Sponsor PFCOne
(4 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading ...
the Big and the Small of it
I know I’m stating the obvious, going in circles and just plain ranting. To be, a perfect world would be one in which a great screenplay is backed by a good budget, gets a marketable starcast, is helmed by a good director, turns out to be a great film and goes on to become a blockbuster. Wasn’t that the Hindi cinema of the 60’s and 70’s? Shouldn’t things progress and get better over time? Why isn’t that the case now??
The more I think about it, the more perplexed I become. As obvious as it may seem, there’s still a fascinating conundrum filmmakers face over balancing a GREAT SCRIPT and a saleable STARCAST. The fact remains that even the greatest of scripts/stories still need an audience, and a starcast ropes them in.
There are a few rare examples where a film has managed to attain that elusive “Hit” status (and all the good that comes with it) with a strong script and usually a strong ensemble cast. In recent times Iqbal, Khosla Ka Ghosla, Bheja Fry are a few names that come to mind. But for every film that “makes it”, there are several more deserving films that are unfortunately not as successful. Is it lack of public acceptance or lack of public awareness? These are very good, well made films that, for some inexpilicable reason, fail to appeal to the cinema-going public, even in these times of “multiplexes” and “cinematic-progression”.
And then there’s the other side of the spectrum. Welcome. Om Shanti Om. Partner. Not exactly the more impressive screenplays we’ve come across lately. Yet they’re all blockbuster hits. Is the “mindless entertainment” theory the reason why these films work at the box office? I mean, could you really take Anil Kapoor, Nana Patekar and Akshay Kumar out of Welcome, and replace them with lets say Manoj Bajpai, Irfan Khan and Abhay Deol respectively, and leave all else the same with the same script/production values/direction and have even half the box office collections? I don’t think so.
But I do think that the opposite may hold true.
Take for example Johnny Gaddar. What a fantastic, thrilling film! Very well written, well crafted and well directed. I take nothing, and I mean nothing at all away from the performances. The entire ensemble fit their respective characters perfectly. Vinay Patak gave so many dimensions to his complex Prakash while Zakhir Hussain’s nuanced performance brought a ruthless yet very much human Shardul to life. Dharmendra, Neil Mukhesh, Rimi Sen, everyone brought so much to their characters, it was treat for us as audiences.
And yet somehow the film failed at the box office. So I wonder, if rather than Neil Mukesh and Rimi Sen the film was headlined by Saif Ali Khan and Bipasha Basu, would it have fared better?
And then I think back to Sriram Raghavan’s last feature, Ek Hasina Thi, which had a strong starcast (in fact if I remember correctly Saif Ali Khan was THE rising star in the industry at the time). It didn’t work.
So is it that “dark thrillers” don’t work well with Indian audiences?
Then how does one explain the success of such films as Kaante or Company, this too back in 2001/2002 before the “multiplex boom” and before audiences supposedly became open to fresh themes and genres?
How does one make sense of this?
Ok, here’s another one for you. Socha Na Tha vs. Jab We Met. Both refreshingly down-to-earth, well-scripted (with great original dialogue) romantic comedies. Two well-paced, entertaining films. So while Socha Na Tha was a “box office disapointment”, we are all still talking about the success of Jab We Met. Now I do think Jab We Met was a step ahead for Imtiaz Ali in terms of the screenplay and direction (absolutely loved the 1st half hour), but Socha Na Tha was pretty damn good film in its own right. Even had some good music. And this is not “offbeat/alternative/parrallel” cinema we’re talking about here. Both films have equal commercial merits. Except, that is, for the starcast. Which leads me to wonder what if Socha Na Tha (released in Mar 2005) had starred Shahid/Kareena (the most talked about couple in town at that time.. even their Fida had created quite the buzz in the late-summer of 2004). Would that have been the secret ingrediant the film needed to succeed? I for one believe so.
What about Black Friday? A film appreciated across the board as one of the best Hindi films of 2007, and yet we hear that half of India hasn’t heard of it? Personally no one I knew had heard of the film before I was literally going to their house with the DVD saying “Here, you have to watch this”. Had Anurag cast Sanjay Dutt as Rakesh Maria, Vivek Oberoi as Tiger Memon and maybe have Abhishek Bachchan as Badshah Khan, I can almost guarantee the film would have been a huge hit. I’m not at all saying that Black Friday required a bigger starcast, nor that having one would have made it a better film. I’m just stating the obvious, that it would have reached a much wider audience, which is definately deserved. I mean, does it make sense to anyone that “Shootout At Lokhandwala” had a “thunderous opening weekend” and went on to be such a big hit, while Black Friday was declared yet another box office disapointment. Its a sad state of affairs indeed.
The conundrum then isn’t that having marquee glittering with A-listers guarantees a hit. There’s been many examples of films where that completely backfired. It’s that the films that have a large starcast and the associated buzz/awareness aren’t always the most gripping, the most interesting or the most entertaining. Heck, half the time they don’t even make much sense. And yet they are considered to be low-risk propositions for the makers. You would like the bigger the film the bigger the responsibility to ensure that its a good film, great screenplay and all. And then we get a Dhoom 2.
Meanwhile the films that have immense amounts of time energy put into ensuring they have a solid screenplay, the painstaking attention to detail put into the production, the creative touches put in during post, and yet they don’t get what they deserve.
Interestingly enough, this phenomenon seems to be limited to Indian cinema. For the most part the rest of the world seems to consistently cast big stars in big productions, and then doubly ensures that because its a big film they work doubly hard on every detail of the production, especially having a solid screenplay. I mean, can you imagine the backlash if a film like “The Davinci Code” having a lackluster script?? But here we see it happen with much hyped, multi-starrer films like “Dus” & “Salaam-E-Ishq” and dozens like them every damn year. *sigh.
Enough is enough, its time for change.
40 Responses to “the Big and the Small of it”
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.
change
yeah sure
as a contribution in this revolution
which your article is going to start
as thousand other this kind of article has done
i am leaving to change my underwear
.
.
.
ok
fresh brief
quote -
there are several more deserving films that are unfortunately not as successful. Is it lack of public acceptance or lack of public awareness? These are very good, well made films that, for some inexpilicable reason, fail to appeal to the cinema-going public,
unquote.
lack of public awareness.
this statement assumed that
you are not the part of public
you are not the part of disease.
Arab main ek kahawat hai. ki khuda jab bhi kissi aadmi ko jameen per bhejta hai to uske kan main kah deta hai ki ‘maine tujhse behtar aadmi nahien banaya’. per ye baat woh her aadmi ke kan main kah deta hai. jameen her aadmi apne andar manta hai ki woh duniya ka sabse hosiyar insan hai.
:x
that which does not appeal to public is not good.
if someone is so sure about the quality of his work. he should search for some better audience. may be beam the film in the sky. who knows some highly developed alien species may understand it.
:-&
valid points tony.
Valid points but I feel Johnny Gaddar is overrated inside PFC. The screenplay failed to pull me in and most dialogues were not upto the mark. Neil Mukesh is a looker but otherwise was disappointing for me…
Alright fine, you don’t see the point in my expressing my frustration over why big films generally aren’t very good, and very good films aren’t generally very big. Its that simple.
Maybe you thought that me writing such an obvious article was pointless. So you retaliate by writing about changing your underwear. Whatta guy…
Here’s the thing dude. If you have a big budget, a big starcast… do you think as a filmmaker your job is made easier? I wouldn’t. I would think now I have to prove that my film is worth this budget, worth this starcast. I got more eyeballs watching, and if I fuck this up I’ve just had a lot more people lose faith in me. So I should be working HARDER on ensuring I make a good film. But that’s not what’s been happening man. Its the guys that don’t have a lot to work with that feel they have more on the line, more to prove, and THEY are the ones working harder.
You’d think the bigger filmmakers would take notes, learn a thing or two. But they won’t, because the audience keeps proving them right and the smaller, better films wrong.
If that’s not worth ranting about, especially for someone that for some fucking unknown reason really gives a shit, then I hey man sorry you wasted your time.
Thanks Shailesh
Thanks Dazed. I’m not a fan of Johnny Gaddar because of PFC. I really don’t see the relation. I knew about the film from outside of PFC. It was interviews with Sriram Raghavan on Rediff and IndiaFM that got me interested. I had high expectations from it, thought it would be a tight thriller. It was, and it exceeded my expectations. What more could you ask for from a film?
Nice post Tony.
Reminds me of one similar post from Saurabh Narang. The baap chahiye post where he is still trying to find producers for a script he has. It is difficult to find producers for such cinema and then even more difficult to find an audience.
MSFU, JG etc highly discussed here on PFC are not even recognized by many of my friends when I mention it for the first time and it always is that they end up liking the movie after I force them to watch it with me. May be we need more aggressive promotion for these movies.
you use ‘f’ word twice in your post
that’s quite enough to prove your point
two ‘f’ word from your side is more than enough to put your point in a strong manner.
i am shivering :-ss
as of me wasting my time.
i am not on any mission
i am not out here to convince you
i am not infected with ‘martyr syndrome’
i am not here to change the world
i simply enjoy
i enjoyed writing my first post
i am enjoying writing this post
let me guess
the number of fucks you will use in your next post.
uunnnnnnnnnnnnnhhhhhhhhhh 3 1/2
:o)
Tony..I am in total agreemeent with you on every score except Johnny Gaddar.. I also second D&C on this. It has been over rated on PFC and was a flawed film not much deserved of accolades.
But getting back to your original point, yes the mere presence of ‘faces’ transforms the same film into something else at the BO counter..very sad. what is amaxing and disturbibg is that this is true as much of overseas as in India. NRI who one thinks as having more exposure and would embrace sensible cinema and give it a boost also fall for the DRK starrers and Akshay mindless acts.
But things need to change.
One way would be platforms like PFC and other mediums especially the Press and also exhibitors creating halls for this cinema with reasonable tickets to promote films which are made within reasonable budgets but not with stars.But more often one sees a tearing down of such efforts even on PFC and people passing third class remarks doubting the success even before the release..or having pre conceived notions about the film.Your rant is valid and sincere.. Keep going Bro.
As I see it now, The truly gr8 films if they have to be studied, have to studied in reverse chronology ..
A great film is something that appends itself to an already interesting script. Interesting I say because sometimes a gr8 director sees in a script a unique connection that another director may not..
The loneliness and inexplicable feeling of drabness in Travis Bickle’s life was something that Scorsese cud relate to. It for him then became an obession because he knew he relates to the script on a more personal level. He then proceeds to shoot the film in such a way that everytime he points the camera to record a line in the script it ends up interpreting the script visually and also conveys something that adds onto it..
The movie is made under gruelling pressure from the studios, those investing their moneys in it, and with the co-operation of people who all care less for the movie that Scorsese himself…
The movie then releases and one man’s personal connection extends over to individuals across the globe..
It unearths newer interpretations for itself with passing time and age and thus becomes “timeless”…
One man’s obsession becomes the “rocking chair” for millions.. It then doesn’t know marketing, saleability, audience or the mere words that made the script.
Gr8 films go beyond terms like “Solid screenplay” and stuff like that..
Sometimes to make a film you have to care about the colour of the walls, the design of the hallways or the structure of the windows that filter light into a room. You have to care about inanimate objects more than the characters in your film.
A “solid screenplay” sometimes doesnt know all that.. Film-making isnt that oversimplified a process..
The reason behind the commercial failure of masterpieces like Jhonny Gaddar and Black Friday is the obscene prices of tickets. These kind of movies dont make it beyond multiplexes, and the ticket prices at the multiplexes are too high for an average indian to spent on a movie which they havent’t heard about before. And by the time word of mouth spreads, these kinds of movies are already out of the multiplexes. I haven’t met a single person who has seen Jhonny Gaddar and hasn’t loved it. When, I bought the dvd of the same and showed it to some of my friends, they regretted about having missed the theatrical screening.
so true tony so true …..seriously enough is enough….so many of my friends have not heard of black friday forget abt MSFU or JG ….whats wrong with we the ppl ….a welcome becomes a super hit while JG and MSFU flop …..we need a change or rather we need to change ….
@Vishrant (1,7)
Hope your village visit was fine. Good to see you back.
———-
(7) You might have already read or heard or seen but for a re-view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D7rWLzloOI
—
(1) As you feel you are an individual while commenting same liberty is feasible for any author also.
Please apply same logic to you also when you point out for others. ;)
—-
Sometime somewhere here we can get opportunity to discuss theory and real. Borrowed and own. Its a fun and enriching to read your wise comments. I enjoy them :)
rk
visit was pleasant.
i have seen the link and read it also.
you give it back
this time i have bookmarked it, will download.
(1)
in absolute agreement
your presence makes pfc graceful
be here
>:d<@};-
Mindtentative: Its funny, I just recently read Saurabh Narang’s post. Maybe that’s why I got so juiced up over this.
I completely relate when you said that there are films which “are not even recognized by many of my friends when I mention it for the first time and it always is that they end up liking the movie after I force them to watch it with me. May be we need more aggressive promotion for these movies.”
I know, you’re right. We can try spreading word-of-mouth about the films we like to our friends/family. And the films producers can try to promote these films in a more aggressive, blanketed sort of way (would require a lot more money though).
A huge part of the problem though is distribution. Not sure where you are but in Vancouver, ONLY big starcast films play. It’s very very rare to see a Hindi film play out there unless its star-studded. And if its not playing in theatres, it’s not going to get any play on local TV/radio/papers. The only buzz is guys like us who are telling everyone to go watch it. True that most of the time when they do watch the film, they like it, but that’s not enough to get the word out to thousands.
That’s why I think films like Welcome and all are hits. Its because people don’t have much else in the way of choice. Watching a film at home on DVD isn’t nearly the experience as going out to the cinema and seeing it with you full attention.
Ashok (and Dazed), I’m a little surprised you guys found Johnny Gaddar disappointing/overrated. Like I said, I really liked it.
I know Ashok, you’d think the NRI market, with the exposure to much much more in terms of cinema and even TV would be more sophisticated and open to better films. Its just not the case. Again, I think its due to limited exposure to these better films. There’s not hype/excitement attached to watching a Manorama. There is with an Om Shanti Om.
I agree, the smaller the film (in terms of budget/starcast) the lower the ticket price, that would encourage some people to watch these films. Its a great idea. It would be interesting to see what a distributor or exhibitor would think of it.
And yeah, the press is a big part of it. Half the time they don’t know shit about shit and they’re talking from a starry-eyed fan point of view. On local TV I actually (and unfortunately) saw a girl reviewing Jodhaa Akbar. She kept talking about how hot Hritik is and Aish’s clothes. And I kept thinking why the FUCK is she even on TV?!
There should be like PFC Radio. Get one of us in each city hosting an hour or even 1/2 hour radio show on these smaller films. Promote Mithya, promote Khuda Ke Liye. Talk about these types of films in an intelligent, passionate manner. Excitement is contagious. If you’re excited about watching a good movie, chances are others will catch on.
Sreehari, a great analysis.
Yes, of course the right director on the right project, his personal understanding of underlying motifs, themes, and how to translate these in subtle, unobtrusive ways while still telling the story he is to tell. Creating moods by playing with color schemes, shot compositions, sequencing, pacing, music, silence.. knowing the relevance of the sights and sounds to that character, that time and that place, however mundane and everyday it may seem on the surface… Everything a director does creatively and technically speaking MAKE the film what it is. I understand its not as simple as its often presented. Its a massive contribution.
But even the director requires a foundation to work from. Taxi Driver’s greatness lies a great deal in Scorsese’s direction, but then he had a great character in Travis Bickle and a great story to tell as well.
If your story hardly makes sense, the characters have nothing to them, the screenplay goes from one ridiculous situation to the next… where are you going to find that passion to make it a great film? How can you relate to it, and how can you expect an audience to relate to it?
I agree its about just about a “solid screenplay”, there’s much much more to it than that. Contributions are made from every department in a good film. Costumes, music, cinematography, art design, editing, acting… it all has to come together at the end.
That’s the issue with most of these so-called big films. They’re being crafted on a foundation of crap. These films are just slapped together it seems.
I also agree that even the most typical story can make a great film if the effort to make it great is there.
On the surface “Dil Chahta Hai” is the story of three friends and how love influences them, changes their friendship and their lives. It doesn’t get much more typical than that.
But then from the characters themselves (even the minute side characters), to the situations presented, to the way it was all put together and YES the sensitive, personal touches given by Farhan Akhtar made it a memorable film.
Then you watch films like Dhoom 2 and Hey Babyy… where they could’ve had interesting stories to tell… but shoddy direction absolutely ruined these films. Completely dumbed down, completely overdone, no sense of giving the film, or a character, or even a few scenes any personal identity.
Because there doesn’t seem to be a NEED to. Stars hai, locations hai.. Accha music hai (even if it doesn’t have anything to do with the film… daal do… item number ho jayega… Shahrukh ko le lenge, log pagal ho jayenge). “Mindless Entertainment” chahiye logon ko. Chalo bhai, picture ban gayi. And they’re right. And they get accolades for it. They’re films are successful, they are successful.
Meanwhile the guys carefully crafting a Manorama get nothing. Sreehari, lets be honest here. You noticed the fishbowl. I did. Others on PFC did. We all got the analogies as well. We appreciated the slow-pacing. It was a great touch. It created atmosphere. It put is in small-town Rajasthan. We could experience what’s happening. We became a part of it, a part of the unravelling mysteries in a that hot, slow desert town. Brilliant.
How many others could appreciate all that? How many others would rather watch a well-directed thriller like Manorama over a “no brains required” film like “Dhoom 2″?
Azad… so then it is largely a case of lack of awareness. Why spend the $$ on tickets for a film you don’t know much about, or have very little anticipation to watch?
Anand, we do need a change. The question is how and when will change come? Hopefully enough people watch enough of these good films and start making the comparisons.
RK-Bhai… I had not seen this clip.. Wow.. One of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time… I knew of OSHO but had never seen this side of him… awesome stuff bhai… By the way, how the fuck are you? LOL…
I agree with your thoughts. There’s never a sureshot formula for making a hit because of which some movies like Ek Hasina Thi fail while movies like Company succeed even though both had star power, well written sript and both had dark themes and treatment. (like u mentioned)
But what takes my (and i think most of the pfcites) goat is that producers like YRF and Feroz Nadiadwala blow up so much moolah on stars, locations, sets and costumes (??) but no respect is given for story or screenplay. Dudes like Feroz even lift stories and dont even work on having a decent story line or a screen play. Almost everything in his movie seems to be off the cuff; except for the costumes and song choreography off course.
Imagine if someone like Feroz hires a good scriptwriter first; get the script fixed up; then start the shooting with all the good costumes, stars, locations et all..i bet the end result will be a good entertaining movie with star power that would draw audiences as well..but i think such scenarios will only be a figment of imagination.
:(:(
Sudhir: Yeah I know. That’s exactly what I don’t understand. We need to bridge the gap. Either our stars should start seeking out better scripts, which started as a promising trend with Saif signing films like Ek Hasina Thi and Being Cyrus. They should sign the film based on the screenplay, not the producer. The producer will come if a star is attached to a good script (look at what happened with Kabul Express).
Or like what you’ve suggested, the bigger filmmakers, even once they’ve signed the big stars, should hire competent writers to work on the project.
In the recent post regarding the recent Writer’s Conference, there’s seems to be some very promising improvements on the horizon. Putting the writers in a better position, developing a better system to pitch/sell screenplays, having a bank of screenplays for filmmakers to choose from and all that.
Hopefully things do end up going that route because I for one am getting pretty sick and tired of watching high-profile crap.
Sreehari @ 9,
do you by any chance mean that MSFU or JG lack a connection to the soul of the film from the director. Is it just the cynic in me or did u actually mean that?
Tony..
PFC Radio… hmm sounds good.. nice idea..
Mindtentative: Thank you :)
I used to do radio a long time back… over 10 years ago now (damn am I THAT old now?!).. so I guess that’s why I think it’s still a powerful way to communicate with and inform people..
As for Sreehari, I genuinely think he’s serious..
Mindtentative,
Those two movies that u have mentioned.. Have seen Johhny but havent seen MSFU yet. So, I cant comment abt the latter..
Hmm.. JG.. its not a case of it being overrated or anything. But, its not a personal film or anything. Its a regular thriller. What I liked abt the film was the vulnerability of its protagonist. The unplanned nature of his crimes, the lack of sadism in it that makes his actions seem so human and so spontaneous.
But still its a regular thriller if u ask me.. Soul connection and all are stuff that u dont even bring into perspective while discussing such a film.
I hate terms like “Entertainment and Enlightenment” that seems to be used by every passing “nathu-gaira” every now and then..
Great Cinema does not enlighten.. It just knocks at our doors and says, “Oh I am here. You may or may not open the door, but I will always be here. Snub me and you will be snubbing your own conscience”..
Johhny Gaddar wasnt meant to be that kind of a film. It wasnt even a film that can entice film-makers into making such films..
The above comment i agree with wholeheartedly..The previous film of Raghavan was more ‘enticing’,This one was disappointing. It stood out becoz there was a hint of ‘being different’ in a multitude of shite..but that certainly is not enough. There were others like ‘gandhi My father’.. a brave attempt, or even pyar ke side effects, dor, 15 park street..now that exploiting ones potential.
Sreehari, its not that I don’t see where your coming from. However, as I see it, Johnny Gaddar is very much a personal film. Sriram Raghavan has said time and again he has a love for thrillers, particular those directed by Vijay Anand. That admiration was visible throughout the film. The homages, blended smoothly throughout film (with the exception of the Parwarna sequence which was done in an incredibly overt way) was sort of like him saying “I love the film Guide. I love Teesri Manzil. Check out the climax of Johnny Mera Naam” while refraining from lifting scenes.
For Sriram Raghavan this wasn’t “just a thriller”, it was HIS kind of thriller. If you compare this with lets say an Abbas Mustan thriller or a Rajkumar Santoshi film, the difference is obvious.
Tony,
Its referencing in cinema and it has own classifications. What u r talking abt is referencing of cinema for cinema. You could also reference literature for cinema.
But for me the highest form of referencing is referencing life for cinema. And when u do that u put time and space into consideration.
You take into consideration factors like what it is to be existing in a certain society in a certain period in time. About the social constructs that make up such an existence. About what is considered right, wrong and implied. You create a POV for characters internal to that existence and for characters who falls outside such an existence. A first person and third person perspective.
You dont care about the genre then. The genre takes a backseat. You aim for a character-oriented piece but also care for the background.
Its an assimilation of many things.
Johhny Gaddar was referencing of cinema for cinema. You can always do that and its not bad. But its not the highest form of creative emancipation.
You always reference cinema for cinema. But such a referencing should only append to something that u have to say personally.
Tony,
WRT relative appreciation. The anti-thesis of or alternative for everything thats mediocre isnt always greatness. It could also be a “decent effort”….
We can acknowledge it but not at the expense of something thats far more superior…
Just another bit of citing here..
There is this line from Pasolini’s Accatone.. “Accatone.. in the words of the Prophet.. Today u will sell your watch, tomorrow your ring. the next week your chain and in 77 days you wont have eyes to see”..
Now Scorsese liked the lyrical quality of it.Thats cinematic referencing. At the same time he was making a film about people he grew up watching around him. These people cited such verses from holy book while they talked in their real lives.
So he merged the two. The soul of that conversation and his own tale..The people he knew and his cinematic referencung of such lyrical verses. Thus he formed a conversational pattern for his characters.
The movie was “Mean Streets”.. He knew the people in those movies first. He knew their psychological and social making. And because that making seemed to allign with another cinematic inspiration he merged the two.
Cinematic referencing comes second here. It seemed to fit itself in a certain setting. Hence it was referenced in there.
Sreehari, thanks for such a detailed clarification. I do see what you’re saying. And in this context, you’re right, Johnny Gaddar would not be considered a personal film.
But then, as far as Hindi cinema is concerned, what is? The only films that I can think of is maybe Black Friday to an extent, and perhaps some of RGV’s earlier work (as I’m convinced his infatuation with Mumbai’s underworld goes far beyond his films).
“But for me the highest form of referencing is referencing life for cinema. And when u do that u put time and space into consideration”
Absolutely agree that there is no greater source of creative inspiration than life. In fact the film that I’m scripting now is completely drawn from life although not necessarily based on a true story. I see how some can find that confusing. I’m sure you know what I’m saying though.
Also agree w/ your take on Johnny Gaddar’s main asset being the very human portrayal of Vikram’s predicament (or series of predicaments) and how he handles them with such desperation while trying his best to maintain is cool is exactly what made the film so great.
And yes, I still see it as a great film, personally speaking :D
Sreehari,
Got your point in what would mean a personal film in your context and completely agree with you on that.
But as you agree, JG is an above OK movie and needs some better audience than it really had. As a movie I would feel it was a tribute to the Vijay anand kind of movies from Sriram Raghavan and a better one than RGV ka AAG at that ;)
And about a great movie knocking your door.. yes it is true but I still believe there is no harm in giving it the address of a couple of ignorant people who are not aware of its existence :)
MSFU would also not come across to you as a personal film and definitely would not classify itself as a great movie on the lines you mentioned above, I somehow have a feeling that you would notice the amount of personal detail that went into the movie from director’s perspective.
Navdeep definitely paid enough attention to the colour of walls that went into picturizing a scene :) In fact I like the way he moulded out the charecters and the motives that really drive them. Would be waiting for a comment on MSFU once you get a chance to watch it.
Sreehari,
Also, Would like to ask you if Naach from RGV classify as a personal film for you. THough it did not garner a great range of success, it still comes across as a honest attempt from RGV.
If you do not feel we are asking too much, can we have a more detailed post from you on all the points that have been discussed here? These points deserve a discussion in a much larger scale
Also Sreehari, by your logic wouldnt Taare Zameen Par (a personal movie, with which the scriptwriter and the director identify a lot, probably) be a lot better movie than a Pulp Fiction (again a cinema refencing cinema instead of life)…
Is it that PF becomes a good movie (if it does) just because of the redemption thing and all?
FIRST OF ALL, Sreehari, bhaisaab, you have to watch Manorama… personal or not its a very good film with a tonn of hard work put into it… its these such films that prompted me to write this post. It deserved much better in terms of box office rewards and recognition amongst the general public. I strongly feel that had it not been Abhay Deol in the lead… had it been I dunno someone like an Anil Kapoor or an Abhishek Bachchan in the lead, it would have at least acheived the latter no problem. Again, Abhay’s performance was tremendous, but… ok… ~sigh~… alright…
THEN, as mindtentative suggested , Sreehari, bhaisaab, it would be great if you could write an expanded post on what you see as a truly “personal” film, if you feel that being a personal film automatically qualifies it as a great film, and what you see as a great film.
Oh, and to avoid any misunderstandings (and nasty namecalling) I use the words “you feel” not to mock you but because this is a highly subjective area for the most part.
Hmm..
I think the responses to that comment of mine all seem to be hovering arnd that one term “Personal Cinema” and in a way it has ended up oversimplifying what I meant..
Hmm.. About Naach. It came arnd at a point in RGV’s career when he had started subsribing to the belief that he was someone who can make a “star” out of “anybody” and that, that was his primarily responsibility as a film-maker. When u start believing that u r a king-maker first and a film-maker second u never feel for a medium the way it has to be felt..
See.. again I think the term has been misinterpreted over here..
Hmm.. Suppose I had to speak about “Maqbool” for example. I had read this interview by Vishal Bharadwaj where he was talking abt how his childhood observations of Muslim life had crept into the film as he was making it. Its actually a distant POV working there.
But because he knew a lot of dynamics of the life thats shown in the movie, he was sort of able to cut the movie right in its centre, then place in characters in the right slots and work out how they would co-ordinate with each other.
Its not a case of actually living in a certain social setting. Its a case of acute observation.
That explains why “Taare Zameen Par” can hardly be qualified to be called a personal film..
You sort of understand even those unimportant conversations distinctly when u r documenting those observations.
That scene in “Satya” where Shefali Chayya is blabbering around and Bhiku slaps her as Satya is watching. For me that is a belter of a sequence. That explains a certain moral upringing, a certain social make-up, a certain psychological leverage thats being exerted. Its such sequences that make Satya in my opinion a highly personalized affair, thou some people might not think so.. But there r some acute personal obervations that might have trigerred different people in different ways..
And that kind of analysis is a critical analysis. If I had to analyse Satya from a directorial POV I might put forth an observation about how liked the way one sequence cuts to another. About how the music accompanying a scene arrives first and the scene actually comes later and stuff like that. But those kind of things as I said just append to a personal obsession abt wanting to make a movie about these characters you felt u connected with..
And like I said.. such sequences help u cut a film right in the centre and helps u play with its characters because u understand them so intricately..
A Chashme Budhoor for me had that touch. A Dil Chahta had it. Dil Chahta hai for me was a wonderfully personal film. You could feel the comfort level that existed in the characters. You cud sense in in their pauses. You could sense it in even in those desolate corners of the rooms in which these characters lived.
Hmm about Pulp Fiction.. Now theres a tricky question.. And I have a theory about the movie… As much as I like it, I have sort of stopped watching “Pulp Fiction” of late (Not the same way that I deal with movies I really love)
There r reasons to it. I think “Pulp Fiction” is the kind of movie that can spoil a movie watcher. Now theres a dichotomy about that statement. You get influenced by it very soon. And honestly, u want to make a movie like that. And it doesnt work then.
Because there is an exaggerated sense of excitement, a child-like enthusiasm that runs thruout the movie, a parallel world existence, that wud appeal to movie lovers and make them wanna duplicate it.
You wanna do a coffee-table talk, think abt breakfast cereals, bluetooth, blood, sodomy and Jesus Christ all at the same time. You sort of are compelled to over-exercise your creativity when u watch such a movie. There’s no stopping u..But, its gets jaded if u do it over and over again.
I think creative people shud sometimes learn when to stop using their creativity and smell the air arnd them. You sometimes have to learn that trick. Cos if u dont, you go so ahead of realism that u sort of start to sound too arcane..
Truth and Creativity if they ever come loggerheads and if u have to choose one among the two, always go for truth. Creativity can always wait. Its your personal attribute. But truth u really dont own.
And movies like “Pulp Fiction” can actually make u wanna bypass that truth ( A personal vision) in a bid to over-exercise your creativity
I donno how to put this in a better way..
But, there’s nothing great abt saying, “We made the movie exactly like it was scripted”..
Great movies arent always born out a well-structured screenplay that transpires that exact same way into celluloid..
Its also born out of those little diary notes, those scraps, those nuggets of life and those minute observations written behind match-box covers that covers an enthusiasm thats immensely personal to start-off with but which then acquires a universal connection in time..
hmm…Sreehari…Thanks for the detailed explanation and now the request for a seperate post done with a lot more conviction:) Please find sometime for the post.
Tentative mind,
The conviction that comes out in a comment or a separate post wud always be the same. There wud be a few grammatical glitches that might be avoided while making a post but thats it..
And that conviction as of now, is a distributed one. There wud not be concrete emphasis or total assertiveness. And thats only because my observation of the medium is a purely objective one. An almost distanced view of it.
Once, I find myself to be an integral part of the film-making process, this partial conviction wud then be counterbalanced by experience and it might make more sense :)