Sponsor PFCOne
(2 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
This isn’t personal cinema… That isn’t a great virtue
I want to visit Fellini’s room, his writing table, his spa and almost every place he visited to write his screenplays..
You see everywhere Fellini sat down to write his films are as important as his films because that is the only reference point for his movies. His life. That is what you call a personal film.
A director facing a creative block retreats back to his memories of life and fantasies… That is as personal a director can ever get..
Fellini need not have to get out of his room and watch movies coz his films are so much a part of what he was. That is what you call a personal film..
You see, Fellini could afford to not watch any other movies..
But, Mr.Bhansali cannot..
Mr. Bhansali says, “I dont watch other films”
Mr. Bhansali says, “I don’t want to bring in the the space-constraints that I experienced as a kid into my films’
Running away from oneself and shutting yourself to other people’s works at the same time. What creative impulse in God’s name are you looking for then?
Mr. Bhansali’s films are not personal. They emanate from a corner of his mind that says, “My creative jerks are my own. The life I protray in my movies is the life I wished to have had”
In his own words,”Listen, I was born and brought up in Bombay, where people shout at each other from the windows of flats on opposite sides of the streets. I belong to a community with a loud lifestyle. You can’t expect dignity, propriety, control and detachment from ME! My talk is full-throated, my expressions full-blooded. I cannot make a film without melodrama.”
He says something like and some journalist in demand of something really firebrand goes along holding it up, like a statement from Plato.
As I see it, the chawl life in Mumbai is one of the finest settings for a movie. Like Mr. Bhansali has said, its loud . But, they are not staged, orchestratrated human emotions. They are random ,overlapping, unthoughtful, unpoetic and sometimes unitelligent expressions. Yes, they are full-throated and full-blooded, but they are not chiselled to perfection.
They are raw. They are sloppy. They are like a regular, worn-out chair rather than a nice Louis-the 14th chair..
There is so much in those expressions thats waiting to be recorded and played to an audience. But, all Bhansali got from them were its loud, garish expressiveness..
I am sorry Mr. Bhansali, but you have got your own personal experiences all wrongly worked out.
And with such an abundant energy within him to run away from himself, it would only have been good if he was more respectful to the works of others around him.
There is no underlying spirituality in his movies like some old,flippant journalist puts it. There is no resonating philosophy either and to be very honest the really discerning ones would not give a damn to the visual magic he tries to create on screen. All he tries to do is present a good work of fiction like his contemporaries are doing. He is no different from them, unlike what his delusions have told him…
Like there is an old saying,”If you have nothing better to do or nothing better to say, why not watch a movie?”
It would help you Mr. Bhansali. Once in a while, to get out of your self-imposed meditation and cast and eye on whats happening around you.
The characters in our movies have changed to some extent, the relationship they share with one another are being protrayed differently and our audience’s tastes have changed too. There is so much to watch and learn, unlike what you think..
You will keep getting great visual impulses for the rest of your life, coz that you are endowed with naturally. But, If you think that, that alone is going to get you applauses then your own, personal world is still not conveying you the message right..
Even a Martin Scorsese says, “I am not a great filmmaker. I am just someone who happened to watch other people’s great works”
So, the next time someone asks Mr. Bhansali, “Did you watch an X,Y or Zee good movie?” and he replies in negative, I hope people dont take that as a great virtue he posseses. It just, once again details the claustrophobic world he has been inhabiting for no good reason.
Like the old saying.. “If you have nothing better to do or nothing better to say, why not watch a movie?”
25 Responses to “This isn’t personal cinema… That isn’t a great virtue”
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.
- Drona - A Groan(a)
- Death : An absolute truth that changes everything
- Alfred Hitchcock
- Hellboy II:The Golden Army
- Pusan: Rajesh Shera on AFC and his Ocean of an Old Man
- Rab Ne Bana Di
- Alfred Hitc
- Death : An absolute truth that changes every
- Drona R
- Kis Kone Se Vidya M La Lamba Ki Momma Dikhti
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
nicely writen article but dont agree with ur thinking.
Becoz u didnt like bhansali film means his creative freedom shd b taken?
may b bhansali not intlligent but ppl shd accept tht bhansali’s way of making films is dramatic, theatrical. those who dont like his fims shd nt go to watch them but to tell him wat to do is not gud thng.keep ur options open but give him freedom of doing things his way.
//may b bhansali not intlligent //
Well you tell him that and see how he reacts..
//Becoz u didnt like bhansali film means his creative freedom shd b taken?//
Who am I to suggest something and see to it that spawns into something significant..
I find his films highly regressive, my opinion..
Regressive???….wowww!…welcome to the forum of hypocrites :
Just for your review :
http://www.laweekly.com/film+tv/film-reviews/bollywood-boheme/17633/
An artistic evolution of sorts is in the beckoning!
//Regressive???
nothing to offend u.
true nobody will take positively if told he is not intelligent. but he has made 3-4 films and as u ve impression tht he makes regressive films why u repeated mistake again this time also. why this sadistic pleasure of geting sffering from wht u already dont like?
u covered more bhansali thn his film. hence commented. peace
Excuse me for being defensive or otherwise! But it seems as if good cinema should always revolve around taut and seemingly brilliant scripts? If you’re talking about intelligence…just make one small effort if you could find some devices/motifs of his cinema from this piece describing the celebrated Krishna’s love in a richly artistic manner! :
http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Loves-of-Krishna-in-Indian-Painting-and4.html
The problem lies with this GENERATION who are ignorant of traditional Indian art! It hurts when they quote Shakespeare but can’t read a nuanced Kalidasa in a movie!
//u covered more bhansali thn his film//
Because Bhansali can only be traced that way.. His work can never be isolated from his personal remarks and the ideologies he so brings to the table everytime..
Opinions are subjective… Explanation of one’s gr8ness or admission of one’s shortcomings to me show to a large extent how a filmmaker goes about his craft..
And I could not fathom the reasons that his highness gives to make a Devdas the way it was made..
I will tell you this… Bhansali’s problem is.. If he was asked to make Devdas today, he would admit in all his honesty that he wud make it exactly the same way he made it 5 years ago..
That from me evokes a highly sympathetic smirk…
I think ur critique is more about Bhansali than the movie! If a PFCite cannot judge a work open-mindedly why would the bourgeoise do?
//The problem lies with this GENERATION who are ignorant of traditional Indian art!
If you want to see traditional Indian art being depicted in the most fluid and uncontrived manner and with a direct eye being pointed at its metaphorical and topical relevance go watch Ray’s “Music Room”..
Then, you would realise how art and traditions can be depicted in films so as to make them accessible even on a universal level..
Any art form is great only when it engages the viewer without drawing any extra effort from the viewer’s side..
If I may not know the nuances of Odissi and yet am able to enjoy an Odissi performance that shows the brilliance of its protrayal..
//If you
Not necessarily! I often could not enjoy Bharatnatyam until I learnt how to appreciate it! And the same holds true for Ray’s Pather Panchali! It does not have a universal appeal! Screen him in todays’ theatres and try gauging audience’s reaction! But if you know how to analyse some of the brilliant devices he’s used in that movie, you can’t praise him lesser ! It’s become like a fashion statement to quote Ray! Liberate yourself! There’s cinema beyond Ray too!
//But it seems as if good cinema should always revolve around taut and seemingly brilliant scripts?//
Oh no I am sure that good cinema should also revolve around uninteresting plots coupled with a loose and and a relatively lame narrative..
Why are we so hell-bent on making good cinema based on brilliant scripts?? Damn!!!!
That’s precisely what you’ll find in Saawariya! It’s not a textbook-copy of that piece but themes have been brilliantly borrowed from it! I’m not saying it’s a masterpiece but not a work that can be run down by those who can’t understand it ! And FYI, there has been vehement criticism of Ray too at some level if you care to research on it! Universal appeal is often a self-concocted myth!
//Liberate yourself! There
//And FYI, there has been vehement criticism of Ray too at some level if you care to research on it! //
Mister or Miss,
I am not saying SLB is bad because Satyajit Ray is great. But, art forms I place it on the basis of how effectively it engages me. I cited that scene because that for me seemed like a more likable version of introducing a viewer to an alien art-form and yet making them relish it..
I second Connoisseur. The film is visually overpowering, its poetic and lyrical and about longing.. and some scenes take your heart away, make you feel hollow, its slow and absorbing and ranbir is outstanding, some scenes give the wong kar wai feel.. everybody will not enjoy that pallette…and most of the people i know may hate me for this comment… but wth..its my POV.
the director surely is a creative genuis…to be able to sketch on screen a life he always wanted to live as a child, which was almost imagination, and yes its personal cinama i agree but its those facets of human emotions he experienced personally like pain, separation, waiting etc which are linked beautifully to any small plot which he sketches in his mind. the tragedy associated with any emotion is a larger perspective and to be able to portray that is surely a task!! one need not be so judgemental and call it personal cinema
well, the laweekly reviewer david chute (linked in 3rd comment)seems to have an odd taste
the guy like shootout at lokhandwala too
check out his history(likes n dislikes) here
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author-1634/
u know, it could be possible that these reviewers r on a payroll. well no personal attack on him, just a thought.
http://desipundit.com/baradwajrangan/
Another awesome review by Rangan Baradwaj on Saawariya. One of the very few reviews to get the essence of the film.
It also has a review on OSO. Can’t comment on that as I haven’t seen the film.
FIRST ANURAG… NOW BHANSALI….GIVE US A BREAK…GUYS!!! SITTING INDIA TALKING ITALY-FRENCH-GERMAN-RUSSIAN.
I saw Saawariya. I saw a operatic thought process. I saw an expression of dreams trying to fight reality and give in, most simply, honestly and achingly.
I saw a look developed systematically to trap the viewer in that dream, space the thought processes and enter the minds of two young and hopelessly in love people. I saw the earnestness and pig headedness of their dreams.
I saw music seizing the moments of love and belonging in subtle and unsubtle shades of opera. I imagined a few hearts going gooey. Felt different!
I saw cause, of the fallen woman, of the young boy - man, of the girl who abides by time and its destiny, of an old lady who wanted the best for this last hope of hers.
I saw blemishes, in love, in feelings, in the blue, in companionship, in anger and in the hunger!
I saw the thought, of SLB trying to give demented love an urn of fire through his treatment on screen. I was disturbed. SLB for the first time after Khamoshi made me think. He may yet not be a top of the line “PFC Kind” director. But for me, the man at the movies, he presented a perspective to love. We have all loved, haven’t we? This dementia looked and felt different. Moving..well I would not say so..but interesting..yes!
PFC should stand up and applaud this sliver of interesting movie making. No more may be required but no less too!!!
@Indraneel
PFC clicks because PFC is HETEROGENEOUS. Why should it collectively stand up to hail someone. You liked it, you have all right to say HATS OFF. You can even suggest it to others at the forum.
But why DEMAND respect.
If it’s good enough, it will wrest its place automatically. Rest assured.
@Joyjeet..I did not demand respect for SLB..have no intention to do so..read the last line..keywords being..”stand up and applaud this ’sliver’ of interesting film making”..so there!
Completely agree with you Indraneel….I loved the film…hats off to SLB for “Saawariya”…
Saawariya was a terrible film, hardly making any impact in you. If a movie cannot follow you outside the cinema hall, it is not a movie at all. Bhansali can’t think beyond the visual appeal of the movie. His characters and narration looks so shallow, and sometimes terribly outdated. Well, if you want to adapt a foreign movie try to be creative and place it somewhere where the audience can relate it to. The film moserably fails even on that account.