowledge of it. But I see now that this discussion is pointless after your response to my food analogy coz its now clear you are one of those persons who think that everything should correspond to their world view and anything outside of that is bunk. Peace my friend and rest assured I’ll never be darkening you door with my comments again.

36. Rk on October 24th, 2008 5:32 am

    @Mitch (35),

    An expert may not be equal to an all rounder in todays era. An expert may be a specialised person in a given area. so where does the use of this word leaves you?

    A doctor is called a doctor but A gastroenterologist is not a heart specialist.

    Who is the real expert on cinema in your opinion?

    any living or dead legendary director? Is/Was he able to make all kinds of films with equal competency as he is/was able to make in his specialised area?

    This is your THINKING that you KNOW I consider myself as an EXPERT on cinema. You dont KNOW me and its only a GUESSING attempt on your part and this is quite foolish also and an attempt to avoid qualitative discussion on the subject.

    Though it can be guessed about you because you have been behaving in a manner where you think “since you are working actually in the field so your word should be the last even if issue does not come entirely under the area of your specialisation”.

    If as a person living in 2008 you make a food analogy valid for whole humanity then its nothing but a silly attempt. Humanbeing can not be generalized in such a simple way.

    Your food analogy (as far as cinema is concerned) is less effective on most of the Indian cine lovers because majority of them are open to world cinema and watch it with a receptiveness and praise it as it is. but many other countries and their inhabitants dont follow this open attitude towards Indian cinema and their own thoughts stop to look at it in an objective manner.

    Regarding comments : we can see it this way, I have not sent any application to you to knock my door with your comments as you have not done it for me or others and as nobody has done it for anybody here.

    People make comment/s on their own on the matter/s and not because a certain person has written it. If a matter is interesting for some then they may participate in a discusssion otherwise they dont do.

    This is not Nano Technology where few chosen and skilled people are able to understand the field. A finished product in cinema like medium is entirely a different thing.

    and your approach is ruling out the existence of analysis in areas alike science. Analytical people are not doing research but they are giving a report on the products generated by the research if research guys start questioning why analytical people are saiyng that these are the weaknesses in the finished products then growth will be stopped.

    It can be guessed from your comments that you have been unable to look beyond the technical competency of the film under consideration and thats why you could not get message behind the bullet scene. If you had understood the film in black and white manner you would have known the inconsitencies involved in the film and which always can be discusssed.

    To discuss something which could be improved in a film is not an attempt to dismiss the film or the works of DOP.

    Issue is : could particular way of handling a particular scene have been used in such a way where scene could have looked more effective?

    You have less or no respect for the works of DOPs who have been contributing in the growth of Hindi cinema with different directors since last many decades but you are more than willing to blindly adore a work because personally you like it. It fulfils the vision of the content of the film or not is beyond your comprehension or say concern because you may know it but for the sake of arguments you will not admit it.

    You first boast, that you are willing to discuss Parinda scene by scene and later you avoid the point of making a detailed study case on the film so that it can be discussed in a qualitative manner.

    Perhaps you think you have understood completely the Parinda and you have got mastery over the film (guessing that you own the DVD) and you might have seen it many times, but it can also be guessed that you left many things.

    This is your problem or concern if you think that you have reached at that point where you understand everything and whatever you say should be the last word because you are actually working on sets.

    This thinking will provoke every spot boy working on a film set that he knows the film/s more than any audience because he is not arm chair audience or general sitting in his room but a real soldier who is working in the field.

    People working on a film certainly will be knowing more about that film and will be having information about behind the scenes or making of the film but its not sure they will be knowing more about Pather Panchali also where they are also acting as audiences.

    This is never sure that some filmmakers or DOPs are best audience for all the other films.

    All filmmakers have their personal choices but the films which they dont like on personal basis are not always bad or less good films .

    If anyone has understood a medium then he should have a capacity to know plus and minus of a product.

    Otherwise there is no denial that superiority complex also works for some people.

    and rest assured you can not break my peace in/through this virtual world and in real life, this question even does not arise

37. mainak on October 27th, 2008 2:20 pm

    RKji

    I didn’t find out If whose room we stayed at. There were way too many rooms. Neither did I care. I had hardly seen any films till then. My parents were still in their “Films are Bad” phase. Besides when you are in Kashmir who cares about Amol Palekar’s room. I had not dreamt of a place that beautiful.
    But that film did add to the experience. When we are walking around town, suddenly I’ll remember some shot from the film that was shot there. It must have felt like a Charlie Kaufman movie.

    BTW
    Mitch I think Sofia was making fun of both the cultures. It seemed like it was more about the Japanese. But thats what the film was about.
    Besides your favorite film MunnaBhai also makes fun of the Japanese Tourist Stereotype. Did you protest with Mr VVC.

38. Rk on October 28th, 2008 7:10 am

    @Mainak,
    Sir, True about Kashmir. Best among beautiful persons will be forgotten by anyone when one is enjoying the beautyful place like Kashmir.

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.