when you don't understand a good-looking crap call it sheer poetry. Watch a Hrishikesh mukherji film and try to figure out where the lights are kept. Problem with Indian film makers is that they make films for themselves. India needs films which represent our problems or society or sheer entertainment but people like SLB, YashRAj, RGV etc produce something which is completely out of context. RGV tries to make 'real' cinema but so much violence is not good for viewing. We need people like kukunoor, gowarikar who make 'real' cinema or people like vipul shah, farah khan etc who dont claim they are making film for artistic purposes. The idea is be honest in whatever you do. SLB and gang make dishonest cinema. Who cares where the lights are kept if you are bored to death or in Veer Zara SRK talks about a plane in jail which wasn't even bloody there the times he mentioned or singing 'aisa desh hai mera' with a girl on top of a bus will be considered a cheap indian act and surely a decent girl would actually slap the guy for his cheap 'harkat'.
RE:Assesment
by Narendra Tade on Nov 09, 2007 08:43 PM Permalink
I don't know about Sawariya or Om Shati Om but Hrishikesh Mukherji didn't make movies for pedestrian sensibilities....please accept my aplogies on his behalf.
RE:Assesment
by Anand YNI on Nov 10, 2007 06:47 AM Permalink
Dear Narendra,
This is what I also wanted to write. I support you wholeheartedly. No one has any business to comment about the great (est) Hrishida who gave movie after movie for the wholesome entertainment of the families and not the craps that are dished out these days in the name of movies
RE:RE:Assesment
by ravinandanprakash agrawal on Nov 09, 2007 09:16 PM Permalink
also Hrishikesh mukherji did make films where protagonists came from a modest background for example 'anari', 'biwi or makan', 'asli nakli' 'mem didi'. For those who came in he edited 'Coolie'.
RE:Assesment
by ravinandanprakash agrawal on Nov 09, 2007 09:10 PM Permalink
I dont believe in the concept of intelligent viewers, front benchers etc etc. If a film is good its liked by all. For example Golmal, chupke chupke anand. you will never find a rickshawalla who didnt like anand. Underestimating sensibility of other's is a crime. We all are sensible enuff to make out what's good and what's bad. another good example is david dhawan. all his initial works were liked by all and his current works are hated by all. my 70 years old dadi liked DDLJ becase it was a nice film. She has no clue where punjab or europe is. Sensibility is not a legacy of any class. we all walk the same road.
RE:Assesment
by Narendra Tade on Nov 09, 2007 11:13 PM Permalink
ha ha ha ha ha....I was talking about pedestrian sensibilities not pedestrians, a rickshaw puller is perfectly capable of having intellectual sensibilities....but I doubt whether every net user can rise above pedestrian interpretation.
RE:Assesment
by BHAGWAT SINGH on Nov 09, 2007 09:34 PM Permalink
Hello GAYS ravinandan& Jacob Well stevan spielbergs movies are Good ~ a few ones. But JAWS, ET, Minority Report are real time CRAPs. Jurrasic Park is OK but he always fancies animals keep on.......... hunting for Humans and that tooo very clever like u idiots who dont know anything but open ur S mouth and watch any foreign Psychos show they extraveganza...
RE:Assesment
by ravinandanprakash agrawal on Nov 09, 2007 10:19 PM Permalink
bhagwat bhai..soory for using harsh words. I apologise. kaam ki baat. aapne jin teen picturon ka naam liya apko malum hi hai wo teenon picturain kitni famous hain. Jaws actually changed the history of cinema. You or I can say that we didnt like it but the fact remains that it opened up a new world of cinema. There are things which may not be good but they have a big impact for example jahangir hasan was not a good musician but he was the first pakistani we indians accepted and hence.. apologies once again for my foolishness.
RE:Assesment
by ADITHI SHASTRY on Nov 09, 2007 09:44 PM Permalink
there are different genres in film making if u know. theres commercial cinema, art cinema, parallel cinema and so on. and u spoke about of yash ji, rgv, slb each of these have different sense of film making, and sanjay bansali or yash chopra or karan johar do not compell any of us to wacth their films, do they, the answer is no. its our choice whether we want to watch it or not. and hrishikesh again cannot be spoken with todays film makers. and i would like to ask u a question what is "real" cinema by the way? for kind information farah khan has made a movie that doesnt even touch the ground of reality 'main hu na' which is not reality. i do share ur concern but making statements such as "dishonest movie" is not done. lights, picturization music art direction all these are not things that u get in a packet in the super bazaar, they are concepts that visualised in different ways. u visualise one concept one way in a totally different manner somebody else does it.
RE:RE:Assesment
by ravinandanprakash agrawal on Nov 09, 2007 10:10 PM Permalink
you make a film on north east problem where the protagonist is an AIR reporter who dances on the top of a train. or with Veer zara where you are dealing with a problem like foreign jail birds and you end up showing them dancing. Its not sensible from any angle. Thats what I call dishonest. either you take up an issue and take it seriously or just make an om shanti om. My american freind after watching dilse said 'is this film about khajuraho'. thats what i call bad cinema.
RE:Assesment
by ravinandanprakash agrawal on Nov 09, 2007 10:08 PM Permalink
adithi..there are diffrent genres of cinema but they are not commercial, art etc etc. geners are sceince fiction, comedy, new wave, neo-realism etc etc. Films like arth, manthan were artistic and huge commercial hits which genre would you put them in? I would put 'Arth' in Drama and 'manthan' in neo-realism. when I said 'rea' i meant films in which the characters are real like for example sharukh in swades, satya in satya. I like RGV because he is good at it. for example the character of urmila is very real in 'rangila' when she is talking to her mom, brother and father and then all of a sudden she becomes a star during her dance performances or romantic scenes. Its very difficult but RGV can do that. I have problems with RGV because he has a taste for violence which is not good for the society. we dont need to see blood drops even if they are a reality. That way we are trivializing crime. I did not put farah khan in the category of 'real' cinema. she is good at larger-tahn-life drama and its fine as long as you dont call it art. I have problems with films like 'KANK' where you take up an issue like post marriage affair and trvialize it songs and fake endings. Either u take up a serious issue and deal ith seriousness or make an enteraining film. Same is with dil se. you make a film on north east problem where the protagonist is an AIR reporter who dances on the top of a train. or with Veer zara where you are dealing with a problem like foreign jail birds and you end up show
