Making the case that a film that’s considered “light entertainment” can also strive to be good cinema. Or that a film is more than just plot/dialogue/performances.
When I watched the recent Tamil film Thozha, a remake of the French hit The Intouchables, I experienced a curiously schizophrenic reaction. I was quite entertained, but I was exasperated that artistically speaking – namely, in the cinematic sense – there was absolutely nothing. I wrote, “The staging is broad, as are the performances. The storytelling has no finesse. What we’re seeing on screen are basically pages of the script… The melodrama is laughable… There’s some alarmingly crude comedy, especially in a bit involving a gay character. And the super-aggressive score is essentially [composer] Gopi Sunder holding a gun to your temple and screaming: Laugh. Cry. Feel warm-fuzzy.” And a piqued reader wrote back: “Isn’t it a victory for the film if it is enjoyable? Does every film have to have long tracking shots, wide angle shots, that bring us a feeling that a film is aesthetically beautiful, is a piece of art?”
Another reader said, “Nobody is asking if it’s great, avant-garde, pathbreakingly cerebral moving cinema, just whether it does a good job of what it sets out to do,” and added that I should not be comparing this Telugu/Tamil bilingual with “artsy world cinema.” Yet another reaction: “Maybe the yardstick chosen to compare this film is way too high. Thozha shouldn’t be compared to Anbe Sivam or Moondram Pirai, which [also] have the plot element of a normal guy’s journey with a mentally/physically challenged person. I don’t think the makers positioned this movie as a classic but rather a comedy bromance.” There was, finally, this question from the first commenter: “I also didn’t get it when you said it was script-to-screen translation. Isn’t every film doing the same thing, or do you mean that this film is lacking the auteur’s touch or that kind of stuff?”
I was bemused by the terms these readers used to connote “good cinema,” the kind of cinema that they felt I expected Thozha to be. Something with tracking shots, wide angle shots. Something avant-garde, pathbreakingly cerebral. Something like artsy world cinema. Something with an auteur’s touch. Something that’s not just a bromance but a… classic. My point is simply this: Why not expect a broadly pleasing bromance that’s also a classic? Okay, maybe that is a big ask. But why not expect a perfectly entertaining film that also strives for the “cinema” part of cinema? How long can we go on mistaking content for form, saying that as long as the plot/dialogues/performances – the only things Tamil audiences (and some Tamil critics too) seem to care about – work, nothing else is required? Maybe not the audience, but shouldn’t a critic – someone whose job is to analyse the art – point out these deficiencies, even if he says he is otherwise entertained?
No, just because Thozha is an “entertaining” film, there’s no reason it cannot be well-directed. A film need not be “cerebral” or “contain tracking shots” in order to be good cinema. It just needs a good director, with a sensibility. So the next question: Why don’t we have enough of those in Tamil cinema? Mainly because most of our “directors” are essentially screenwriters who also end up directing a movie. There’s nothing to say that the same person cannot do both, but these are different things, and someone who can do the first need not be able to do the second. Screenwriting is about imagining a world. Directing is about transferring that world from inside the head to the screen, and this involves technical knowledge and an artistic temperament. You have to know how to position actors in relation to the camera. You have to know how and where you’re going to shoot the next scene, so that there’s some kind of thematic and visual continuity between the scenes. Even if you hire the best technicians, you have to know what to tell them. You have to know a bit about light and colour. You have to know a bit about sound and music. It’s not just making people recite sheets of dialogue while you keep cutting to reaction shots.
And many screenwriters just don’t have this in them, this alchemic ability to bring together the various aspects of filmmaking, which is something like the Force in the Star Wars universe, something that surrounds the film, binds the film, courses through the film. And because this ability isn’t always there, many of our films are just photographed stage plays – everything happens within the “fixed” proscenium arch of the screen. In other words: plot/dialogues/performances. And how can you blame the audience for thinking these are the only things that matter when even social-media and YouTube critiques of Thozha don’t go any further? I wouldn’t mind it as much if this is all the YouTube critics did, if they simply told viewers whether the film worked for them. But they pretend to be experts and talk about technical aspects like editing, surely the most mysterious process among all of cinema. They rarely seem to have a bad word to say about anything form-related, perhaps because they don’t really know much, or maybe they don’t want to antagonise people they may have to end up interviewing. And because they are popular, their word becomes some version of the truth.
It’s like writing. Yes, you can say what you want to say in a series of bullet points, but that’s not going to impress the evaluator of an essay, who also looks for style, grace, wit, technical soundness, and so on. A lot of Tamil cinema is still in the bullet-point stage. The content may be good, but a critic should also look out for form – for the stuff beyond plot/dialogues/performances. He should be able to feel the Force, separate the unrelenting procession of hacks (who just seem to want to make money) from the handful of genuine filmmakers (who aren’t above wanting to make money, but who also strive to make art). Also, he must know that a film can be well-directed (like Yennai Arindhaal, to take the instance of a movie that’s hardly “cerebral,” a movie with a mass star) even if you remained unmoved by the plot/dialogues/performances. Let me put that differently. You may not have been entertained by Yennai Arindhaal, but it’s still been made with some level of artistry. A critic has to recognise this.
This isn’t to say that plot/dialogues/performances are unimportant, or that a movie with the Force is automatically a masterpiece. You may even wonder why any of this is important if the audience is having a good time. Because when a film is well-directed, it affects you subliminally, in more than just the obvious ways that you experience from the plot/dialogues/performances. Cinema isn’t just entertainment. It’s also art. I can understand if you don’t have the wherewithal to execute the technological feats of an Iñárritu today. But what does it say when you’re not even trying to compose shots like the ones Hitchcock or John Ford or George Cukor did in the 1950s? I take the names of these Old Hollywood masters and not those of the directors from the 1970s, considered a more auteur-driven era, because the films these older directors made contain a lot of the things our films have: action, suspense, broad comedy, music, melodrama. I can understand not achieving these high standards, but it’s hard to understand why we don’t even try.
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2016 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Baradwaj Rangan 
jussomebody
April 9, 2016
As laypeople, we could have also used some explanation on how exactly a film like Yennai Arindhaal achieves artistry, what it does differently from purely content driven films. Perhaps using a sequence?
LikeLiked by 1 person
R
April 9, 2016
BR: Long time reader here, first-time commenter. This is one of your best pieces, yet. This is the case with most of the Tamil movies, no one cares about form or storytelling niche- case in point, “Thani oruvan”.
While the movie made for some pretty decent pulpy fun, I had a lot of issues with the form. There was no sense of tone or texture, the staging was broad and the cinematography and editing were functional. The cinematography didn’t have a set color tone, it kept changing throughout the movie and the editing messed up the rhythm of the movie, the tension wasn’t built effectively. It kinda took me out of the movie.
This is the problem plaguing most of our mainstream films, there is no sense of oneness or like you mentioned the force. But with the birth of exciting new voices, I think Tamil cinema is in a pretty sweet spot.
Apart from the usual suspects (Mani Ratnam, Kamal), I think several contemporary indie filmmakers are very good with form (Kumararaja, Karthik Subbaraj, Vetrimaaran, Anucharan, Manikandan, Mysskin).
LikeLike
Nambirajan
April 9, 2016
I saw nerdwriter’s Hitcock blocking a scene analysis video a few weeks ago. Are there other such channels which dissect/ analyse films beautifully? BTW i follow ‘Every frame a painting’ YouTube channel too. Anyone else follow worthy in that genre?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amit Joki
April 9, 2016
BR: That will be the closest shave I will have with my writings published on a paper albeit with no referencd to me, which I am glad because I feel the readers would take us to complete idiots 😁😁😁
The reason why I commented as such was that there were a lot of films you reviewed and you hadn’t talked about form. They had other shortcomings and you made your point on them.
So when you brought up form when every other department was seemingly sound, it felt you were making a point on form for the sake of it, or because it felt you didn’t want the film to be perfect. Yes, no film is. But still.
Regarding direction, I got to know a lot on how direction is different from mere script to screen translation. Premam was the film, which I thought was beautifully directed.
Alphonse Putharen might be the among the very rare species who are able to tread the thin line between being a screenwriter and director in a graceful manner, not compromising on either of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prasanna
April 9, 2016
I really enjoyed reading your article about ‘directing’ a film. I believe that a lot of tamil films are so bad that any film even with a decent enough script gets appreciated overlooking other important aspects of film making. It may mostly have to be either the audience not being exposed to what a good movie is or them being close minded to anything non-native (we are the same people who dub english movies with stupid dialogues). Also, the current trend of ‘comedy’ for the sake of it is ‘horrifying’.
LikeLike
Madan
April 9, 2016
Haven’t watched the film in question but this is just so bang on:
“Screenwriting is about imagining a world. Directing is about transferring that world from inside the head to the screen, and this involves technical knowledge and an artistic temperament. You have to know how to position actors in relation to the camera. You have to know how and where you’re going to shoot the next scene, so that there’s some kind of thematic and visual continuity between the scenes. Even if you hire the best technicians, you have to know what to tell them. You have to know a bit about light and colour. You have to know a bit about sound and music. It’s not just making people recite sheets of dialogue while you keep cutting to reaction shots.”
You mentioned Star Wars and just yesterday I was watching Disclosure, just caught the last 30 min or so. For such a mainstream film, it is so well made. The point where the camera turns to a squirming Donald Sutherland as Douglas tears into Demi Moore (and watch how her cheeks flush and her speech slurs a bit as she falls apart)…these are very important sequences (sans dialogue) which our films miss. I am not even getting into lighting and stuff. Having visited New York City only once – and the so called Disney-fied version at that – I could still appreciate how NYC became a pivotal character in the movie French Connection; it wouldn’t be the same film if shot elsewhere. Again, it’s not an art film either. It’s not cookie cutter but it was still made primarily to entertain. I see some improvement in Bollywood – not consistently but at least some directors – but a lot of TF still exudes that naadagam-transposed-to-70 mm feel. It’s not bad in itself but it could be so much better when the other tools of movie making are fully harnessed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
udhaysankar
April 9, 2016
The process takes some time and is evolutionary, I guess. Perhaps through critics, new films and exposure to better cinema.
The aspects like ‘staging’, ‘direction’, ‘editing’, form are finer elements that cannot be recognized by a normal viewer, but can just be felt. He knows that something is different about a movie with both form and content, but cannot get his head around what it is, cause he has never made a film.
I don’t know what’s the case wrt Hollywood. Do the general public in those countries have the ability to distinguish between films which have form and films which don’t?. Cause, whatever blockbusters they churn have at least a basic level of craftsmanship (I feel so). Whereas it isn’t mandatory for our blockbusters to have solid craft.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jyoti S Kumar
April 9, 2016
Br sir, I totally agree with cinema also being an art form however, like jussomebody said, how do you differentiate screenwriting to direction. I am not able to wrap my head around the concept. For e.g. in Uttama villain, the scene where kamal’s assistant tries to read the letter in the dark room, but he has to turn towards the screen to get some light… I was actually impressed with that scene. But u had specifically commented on the same scene, saying you could imagine how the screen play was just enacted and not directed. So how should it have been different? This is just my attempt to understand better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
April 9, 2016
The problem is anyone can become a director. They need not be trained and they need not have a passion. Content helps them to some extent.
And one is criticised for pointing out this inadequacy.
Someone may like a simple story told directly without any frills. Some may want more from the movie. Something to chew about. Something that makes one to watch the movie once again. Or to relish some scenes.
It is good that you take criticism in a positive way and try to explain your point of view.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
April 9, 2016
Way off topic: Did you watch The Jungle Book, Rangan sir
PS: Hope you get to watch Jacobinte Swargarajyam or Kali, if time permits
LikeLike
Vanya
April 9, 2016
BR, this was a fantastic read, and thanks for the links to the visual essays on blocking, etc. Do you have any interest in (and time for!) fleshing this piece out into a series of detailed essays on your website? As you point out, there’s almost no discussion of many aspects of film-making in Indian cinema, and you’re so well-positioned to shape the conversation. Personally, my knowledge of cinema has come almost entirely from watching films/tv and I can tell you what “feels” right or wrong about scenes or performances but am only now getting educated on the technical aspects of film-making and learning to articulate my perception through cinemaese. Thankfully, YouTube has a ton of educational material for lovers of western films/tv. There are nuances specific to Hindi and regional cinema that you already cover on a regular basis, but it would be helpful to see more of these kind of one-stop, comparative studies too.
@Nambirajan, I love Every Frame too! If you’re a Whedon fan, or even if you’re not, I’d recommend The Passion of the Nerd channel. He does very insightful analyses of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. Here’s an example: http://youtu.be/KiJ7Kscpyks — the last few minutes are why I love his breakdowns. And if you’ve never watched the show, TPN has some reasons for why you should: http://youtu.be/DYPF0hgPjzY.
LikeLike
Karthik
April 9, 2016
I understand why you chose Yennai Arindhaal as a comparison point for paying heed to the cinematic aspects of the movie. But I do have a serious issue with regards to the use of voice over in that movie– I remember you describing it as “breaking new grounds with the use of voice over”– I, however, found it terribly intrusive, and really “uncinematic”. I could be wrong, but isn’t ” show, don’t tell” one of the tenets of good cinema. If we are made to hear explicitly what a character is thinking (in this particular movie, the thoughts are fairly ordinary and easily inferred from context), isn’t that a failure of the director in translating script to screen?
LikeLiked by 1 person
KadaKumar
April 9, 2016
Its an honour to be mentioned in your article 😉 Even if we end up appearing like philistines.
My point then was that your title ‘hardly great cinema…’ used for Thozha could just as well hold for every other movie you review. Was just wondering why these visual aspects weren’t dissected in other reviews. Is it because those other movies are flawed even in the basics, that here’s no need to go into such nuances, perhaps? Point taken.
However, unlike plot/dialogues/performances, its a bit harder to articulate the visual effects. I too find Hitchcock surreal and hypnotic in tone, though I can’t put it into words. I guess its visceral and more of you-know-it-when-you-see-it for most of us. But then, am just a layperson who tries to enjoy every movie at least to feel like it wasn’t wasted time. I too get confused when random guys comment on the editing or screenplay, and think they’re just trying to show off.
Maybe you should expound on the visual aspects of cinema in a for-dummies way, with lots of examples. At least the basic vocabulary so that we can discuss it like intellectuals. I mean, when you say stuff like ‘the staging is broad’ or there’s no ‘form’ or ‘scenes are just following the script’, what exactly do they mean, and how could they have been done correctly?
You could use Yennai Arindhaal as a case study for instance. I found it to be a half-baked movie with no focus, some cringey dialogues, just a hurried mishmash of slickly-shot scenes borrowed from previous GVM cop movies. So since we agree that it fails on the basic plot/dialogues/performances, and you claim its well-directed, you should explain the intricacies of what makes it well-directed.
LikeLike
Saurabh
April 10, 2016
Brangan,
I think Indian audiences mostly judge a movie from its content (this is probably true about literature as well). I feel this is mostly because there is some amount of technicalities involved around the form and they must be learned. So, somebody can develop an opinion around different “content” because he/she lives/interacts in the society and also there are constant discussions/debates around issues on TV and in newspapers. But style/grammar of an art form are neither discussed/debated nor they can be understood from direct life experiences.
In any case, I also feel that your reviews as well as the comment sections are heavily inclined towards the discussions on content. I am not saying you don’t mention about stylistic/technical elements of a movie but the inclination/focus is towards the content. Nothing wrong with that but I just wish it was the other way round. Mostly the discussions veer towards the burning topics of homosexuality, racism, the portrayal of women etc. I enjoy these discussions but since there is already too much “opinion” available on these topics elsewhere and since there are shortage of people who can write and facilitate the discussions around cinematic art form, it seems to me that the available resources are being sub-optimally utilized. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
April 10, 2016
KadalKumar: Actually we do not agree on Yennai Arindhaal, which I liked quite a bt…. http://tinyurl.com/kms2rkv 😀
Saurabh: It’s inevitable that reviews and discussions after one viewing will focus more on content than form. This piece is more about why form isn’t just for a certain kind of film.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Asmozonic
April 10, 2016
Just read this interview of Juhi Chaturvedi and the last para instantly reminded me of this post!
http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/i-dont-have-the-luxury-of-a-writers-whim-national-award-winning-scriptwriter-juhi-chaturvedi/
LikeLike
pp2chillax
April 10, 2016
Spot On BR !.. These days the good films in Tamil or Malayalam is considered great just because they got the film basics right or understood the Cinematic language properly. That should be their duty and not a honor 🙂 On a global standard the films we call great are actually good films. I am reminded of Satyajith Ray’s words, //There has yet been no Indian films which could be acclaimed on all counts. Where other countries have achieved , we have only attempted and that too not always with honesty, so that even our best films have to be accepted with the gently apologetic proviso that it is “after all an Indian film”//
Here is an elaborated version of Satyajit Ray’s thought on “Our Cinema,Their Cinema” which echoes the same subject
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s78/sh/52d98400-6690-44a0-8ea8-9034420de627/3c17bc20c0abc790
LikeLiked by 2 people
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
April 10, 2016
Just read your YA review. On the ‘first-person narration’, how do you compare Vetrimaaran’s Polladhavan with YA?
Kadakumar: I had serious considerations over this moniker when I was contemplating to undergo a name change. I quite like that character from Indian. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
asmamasood
April 10, 2016
Speaking of good direction, see my movie review “Joy”-‘J’ust the ‘O’verachiever ‘Y’ou,By Asma Masood, at this link: https://asmamasood.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/joyjust-the-overachiever-you/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Supertramp
April 10, 2016
Good one to read although wanted you to talk more about ‘form’ with examples. I hate the fact that some of our films are just single stage play with people standing and talking as you say here, and the way ‘form’ and ‘content’ are treated as separate entity. We don’t have many people taking about film making aspect of cinema either. So it is not a surprise when people talk about ‘tracking shots, wide angle etc’ or just plonk the camera in the center and shoot. Wish more and more people like you talked about it. Been following a lot of video essays from around the world and it’s disappointing that we don’t have that kind of channels and avenues where they talk about our great film makers.
People interested in watching video essays can follow some of the ones I have been following :
1. Tony Zhou- Every Frame a Painting
2. Kogonada
3. Rishi Kanera
4. Leigh Singer
5. Nedomansky
6. Jacob T. Swinney
There are some other ones too. ‘Burger Fiction’ provides some super cuts for laughs. Freddie Wong’s Rocketjump videos are fun too. Then there’s Chris Stuckmann’s youtube channel for film analysis.
And there’s one Indian one recently psycho analyzing Dil Chahta Hai and Swades.
LikeLike
Kannan Baskar
April 11, 2016
BR, a great piece on appreciating cinema. It is important that critics take upon them the task of educating the masses on good cinema. The digital revolution has the potential to either kill or give a new lease of life to the cinematic medium. An intuitive awareness, of the complex visual aesthetics, which define cinema is essential. Without this awareness cinema captured using the digital apparatus shall slowly but steadily turn into a trite piece of work.
I would suggest that people try watching Satyajit Ray’s films, not Apu trilogy; but Charulatha, Calcutta trilogy, Nayak, and the later films that he mainly shot indoors as he was advised to not shoot in the open (Ganashatru, Ghare Baire, Agantuk); in all these movies one can make out how the auteur (Ray), visually realizes a screenplay with brilliant blocking, great use of light, props, with arresting camera angles, movements, and great sound. Were his movies entertaining, you bet they where; one has to watch Nayak or Arranger Din Ratri to believe this.
LikeLike
KadaKumar
April 11, 2016
HonestRaj; Haha. Same here. That name has a certain ring to it. Its also parodied in Ghilli.
BR; I recall the title of your Yennai Arindhaal review being on the lines of ‘first-rate Ajith movie but a middling GVM movie’. I see that you have edited out the latter part. In any case, being a first rate Ajith movie isn’t saying much, given his general choice of movies. I’ve always wondered how he amassed a rabid fan following considering his poor taste in directors and scripts, Rajiv Menon, SJ Suryah being mere exceptions.
Anyway, I gather from your review that you found the cinematography top-notch, and other sweet little touches and details. But you have to agree that the plot was messed up throughout, and the villain wasn’t as effective as he was made out to be.
I feel GVM gets a bit carried away with his directorial touch, and ends up compromising on dialogues and plot. Granted that his movies are delightful on screen- with good-looking leads immaculately dressed, mesmerizing music, and high production values. His women, in particular, are absolute angels- beautiful, dignified, with strong personalities. If only he worked on the plot and dialogues a bit more seriously.
Aanyway, this wasn’t supposed to be about him. Again, please do a piece on direction paradigms, techniques and aesthetics. From a critic’s point of view. We readers need some guidance and vocabulary to articulate better certain visceral feelings related to form, atmosphere and stuff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Saurabh
April 11, 2016
pp2chillax mentioned “I am reminded of Satyajith Ray’s words, //There has yet been no Indian films which could be acclaimed on all counts//”
As I remember (probably in the same book that you mentioned), Ray was critical of films by the greats of Hindi Cinema like Bimal Roy on account of the same thing you quoted (not great on all accounts). For example he mentioned about “Udayer Pathe”, the great game changing Bengali film, noting that the film does not hold strongly on a re-watch and feels dated mostly because of a certain sentimentally with which it is made and the theatrical dialogue (as well as theatrical dialogue delivery).
I would also like to put most of the “great” Hindi films in the same category be it Anari or Do Bigha Zameen etc. DBZ, no doubt a great film, fails the “great on all accounts” test mostly because of the side characters who are characterized in a certain cliched way and also because of the theatrical dialogues.
In comparison, most of the Satyajit Ray’s film feel as strong today as probably they were then. His certain films have their own share of let downs by the same standard of “not great on all accounts” but more or less they hold much strongly than their Hindi counterparts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Iswarya
April 11, 2016
BR: If there’s a Film Appreciation 101 coming up, as requested by some of the commenters here already, you are absolutely the only person to do it justice (especially if the illustrations are to be drawn from Indian cinema). I add my voice to the enthusiastic chorus. Please do don the professor’s hat 🙂
Seriously wishing this would happen, because Content over Form has been the plague in my field too: one that I’m fighting against at every chance within my limited circle of influence, but not to much avail. 😦
LikeLike
Kannan Baskar
April 11, 2016
Is Cinema an art form?, of course it is. However it does not always transcend its prosaic limitations, to acquire the aesthetic allure associated with art, on screen. When I say Cinema is art, do I refer to “art house” Cinema, certainly not. Some of the visually and aesthetically splendid movies, of our generation, that managed to push and redefine the boundaries of the cinematic medium were shot by main stream movie directors such as Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Kubrick etc.
If one wishes to see and experience the magic of cinema it is vital that they watch the movies of auteurs who consistently produce Cinematic experiences that are visual adventures. I have attached a list of some of the movies that I like and a list of some of the important auteurs of our times.
I have herewith attached a link of movies and auteur lists
My movie list titled an arthouse adventure http://www.imdb.com/list/ls055739666/
A list of my favorite auteurs http://www.imdb.com/list/ls074371862/
I am sure there are many names that I would have overlooked, kindly feel free to recommend
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aditya (Gradwolf)
April 11, 2016
I wish – for fun purposes – some of your derision for a director like Radhamohan had come through in a piece like this! He is such a fine example of all these problems you mention. What more, I’d imagine something like Intouchables/Thozha too is right up his alley.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Venkat Ramanan CS
April 12, 2016
I was wondering if there are any malayalam film followers here and how would you rate P.Padmarajan on account of form in his films. Despite watching his classic films on poor quality youtube channels, all of his films have had a subconscious appeal. Sometimes its the dialogues, the characters, the acting, the background music, the mood he creates, the pace, the shots. Recently, i caught up with “thoovanathumbikal” , How more symbolic of a staging the climax was. In a railway station, the trains arrived and departed, so too clara came and left. The final shot, two of them left standing in the deserted station platform after everyone had left, I felt it was brilliant staging and direction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
April 12, 2016
Brangan, deja vu, that’s how i feel about this thread. we have been discussing this a long time on the comments section here.
indian cinema, especially the mainstream cinema has always had a contentious relationship with form and techniques. its always been about content, music and the stars.
that is for what much of the budget and the attention is spend, so there is hardly anything left to spend on enhancing the technique in films. and opposed to western cinema , which has its roots in magic,illusions, photography and so on, ours has evolved from the stage, nautanki, musical theater and stuff like that. so that basic difference in cinematic grammar has always been present in our films wrt the western cinema. but i am glad things are changing at least in hindi cinema where a certain amount hollywood like professionalism is creeping in every aspect of film production, which may or may not be the influence of corporatisation. but in the case of south indian cinema, it is still restricted to a handful of filmmakers that everybody else has mentioned here.
just to add one more point, its not just the directors in south cinema or say tamil cinema are very tame when it comes to technique, but the case that directors who had such strong technique in the earlier part of their careers losing their touch in the following years.by the late 70’s and early 80’s we had the advent of such great cinematic directors . KB,Bharatiraja , Mahendran,.. if you see a film like Mahendran’s Jhonny, the beginning is so unusual. the way the 2 characters of Rajni are introduced, its completely through, action and atmosphere. you see one pulling off a con job and the other the eccentric barber.its all done so wordlessly
KB managed to hold his own pretty much up to his last stages of his career.
Bharatiraja is the worst offender. the first man to shoot a tamil film completely outdoors and all that. even his mainstream commercial films like sivappu rojakkal and tiktiktik had such superb technique. it was like avant garde french cinema or something. i cant believe it is the same director who made films like tajmahal or kangalal kaidhi sai. its another matter that directors making bad films, but at least you expect a level of craftsmanship that the director has showcased over a period of time in even his bad films. but this was outrageous,- not just the staging and editing of random scenes-to see him waste some of the best AR Rahman numbers with such dull picturisation. it was unbelievable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
April 12, 2016
And agree with you, that even lighthearted entertainment could be very well staged
best eg would be Priyadarshan. priyan’s name does not usually come up when we discuss the truly cinematic auteurs. one reason is that he has besmirched his legacy with just too many bad films. but he is truly a technically competent director when it comes to staging of scenes. the sound design, the placement of actors and most importantly the setting of background action.. i suggest 3 movies- kilukkam, thenmavin kombathu and chandralekha from malayalam- , very lighthearted films which are brilliantly shot and staged.
even some of his hindi comedy films, like hulchul -for eg- which arent that good per se , but are very well staged, i remember a simple scene where Akshaye and Arshad are talking and we have kids swinging on branches from behind and so on.
Also there is no other director who has grown to become such a master of technique from very humble and crude beginnings than priyan. if you watch his films from his first decade in the 80’s, well they are worse than stage plays when it comes to technique. but he improved himself so much starting with Killukkam that. his kalapaani \sirassalai is one of the most technically competent films ever made in this country IMO. its just too bad that he makes such terrible films these days in both hindi and malayalam.
LikeLike
brangan
April 12, 2016
Via email…
Santhosh: The first paragraph said all that there is to know of the plight if Tamil cinema today. Just when I was beginning to think that this crudeness will eventually become the hallmark standard of our cinema, you have put out a thoughtful piece that there are good critics still out there. Thank you for standing up. Have a great day! God bless!
LikeLike
brangan
April 12, 2016
Via email…
bonny benny: Sir, my name is bonny benny.i happened to read your article on editorial of
9th april. I am not a film buff, but your piece was simply BEAUTIFUL to read.
And yes, yennai arindhaal was a class film.
Thank you (pardon my grammar)
LikeLike
brangan
April 12, 2016
Via email…
Vijay M: Dear/Respected Sir,
When I first saw the posters of “Oopiri”(Telugu version of Thozha), I was rejoiced to the fact that I can relive The Intouchables, again, in my country version and in after thought, it short-lived. I even told my friends about how great the story would be and how it would tickle the human emotion. But it won’t exactly be the same experience as of the French version. But, somewhere deep down, given the recent evolution in Indian cinema with the likes of Jolly LLB, Court, or as you mentioned Yennai Arrindhal, I had a tiny hope, they would ignite some sparks with Thozha as well.
Yes they cried, they laughed, they enjoyed the movie with their heart.
I watched more of the audience’s reaction to the scenes rather than the scenes itself. I wondered, how little they needed or is it that, they got subjected to such waste in recent times, this little, not so beautifully put, but brilliant story, captured them in awe.
They loved the locations and the setting, when they weren’t even placed correctly. They loved the performances when they didn’t even do justice to the roles they played. Silly out of date jokes were enjoyed. But there was little satisfaction that at least large percent of the audience is accepting the change.
Maybe there will come a day when we will enjoy the scene where in Eiffel Tower is set in ‘the’ scene with ‘the’ tune.
Thank you.
LikeLike
brangan
April 12, 2016
Via email…
Ramasastri: Dear Sri Baradwaj,
Read your article on Tamil cinema in the hindu today. I am an avid movie watcher, especially Telugu movies. I saw oopiri (Telugu version of thozha) and found something missing. I am not a critic and possibly can’t really point out the missing part.
I liked your analysis on screenwriting and directing. I am just curious as to how you evaluate works of Balachander in Tamil and Viswanath in Telugu. Or even Maniratnam?
If you get time, you can share your thoughts on what makes a movie good or great by citing a few examples from Tamil or Telugu industry.
Sorry for intruding into your time. It is my keen interest in movies that compelled me to write this mail.
Regards,
LikeLike
brangan
April 12, 2016
Via email…
Asif Ahamed: Sir i would like to mention the point which you are talking about in the article “Thozha”is not a tamil movie it is basically a telugu movie “oopiri” it is just dubbed to tamil thats all .so there is no point in straight away abusing tamil cinema.
And i am really feeling bad on saying tamil cinema needs a good director with a sensibility. pls next time when you are writing any article analyse properly and do.
Thank u Jai hind
LikeLike
brangan
April 12, 2016
Via email…
Venky: Hello Mr Baradwaj,
Read your article. Couldn’t agree with you more. I switch off most films these days within the first 20 mins if I see thoughtless or ill conceived shots. Just cannot stand them. Especially having studied filmmaking myself from NYFA, NYC and knowing a bit about how Hitchcock does it, etc.
I am am Indie filmmaker myself and actually made a Tamil short film with Mr Y Gee Mahendra an year back. I wanted to share the product with you and get your opinion on what you thought about the tone, style, form, shots, editing, artistry of this film. Please feel free to be as frank and specific as possible. I am very curious to know how you felt about the above aspects of my film (not about the story, plot, dialog, performances, etc – for which I get plenty of opinions) as whatever you see in this film is 100% completely just my idea and so I have no clue how someone else like you that shares the same principle like me, perceives it [wow, what a long sentence!]. I appreciate you taking the time to view and comment on my film:
LikeLike
MANK
April 12, 2016
Venkat Ramanan CS, thoovanathumbikkal is my favorite padmarajan movie.he was one of the greatest filmmakers ever in malayalam cinema.but over and above that he was a brilliant writer,a true literature genius. but i dont think he was such a great visualist.much of his breaking of form happens in his writing imo. both with regard to the narrative and the characterisation, which were truly unique . you will find some of the most unique,eccentric and esoteric male and female protagonists in his films. he had a great team going with director Bharathan who was a true visual artist.but after he became an independent director, i dont think his films had that visual aesthetic that bharathan use to bring to his writing.
but still he made some truly great films.as you said about the climax of the film. the railway station is an ongoing thread in the film, much of the meetings between Lal and sumalatha happens at railway stations. then there is the rain metaphor throughout.. every time he thinks of sumalatha, there is rain. but most importantly it is the characterization of sumalatha’s clara that is most unique. a girl who willingly steps in to prostitution without any regrets.you just dont see characters like that in indian cinema. both the film and the character falls in the realm of romantic fantasy . there are some of his other films that are truly wonderful especially njan gandharvan – his final film
And speaking of Bharathan, he was one most purely visual filmmakers in our country. Apart from tevar magan, his best work was in malayalam films. Vaishali,Amaram,.. were extraordinary audio visual experiences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
April 12, 2016
And as we are on the subject of blocking , staging and shooting on this thread, i just want to put this clip out there from Mani’s Dil se. which is a prime eg. of how a great director can enhance a dialogue scene between the leads. Dil se – i wouldnt say is a bad film – but this isnt his best. it is a very ambitious films but rather flawed in execution, but man whatever his faults as a filmmaker, he definitely knows how to shoot them. this a very simple scene of SRK and manisha talking. but how he shoots this, it gives me goosebumps every time i watch this. in any other filmmakers movie, this would have been a pretty ordinary scene . but look how he frames it, cuts it.the sound design, its just marvelous – the way people walk in and out of the frame, the light on Manisha’s face that keep changing from blue to white to dark,. this isnt just for visual effect. it more or less signify the nature of their relationship, just a few moments snatched from the hustle and bustle of the crowd around- it is for scenes like these why i am such a fan of MR and why i get so disappointed with other filmmakers.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
April 12, 2016
MANK: Totally agree with you on Bharathiraaja. If we analyse his filmography, he (among the top directors) is easily the most inconsistent filmmaker that Tamil cinema has ever had. I rather prefer Sigappu Rojakkal and Tik Tik Tik to his Mann Vaasanais’. It’s sheer coincidence that he made 16 Vayathiniley at a time when Tamil cinema desperately needed a change. The ones that immediately followed 16 V were pretty ordinary films. These are the most successful films of his career: 16 V (1977), Alaigal Oivathillai (1981), Mann Vaasanai (1983), Muthal Mariyathai (1985), Vedham Puthithu (1987), and Kizhakku Cheemaiyile (1993). Now, look at the the gap between these films. Considering that he made close to 50 films in a span of 36 years, this is an abysmal record.
IMO, Balu Mahendra and Mahendran were surely better storytellers (and directors) than BR. It’s almost a sin to compare their craft with BR’s. No doubt, IR gave some good music for his films, but he gave equally good (or perhaps even better) music for BM and Mahendran films as well. I wonder how this man became the most influential one among his contemporaries!
LikeLike
mainland
April 12, 2016
“And speaking of Bharathan, he was one most purely visual filmmakers in our country”
I think it helped that Bharathan was a painter and a sculptor.He often painted the shots he imagined before them being shot for the film.
“that is for what much of the budget and the attention is spend, so there is hardly anything left to spend on enhancing the technique in films”
If budget is the reason , how do you explain MOideen, iyobinte pustakam etc from Kerala (that I am guessing doesn’t have the kind of money some of the big budget tamil movies have)that looks technically so brilliant, in terms of lights, sound, staging, cinematography…? Is it the Kerala landscape that lends itself to such brilliance or is it the low budget that makes them shoot most of the shots in natural light? Or is it just growing up in Kerala exposed to such natural beauty that produces brilliant technicians like Santosh Sivan that makes world class technically brilliant films on such low budget.
LikeLike
brangan
April 12, 2016
Moideen and well-made? Yikes!
From my column: “Ennu Ninte Moideen is not very well-directed — it’s too straight, too bloodless, too timid, too sober.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rohit Sathish Nair
April 12, 2016
Staging? Moideen?
LikeLike
Vanya
April 13, 2016
Re: Moideen — And all that slow-mo; I guess that’s one way to show the passage of ~25 years. Visually, the movie was frustrating — there were scenes that emphasized an object or body, e.g., the flickering bulb at the convent, that made you think there would be more to it later on, either directly or metaphorically, but nope. Psych!
LikeLike
brangan
April 13, 2016
LikeLiked by 5 people
Supertramp
April 14, 2016
Moideen isn’t well made at all, it is a badly directed film. Cinematographer and editor of ENM has obviously proved their mettle before.
@MANK My favorite Padmarajan film ‘Season’ seem to be his best directed one. Ranjith is the worst offender when it comes to staging, blocking, framing etc. Here is a video essay comparison of Portrayal of feudal violence in Paleri Manikyam and Vidheyan
LikeLike
Utkal
April 14, 2016
MANK: I found the staging of the Dil Se scene you have posted merely gimmicky and arty, the kind of scene crtics like to write about. But really it left me cold. On top of it all there is the hammy KKkkkiran style dilaogue delivery of Shahrukh. In comparison , you should take a look at somehing like David Lean’s Brief Encounter to realize how the true feelings between a man and a woman in love can be brought about without screaming ‘ art’ in your face.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Raj Balakrishnan
April 14, 2016
Hi Baradwaj, how would you rate Tarantino as a filmmaker. Considering that his movies are conversation/dialogues intensive.
LikeLike
MANK
April 14, 2016
Supertramp,Renjith is not a good director at all.you just have to watch his last film Njan -with a terribly miscast Dulqar salman- to realise this. he is a rather good writer dealing with some seriously complex issues.he has written some good films that i like. even there i have problems with him, i would say he comes up with some truly good ideas , but he does not have the skill to execute them properly. more than that, his pseudo intellectual dialogues and preachy tone that – he adopts some time – are a chore to sit through, bores the hell out of me.but i like the fact that he is in forefront of the new wave of malayalam cinema, you know giving chances to new directors and collaborating with other filmmakers. his recent production Munnariyuppu was a really good film.
And Reg: Padmarajan’s Season, i see what you mean by well directed. but it is not considered a major work in his oeuvre, perhaps due to the lurid pulpy nature of the film , which is very different from the rest of his films. but i feel that his last film njan gandharvan was his fully realised work, both from the visual point of view and from the literary pov, his lifelong obsession with myths, romantic fantasy, psycho sexual themes, all finds a grand culmination in the film.
LikeLike
MANK
April 14, 2016
Utkal, but David Lean is a very different filmmaker from MR and so is brief encounter from Dil se.Lean is a very subtle and refined filmmaker. he is a master of invisible style. even his huge operattas like Lawrence of Arabia or Doctor Zhivago are pretty realistic in execution.
Mani’s films, especially Dil se is an extravagant romantic fantasy .it isn’t realistic at all. his style is more in your face and baroque, absolutely no comparison with Lean’s style.you say that the scene comes across as arty and gimmicky , i say it fits well with the over all style of the picture. the film has other problems imo, but i wouldn’t call this scene as gimmicky. the style of the scene is not inconsistent with rest of the film. if you are calling the film arty and gimmicky, then that is another issue.
If i have to compare Mani and dil se it will be with Francis coppola or Martin Scorsese and their romantic fantasias, films like , One from the Heart, Dracula,New york new york or Age of Innocence . you just take any of the scenes from those films and you could say the same about them too – arty or gimmicky,
LikeLike
brangan
April 14, 2016
Raj Balakrishnan: QT is a fantastic filmmaker. People misunderstand the show-don’t-tell dictum. It doesn’t mean talkiness is bad. Dialogues are a powerful part of the filmmaker’s armoury.
MANK: I agree. That’s a fantastic scene and one that’s completely in tune with the expressionistic tone of the film (most flagrantly defined in Satrangi re). Mani Ratnam is one of the few desi (mainstream) filmmakers who deals with what the Stanislavskian school called “business.” He always gives actors bits of business — through personal gestures, through inter-personal interactions, through scenery and props. Kadal is a great example of the latter.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
April 14, 2016
MANK:
I don’t think Dulquer Salmaan was miscast in Njan. He did bring out the vagrant, rebellious side of KTN Kottoor very well (though the character is very much in line with his usual rebel roles).
His performance, according to me, suffered mostly due to the confused writing. All the other characters in the film were mostly unidimensional, and that must have been why almost all others could pull off their roles pretty neatly. Along with narrating the story of a repressed voice, he was also trying to combine theatre and cinema, and he eventually failed in this juggling act
PS: How would you rate Kaiyoppu?
LikeLike
Kannan Baskar
April 14, 2016
The new filmmakers Q, I feel, has great potential. After watching Gandu and Tasher Desh one senses his unique ability, the capacity to manipulate and play with the formal elements of cinema.
LikeLike
Supertramp
April 15, 2016
@MANK Yea, njan gandharvan is obviously the film, the man. He had to use practical effects as there was no money for VFX I heard. All the issues with the production and his subsequent death has added to his aura. Without this film the filmography or life of Padmarajan is incomplete. In away it was a grand culmination of the man.
LikeLike
Kannan Baskar
April 15, 2016
I see that there are multiple people interested in malayalam cinema, commenting on this blog. I am surprised that i did not hear anyone mention Shaji N Karun. Vanprastham, and Kutty Srank were great movies. Even his latest movie Swapanam I felt was a cinematic delight. In my opinion he is one among the best filmmakers working in our country.
LikeLike
Prasad
April 15, 2016
“Directing is about transferring that world from inside the head to the screen, and this involves technical knowledge and an artistic temperament.”
I know we’re talking about movies. But offlate western world has taken the does this magic to TV also. It has been awe inspiring to see that some of the TV series like Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones. Infact it makes us wonder if some of the Hollywood recent movies can match the narrative arcs and the cinematography and the staging of the scenes in these TV series. It’s just awe inspiring.
It’s not about the budget also. TV series like “Breaking Bad” may not have the budget like “Game of thrones” it’s just the directors brilliance and ability to bring out the best from his team and visualize something which we’ve not witnessed before.
LikeLike
MANK
April 15, 2016
Rohit Sathish Nair, i liked kaiyoppu.but it could have been better. the problems that you mentioned with Njan- Renjith’s attempt at juggling several things at the same time does spoil things a bit. if it was just a straightforward film about a writer facing writer’s block while writing his masterpiece and then overcoming it with the inspiration from a lost love, a down on the luck publisher and a senior writer, that itself would have made a small gem of a film.even his super budhijeevi dialogues does not irritate me here because the protagonist is an intellectual sahityakaran. but he tries to drag so many other things into it – issues of communalism,police brutality, terrorism- nothing wrong with that, but the scope of the film is too small, it does suffocates it a little bit. but the good thing is that he doesnt over do it and most importantly it has a brilliant and charismatic Mammootty performance at the center.he pulls off the film in style. i love that scene in the police station- where inspite of being abused and assaulted- he holds on to his dignity and argue with the cops.if it was some other actor, it would have come across as artificial and fallen flat. that was one of the problems in Njan. all the young malayalam actors like Dulqar,Nivin,Prithviraj,Jayasurya, they are all talented, but their talent falls within a narrow range . they still haven’t developed that Mammootty \mohanlal range which allow them to rise above the pitfalls of the script and balance out the movie.
Supertramp, ya very few filmmakers are lucky enough to end their career (or their life) with a bang like padmarajan did with Njan Gandharvan. the great Bharathan ended his career with a few turkeys. come to think of it, all the great directors of that time like K.G.George,Sibi Malayil,Kamal etc have been making some terrible films in their late career. even Adoor gopalakrishnan, i didnt think his last few films were anywhere near his masterpieces like Elipathayam or Ananatharam. May be Tarantino has a point when he says that directors should quit after 60.
LikeLike
MANK
April 15, 2016
Kannan Baskar, oh Shaji N karun is a terrific director and someone who has grown over the years. Starting with piravi which was a simple tale of a father waiting for his son- who may be dead- to return, his films has consistently grown, both in scale and ambition Vanaprastham is a truly great film, both visually and aesthetically.Mohanlal was superb as the kathakali artist struggling between his real persona and all the epic characters he potrays. i was more amazed by the character of the princess played by suhasini, who lives in a dream world of her own where she is subhadra and mohanlal is Arjuna and she refuse to identify his real persono. tht was a trulu unique characterisation
Prasad, there are 2 reasons for tv boom . the obsession of studios with 100 mil+ comic book blockbusters and refusal to fund mid budget character driven movies. so all those 30-80 million dollar films- their talent and their audience have now shifted to tv.
And yes it is never about the budget alone- otherwise how would manirathnam films which which are made at 1\5 th the budget of shankar films look so superb, while the latter’s films look so clumsy. the talent and the determination of the director goes a long way in making the films what they are.
And regarding narrative arcs- well that is more understandable right ?, bcoz the tv gets more time as opposed to films where you had to compress the narrative in 2 or 21\2 hrs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kannan Baskar
April 16, 2016
Learning to Look: Eye Contact in Satyajit Ray's THE BIG CITY from Fandor Keyframe on Vimeo.
I have attached a videoclip from Fandor which is titled “Learning to Look: Eye Contact in Satyajit Ray’s THE BIG CITY”. The clipping is relevant to our present discussion as it is not just the eye contact between the characters in the movie Mahanagar, that stands apart, but it is also the composition in general. Just watch the clippings to feel the power behind each and every frame. It is a pity that Ray is not watched widely, people are missing out on some real great cinema.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Saurabh
April 16, 2016
I second Kannan on watching Satyajit Ray as there is a lot to learn from him in terms of style. I highly recommend the below which is one of my favorite film. I have just given a short summary of what I find interesting to give an idea of the kind of things Ray focusses on. Hopefully its not too long and boring.
The movie is Days and Night in the Forest. The story is about four friends who visit an out-house for a short vacation in a forest away from the hustle bustle of city. Its difficult to pin-point the theme of the movie to one particular thing. As Ray himself said – “it is about so many things”. But this movie is a classic case study of composition and editing for storytelling purposes. The storytelling structure is episodic rather than dominated by a plot. Throughout different episodes the friends are constantly compared and contrasted against each other to bring to forefront the finer points about our society, our aspirations, our morality etc. The great thing is that the movie never gets judgmental or preachy, it just keeps observing. Some of the things to focus on is
a) Composition: The movie starts with the friends going to the out-house in a car. We are never told who the most important character is in the movie but you get that sense within 5 minutes. How? Just by the way the camera captures them. Also notice, the position of characters in the car. Who is in the front? Who sits diagonal to whom? Everything tells you something. Anytime all the friends are together in one scene, the composition tells something. Also keep noticing, who/how/when camera follows a character. Relative positioning wrt each other, distance from one other, position they occupy in the frame (foreground, higher, left side of the frame etc) every thing is so carefully chosen.
Another film which tells the story heavily using the composition is “A Coward” by Ray. A former boyfriend meets his girlfriend and her husband suddenly and spends a day in their house as a guest. Now he wants to know if she is happy or not with her husband and asks her that? The girl never says anything openly. Or does she? I think the composition when all three of them sit and talk to each other about mundane things tells a lot how she feels towards her husband as well as towards his former boyfriend.
b) Deep focus storytelling: Normally the scenes are structured so that the storytelling happens in one plane (either the background or the foreground etc). But in this one, all the planes are important. See the scene where the guys bribe the caretaker of the outhouse. Constantly, the characters move from background to foreground (visually taking control/baton from one another) but the reaction of the characters in the background is also very relevant because it helps to see the contrasting reactions of different friends and tells a lot.
c) Editing: The same. Whose reaction shots are shown after whom? Which friend is cut from which one. This cutting pattern constantly pits someone against someone for their reaction. In which situation a particular pair of characters are contrasted? What does this tell us about those two characters.
The movie has a very famous scene called “memory game scene”. All the character sit in a circle and play a memory game. The choices they make tells a lot about them but the camera movement and cutting give us another layer of information. Compare this scene to the “guess the character” game played in Inglorious bastards.
Ray compared the structure of the movie with that of a Fugue (a classical musical structure). I feel he means it in the way that the different characters in the movie (4 friends and 2 ladies they meet) act as different musical instruments, sometimes playing notes together as in a musical harmony, sometimes one after the other as in a musical melody.
A general analysis/introduction of the movie
Memory game scene
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
April 16, 2016
Has anybody seen Ray’s Pikoo?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kannan Baskar
April 16, 2016
HONEST RAJ: I have watched few minutes of the movie on youtube. I was unable to continue watching the movie in its entirety as the audiovisual quality of the material, available on Youtube, was very poor. However I couldn’t help noticing the similarity between the first shot of Pikur diary and Mouna Raagam.
LikeLike
Saurabh
April 16, 2016
Kannan, thanks for sharing the “learning to look” clip. Really enjoyed watching it. Especially the part where it talks about looking in the mirror. Please do share any other material that you have watched/read.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kannan Baskar
April 16, 2016
Saurabh: The pleasure’s all mine, it is deeply disturbing to know that Ray is watched more actively in the states and Europe compared to India. People such as as Wes Anderson and Martin Scorsese have incorporated a lot from his style of film making. In fact the Criterion Collection, a video distribution company and Janus Films have restored his works such as Apu Trilogy, Jalsaghar, Charulatha into 4K prints. I have attached links of video clippings created by the Austin film society in honor of Ray.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
April 16, 2016
Kannan Baskar: Oh, I wasn’t really aware that the film was available on YT. You’re a true fan. 🙂
LikeLike
Pepdear
April 17, 2016
Found the contents of the below link really interesting
http://tamilmoviescripts.blogspot.in/2009/12/how-to-make-movies-visual-treat.html
LikeLike
MANK
April 17, 2016
Kannan Baskar, THE 4K restored criterion bluray of Charulata is Fantastic!. it was always my favorite Ray movie -not to mention one of my favorite movies all time- now i love it even more.the exquisiteness of the photography is visible like never before. Madhabi mukherjee never looked more ethereal
LikeLiked by 2 people
Prasad
April 17, 2016
Can’t agree more on the comments on Ray by Kannan Baskar ,Saurabh and MANK. My two cents below.
Just look at the interview scene in “Pratidwandi”. Full conversation in english and look at the point of views made in this conversation. It is also the views of Ray himself. Points made like human courage of vietnamese people is a begger achievement than “Landing on the moon “.
Another classic scene from Aganthuk . It’s a candid conversation about civilization. More and more you see this feels like we’re listening to ray himself through these characters.
He was a true visionary and no wonder Scorscesse and many others are inspired by him
Pl have look at the link below on the unproduced film “The Alien” which is exactly the stroy of E.T
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alien_(film)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prasad
April 17, 2016
MANK
“And regarding narrative arcs- well that is more understandable right ?, bcoz the tv gets more time as opposed to films where you had to compress the narrative in 2 or 21\2 hrs.”
Completely agreed. The flip side to it is, some of the movies we’re seeing offlate they’re not able to hold viewers attention for even 2 hours. You just don’t find ANYTHING interesting…anything which we’ve not seen at all just insulting viewer’s intelligence.
Just take “Breaking Bad”…it’s a 65 episode TV series…it astonishing that not even a single moment if you feel a slack on the narration….the visuals, lines they speak , cinematography, the premise ,everything looks original and inventive. How many films which we’ve seen made us to feel like this? Yes. it’s a huge investment of your time but definitely it’s worth
though!
I completed “Breaking Bad”, Game of Thrones” , Sherlock” ” and I got to see something inventive and original which haven’t seen in movies offlate. Anyway it’s just my personal view
and many might differ with these.
LikeLike
Venkat Ramanan CS
April 28, 2016
An interesting piece on acting,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2014/09/10/how_do_you_differentiate_good_acting_from_bad_acting.html?wpsrc=fol_tw
LikeLike
Thulasidasan Jeewaratinam
May 31, 2023
(Watching Affleck’s Air recently on Prime made me recall this “Use the Force” piece. The following is perhaps a scribble, that I hope to tie in with Rangan’s piece, as well as some scattered thoughts here and there).
Affleck’s Air, if anything, is a class exhibit for two phenomenon(s); firstly, that star power exists and can muscle through a ponderously stagnant film enough to render it with “infectious energy” as Lemire (from Roger Ebert’s site) put it, or ridiculously “entertaining … given that it’s about shoes” as Dargis from New York Times put it. Whether shoes or (maybe something small like Apple product launches as Sorkin beautiful dramatizes, or large and metaphoric as Vietnam War, as Coppola demonstrates), the “entertaining” quotient does not arise from the choice of subject, but the ability to dramatize the event or subject, and if one speaks of American cinema as an homogeneous entity, then the ability to dramatize the event or subject through elaborate exploration of character psyche. Dargis highlights Matt Damon and Viola Davis as the clear “M.V.P.s” with the latter “whose beautifully modulated performance helps deepen the story and expand its emotional palette.” Lemire highlights the performances as well, praises Jason Bateman’s “mastery of dry, rat-a-tat banter is the perfect fit for this material”, Chris Messina’s “hilariously profane telephone tirade”, and Davis “whose arrival provides the film with a new level of weight and wisdom.” Davis has two scenes, in a set-piece like manner; one, when she meets Damon and sizes him up at her own house, and secondly, during a phone call, whereby she asserts a business deal for the shoes. It’s to Davis’ credit that she just needs to show up these days, and affect a slight eyebrow raise, or a smirk, or a sigh, to warrant “weight and wisdom” as well as “expand the emotional palette”. The film instead offers no rewarding perspective into her character’s relationship w/ her son, her husband, or anyone. If anything, Davis stands on her own most of the time, and one could be mistaken into thinking that such was an artistic choice on the part of writing and directing. But the criticism applies equally towards all characters; there’s none to be known of Damon’s character outside of what the plot demands, and the one time the film affords the character is a breathing space to luxuriate is to drive home an epiphany point while watching a TV recording – much like how Affleck’s character discovers his epiphany in Argo, while watching Planet of the Apes on TV. There, Affleck’s character was rendered a distanced father, driven by duties to be away from his only source of family comfort. Another character, the TV producer, shares similar point while sharing burgers with Affleck’s character. But that’s about it. Here, in Air, that duty in relegated to Bateman’s character, whose monologue remains emotionally touching when he explains how the free basketball shoes from their division remains his only contact point with his estranged daughter. The other monologue, the much publicized Damon’s one, about Jordan during the boardroom pitch, remained largely artificial, with Affleck’s cross-cutting of clippings from the real life, and the fact that Damon’s well of thoughts sprang from zero precedence, muting the intended dramatic effect of the monologue (apparently, my opinion is the odd one out; other reviews have praised Damon’s monologue and either discussed less or not at all Bateman’s dialogue). Characters in the films are barely discerned or distinguished by one or two traits (a funny father, a disinterested star, a rash but funny talking White agent, a rash but funny talking Black agent, a Purple coloured car owner). Thus, it’s no surprise that most of these characters recede to the background and the actors are the gap fillers, hence the much discussion about their performances. According to Air screenwriter, Alex Convery, “So much of the movie was done on set, from Chris Tucker doing all his own stuff to Viola improvising what I think is the best line in the movie, to Matt and Ben doing a pass on the script. There was so much creation, and that is a lot of the reason why the movie works the way it does.” (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/air-michael-jordan-was-shown-original-script-1235371417/amp/). So, stars save films, or do they? Air was by no means saved by performances; no star commanded any more screen presence than Damon, and heck, Damon didn’t even have a distanced kid to grieve over, or to transport that angst into fostering another talent in the name of Jordan. Consider what Sorkin does with Moneyball – it’s not just about why Pitt wants to break the system. He’s someone who was raised and thrown away by the same system of scouts, and he’s got attachment issues. He doesn’t talk to players, he doesn’t watch the games, and he drives around during games, and he’s got a daughter to grieve over. Air was inert; the endless background music with needledrops, the uninspiring direction and the context-free screenplay. Nothing beyond what’s mentioned in the screen. Every screen marked with a clear point for the audience to remember, and move into. Consider even the scene where the shoe has to be designed – the film barely threads into the details that informs the shoe making, or the processes that went into the shoe. In one scene, the shoe is asked for. In the next scene, the shoe is made, and the characters are in awe – awe of what? What awe is to be felt in the space of 2 minutes? The designer informs us that the shoe has the “logic of water” – great, but what does that even mean? Argo similarly affected the vibes of those tightly-written, context-free, 90 mins film, whereby we might know the backstory for one character, surface backstory for 3 characters, and none for the rest and the three-act structure, or whatever McKee worshippers pray to, is attained. Where’s the heart in this?
Yes, where’s the heart in this. According to an interview with Deadline, Scorsese revealed that the earlier draft of Killers of the Flower Moon that he co-wrote with Eli Roth were in the spirit of police procedural and about the birth of FBI as the non-fiction’s tagline promised; “from the point of view of the FBI coming in and unraveling everything.” According to Scorsese, “Leo DiCaprio looked at me and said, “Where’s the heart in this movie?” DiCaprio added, “It just didn’t get to the heart of the Osage … It felt too much like an investigation into detective work, rather than understanding from a forensic perspective the culture and the dynamics of this very tumultuous, dangerous time in Oklahoma.” And so, the master realised the real story was to be found in the couple under the spotlight, of how the White man (or men) could love his Osage wife, yet still do all the things he did to her. As DeNiro puts it, “one that fleshes out the story to ground an exploration of human nature, weakness and greed … I don’t know if you would call it the banality of evil, or just evil, corrupt entitlement, but we’ve seen it in other societies, including the Nazis before WWII. That is, a depressing realization of human nature that leaves people capable of doing terrible things. [Hale] believed he loved them, and felt they loved him. But within that, he felt he had the right to behave the way he did.” That’s where the heart is.
But it’s also ironic that DiCaprio can point out the lack of heart in the earlier draft of Killers’ script, but not in his 2010 blockbuster, Inception. There, Nolan, gave Cobb, Leo’s character, a backstory of grieving for a dead wife, a wish to live with her forever, a guilt that gnaws his forever, and the kids he forever wants to return to. There’s a beautiful touch, whereby during the climax in the limbo, Cotillard tries to call for her children to turn to face Leo, but he shrugs and turns away from seeing them, although throughout the entire film, he yearns to see their faces again. If he seems them now, in the limbo, he might be tempted to stay there forever. In a film full of self-explanatory expositions, this one moment remain unexplained, and this becomes, twice more powerful. Nothing in the film comes close to matching the emotional resonance of this moment. The rest of the film remains drab emotionally, and if it wasn’t for the face moment, I would have thought Nolan really just likes to toy with the presence of a family awaiting safe times, rather than really investing in them. In The Prestige, the custodianship of the daughter plays a crucial role, as well as the father-daughter relationship in Interstellar. But elsewhere, Nolan really betrays the trope – the bit about the wife and the kid in Tenet was laughable and crude, while in Inception, it’s really a ploy because the film’s true heart lay in the video-game like puzzle that Nolan had dreamt for 10 years apparently (which in real world would only mean 20 mins, or something right? Not so much time spent on writing then, Nolan?). The same is of Dunkirk, which was there so that one could see the effects of editing three phases of time into thinking that they occur concurrently. The same is of Tenet, which is a spy thriller at best, with a mere novel concept of time going backwards. Even what’s the juiciest, and the untapped mountain of emotions of the friendship between the two lead protagonists of Tenet, remained unearthed. Praise Roger Ebert, who saw right through charade in Inception, and saw the film for what it was and thus, felt truly joyed. I think Rangan’s article on “Use the Force”, Ebert’s review of Shaolin Soccer whereby he explains his star-rating, Ebert’s review of To The Wonder and film as an “empathy machine”, and Matt Zoller Seitz’s commandments for understanding and reviewing films (I can’t find the link to the latter anymore, but it’s a beautiful piece where the critic highlights film criticism and uses the opening shot of 12 Years a Slave to demonstrate his point) are must-read prior to any serious film criticisms.
So much of film discussions today centres around “decoding” films, and it’s as if all films merely amount of stories only. There’s a bit of social history to this tradition, since capitalist America-Hollywood was and remains the peak of cinema attention all over the world (as a side snipe, this year’s Cannes featured many “debutants” apparently from Bollywood, can any care to speak about their favourite French films, or maybe Goddard or Truffaut, or even Audiard? Of course, the latter is not a prerequisite for the attending Cannes, but when they go abroad and speak about “cinema” as an international medium, one can’t help but feel like they’re overextending here and wishes for them to come clean and say it’s an occasion to dress up, and network with others; at least, Nawazuddin Siddiqui was honest) and so, as their filmmakers are coiling from the horrors of “markets knows best”, the Indian filmmakers suffer the same dearth. There’s almost 800 pieces currently (an inflated guess but the point stands) about what Ninaivo oru Paravai means, but is that all is there to it? Maybe because cinema is one of the most sophisticated art, with a heavily democratised making process behind it, the artistry of the art remains a latent subject. Let’s compare others. Say sculpting. Let’s compare David, and my carving of a pebble into a man-shaped statue. What’s the “story”? Both are envisioning(s) of a man, with small penis, veiny arms, and chiselled jaws. That’s David, but I could also argue that my sub-par rendering of the pebble also says the same story. You wouldn’t agree, no? You would argue, LOOK, there’s definite artistry on this one, while the other looks like a polished rock. So there’s something, an unexplainable element, that becomes a distinguishing feature between various envisioning of a story. Let’s take literature. Say, I write a story about an unemployed poor student whom murders a pawnbroker and suffers deep angst and guilt afterwards before surrendering. Wait, Doestoyevsky wrote the same, in Crime and Punishment. But the story is the same no? What I wrote and what Doestoyevsky wrote is the same, no?
You would say, NO, look, there’s Dostoevsky’s writings of angst, passages that accurately describes the hallucinating mind, the trembling half awake speeches, those guilty scribbles. That’s art there, and mine, well, mine just says “he experiences angst and guilt”. No art found here. So you can see a difference, except in literature, the difference can be relayed through HOW the emotions are communicated – what are the words used, the grammar and the constructs of the sentences, the tone of the writing, the chronology of the texts – these which form the building blocks of the texts becomes the tool used by the artist to affect a different emotion everytime. So, we all can agree that even when the story is the same, what makes the difference between ART and doodles in the tool used by the author to affect those changes. So, why then, when it comes to cinema, we drop all these understandings and take stories as the primitive gauge between one and another? Or that stories as the effective final gauge? Where’s the discussion about the tool then? Where’s the discussion about how Kumararaja cuts between three shots as Sam darts across her room to the balcony? For what, what’s the meaning, one would wonder? It’s for fun really. I think Kumararaja was being whimsical, one of those why-not spirit moves. Like the deliberate low-frame rate flicker of the lighter during the opening, it’s a display of a whimsical attitude. There’s no meaning to be found, or there’s no meaning to be deliberately searched about. You’ve heard of the “curtain is blue argument”. Let me add to that.
Author says curtain is blue. Student A infers that the curtain is descriptive of the mellowness and sadness that permeates the character’s life. Student B infers that the curtain is blue.
I infer that the Author deliberate wrote the curtain is blue to affect both positions, and one must understand this in a meta-real perspective to appreciate films, because I think this is how cinema can be appreciated further. When Nolan has Leo’s character spin the totem in the end of Inception, thousand blog posts were dedicated to arguing if it’s still a dream or not. Nolan knows this ambiguity, and he revels in this. If the author percepts in ambiguity, why can’t the audience thrive in it as well? Why must you know why Sam and K broke up? Kumararaja saved himself the trouble of spelling it out for you, but he planted “clues” around for you to go around finding or interpreting if you want. Or you could adopt the route he prefers himself, that they broke up and Kumararaja wants to be ambiguous, and so I shall let him. Is K dead or alive? Kumararaja doesn’t care to explain, so let him be. It’s okay if we don’t know.
LikeLike