Pov or reality bites ?
Am little confused. Recently had a lonnnng discussion with two of my friends. Both from other side of the fence. Been there, seen this, done that and are still doing. My point of view if from this side…as lover of cinema…as film fanatic.
The topic was….do filmmakers and writers endorse a point of view when they are telling a story or making a film ? Or they just mirror whats happening in the society or something that has happened ?
I think most of the time they endorse a point of view. Whatever finally happens to the character/story is what you want him/her to be. Its difficlut to be non-judgemnmtal. As in life, so in films. But how n where ? Rarely it happens that a bad guy (in conventional sense) gets a happy ending. But it always happens with the good guys unless n until you want to put a twist or try out some trick. In that scenario, audiences sympathy will always with the good guys.
As in Nayakan….the man has everything. But he is fucked up in the end. wife, son,daughter…he has noone. And he gets killed as well. Bad guy ends up badly. But when the same Mani Ratnam made guru, what happened. The bad guy justifies evrything. He is happy man at the end. So is that the view that Mani is endorsing ? Or is he showing it because something like that has happened ? reality bites ? I know its not easy to categories verything into black and white. There are so many factors and so many things that would not fit into any of these areas. But if you take a broader perspective its easy to figure out. Taking this example of good n bad only because its the most easiest thing to figure out.
Then what about Don(new) ? I think Don is comic book film. You can do anything with him. But Amar Chitra Katha was also comic back. Isnt it ? Amar Chitra Katha guys were always clear about their intention. There was no confusion of moral values.
Ok. Take Scorsese. Take Deaprated. The heroes are the goons. They are glorified in conventional sense. But then again everyone is fucked up in the end. Take his any other film…its the same. We all like to believe that there are something called good and some bad. And we always like to belive that good always happen to the good. or even take Godfather. Its the same.
The discussion went on n on n on. Ok…some other movie. What about Little Miss Sunshine ?
Its a satire on american society. Miss sunshine contests n all….everything is bullshit. But for many those are the only dreams that they have. So, isnt that the director’s pov ? Isnt he taking a stand there ? The reality bit is the plot of the film but what happens to the characters is the pov of the writer/director.
Hazaroon Khwashein Aisi ?? Was that sudhir mishra’s take on naxalite movement ? And what about those three characters. Lil good, lil grey. Geeta, Siddharth and Vikram…who ends up in what way. The sympathy is always with Vikram. Its difficult to trust Siddharth. With rich dad and great future, those guys cant handle the real life. Thats the middle class thought though its not true always.
So then ? what were we talking ? I could not understand my friends pov. And i think i could not make them understand my pov. Now thats a reality.
Filed Under
Movies
 3 readers recommend this post  Loading ... |
 Email This Post To Friends
|
|
Related Posts | |
13 Responses to “Pov or reality bites ?”
Leave a Reply
(Ref smilies)
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.
-
Advertisement
-
- Dev.D- Emosional Aty
- Sorry Bhai R
- Irresponsible medium:Shame on me to be an aud
- The assault on our intelligence, no pun int
- SORRY
- Bollywood Bombed?
- Dev.D- Emosional Atyachar
- The assault on our intelligence, no pun intended
- Catherine Deneuve in India - Win World Cinema DVDs
- OLLO is an incredible study of human character
-
Advertisement
Hottest Today:
Recent Posts:
I believe that the cinema or any form of art will always show the creator’s pov. But the difference is how widened or narrowed (non-judgemental) is his the pov.
Sorry, I failed to mention that the above statement is in the context of “social” films. But there are some movies (mostly in the noir genre), which are purely aimed at fooling (not an apt term) the audience by their ingenuity or twists you can say (for example Oldboy or usual suspects, etc). one actually revel at the quirkiness of the plot and bowled over by the myriad of possible events that the director thought of. It also in a way show the creator’s aptitude to fathom the depths of the characters (they dont necessarily have to endorse the views of the characters).
Memento and following can be good examples too.
I think it is a combination… while he/she is speaking about what is happening around or holding a mirror… it is from a point of view… but also how you look at it as a viewer gives the film another perspective. being judgemental/non judgemental are all POV’s… on the funnier side sometimes in our film industry there are additions made by producers/financers… so thats another point of view…LOL. Sometimes Item songs are shot even without a directors presence and consent…. and also sometimes the final cut is dictated by the producer/financer… and that can change a POV or distort it,
Omprakash…agree. was thinking about oldboy. some films are excpetions for sure. the character feels guilty about it but in the end director figures out a way to justify the so called a-moral thing.:-?:-?
Onir…what do u do when u write a story/film ? isnt it easy to be judgemental and pass a verdict on ur charcter’s life for that end bit ? n for all those pov…bollywood is surely a strange place!!
justifying surely shows the pov. If you think about Oldboy being made in India. The karan johars of bollywood would not approve of it, while the Anurag Kashyaps will plunge into it. Even if the reason is not endorsing of pov but the sheer madness/curiosity of creating something different. The difference in attitude is also in a way pov inculcated by reading and learning (and thus making them less opinionated on everything beneath the blue sky… And offcourse money play a big part, on which all pov merges :d but here we are discussing a rather hypothetical situation and we can keep this variable out of the model )
My two penny in the discussion. Some films are specially saying SOMETHING….but most films reflects a writer/directors sensibility rather than POV……..it reflects his/her outlook to life around him/her, it shows u how open or closed the writer/director is to issues, characters.
So Phoenixnu the question should be about the ’sensibility/viewpoint’ not point of view……..and many a times its about reading between the lines.
For example in real life Satya would have become the don, he had to die as cinema was being made the point was to end with Ravans death instead of killing Ram or showing Ram and Ravan joining hands.
A film like my brother nikhil will take a humane view of a man suffering from hiv as it is being made with a purpose to make society treat hiv patients with humanity
a film like guru or satya will end differently….because no matter what we believe we follow unwritten laws of ‘cinema’ good wins over evil………….infact I wrote ‘popular’ cinema then changed it to cinema because writer directors from all nations follow this diktat with exceptions of course…..but that may not always be out of a POV or viewpoint but for the necessary story arc
Hope this helped:)
I don’t think its fair to simplify it one way or the other. It depends on the film moreso than the maker. In certain films, the writer/director may decide opt to show A POV on a circumstance, though it may or may not be how they see the same situation in reality. Thats the creative zeal of cinema… we can take reality and flip it on its ass…
In reality we may feel our system has no hope… the many films on this topic hold up a mirror of sorts… but WHAT IF the system DID work? How would things be? Now there’s a challenge… create new POVs… whether this is how the makers actually feel is no longer relevant…
I think the POV of good person ends up with good ending comes from the fucked up upbringing of ours were..what parents teach you..what society teaches you..what teachers teach you..is always good…to try somethign new is considered bad…so..we as human are always afraid of trying or treading a new path….
As a kid..you are always taught about Ram…the “eternal good human/god”…We do not like to corrupt the minds of kid even by chance…by telling the tales of Suyodhan ( my fav. mythological character)….so, unless a filmmaker “wants” to be different..his ending usually end up with nice ppl end up with good…bad gets ugly….even in the example you have stated as in Don…the bad guy is all of a sudden shown as a hero..walking away with the booty….but again..what is good or what is bad is again a POV….i rememebr i had this discussion with T! and oz one night…good or bad is always a pov…what cud be good for me cud be bad for you…by society stabdards good becomes good only if their is a democracy..or a unified acceptance of it….similarly bad becomes bad..when majority shuns it….
Good post Phoenix bhaiyya
jo tathast hain samay likhega unka bhi itihas.
ham kuch bhi likhte,gadhte aur srijit karte hain to uske peeche ek purpose and POV to hota hi hai.historians bhi apne POV ke hisab se tathya chunte hain.ham sabhi ka koi na koi paksha hota hai.kai baar hamen ehsas nahi rahta ki ham istemaal ho rahe hain.
khud se sawal karna aur joojhna zinda hone ka saboot hai.
Hey phonexinu
I think for me my characters reflect my world view/POV/sensibility
I have always felt that if the system works, bad will never win and that is what everyone hopes. Since the system is so screwed up in our country, there are limited alternatives.
1. Bad guys/gals reform due to efforts of good guys/gals - ala gandhigiri or munnagiri or simply a lecture from the likes of Vijaykanth and Sunny Deol.
2. System fails so the angry good young man is forced to finish off the bad all by himself/herself like what Kamal does in Mahanadhi or what AB does in Shahensha and countless other movies.
3. Good guys and bad guys both die and the system is left as it is providing a conducive environ for another generation of good Vs bad fight - eg. Drohkaal/Kurudhippunal.
4. Bad simply wins
5. Can’t say what is good and what is bad - Good has bad in it and bad also is not that bad.
For creators - it is always fun to do 3,4 and 5 coz it gives a lot of scope to write very rich and interesting stuff. Satya could always have flown to dubai, just because he is shot dead doesn’t mean it is all over. Remember the climax shot where a colleague of satya gears up to finish the inspector who “encountered” Satya and his friends? Certain things dont have an end unless the system changes - Case in point what happened to Al Capone in “Untouchables”, Good plays some bad sport to beat bad. This scenario gives us some good suspense in the cinema hall - Otherwise we will be either bored or depressed with the ending.
As far as social dramas like MBN is concerned, there is only one POV - that of the affected person/s. Whether the affected person is healed or not is the knot and there is no good or bad in it as it is all about normal people who have traces of everything in such proportions that it would be foolhardy for a creator to brand or label them as good and bad. The villains’ in the piece are not villains - but just “opposing” characters - providing resistance to the protagonist’s quest.
Very rarely do makers create stories and movies on the life of bad people who are simply unstoppable. Case in point - “Pudhupettai” - where bad is shown as it is and is the main focal point. This is usually rejected by the audience as it is too uncomfortable to watch bad win in reel as everyone is quite used to seeing it win in real life too often.