THE GREAT INFORMATION AGE!!! NO… PLEASE.. DONT DO THIS
Over the years we have been struggling to have information and finally the age has arrived but sadly so it has arrived in screenplays too, too much information as if people were morons and has no brains to understand what was being said and could not associate with what has been shown and said earlier in the film or is it because of directors who are themselves not clear what they shoot I think some level of intelligence can be expected from the audiences such audience insulting scripts are in abundance now a days.
Example:
Woman : yeah phool tum kahan say tod kar laa rhay hoo
Man: indradhanush say
Woman : ohhh… indradhandush manay rainbow
Man : haan whoh dheko
Woman: its so beautiful ..when you see a rainbow on the horizon
Man : blah blah blah ( in English )
Woman : ( continuously giving an expression of disblief ) wow tum to angrezi bhi bol latay ho , aur whoh bhi itni acchi.
Now how would this be explained…..THIS ISA SCENE IN A MULTI CRORE BLOCKBUSTER.
I have no words to explain all this, I was watching Deewar the other day ( Javed Akthar ), so much unrealistic dialogues but so beautiful so perfect I don’t consider it as dialogues that is poetry it was the 70’s all great films had an element of poetry. We seem to have lost it and are now confused between poetics and reality and are nowhere.
I guess this information age is not for films.. please don’t inform let em think let em feel, but the I guess the responsibility will be more on actors to communicate, please find capable actors and empower them let em take responsibility to communicate those thoughts that are being said so bluntly.
I guess directors have lost faith in actors or consider audiences insensitive, nailing down thoughts in words to the last detail.
HELP!
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
//Megh – I agree with you on the poetic nature of the dialog in the old movies. Whether they make sense now or not is a different discussion though. But I don’t agree with you with the new movies being verbose vis-a-vis scripts. Not if it is a generic “apply to all” kind of a statement (which, I am afraid, is what I thought your post conveyed to me). On the contrary, I actually find the new movies less talkative, more action oriented, with mind numbing edits and unnecessary camera movements and jarring audio/foley effects.
That said, I reckon dialog is driven by the genre – the flavor – of the movie, which, in India, is defined by the director or the maker (or who ever has the final say) of the movie. That’s how I am able to tell a Suraj Barjatya from a Yashraj from a Sanjay Gupta from a Goldie Anand. My 2 cents.
Many thanks for the write up. Welcome aboard!
They dont know the language which they speak in films, what else can u expect.
MP: welcome on PFC.
You dont find any poetry in the scene of Krrish you quoted?
Do you think The woman was not knowing that he cant bring flowers from rainbow?
Sorry but I could not understand your objection/s!
Though we call present era as Information era becasue we have Internet and telephone through which one can communicate anywhere in the world with minimum time. But less or more information has been important in every era.Mediums might have been changing with time. Its still possible and is happening that more than 100 people in different part of world are engaged in same kind of research (science) study/analysis(social/ economical)and creation (art/culture etc) and almost every nation is indulged in same kind of political/social/economical mistakes. So where Information is helping us that cinema will become irrelevant in this so called Information era?
Guys, a question on Krish.
Its Hritik entry in the movie. He jumps from one tree to another, one mountain to another and then he dives from about 50 feet above the ground on the back of the horse and bounces back to god knows where.
The things thats being biting me here is that how was the horse able to take such a load on his back (didnt even flinch), and how come its back did not break.
Logically, horse backs should have just sagged.
Other view point is that Krish was not a logical movie.
Muzzy, till now since the begining of Cinema, no feature film is based which can be said its 100%logical. percentage may vary but logic is lost in films. Ofcourse Krrish was less logic. But cinema is basically a 100% false medium.
Matrix triology may or may not be great films but they certainly suggest that audience has to enter in to a cocoon to watch a film or to understand what director wish to say through his/her film.
There is no standard operating procedure in art or cinema so how can a product have 100% quality. Thats not possible even in science.
Re: did not you watch that Krrish was able to have thrust even from water, so what we can talk about back of horse, except loving touch of feets of its master horse might not havefelt any burden. when water did not feel anything which was liquid then horse back was solid atleast
//RK
wb:
you are right cinema shd engage viewer. If Hindi cinema makes Matrix then hardly people will like it, It will look cheap and false imagination.
Mithun Chakravarti made 2-3 Bond type films in early 80s and they always were treated as B or C grade films. Low budget, poor presentation etc.
our films are different than Hollywood or any other cinema in other part of world. Their every product is appealing almost whole world. You cant sell zalebi to whole world at present( because India is not a brand name) but McDonnel can sell anything in India and people will relish it. They have earned a brand name. India can sell yoga because its branded. Not sure if any Hollywood actor can perform Krrish’s role as Hritik did. It was so weakly written role, scenes were not written in a nice way and yet he tried to make it look feasible by his performance. Krrish and Dhoom 2 were seen for his performances.
It will be interesting to see what Hollywood make out of Munna Bhai, because these two genere of cinema differ too much from each other.
you know, i would have thought Mithun’s movies in 80s-90s were more somewhat similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s movies. in fact, i would go as far as saying Mithun is our Arnold, as both of them have cult following..
By the way, if you take glamour out of those two Jr. Roshan’s roles, do you think he would have made it, erm, look feasible?
HG:
did not get “glamour” word in Hritik’s roles especially in Krrish?
Hritik’s hard work, sinecerity and ability comes out in every effort he does. I cant bet what he can do or how he would look because I am not directing him in a film but given his past track record he does his efforts very well.Often he ius the best thing in the film he does.
Its very difficult to play non-feasible with genuine conviction. Rahul Bose will always feel difficulty to play any of so called mainstream hindi cinema role. He is good, quite good in his kind of cinema but he would make out a joker if he tries to play a Raj or Aryan or Rahul SRK plays with conviction. Actors have different personalities and different understanding about life and cinema and according to that they may play a role in good or bad manner. Shabana Azami may be very good in artsy films but she was hopeless in song dance films. Suhasini mule spoilt the character (rather Naseer) of artist in yun hota to kya hota, she was bit old for the demand of the role and even glamour could not save her.
Its not glamour but actor which works.
@Honhaar:
I do think Hrithik made ‘Krishh’ work – not by any great acting skill, but by his flexibility (physical). It’s indeed impossible to imagine any other Indian actor with such natural grace (only Vikram from certain scenes of ‘Anniyan’ comes to mind).
@RK:
What destroyed Krishh for me was not logical inconsistencies. Hell, any super-hero movie would have those. What irritated me was that the director took so long coming to the darned point. ‘Krishh’ was no superhero movie; it was like any other masala movie, except that the hero wore a cape and hood. I think ‘Mr.India’ qualifies for a great comic-book / superhero movie, not ‘Krishh’.
Also, the scene Megh paints above is not incorrect logic; its STUPID. A superhero needn’t talk like an imbecile!
@Megh:
Another one was in ‘Waqt’, where Akshay comes running in and says to Bachchan – hey dad, you know what, I got a great deal, bought this pair of jeans for just 10K. I cringe when I even think of it!
Ranjit:
do you think Krrish knows he is superman when he meets Priyanka Chopra in film?
@RK:
No, that’s not what I meant. What I meant was, ‘Krishh’ being a superhero movie does not confer upon the director the liberty to add stupid scenes / dialogues like this one.
The problem is, I disagreed with the presentation of a boy grown up in an isolated village. Somewhat shy and naive, yeah. But to behave like Tarzan in search of Jane was a big put-off for me. The movie began to be okay the moment Krishh left that village, at least for me.
Ranjit:
Whatever stupid story line was but with the entry of Priyanka Chopra, first mental conflict comes in life of Krrish and physical super power does not mean(atleast till now with history of all the super heros of past) that he knows all human emotions also in advance. Honesty was desired and Hritik’s eyes reflects honesty and purity, that makes him an actor to watch. Krrish was masala film like Rakesh Roshan has been making but with entry of Hritik Roshan in his films, they have got different touch and their longevity is increased else his all old blockbusters dont ahve repeat value. They always made big noise at the time of release because they were a package kind of product but with Hritik, standard of acting in his films are improved tremendously. Krrish though lacks in terms of continuity with previously made KMG. as Rohit, father of Krrish, was again given powers by Jadu in the last scene of the film but in Krrish we find his body language like mentally retarded Rohit though his mind works like super man. So many things are objectionable in krrish. Personally except Hritik and Hemant Pande every other actor was too dramatic and loud in film including Naseer and he vouced in his interviews that he is first time satisfied with his role after editing.Mr India had several good actors but Krrish has only one. and there must be much difference between Shekhar Kapoor and Rakesh Roshan’s directions.
What I meant by glamour was his so-called-sci-fi-dare-devil-stunts and dance routines. It sort of shuns his acting mistakes, don’t you think?
call me crazy or whatever, but i think raj pal yadav or rahul bose can pull off either a rohan or a rahul or a krrish. i know they would seem like a joker (to some), but aren’t those characters jokers – to me they are. ;)
Anyway, have you guys seen Smallville? It’s a masala tv-series of teenager superman and it is far better than Krrish. plus it is quite believable than KMG/Krrish
//HG – Raj Pal Yadav! Yes!! The guy is an effing chameleon.
Similarly..the background score is so much a part of spoon feeding the audience sometimes..
i revisited sarkar & thought the background score was a little overdone at times..not sure if the guy ritchie movies I had just seen had anything to do with this
Sometimes the absence of any background score is more powerful..