So we got a press release (reproduced below) for the latest episode of Koffee with Karan (to be telecast this Sunday), and guess which film critic’s name popped up!!! I hope they don’t delete this bit at the last minute, but even if they do, it was fun just reading this.
Koffee with Karan
Renowned directors, Zoya Akhtar, Imtiaz Ali and Kabir Khan join Karan Johar for a masterclass on filmmaking in the Director’s Special episode this Sunday
They say that film stars are made because of the vision of their directors. While Bollywood’s biggest stars are often lauded for their acting prowess, their success would be incomplete without the contribution of talented directors known for their magical storytelling. Paying ode to his peers, Karan Johar brings not one but three illustrious directors to the Koffee couch!The Director’s Special episode, which will air this Sunday on Star World and Star World HD at 9 PM, will feature our generation’s biggest and most creative directors, Zoya Akhtar, Imtiaz Ali and Kabir Khan who will also be making his Koffee debut.
The three, who share a good rapport with Karan, will be seen baring their hearts and minds on all things filmmaking as they reveal the good, bad and ugly in Bollywood. Talking about everything that happens behind the camera from the frantic hunt for a producer to the chase for the perfect actor to sometimes putting up with ludicrous demands, Zoya and Kabir relive their initial days of struggle in the film industry.
But with Karan steering the direction of the conversation, it is not all work talk with the trio.From talking about their careers, the film industry and all other things in between, Zoya, Imitiaz and Kabir join Karan for a highly entertaining and interesting episode where they discuss success and failure and reveal what it really takes to be a filmmaker today!
While we cannot wait to catch these acclaimed directors on the show and learn the nuances of filmmaking from them, here are some sneak peeks from the episode to keep you going till 9 PMon Sunday.
When The Review Actually Matters!
While fans and movie critics have their piece to say about Bollywood movies, like any art, their opinions are subjective and directors often take them with a pinch of salt. However, there are few acclaimed professional film critics, whose views, opinions and feedback are taken very seriouslyby directors. In Karan and Zoya’s opinion, there is one critic who ranks high for his honest feedback and ability to often understand the vision of the directors. Wondering who? It is none other than award winning film critic from The Hindu, RanganBaradwaj! Zoya even elaborates that he once accurately pointed out her tendency to script Hindi dialogues by literally translating them from English
Koffee Promo
Link: https://www.facebook.com/StarWorldIndia/videos/10154887436641745/
KJo: Welcome to the director’s special
KJo: You’ve been the queen of rejection. You’ve taken your films to so many stars who’ve not done it.
Zoya: I mean, I’ve had an actor telling me he wants to do the actress’ part
Kabir: (Laughs)
KJo: How has your interaction been, Kabir?
Kabir: With me it was more of a struggle to get the producer
KJo: Best Director Zoya?
Zoya: Ram Madhvani
KJo: Kabir?
Kabir: Same, Ram Madhvani
Imtiaz: You
KJo: Thank God!
Koffee Tease
Link: https://www.facebook.com/StarWorldIndia/videos/10154878889891745/
Kabir: With me it was more of a struggle to get the producer
KJo: Oh
Kabir: Because I was a documentary film-maker which was bit of a bad word, so my friends used to say, ‘Batananahi documentary…’ you know it was like the D word
KJo: Zoya, what do you think Farhan Akhtar is more popular for?
Zoya: I would say his looks
KJo: Ok
Zoya: His film-making, he’ll kill me, he’ll kill me
KJo: Your kind of Director? Say yes, no or may be
KJo: Kabir, AnuragKashyup?
Kabir: Yes
KJo: Imtiaz, Karan Johar?
Imtiaz: No
KJo: Oh good (laughs)
KJo: Translate the following Urdu words, Izhaar?
Kabir&Imtiaz: Express
KJo: What does..(looks at Zoya) if you know the meaning?
Zoya: My father is going to disown me
KJo: Muktalif?
Kabir: Different
KJo: Welcome daughter of Javed Akhtar…ahhhh (Laughs)
KJo: Name three films in which SRK’s name is Rahul?
Silence
Laughter
Baradwaj Rangan 
Iswarya
February 24, 2017
BR, Now they reverse your name like in library records?
LikeLiked by 3 people
hattorihanzo4784
February 24, 2017
taran adarsh – reporting box office collections
rajeev masand – press junkets and interviews
khalid mohammed – whining about Indian movies
baradwaj rangan – writing reviews.
all 4 of them are popular film critics. infact the first three are more popular among the netizens. but only baradwaj rangan is known as the most solid movie critic out there! BR made a niche of the very skill which is his job title…
This is like a lawyer being best identified for his legal acumen while his competitors are known for networking, high fees, harvard degree, great suits etc…
I mean … isnt it a really great compliment when your very niche is your job description and no other nonsense…
superb BR!! :thumbsup:
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rajeshwar
February 24, 2017
WAITING FOR THE TELECAST
ALREADY HE HAS SPOKEN ABOUT YOU IN HIS BOOK, SO REALLY PROUD
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
February 24, 2017
This is sounding so much fun. But Sunday is so far. What to do.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
February 24, 2017
So glad to read Ram Madhvani’s name. I really loved Neerja. The way it started, it spelled Neerja’s character beautifully. Life of the party, good daughter, loving sister, passionate for work. She totally believed in her actions. She owned her moments. It was this aspect that led her to take charge in those crucial moments in flight. While watching the movie, I thought I was unnecessarily reading into it. But then the director ended the movie with a song, lyrics being ‘unglio se kal ki ret behne de, aaj aur abhi mein khud ko rehne de’. Then I realised it was the director giving cues throughout. Needless to say, I was blown away by the movie, by the direction.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
February 24, 2017
Congrats BR sir for the recognition. You deserve every bit of it, rather more.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
February 24, 2017
And these guys really couldn’t name movies in which SRK’s name is Rahul? Seriously? What are they cooking? Curious to know what all movies do they watch.
LikeLike
sanjana
February 24, 2017
And sole representative from the south. Congrats!
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
February 25, 2017
We obsess over KJo in our conversation here.
And they obsess over BR in their conversation there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kartheek
February 25, 2017
BR,congrats on your new step in reviewing.. FIlm companion reviews
LikeLike
Keerthana
February 25, 2017
I saw in film companion that you planned to do a video review of South indian movies in FC reviews channel! Would be interesting to see your video reviews the ones you did for Hindu channel were ok but a little off hope you rock it out there though. Great admirer of your written reviews.
LikeLike
anurag1700
February 25, 2017
Wait, guys there is another big news here. Film companion’s Anupama chopra said at the end of Lion Review that u, Mr. Rangan will be reviewing South language movies on her Youtube channel. is this true Mr. Brangan ? Are we finally gonna see you in video live and kicking 🙂 Quite excited must say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BR Discoverer (formerly the "original" venkatesh)
February 25, 2017
Engal vote BR annan ke 🙂
LikeLike
BR Discoverer (formerly the "original" venkatesh)
February 25, 2017
And oh BTW :
“2.0 isn’t just the name of a Rajinikanth movie. It’s also the name of Kamal’s new avatar. Sarcatic. Witty. Entertaining. He’s Cho 2.0.”
That is perfect.
LikeLike
blurb
February 25, 2017
Congrats!
I am curious to see if you are Baradwaj. Or BHHAradwaj. 🙂
LikeLike
Siva
February 25, 2017
Okay so try to video capture the part they talk about you and post it here!
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 25, 2017
You have ‘arrived’ BR. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vikram S
February 25, 2017
That’s great stuff…. congratulations BR….but then, we here on the blog always knew…😃
LikeLiked by 1 person
aravind.nits@gmail.com
February 25, 2017
More like Kofee with KJo has risen to unachieved heights with someone in the show talking about BR! Definitely not the other way around!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
February 25, 2017
Congrats BR.
Also interesting that Ram Madhvani was mentioned. I thought the most fascinating aspect of Neerja was how well he evoked the claustrophobic feeling of being grounded in a plane for hours and hours, not knowing when, if ever, you will be released. It was very interesting to read the lengths to which he went to get this right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Krish
February 25, 2017
Consider how BR thrashes every Zoyas movie, this is a surprise…And also shows Zoya is quite a sport
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ananth
February 25, 2017
Great. I guess your site is going to crash after the show. Congrats!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Abhishek
February 25, 2017
Congrats Sir….You are far better than most of these so called overrated critics…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bhaskar
February 25, 2017
We all knew all along you are the best BR…. Glad this is now acknowledged by these expert professionals…
LikeLiked by 1 person
vishal yogin
February 25, 2017
Indeed, you’re the only critic I read. You ought to steadily review every single bollywood movie (worth reviewing) beginning the 1950’s . That would be quite the feat. I am serious, I would read for sure. And also cover Tamil cinema similarly, and then indian cinema (whatever has been subtitled till date).
And then there’s world cinema…. :))))
LikeLike
Dhanda Soru
February 25, 2017
BR, I’ve been meaning to ask this for a while now: Do endorsements (for the lack of a better word) like these in any way alter the way you may react to someone’s work in the future? Do you find yourself being more forgiving of a film’s shortcomings if one of the individuals associated with the film has been appreciative of your work? I’m sorry if this question sounds too loaded, but this is something I’ve wondered about for a while now. Just thought I’d take the opportunity to raise the question.
LikeLike
brangan
February 25, 2017
Dhanda Soru: I have commented about this very thing in the Karan Johar interview. Copy-pasting here:
Fremontvasi:Wonder about the timing of this interview? Unsettling doubt in my mind if that biased your review of the movie
Okay, so that one is on you. As in, you have to decide what the answer to this doubt is. Nothing I say is going to help. I could end up lying. Or I could be genuinely unaware, myself, of these biases or whatever. Too much for a Sunday morning, eh? 🙂
But think about this. In my line of work, I have interviewed many people. I have written long interviews with Aamir, Gautham Menon, Selvaraghavan, a book with Mani Ratnam, a huge profile of Vikram. And all of this does lay you susceptible to a kind of Stockholm syndrome — as in, you become more sympathetic to their thought processes and their insecurities etc., especially if they reveal their vulnerabilities.
Plus, Karan Johar wrote the foreword for my second book. Rahman wrote the foreword for my first book. There are numerous others I have called for help (as everyone does) to get a number or a quote or whatever.
And these are only what you see, what’s visible because of the fact of being published. You don’t know who I hung out with at a party last week (no one specific, just an example) and found terrific company. Or who turned out to be the friend of a friend of a friend.
So the question now becomes: Does all this affect the review?
According to me, the only way to ‘evaluate’ a review is whether the arguments are strong (not whether they are in agreement with your views, mind) and — far more importantly — whether these arguments are bolstered by instances that validate the contentions.
Am I saying I simply like the film?
Or am I providing reasons for this like?
And am I expanding these reasons with examples and instances?
All of this, IMO, adds up to what I make of the review from other critics. Because what you bring up is a very valid point and it applies to critics around the world. Can you be sipping wine with a filmmaker in Cannes and yet write what you really feel about his new film? Etc.
So for me, it comes down to these points, and also because — over time — I ‘trust’ certain voices. I have no way of knowing whether this trust is justified or not, but that doesn’t bother me very much.
Hope that was some kind of answer.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Deepti Sharma
February 25, 2017
Most of our filmmakers and artists summarily dismiss critics as a clan, thus shielding themselves and their work from any kind of analysis or scrutiny. Zoya Akhtar is the only filmmaker so far whom I’ve heard acknowledging criticism as a legit thing. She even pointed out what’s actually wrong in most mainstream reviews these days. So I’m not surprised that she mentions Mr Baradwaj Ranganathan, one of the better critics of our generation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sifter
February 25, 2017
You are becoming something like a repetitive goodness with already a mention in Karan Johar’s book, a mention in his meet-greet with Shubra, and now in this upcoming episode. And that too from him and Zoya….whose films you more-or-less scoff at (except for ADHM and KANK-to an extent) for their non-nativity!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jai
February 26, 2017
Hearty Congratulations BR!! Very well deserved, your reviews are always a treat to read, whether one reads them before watching a movie or after. I truly feel they enhance the experience of watching the film, and have put me in a frame of mind to notice certain nuances which I might otherwise have overlooked.
I must say my respect for Zoya Akhtar went up a few notches. I remember your review as well as a large part of the discussions on the ZNMD thread here, were not exactly complimentary. But here she is, acknowledging the critique and owing up to some of the quirks/ jarring points which had been talked about in the review.
This is one thread where I would LOVE to see one of your readers—Anuj’s—response. 😂😂😂 The dude has cried himself hoarse on so many threads here, decrying “overrated baradwaj rangan and his cronies” 😄😄 He had been particularly fierce in the ZNMD and Krrissh 3 threads. That was one of the main reasons for his ire after all, the fact that a majority of readers on this site didn’t think as highly of these films and Hrithik’s performances in them as he did.
I must say, if you are indeed in the business of incorporating cronies, you seem to be doing a fabulous job of it. KJO and Zoya Akhtar acclaim your work…..while both know that you haven’t been exactly very flattering about a large part of their body of work. If this is cronyism then power to it, I say. 😉😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
vishwakant
February 26, 2017
4 things.
i) You have been the best reviewer for a while now and I am guessing you know that too…so please do stop with this humility BS….(You said so yourself in a post about Federer and McEnroe, if I remember correctly)
ii) I have been following your blog for 11 years now…and I disagree with you about 50% of the time…but BC….your writing is kickass….
iii) When you do become a bigshot (OK…a biggershot)(it is inevitable)….please do retain the charm that you have right now….
iv) Rangoon?
LikeLiked by 2 people
sravishanker1401gmailcom
February 26, 2017
BR: Way to go ! My favourite writing of yours is where in ‘Conversations with Manii Ratnam’ you dwell on a sense of betrayal when Mani signed on to do a Hindi movie. Feeling it is one thing but actually morphing that feeling into black and white hieroglyphics on paper which trigger emotional reactions and certain chemicals is an astounding sleight of hand. So also the review of The Force Awakens where you use the entire gamut of Star Wars title crawls as a review motif.
CARTOON: “WHICH IS BETTER ? THE BOOK OR THE MOVIE ?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
admin
February 26, 2017
It is a strange thing I just discovered this blog today while reading reviews for Neerja and I was so so happy to find a critic who actually wrote what i felt like and then in today’s Koffee with Karan your name was mentioned.
Keep up the good work.
LikeLike
Rahul
February 26, 2017
What makes BR great for me is that he is willing to dissect not only every word he writes but also the very subjective process that goes into his film viewing and creative writing. If that is not enough, he is willing to go on a similar journey for everyone who posts on this blog.
Although the realization that subjective interpretations of other people can enrich my experience of a movie post facto, came to me on imdb forums first , it was on this blog that enriched it further and the experience of a movie felt incomplete until I had the review here and read the opinions of members of this small community.
Off topic – RIP imdb forums and Seijun Suzuki.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Vikram S
February 26, 2017
Sir, where is the Rangoon review. TIA
LikeLike
sachita
February 26, 2017
I stopped right after they finished talking about you. Karan johar is a nice guy.
Again, we knew this ten years ago 🙂
LikeLike
avanthika
February 26, 2017
Gautham Menon has also mentioned in an interview that he reads your reviews. If memory serves me right, I think it’s the one with Anuradha.
LikeLike
brangan
February 26, 2017
Thanks all. One of those fun things that happen from time to time. Party over. Now, back to work 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Santa
February 26, 2017
Vishwakant: Agree with all you have said, especially the part about BR being the best film-critic/reviewer. But I certainly wouldn’t call his humility as BS. So request to BR, please retain your humility and genuineness: it adds loads to the integrity of your reviews.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
February 27, 2017
I just finished watching the aforementioned episode of KWK. Zoya mentioned that BR picked up on the fact that she writes in english and asks her brother and Dad to translate into hindi.
Now, not to rain on BR’s parade or anything, but I have also been making this point from long back . For example , like on the Talaash board here (https://baradwajrangan.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/talaash-35956-8967894/)
I was so pissed off about this and I even complained to Javed Akhtar on twitter . (He did not reply).
LikeLike
brangan
February 27, 2017
Rahul: IIRC, we began discussing that particular phenomenon in the Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara thread,,, (see para 2).
LikeLike
Rahul
February 27, 2017
BR, oh yes, not disputing the timeline .Just saying, that i too have felt very strongly about this and so I felt validated that she accepted that she does write in English and gets it translated to Hindi.
LikeLike
Aravind Ramachandran
February 27, 2017
Congrats dude! You deserve it.
LikeLike
Sr
February 27, 2017
Saw the episode and amen to what Karan said.. you are the best in India and for Indian movies.. I love your reviews better than movies sometime..
LikeLiked by 1 person
DJ
February 27, 2017
Eagerly awaiting the Rangoon review! Thanks.
LikeLike
JC
February 27, 2017
Watch from the 21:00 min. mark…
http://www.hotstar.com/tv/koffee-with-karan/1525/directors-special-kabir-zoya-imtiaz/1000167977
LikeLike
Anuj
February 27, 2017
“whining about movies” is an apt phrase for a so-called critic like Brangan whose popularity is akin to the Anurag Kashyap of critics 😀 I guess the reason why Zoya Akhtar & Imtiaz Ali have more flops and disasters than successes in their filmography is perhaps because they’ve been paying too much heed to the BRangan’s and Raja Sen’s of the world than the Komal Nahta’s and Rajeev Masand’s of the world (who’re much more well versed with audience sensibilities and taste). Anyhow, this piece would definitely make the BRangan cronies happy!
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 28, 2017
Anuj, does that follow then, based on your statement, that Karan Johar’s box-office successes are because he pays attention to BR?
p.s. You have a couple of misplaced apostrophes. Plurals don’t need them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Satya
February 28, 2017
@Anuj you seem to believe film criticism is defined as exploring audience response rather than critiquing the qualities of the film itself. It’s the latter. I can’t imagine how anyone finds Masand’s superficial commentary enlightening. I could not care less about analyzing films from the perspective of how they are made to appeal to viewers; I care about the perspective the filmmakers are expressing and only that.
With that in mind, I consider BR and Sen the only true film critics in India. India has a long ways to go in approaching film as an auteurist medium rather than a viewer’s, but at least BR and Raja Sen are excellent.
For many years I had bemoaned that Indian film criticism consisted of Taran Adarsh calling films “entertainers” or “flops” (he is truly an awful writer). Sadly I only discovered Sen two years back and somehow only discovered BR a few months ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Martin Mani
February 28, 2017
Anuj:
What makes you think trade analysts always judge a film better than critics or film buffs? It’s like saying that the cashier at a restaurant is a better connoiseur of food than the chef or the customer. They may know what sells, but they may not necessarliy know how it’s made, or how well it’s made
They don’t direct movies just to give you a happy time and take your cash away. Filmmakers, as long as they also get to satisfy their creative/artistic urge, are certainly free to swing between audience-pleasing and following what ignites their passion. Audience sensibilities aren’t just meant to be catered to, they too deserve subversion now and then.
And just so you know, this blog doesn’t really seem to be a place where a leader and his supporters (or ‘cronies’ as you just can’t stop droning) gang up, cook up some stuff and make people gulp it down. Cool your ardour, bro, chill!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Amit Joki
February 28, 2017
If I were a filmmaker, I would have no qualms whatsoever in pleasing BR (sounds awkward, don’t dare seeing it in another light!), but yes, I would also take care that I get money to make my next. Not so hard, is it?
It is a filmmakers triumph. If films like Iraivi, aren’t becoming blockbusters, it is because the audience is conditioned to accept worse shit than to appreciate quality cinema.
Ideally, a film which pleases BR should please the general audience. But we are far from being an ideal society.
Manikandans films are a good case study. Financially Kaaka Muttai and Aandavan Kattalai did lot better than Kutrame Dhandanai because because KM got wide recognition and hence was able to break even while AK was laced with humor. But the thing is he got to satisfy his inner cravings and also managed to satisfy the audience needs.
We need more such directors.
Free advice: Being BR’s crony is mentally rewarding. So being not one is your choice really but think twice! 😀😀
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
February 28, 2017
Re: being BR’s cronies: I don’t know how many people commenting here know BR in real life, much less are his personal friends. I, for one, don’t know him at all. Reading someone’s blog for his perspective on things or having a discussion in the comments does not make any reader here a ‘crony’ of that person. Neither does an agreement with his take on a movie make me, or anyone else, his crony.
No one is stopping you from disagreeing with BR. Most of us have done it at some time or the other. It is another matter altogether that others reading the post may not agree with you. But that’s a risk we all take when we post our opinions.
If you find people standing up against your personal attacks on BR (‘so-called critic’) or the slurs you cast against his writing or at the readers, it is not because we are his ‘cronies’, but because, by and large, this comment board has been – generally – civil even during the most contentious disagreements. In this case, it is also because your argument is based on a logical fallacy – that a film’s success or failure depends on which critic the maker reads. And as I pointed out earlier, if Zoya’s and Imitiaz’s box-office failures are a result of listening to BR and Raja Sen and their ilk, then why is Karan Johar, who flat out called BR the best film critic in the country (and the only critic he trusts) such a successful director?
Regardless, just a piece of well-meaning advice: insulting someone (many ‘someones’) for the sake of making a point takes away from a discussion; it doesn’t add to it. You’re, of course, free to ignore this. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anuj
February 28, 2017
Factually, no one give 2 hoots about self indulgent critics and their opinions barring their circle of cronies. Just as no one seems to pay to watch movies of self indulgent jacks like VB and Anurag Kashyap in the theaters. Fact is that film making is all about entertainment, be it the Dabangg way or the Dangal way or even the Kahaani/Pink way (within their limited domain). Rest is all a waste of time and resources.
LikeLike
Martin Mani
February 28, 2017
So according to your logic, Karan Johar who is a big-enough commercial force in Bollywood today, is also a crony of Mr. Rangan!
You seem to have given him a bigger ego trip than most of his followers here! Now you’re doing cronyistic stuff way better than any of his cronies!
LikeLike
Anuj
February 28, 2017
What Johar Johar are you jokers on about? Perhaps being a Rangan follower demoted Johar’s stature from a blockbuster machine (KKHH, K3G with over 3 cr footfalls) to one whose films barely sell a crore tickets (flops like KANK, MNIK and low scale small time successes like STOY & ADHM). That’s assuming clown Johar is actually a follower of Rangan (remember Koffee is mostly fart fiction and very little fact). Johar claiming to be a fan of Rangan is akin to Salman being a virgin (Koffee logic) :p
LikeLike
Rahul
February 28, 2017
Not sure why you guys are feeding this troll Anuj. BR, do we really have to put up with the ad hominem adjectives like – jokers, cronies etc.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
March 1, 2017
Sigh. And another discussion thread dissolves into incivility. But, my, Rangan, what power you do have, to be sure! 🙂
LikeLike
praneshp
March 1, 2017
I don’t condone the way Anuj speaks, or calling others cronies, etc. But if more people say things like “If I were a filmmaker, I would have no qualms whatsoever in pleasing BR ” and “Ideally, a film which pleases BR should please the general audience. But we are far from being an ideal society” like Amit does, one could be forgiven for thinking this is crony-land.
This is funny, because one of brangan’s philosophies (if I may call it that) is that we must watch a movie for ourself, and form opinions independent of him (and that once the movie is out there, the director’s intent does not matter as much as what we derive out of it).
Congrats on the new venture @brangan! I hope nothing changes on this blog.
LikeLike
Anuj
March 1, 2017
A professional critic is one who knows the movie’s genre, narrative and the target audience it caters to (urban/niche, semi urban or mass), can step into the shoes of the movies respective target audience and analyze/review a film from the point of view of the viewer (be it urban entertainers like PIKU or mass entertainers like SULTAN). Any tom, dick harry can give personal opinions and call themselves critics, including the 1000’s of reviewers on imdb or even an absolute cartoon like KRK. Unfortunately, barring a handful there are no self proclaimed critics in this country who can actually be called “professional” in their approach. No wonder they got followers such as the user above who go about branding internet users as “trolls” as per their own convenience.
LikeLike
Rhea
March 1, 2017
We’ll see you on FilmCompanion, yay!! But will you still continue to review Hindi films or just South Indian?
LikeLike
Amit Joki
March 1, 2017
Praneshp: I wouldn’t make such a statement on that blue color reviewer or many such wannabe reviewer. If you look at my comment in War in Peace, you’d know that BRs sensibilities resonate very much with the teachings of Syd Field, who’s been a guiding force to many a directors including James Cameron.
That’s my point of view. Does it bother you? And I am not ideal myself if you think I am separating myself. I shouldn’t have argued with BR on Thodari, but as I said, I did and am not ideal. I still argue that it wasn’t as worse shit as Puli was, which still received good review.
And lastly, you are willing to quote BRs philosophy to make your point, while I did the same by patronising his thought process on viewing films. If you don’t want me to harp on BRs sensibility on films, you shouldn’t harp on his “philosophies”, to make your point.
Also if we watch movies for ourselves, we would never come out of the misogynistic, stalkerish films. If change needs to happen, then filmmakers should change their view and following some informed view such as BRs will do more good than harm. It results in quality cinema both form and content wise.
My only point is, it is not very bad to follow someone who you think has a fair judgement of movies. You are free to ignore my point, as always.
LikeLike
Udhay Sankar
March 1, 2017
Wow. I’m all smiles that my favourite critic is being appreciated. You won’t believe the amount of times me and my friend refer to your views and reviews while discussing about a movie.
Legend tells of a legendary warrior whose reviewing skills were the stuff of legend. He travelled the land in search of worthy movies.
The warrior said nothing when his ink was full, then he thought, and then he wrote.
BR: There is no charge for awesomeness
LikeLike
Amit Joki
March 1, 2017
And this happens quite regularly. Here’s a BR quote:
He wants the music to be considered on its own merit, instead of the listener going “This song is not doing anything for me, but it’s by Ilayaraja, and there seems to be an interesting use of counterpoint at the 3:02 mark…,” or “This song is not doing anything for me, but it’s by AR Rahman, so maybe I need to listen to it 50 more times…”
My point is, to become like Ilayaraja and Rahman, you should have done some extremely good stuff that people bank on you rather than your songs, and most often you don’t disappoint.
That’s the idealogy behind my comment.
LikeLike
Satya
March 1, 2017
So I just watched the Koffee episode. Those three being held up as cream of the crop filmmakers was cringeworthy throughout, especially Zoya who has made all of three films – none particularly good – but posed as if speaking from considerably more experience and accomplishment. On the other hand I was stunned to hear Imtiaz Ali had only seen three films from last year. Even KJo, despite his limitations, appears to be a greater student of his craft.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dhanda Soru
March 1, 2017
Thanks for the explanation, BR. Was interesting to read your criteria for reviewing. And congrats on your move to Film Companion. Can’t think of a better person to bring the best of South Indian cinema to the rest of India.
LikeLike
praneshp
March 1, 2017
The quote is the exact opposite; you should do good songs instead of making people bank on your old stuff.
I wonder what you know about him? Why do you call him wannabe? Other adjectives like “unqualified”, “one-dimensional”, etc I can kind of understand. He was one of the first tamil youtube reviewers and quite unique, IMO.
Thodari was the worst piece of crap to grace the screen in years. Sorry, even (y)our hero could not save that POS. I’m happy to bet that in 15 years time you’ll be saying the same. At least there wasn’t any linguism in Puli.
(And please don’t talk about Thodari again, Dhanush’s last movie was Kodi, he has Vada Chennai and VIP2 upcoming, and I’m looking forward to Power Paandi. Let’s forget Thodari happened, and put it into the trashcan with Naiyandi. Maybe the house he has built is terrific.
You come across to me as not harping on philosophies/sensibilities, but making empty fanboy-ish (for lack of a better word?) statements like “I’ll make a movie to please BR”. If you really followed (what I think are) his sensibilities on cinema, you’d make one by putting in your best effort and craft, and brangan would like it as a follow-up. Making a movie “for BR” is as bad as making one for the A/B/C center.
That said, I know movie-making is close to your heart, so I apologize if you were offended. That wasn’t my intention, of course (though I did want to point out that on some plane you’re doing the same thing as Anuj used to do before devolving into personal attacks). Also attach an “IMO” before whatever I said.
LikeLike
sravishanker1401gmailcom
March 1, 2017
If we have a Rock Star RBI Governor why not a Rock Star Movie Critic ?
LikeLike
Anuj
March 2, 2017
Calling film makers like Zoya, Imtiaz, Vishal Bharadwaj & Anurag Kashyap as the “cream of the crop” is the exact delusion that the industry and its makers as well as the media suffers from. They might have made a few watchable films but factually, these makers have little to no idea of “Indian narrative” and the taste of the audience (both urban and mass audience). Making mass entertainers does not imply you make star vehicle trash like ETT, HNY, Dilwale and Bodyguard (movies that do not find an audience beyond the first 5 days) but make authentic Indian stories that Indian audiences can relate to. It could be a large scale mass entertainer like a Sultan, Dangal, MSD-Untold Story etc or even urban entertainers like Pink, Neerja, Piku and Kapoor & Sons (movies catering to a limited urban audience but staying true to that limited audience). Its unfortunate that big production houses and corporates are actually willing to invest millions in the likes of Vishal Bharadwaj and Anurag Kashyap, makers whose films do not even cater to the urban audience inn entirety, forget a universal audience. Catastrophes like Bombay Velvet & Rangoon are the reason houses like Disney UTV and many more would shut shop from Indian cinema, leaving the door open for Hollywood productions to make inroads and take over the Indian audiences as well. A 100 cr Fast & Furious 7 or a near 200 cr Jungle Book might just be beginning of the end for commercial Hindi cinema footfalls. Time for Indian film makers to pull up their socks and start listening to the audiences more than the armchair caffe latte critics and parallel cinema con artists.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
March 2, 2017
Anuj:
I myself, along with at least a few of the followers here, too share the same concern as yours, that the number of truly Indian narratives is diminishing steadily. We have, we are and we will always relish ‘desi’ films, or any films which truly nail the ethos of rural India, and we certainly don’t see them as inferior to a film made in an urban milieu or with a Western sensibility. All we do, or any guy who loves both kinds of films does at a maximum, is perhaps separate them as apples and oranges. More proof comes from the fact that ‘Baahubali’ was awarded the best film of India last year, along with other Indian narratives also aptly rewarded, by a jury consisting of an equal number of both types of viewers. Rangan Sir himself is much more supportive of such films than Mr. Masand is at times.
Critics aren’t elected by fringe organisations hell-bent on killing the popular cinematic trends as you seem to think. They don’t always connote urban with ‘Western’ and ‘Western’ with ‘arty’, or ‘Indian’ with ‘masala’ and ‘masala’ with ‘mindless’. They don’t always see a film’s milieu or style as a leash which restricts their appeal to audiences, as you seem to do. They like films as much as you do and just like writing about it. They ideally dismiss films because of things which are more basic to the medium than ‘Western/Indian’ or ‘Urban/Rural’, and because they are human, they come with their backgrounds, imperfections and idiosyncracies.
Just because I like or espouse a certain sensibility that you don’t or vice versa, doesn’t make you or me invalid as viewers, how much ever our strength in numbers is. And it’s not like the Indian audience likes or truly wants only ‘desi’ films and nothing else. We in India are the biggest and most diverse film watching nation, and this translates equally to our film sensibilities. Your citing of ‘The Fast and The Furious’ as a success in India is an example in itself. Don’t tell us now that they watched it because there was nothing else on screen, as they always specifically spot out in these films what they like.
Also, the public’s tastes are not something that stay rigidly constant. Times change, places change, so tastes of yours and mine may also change. So it’s not that audiences will never let their views be slightly subverted. So filmmakers who even bridge both sensibilities aren’t to be seen as ‘aliens’ or ‘traitors’ as such. Yes, they make mistakes while doing this like Dibakar Banerjee, or simply, as you cited, make an English-sounding film in Hindi like the Akhtar siblings. Not everyone green-signalled these films.
As you said, stars have mangled terribly with the interests of the audience and they shouldn’t reduce good old storytelling to the bits and pieces that they do (Its something like what I have heard a few atheists day “Perfectly balanced stories about people and families are skewed up/screwed up by naming a few of them ‘gods’ and glorifying them with random conjured-up bits of hollow spectacle)
Big production houses are also to be blamed as they have in most cases not stuck to the basics as you wanted them to. The slightly offbeat directors too, should be blamed as you said, for not staying true to themselves or to the audience while making the movies big studios approach them to make.
Also, you are not totally right to say that all the non-commercial movies never make any money. With the modest budget they use, they have at times made double or triple the money, very well crossing the hurdle of being commercially successful. They are using time and resources optimally for doing what they want to do along with pleasing the audience and reaping rewards for it (or stealing/wasting public money, in Anuj-verse). And a film being a hit isn’t just about the numbers, it’s a much more murkier equation than that. Audiences think as much about what ‘else’ is being screened as what they want to watch on screen.
As I mentioned above, you could also cite the inconsistency of our homegrown filmmakers for not always making hay out of the vast treasury of stories we have, like say, Manmohan Desai or Hrishikesh Mukherjee have done before. That might simply be the reason their names don’t come up with Kashyap, Bhardwaj or any of those art filmmakers, who have atleast been consistent enough when true to their element. Like Subhash Ghai or other regional filmmakers, they needn’t have cheated on their instincts and tried to adapt to other sensibilities as well
On one instance you say that no true blue Indian movie watcher listens to the ‘so-called’ critics, and on another you give the impression that all directors aren’t listening to the audience and instead, are all ears to Rangan and Raja Sen only. Again you say that the audience wants only truly Indian movies and then you say Fast and the Furious is a big success in India. Not wagging a finger (or the finger) at you, but calling us names is second only to coherence in thoughts.
Didn’t mean to rant at you at all, leave alone such a long one and one with too many adjectives and big words (acc, to you, ‘kabab mein haddiyaan’). If you fell asleep through it, good for you, because others have also had a hard time with you. I am nowhere as punchy, provocative or economical with words as you are (or you think you are).
Thanks bro
LikeLiked by 1 person
Martin Mani
March 2, 2017
One small suggestion Anuj bro
You said somewhere that you read Mr. Rangan’s pieces to view his work without the crutch of being a supporter or ‘crony’; to supposedly see through all the ‘nonsense’ and give actual, perfect, ‘certified-100%-by-the true-Indian-audience’ views. If that is so, just try reading a little more of some of his reviews, even if it affects you fatally on reading even the very first letter.
Also, try chucking caliing names. Anyone who can make sense out of a debate can now see through your views
LikeLike
Madan
March 2, 2017
“It could be a large scale mass entertainer like a Sultan, Dangal, MSD-Untold Story etc or even urban entertainers like Pink, Neerja, Piku and Kapoor & Sons ” – Are you aware that BR gave a favourable review to all these films? So I wonder if (a) you insist, rather, that BR should write reviews that the audience of a Sultan would be interested in reading (which is none of your business) and (b) your real issue, which you are trying to mask through your rants, is BR dissed your beloved Hrithik’s films.
LikeLike
Amit Joki
March 2, 2017
Praneshp: Well, put it this way, I would want my film to get a nod by BR too. I want a good review from him. That’s what I meant by pleasing BR.
Wasn’t it obvious? I mean I don’t know personal choices of BR to make a film for him. I mean there’s no, do-this to get-that kind of thing with BR, while you can say that for A/B/C audiences, generally.
What my intention was as you said, is to make a movie and get a nod by BR in the follow up. I might have paraphrased a bit wrong that’s all.
Yes, lets forget Thodari was ever made 😂😂😂
LikeLike
Anuj
March 2, 2017
“Are you aware that BR gave a favourable review to all these films? So I wonder if (a) you insist, rather, that BR should write reviews that the audience of a Sultan would be interested in reading (which is none of your business) and (b) your real issue, which you are trying to mask through your rants, is BR dissed your beloved Hrithik’s films.” ~doesn’t matter on what he or any other critic has to say about any particular actor, especially performers that can sell over a crore tickets despite their movies clashing at the box office. He might have given favorable reviews to some of these films (as did most other critics) but his nit picking, spoiler filled and absurd equations while reviewing a movie are not only bogus, but outright irrelevant. The Jolly LLB2 review was a perfect example of this. Now don’t ask me why i’m her & reading his reviews etc etc…that’s “none of your business”.
LikeLike
Anuj
March 2, 2017
“On one instance you say that no true blue Indian movie watcher listens to the ‘so-called’ critics, and on another you give the impression that all directors aren’t listening to the audience and instead, are all ears to Rangan and Raja Sen only. Again you say that the audience wants only truly Indian movies and then you say Fast and the Furious is a big success in India.” ~ you know as well as I do that Rangan, Sen & many other self proclaimed critics are an unknown commodity for 95% of the movie watching audience. As for Fast & Furious, its narrative and plot was a lot more Indian (at least urban Indian) than many of Hindi cinema’s own films. Same goes for the like of Jungle Book (selling more than double the number of tickets than an alien narrative like Fan which released a week later) & Harry Potter 7 generating almost double the footfalls as Guzaarish (released on the same day).
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
March 3, 2017
SPOILERS AHEAD
MANK:
Gangs of New York came to my mind near instantly, I guess, because I still haven’t finished my Scorsese voyage. It was underwhelming, as you had warned, and I was thoroughly disappointed by DiCaprio’s performance. Never mind, he made it up for me in ‘The Departed’.
And by the way, Chettaa, thank you so much for ‘The Age of Innocence’. I couldn’t wrap my head around all of it, but the film really moved me. And the film seems to be contemporary even today. Scorsese doesn’t really judge the families involved, which was also a risky, but worthwhile decision. An 1870s New York family doesn’t seem to be all that different from any orthodox Nair family of the yesteryears.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
March 3, 2017
Anuj:
To begin with, no one here is dying hard to kick you out of this blog (not even Rangan sir, otherwise your comments would have been rejected right at the moderation stage; this is not a threat to you, relax!). No one is here with crossed fingers to see you agree to Rangan sir’s views either. Even I am not discussing this with you, with that motive in mind. All I am trying to do is put forward a few sides to this debate that you haven’t pointed out intentionally or unintentionally. I can tell you this after all: my sense of condescension on doing this, existent or inexistent, can never match up to the sheer sense of superiority (or even chauvinism) that you have shown in your comments.
Who becomes a critic without choosing the profession in the first place or seeing (‘self-proclaiming’) himself as one? Anyone can call himself a critic, you’re right at that, and yes, someone out there might always support you. That doesn’t make someone you don’t agree to immediately invalid. I am also a bit wary of Raja Sen, if not as much as you, and frankly, I struggle to understand some of his reviews as a whole. That doesn’t make him invalid or unworthy of a listen. One can try to perceive different views of more different things and then get back to him, or just leave it as it is, not giving an opinion.
Come to think of it, Anuj, the perception of a target audience is in a way, its own kind of nitpicking or slightly vague guesswork (not always, yes), because it sees a film as a rigid mass-produced commodity, which a film can be, or opt not to be on the basis of what its maker chooses to do (Way more to it than your Indian-non Indian logic) .Most critics’ nitpicking is purely what the film stirred in them personally, subjectively, and uniquely in them. Any kind of viewer can have these, and it is the viewer’s prerogative to regard or disregard them, not a sweeping rule that you, ONLY GREAT ONE WHO CAN SAVE AND PRESERVE BOLLYWOOD just issue and others fall in line with. Film lovers may or may not watch a big number of films, and it is this nitpicking that helps them find what is unique in each film, especially when films reiterate stories, settings and characters. The storyteller himself may not have thought along each viewer’s different prism, but no one has to stop him from doing so.
Yes, Rangan and Raja Sen are not the only critics around, there’s a hell lot of them. Yet the Internet is not far-reaching enough that all minds that think alike are linked. Just because someone doesn’t read Rangan or Sen, doesn’t mean that he/she won’t have the same views, and its converse is also true. So there’s more to it than you merely giving a lean cut of 5% to these people with similar views. I have observed that people from states with not-exactly-the-same film sensibilities as Kerala and Andhra+Telangana, can share similar thoughts on films. I have also seen that these tastes of ours apply somewhat equally to Bollywood too. Why this diversity doesn’t always translate to money matters , as MANK and I mentioned in the last comment, is thanks to the business machinery of producers, studios, distributors, theatre owners, stars, film families etc. These guys each have their own ideas about films too, and aren’t as naive and sincere as you think to always cater to the audience’ sentiments. Again, not to say that they are sinister, all-powerful beings. The Censor Board, as you can see, has also come to be an influence of late. Add to this the uneasy truce between single-screen theatres and multiplexes, and you get the murkiest equation, which again you might be rubbing your hands with glee to call bogus or irrelevant.
If not coherent points, at least get the right examples. There’s obviously more to HP7 vs. Guzaarish than just ‘Indian-Western’. Yes, Bhansali is way more polarising than VB or Kashyap, but the finale of the film franchise of one of the most iconic book series will have an upper hand. Since it has fans of many age groups even now, it is one of those cases where the preset audience isn’t so much a vague number. Same is the case with the FF franchise or Jungle Book, especially when FAN gradually began to cheat on his promise of playing to the gallery
Once again, I am not trying to make you gulp it down, like you do. If you feel I am just throwing big words and bombast around, well, you’re doing the same with ‘self-proclaimed’, ‘professional’, ‘Indian’, ‘urban’ and not to forget ‘crony’!
Thanks again, man.
LikeLike
Martin Mani
March 3, 2017
Isn’t the Fast and Furious franchise just old-fashioned Western lowbrow entertainment, or is it actually of an Indian vein?
Now calm your ardour as I ask this, Anuj, before you expose your stubborn self thorugh your rants again
LikeLike
Madan
March 4, 2017
” The Jolly LLB2 review was a perfect example of this. ” – Again, his review of the film was a positive one. What you call nitpicking is just deconstructing different aspects of the film without necessarily judging them. This is why I think your criticism is misaddressed. You don’t like his style of reviewing and find it long winded. Fair enough but you have somehow jumped to the inference that BR demands a particular kind of film from filmmakers or that they have to make art films to satisfy his tastes. In fact, of all the well known reviewers who write long reviews on the net, BR is probably the biggest advocate of masala films and has said (not in as many words) that reviewers ought to understand the beats of Indian cinema rather than judge it from a purely Western perspective. Even Shubra Gupta, who habitually tears apart Hindi films and didn’t even spare Kapoor & Sons, praised Jolly LLB2.
I don’t disagree that many Bollywood films are losing money and are out of touch with the audience. But there’s a variety of factors responsible for that and yearning for critical acclaim is probably a long way down the list. Many of the starlets seem to be uncomfortable with the ‘traditional’ masala template but it is what a lot of people still want to see. There’s the phenomenon of using Hindi words to express English idioms which has been mentioned above and acknowledged by Zoya Akhtar. Basically, influential segments of Bollywood are not very Hindi. The irony is Aamir Khan was a part of this revolution via DCH but has since pivoted to a more masala mileu.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuj
March 6, 2017
“Isn’t the Fast and Furious franchise just old-fashioned Western lowbrow entertainment, or is it actually of an Indian vein?” ~ FF is just an upgraded version of a DHOOM film & going by the popularity of the Dhoom franchise in India, its not surprise that FF has a huge fanbase here.
“Even Shubra Gupta, who habitually tears apart Hindi films and didn’t even spare Kapoor & Sons, praised Jolly LLB2.” ~ Shubra Gupta kind are just marginally better than the Raja Sen’s of the world, the lowest possible denomination of movie critics. Their reviews are not even laughable anymore.
“The irony is Aamir Khan was a part of this revolution via DCH but has since pivoted to a more masala mileu.” ~Aamir Khan has been experimenting with a variety of genres right from his early days. JJWS & HHRPK too were more of urban films catering to a limited audience as opposed to Dil and Raja Hindustani kind. And let me repeat, I do not see anything wrong in making urban films (Neeraj Pandey & Shoojit Sircar being 2 of my favorite film makers) as long as the story and narrative remains true to the audience taste. Self indulgent folks like Vishal Bharadwaj, Anurag Kashyap & SLB (when in Black, Saawariya & Guzaarish mode) can never get enough of themselves and their own imagination which is nowhere near what the audience demands, not even the niche premium multiplex audience (forget the masses). Whatever audience (s)he’s catering to, the film maker ought to place the audience first and build his imagination around the audiences’ perspective. Now that audience perspective can be for a very small segment of the population (Kapoor & Sons, Neerja, Pink, Piku etc) or for a larger segment (niche films with face value like ZNMD, Airlift, Special 26, Chak De India, TZP etc) or universal entertainers (Sultan, 3I, Bajrani)
LikeLike
Martin Mani
March 6, 2017
Anuj:
I just checked about both franchises, and it seems 2 Fast and the Furious films had already released by the time Dhoom was made (a fact not exactly in sync with your logic). So I guess choosing Aamir Khan for the third part was a good decision, lest people who have now grown attuned to the better, original FF franchise would slowly pull away from the slightly dumbed down, and slightly Indianised Dhoom films, which seem to rely more on star power and well-oiled stunts than on actual primal thrills.
For once, get rid of the notion that critics come in different ‘denominations’. There are no outright ‘good’ or ‘bad’ critics (not getting into writing skills or communication skills as of now), just critics you may or may not share a view with.
Also, extrapolating your tastes with that of every other Indian viewer’s, and seeing the audience as one big, uniform, ‘always right’ system, isn’t something great. It just makes your argument go around in circles
LikeLike
Martin Mani
March 6, 2017
Even Rangan sir, when he gives the impression of extrapolating his views with that of others. seems to do it only in jest.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
March 7, 2017
Anuj:
Good to know that you have a space to express your views on films too
I guess I will leave it to others to ponder about the fact that you denounced a Hrithik film (Even if it is not the first time that you have done so). Guzaarish is SLB’s film or baby alright, and some might jump the gun expecting you to say that His Highness Hrithik is not at fault with regard to whatever he did in this film, but yeah, as I said, that discussion is best left to others.
I would side with Mr. Martin on two counts. Since you have started voicing your views in your own space, think about the fact that you are just another opinion-giver in the scheme of things like all other critics (each of different mindsets) out there, and you may have people of tastes similar and different, both in uncertain numbers (hardly the 95% that you have predicted). Not advising or giving a suggestion, just an aside.
Also, as I said earlier, filmmakers don’t do films just for the present time period or just for monetary returns. Audiences, being human, may reject a movie today, and warm up to it say, 5-10 years later or even after that. So there might be one filmmaker at least, who might be happy with this turnaround, whether his later attempts get successful or not. I don’t know if we have had instances similar to the ‘Shawshank’ phenomenon in Hollywood, but in that case, you get satellite and home video returns AND goodwill.
Another thing you seem to be saying is that filmmakers shouldn’t be as unique as they can, and if they can’t help but be unique, they should still always submit to the audience’s tastes first before projecting their own imagination. Again, as I said, even if audiences are the authority you present your product to, it’s not like they always hold on to the same kind of sensibilities all the time. A good number of them don’t really mind being shocked or surprised at the theaters (Whether the good shock or bad shock is purely individual, not something sweeping or concrete as you seem to suggest). So I feel it’s better, if it is such idiosyncratic filmmakers who at least know the basics of the medium who get to be the catalysts of change rather than business houses who, as time has shown, don’t really see it as a flexible medium(IMO it gets shades of an extortion business then). Yes, the filmmakers should be talented, and IMO, you can write off Bhardwaj’s, Kashyap’s and SLB’s films, but it would be hard to accuse them of lack of talent or understanding of the medium.
If the filmmaker successfully gets his outre concept from his mind to that of the audiences’ , even better! And when films are always made with the pretention that this is what the audience wants, there is always a chance of stasis in terms of both content and form, when this happens, anything even marginally different could be lauded off the charts (And as time has shown, Kashyap, VB and SLB aren’t flukes, even if they have made mistakes). This isn’t my hypothesis; this is what actually happened with Malayalam mainstream cinema in the late 90s and the noughties.
”can never get enough of themselves and their own imagination which is nowhere near what the audience demands, not even the niche premium multiplex audience (forget the masses)”
Kashyap’s DevD, both parts of Gangs of Wasseypur and Raman Raghav recovered their budget (more or less small though) and made good enough profits. As did VB with Haider, Kaminey (more crowdpleasing, but still) and Omkara. These are not record-breaking numbers, and may look measly when compared to the big numbers even below par star movies gross (where the income mainly comes from the first 3 or 4 days as you said), but it does refute your claim that no one watches their films except for ‘cronies’ or ‘arthouse crooks’. And it’s not like all their collaborations with big studios incurred big losses. UTV Motion Pictures, till 2014-15, was doing very well with DevD, Haider and Kaminey among other such projects done alongside the big budget films. Even Viacom18, which co-produced Gangs of Wasseypur, doesn’t always do big-budget films, and instead, does a host of small projects of both Indian and western sensibilities. The company stills runs steady enough as of now (until Rangoon).
Open to all sorts of readings (and misreadings, in your case)
PS: Hope you don’t go all ‘North vs. South’ or ‘Bollywood vs. regional’ on the Malayalam cinema reference.
LikeLike
Anuj
March 7, 2017
Kaminey (my favorite VB film by a distance) was as crowd pleasing as it gets but unfortunately that (along with Omkara which was more of a case of the budget failing the film) were the only 2 occasions when self obsessed megalomaniac VB even attempted to put himself in the audiences’ shoes and present something in sync with their taste (at least the 25-30% urban premium multiplex audiences’ taste). Haider (an utterly trash movie imo) was more hype and political incorrectness (akin to last years trash Udta Punjab) helping it sell about 50 Lakh tickets at the counters (a big feat for VB). And neither Kaminey nor Haider is a profitable venture. Both barely crossed coverage mark and lets not get into VB’s remaining box office record. As for Anurag Kashyap, the lesser said the better. Can’t even imagine such folks are even provided revenue to deliver their loss making garbage year after year. If the Viacom 18’s & Eros International’s are so interested in making small scale content oriented cinema, they’d rather sign a 10 film deal with Shoojit Sircar, Neeraj Pandey or even a Sujoy Ghosh for that matter!
LikeLike
Madan
March 7, 2017
@ Anuj: Rohit has covered most of what I said and I’d only add a couple of things.
1) Self indulgence is necessary to the extent that it promotes experimentation in movies. Gulzar’s films didn’t make a lot of money in their time either. But many of his films are regarded as classics today and when I say regarded, I don’t mean just critics but lotsa middle class uncles and aunties.
2) The problem is when a big production house decides to bankroll a ‘self indulgent’ filmmaker, as happened with Rangoon or Bombay Velvet. I wouldn’t put it down to just self indulgence but let’s just accept the argument for the time being. Even so, the problem is with the way producers select films and after a point, there is also an element of luck. If La La Land had bombed, the same people who have praised Lionsgate would have had their knives out. As Sourav Ganguly put it succinctly, hindsight is the best sight.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
March 7, 2017
Now ‘self-indulgence’ and ‘self-obsessed’ makes it to the list of unnecessarily overabused words! However pissed you feel about a certain kind of filmmaker(s), ‘self-indulgent’ is way too negative a word to just slap on every other filmmaker who shows even a bit of ambition. Madan bhaiyya you too (not to sound didactic, sorry), an artist engaging with his inner voice is not always to be seen as ‘self-indulgent’.
Now that I’ve let that out of my system, I apologise for being OTT.
Anuj:
Since I’ve not watched Haider or Udta Punjab, I give you the benefit of doubt on both. Fine, but Kaminey made 70+ crores when the 100 crore club was still somewhat a novelty. That very much fits the definition of ‘profitable’, if not a ‘hit’. For that matter, any film that recovers its budget, or in today’s times, at least gets a revenue close to twice its budget, could be seen as ‘profitable’, and is far away from being written off as a ‘loss’. On that regard, a good number of Kashyap’s films (even his niche films like Black Friday) have made profits. This applies to about half of Bhardwaj’s films too. They may be garbage, but the makers aren’t incurring losses
I respect your stand on expecting the big studios to give chances to Shoojit Sircar, Neeraj Pandey and Sujoy Ghosh, the brash, condescending tone notwithstanding. But consider this. Perhaps barring each of their initial films, their films have always cast either familiar faces, or people who can pull a healthy number of people to the theatre. (Deepika, Akshay, John Abraham, Vidya Balan, Amitabh, etc. Even Ayushmann Khurana and Yami Gautam were familiar faces from TV, I guess). I am not discrediting these actors at all, they have done well in these films, but it can be seen that they are experimenting within a certain limit, perhaps experimenting to the extent that they can afford to. I am not discrediting the directors either. They are talented, and they are tackling interesting themes, but at least by their third film, they were backed from time to time by stars or big producers. (like John Abraham for Sircar). So there is always a chance even if for a part of the audience, that what brought them in the first place must have been the performer rather than the premise.
Juxtapose this with Kashyap’s films, which, ironically, failed when they had crowd-pulling names in them (John Abraham in No Smoking, and the likes of Ranbir and Anushka in Bombay Velvet). Otherwise, most of his films had fresh faces, actors chosen solely for the reason that they could act, and perhaps act well. (Certainly valid if a director chooses not to include familiar or crowd-friendly names). This makes their budgets leaner, yes, but wouldn’t cost recovery still be a hurdle for them?
Even in VB’s films, even if they are familiar faces, they are either not crowd pullers, or they are crowdpullers who have chosen not to bank on their USP (read Saif’s Langda Tyagi). So if these films have done that and become successful, doesn’t that say something about their ability? Or now would you want to cite crony worship, arthouse favouritism, gundagardi, black magic and so on?
You can’t neglect the profits, however, small, of these small-scale, content oriented films to ViaCom and Eros, as these numbers add up and become the capital for their next big-budget film. Yes, they could (and should) support the mentioned directors too, but as far as I see, it is equal both ways.
Madan bhaiyya has mentioned a valid and very true point here. There can be films that fail commercially today, but get well received some years later and seep into pop culture, or the collective memory of some viewers who needn’t be critics. This is certainly a triumph, when compared to a movie that made money today but isn’t remembered except for its stats years later .
For all the accusations of ‘megalomania’, it seems to be someone else who can’t get enough of their delusions of grandeur
LikeLike
rothrocks
March 8, 2017
@ Rohit I didn’t say VB or Kashyap ARE self indulgent (which is why I put the word in single quotes). I just said let’s suppose they were, even then it’s the production house’s fault for giving them a big budget. Further, I don’t really go along with the punk creed of self indulgence being a pejorative. Anything that leads to innovation is welcome, even self indulgence. Just don’t burn too much money over it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ajay
March 8, 2017
For all Karan joker fans
https://bollywoodjournalist.com/2017/03/07/karan-johar-and-the-art-of-bitching/amp/
http://m.rediff.com/movies/column/karan-johar-sounds-like-sakshi-maharaj/20170307.htm
LikeLike
Madan
March 8, 2017
Seriously, KJo managed to live up to the very stereotype that Kangana Ranaut painted.
LikeLike
Anuj
March 8, 2017
“Kaminey made 70+ crores when the 100 crore club was still somewhat a novelty. That very much fits the definition of ‘profitable’, if not a ‘hit’.” ~ WRONG. 70 cr was the WORLDWIDE GROSS collection of the film. 100 cr club or any other collection for that matter is with reference to the DOMESTIC NETT collection. Huge difference between the 2. Kaminey’s domestic nett was about 42 cr and recorded an all India footfall of around 70 Lakh plus. Not too bad considering the genre and target audience for that film, but that’s the most commercialized entertainer VB has ever made. All his other films have either been flops or complete disasters (barring the below average Haider). Even the one’s with recognized faces like Omkara, MKBKM and Rangoon have flopped badly. Omkara was made for a limited multiplex audience but was sold at the cost of a Golmaal film and hence tanked. The lesser said about the other VB film the better.
“On that regard, a good number of Kashyap’s films (even his niche films like Black Friday) have made profits. This applies to about half of Bhardwaj’s films too.” ~wonder where you’re getting such information from. Not even a single Kashyap or VB film thus far has reached anywhere near being “profitable”. Black Friday was a complete washout and made next to zero for its distributors and exhibitors. The only films of Kashyap that have just about recovered investment are Dev D and GOW 1 & 2. For VB only Kaminey and Haider just about recovered their investment. Recovery is considered only from the distributors point of view in trade circles, not from the producers point of view and the producers in most cases pre sell their films and make profits via distribution and non theatrical avenues even before the film releases. Anyhow, IMO the only way of judging a film is through its FOOTFALLS (no of tickets sold) as against its TARGET AUDIENCE. On that count even Dev D and GOW are failures. Between VB and Kashyap, Kaminey is the only movie to have registered respectable footfalls, considering that it was a dark thriller and a black comedy made with niche sensibilities. Lack of face value excuse cannot be used with these 2 film makers. Omkara has bumper face value while Kaminey, Haider, MKBKM and Rangoon too have good enough face value. For AK, Bombay Velvet had bumper face value while No Smoking and GOW had recognizable faces. I understand that “idol worshipping” and fan boy/girl ‘ism is a bane among the Indian audiences that’s got to stop asap (imo an Airlift kinda film should sell equal no of tickets even if we replace Akshay with Irrfan as the content and narrative would not change whatsoever, but that wouldn’t happen thanks to the culture of hero worshipping amongst our audience) but until then, the onus is on the film maker to deliver audience friendly cinema. A Vicky Donor had a much lesser popular cast compared to a GOW, Rangoon or Haider and yet it sold more tickets than these 3 films. A Madras Cafe had the same John Abraham as a No Smoking and yet the results are there for all to see.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
March 9, 2017
Madan:
Sorry, bhaiyya. My bad.
Anuj:
I may have gone wrong with the statistics, but I would say that footfalls aren’t just about whether the audience pays or not, but also what they are given and when they are given it in the first place. MANK and I had mentioned the very heady equation about film commerce in earlier comments. Non theatrical venues and film festivals are audience members too IMO and they can’t be discounted as well.
‘Why this diversity doesn’t always translate to money matters , as MANK and I mentioned in the last comment, is thanks to the business machinery of producers, studios, distributors, theatre owners, stars, film families etc. These guys each have their own ideas about films too, and aren’t as naive and sincere as you think to always cater to the audience’ sentiments. Again, not to say that they are sinister, all-powerful beings. The Censor Board, as you can see, has also come to be an influence of late. Add to this the uneasy truce between single-screen theatres and multiplexes, and you get the murkiest equation’. Up to you to see this as a sheepish defence or not.
I wasn’t citing face value as an excuse at all. Neither was I stating it as the only reason why a film becomes a success or not, as you seem to have. It is one of the many aspects, each of which may outweigh the other unexpectedly, which may influence a viewer while watching a film. GOW has recognisable actors, yet not really the ones all of us recall, which again is not so much a fault of anyone’s.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
March 9, 2017
Anuj, i think you seem to think that film makers have to make a film to suit audience tastes. Which audience? People who like Chennai Express aren’t going to like No Smoking. Secondly, film makers create films out of stories they want to tell. Obviously, with the money involved, they would like to recover their investment. But to choose stories that do not resonate with them just so they can cater to this mythical homogenous ‘audience’ so they can be ‘successful’ (according to your parameters) is to choose to sell out.
While I will not fault someone for choosing to do that so he can live, I admire people who, knowing their target audience is limited, still choose to tell the stories they want to tell. Thirdly, if distributors were losing money on VB’s and AK’s films hand over fist as you state, they wouldn’t touch either of these film makers with a bargepole. No matter which studio is backing them. For that matter, with corporate funding coming in, and corporates worried about their bottom line, the studios wouldn’t back them either. So, somewhere, these films are at least breaking even.
I don’t understand the anger you seem to have that these film makers aren’t making the films you think they ought to make. You can dislike their output, but surely the choice to make the kind of film they make, is theirs? Unless they’re coming to you for funding?
LikeLike
Anuj
March 11, 2017
“Which audience? People who like Chennai Express aren’t going to like No Smoking” ~ a large section of the “niche” audience enjoyed Chennai Express but obviously films like Piku, Pink and Neerja would be liked only by the “niche” audience and not the rest (about 30% of the total audience). As for NO SMOKING, it was outrightly rejected even by this 30% metropolitan multiplex niche audience. Same goes for the rest of Kashyap’s films, if we are to believe box office numbers, trends, word of mouth and television viewership of films post release. Now I’m sure AK admirers such as yourself and a large part of the communist inclined pseudo brigade would wanna believe that box office numbers, footfalls, audience taste etc etc does not matter and all that matters is the scummy taste of a handful of individuals, critics and their cronies (perhaps not even 10000 individuals if we are to count in exact terms), but frankly, none gives a damn and nor does this change facts.
“While I will not fault someone for choosing to do that so he can live, I admire people who, knowing their target audience is limited, still choose to tell the stories they want to tell. Thirdly, if distributors were losing money on VB’s and AK’s films hand over fist as you state, they wouldn’t touch either of these film makers with a bargepole.” ~interesting usage of words from the English dictionary (an expertise of Rangan admirers) but I guess you’re completely oblivious to the arm twisting mechanisms of big daddy production houses and czars of the film industry. A Sajid Nadiadwala (best known for delivering blockbuster mass entertainer productions) would invest 75 crores for “good friend” VB and allow him to let his self obsessive narcissistic fantasy go wild. Then the same Nadiadwala would go on to sign a 3 film deal with a Viacom 18 or an Eros Now and squeeze in a VB film along with 2 other Khan films thereby filling his own coffers and playing safe. A Viacom 18/Eros Now/Fox Star would readily sign the deal with 2 major potential blockbusters at the helm and thereby arm twist sub distributor and exhibitors into purchasing the VB film at exorbitant rates, refusal for which would lead to them not acquiring the rights to screen the Khan films. So..VB khush, Nadiadwala khush, Viacom 18 khush aur baaki gaye tel lene! The entire industry and trade knows that AK and VB films potential disasters that would burn a hole in their pockets, yet they’re forced to purchase their films thanks to the “good connections” of AK and VB (KJo producing BV for AK and Nadiadwala doing the same for VB in Rangoon).
“I don’t understand the anger you seem to have that these film makers aren’t making the films you think they ought to make. You can dislike their output, but surely the choice to make the kind of film they make, is theirs? Unless they’re coming to you for funding?” ~and I don’t understand why the Hindi film industry permits repeated underperformers and loss makers to continue having a job of their liking. In any other normal organization, disastrous results for over a decade would lead to an individual getting a pink slip.
LikeLike
Madan
March 11, 2017
“I don’t understand why the Hindi film industry permits repeated underperformers and loss makers to continue having a job of their liking. In any other normal organization, disastrous results for over a decade would lead to an individual getting a pink slip.” – Because it’s art. Art is not a hard nosed biz, it’s about passion. So Nadiadwala will do a deal to help VB BECAUSE he likes VB’s films. It’s been that way for a long time – duds or modest success made by artsy filmmakers subsidised by blockbusters. Up to a point, it’s healthy even, because it gives viewers more choice. In the 70s too, hitmakers like ABBA and Carpenters subsidised the many prog rock bands of the time. In the 80s, the industry became very ‘corporate’ and the music became pretty shit overall over a period of time. Today, the plebs can’t even argue using numbers because industry sales are heavily down and not just because of downloads. Even MJ’s last album was outselling many of the ‘reigning’ stars and people are prepared to pay heftily to watch once legendary has-beens perform but have lost interest in the current music scene. When left-field (not to be confused with left as ideology) music was encouraged, it kept up pressure on pop as well to be dynamic and evolve and thus excite and capture new audiences rather than be content with pleasing the existing listeners.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
March 11, 2017
Anuj, as Madan pointed out, art is not a business. Or, to be accurate, art is not only a business. Sure, it must sell, but if you are going to sacrifice at the altar of mammon, then what you will get is only films like Housefull and Grand Masti. Throughout the years, ‘commercial’ film-makers have subsidised the so-called ‘art’ films. Small, independent films get made because big, commercial interests put their money into them. It has less to do with ‘connections’, as you put it, and more to do with wanting to help someone make the films that they cannot.
Karan Johar has been open about being unable to make the Anurag Kashyap sort of films. But if he admires Kashyap’s style of film making, it isn’t so far fetched that he might bankroll his films. Or Sajid Nadiadwala doing the same thing for Vishal Bhardwaj. You need not like either. But again, it’s not your money.
Finally, you have no idea what I ‘wanna’ believe, so don’t jump to conclusions about either my beliefs or my use of language. Are footfalls important? Yes, they are. Would these filmmakers like to have an audience watch their films? Yes, they would. But given their sensibilities, there’s only so much they can pander to this mystical ‘audience’. For your information, the ‘audience’ is not a monolith. Neither are we – ‘BR admirers’ ‘communist inclined pseudo brigade’ – et al, homogenous in our tastes and beliefs. As for ‘scummy’ taste, by whose standards? Yours?
‘Hit’ movies and ‘good movies’ are not mutually exclusive, sure, but they aren’t also synonymous with each other. At the end of the day, every film maker will make the films they want to make, tell the stories they want to tell; the audience will watch the films they want to watch. And whether it’s only 1000 people (Really? You counted the audience numbers in all the theatres across India for all the films you abhor?), or many millions, each has its own trajectory.
In any case, if you can’t write a single post without calling people names, being contemptuous of every single poster who dares to contradict you, or being so angry that any view other than yours can – possibly – be right, then we aren’t having a discussion. What you’re looking for is a bully pulpit, to preach to your chorus.
Disclaimer: No dictionaries were harmed in the writing of this post.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Anuj
March 12, 2017
“Because it’s art. Art is not a hard nosed biz, it’s about passion. So Nadiadwala will do a deal to help VB BECAUSE he likes VB’s films. ” ~its not just an ART of self obsession and vision. Its an ART made for an audience and makers who cannot make films for any section of the audience whatsoever (not even the minuscule elitist audience) do not deserve to be making films.
“Sure, it must sell, but if you are going to sacrifice at the altar of mammon, then what you will get is only films like Housefull and Grand Masti.” ~ No. If a smart enough film maker who cares about his audience makes a film, we would watch more number of films that are not only a film maker’s vision but also equally audience friendly in equal measure. It need not necessarily be a universal mass entertainer. It can even be A Wednesday or a Peepli Live or a Vicky Donor which stays true to its target audience and hence receives appreciation. The same can be said even for the Housefull’s and Grand Masti’s of the world.
Let’s keep the economics of film making aside. Even if we speak of appreciation and word of mouth, there no VB film till date barring Omkara and Kaminey that’s carried a positive word of mouth among the viewers. A word of mouth is NOT equal to footfalls. Word of mouth and appreciation refers to how many people who’ve watched the film actually like and recommend the film. A Queen sold just 1.5 Lakh tickets on the day of release, yet ended up with a lifetime footfall of 60 Lakhs. That’s genuinely positive word of mouth. Contrarily, A HAPPY NEW YEAR sold 40 Lakh tickets on day 1 and yet ended up with lifetime footfalls of under 2 CR. That’s negative word of mouth. As for RANGOON, it sells under 5 Lakh tickets on day 1 and even from such a low level, it fails to pick up at all and ends up with lifetime footfalls of under 20 Lakhs. That’s disastrous word of mouth, even worse than last year’s fiasco MOHENJO DARO. Sadly, that’s been the case with 90% of Kashyap/Bharadwaj films.
LikeLike
Madan
March 12, 2017
“its not just an ART of self obsession and vision.” – How do you know that a film that was a hit at the box office was necessarily made by a creator who firmly had the audience in mind and, on the flipside, how do you know that a film that flopped was made out of self obsession? Was Mela a work of self obsession? Or just a mediocre product from a team that did badly want a hit? Today, I watched The Age of Innocence, which did middling business at the BO but received a lot of critical acclaim at the time and, as of today, enjoys a 7.2 average score on IMDB from over 37000 ratings. I THINK that’s a large enough sample. Scorcese has had his share of box office disappointments over the year. Roland Emmerich has delivered better business at the box office off fewer films. For all that, though, New York cabbies are more likely to get a Taxi Driver reference than something to do with Godzilla, which was a huge hit in its time but unremarkable in terms of taking the art form to places it hadn’t been to before.
Innovation is important for cinema, or any other art form, to remain vibrant and exciting in the long run. Speaking of business, lots of businesses fail and when it comes to start ups the failure rate is higher still. Now, did that bring greater ruin to USA or well entrenched, big banks who supposedly knew what they were doing? You may have your reasons for disliking VB or AK but they are the least of Bollywood’s problems today.
LikeLike
Anuj
March 13, 2017
Stop bringing in your irrelevant Hollywood comparisons in an attempt to desperately make a point. Even the minutest of brains would acknowledge the difference in the sensibilities of a Bollywood audience and a Hollywood audience, even if I am to ignore the vast majority of Bollywood mass audience. Anyhow, good luck with you blah blah’ing and quacking. Not a bit surprised that you invoke Capenters, Sorcese, Roland Emmerich and god knows whom in a discussion strictly restricted to Indian audiences and their tastes. Especially considering that your guru Shri B Rangan is capable of making Jolly LLB 2 into a “Ram mandir vs Babri Masjid” issue and invoke cheap lowbrow entertainers like Vikramarkudu while reviewing an emotionally charged socio political drama like Bajrangi Bhaijaan.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
March 13, 2017
As Anu chechi (ചേച്ചീ എന്ന് വിളിച്ചോട്ടേ ?) and Madan bhaiyya said and I have repeated in my previous comments, audience is not a monolith. Or to put it better, we would like to believe that very few total brickheads or hollowheads exist in any kind of audience, contrary to what you have said. Every audience member has different tastes AND some members can like more than one genre or style of filmmaking than others do. Also, people can like a certain director’s stories or style of filmmaking, and still not have a liking towards all of his films. Same with a filmmaker one may not like.
For example, we aren’t saying that all AK and VB films are classics and all other Bollywood films come below this pantheon of movies. You are the one who is making this sweeping assumption according to your logic that any film that doesn’t have great footfalls is an outright bad movie. You also haven’t considered, or presented the alternative so far the fact that the presence of other movies in theatres also influences the business of a movie. You do that or not, at least think about the fact that way too many nuances exist here. I believe that at least three factors stay in audience’s minds when they choose to watch a movie: ‘What is being presented to me?’, ‘Will I enjoy it?’ and ‘What else other than this is available?’.
And word-of-mouth too works differently for different films. A film which isn’t taking a lot of risks creatively or commercially, isn’t bad as a product and has bankable actors may not always have an immediate impact of WOM. It has a big enough catchment to start with, and people may still try to watch it. The case is different for a film which tries to do a good lot of things different. A not-so-encouraging initial WOM is potent enough for it to not do well commercially, even if it is a good film. It’s also not like distributors and exhibitors are ‘doodh ke dhule’, always summoned at gunpoint and bullied by studios and producers. They have minds of their own, interest of their own and they’d be more than happy to give less shows to films with a favourably growing WOM, especially if there is a big-budget film with big stars right around the corner.
Another thing Madan bhaiyya said is also true. Not every filmmaker starts by thinking ‘Audiences have warmed up to this topic. Why don’t I do my new film like this?’. Every filmmaker frames their film with what they individually feel and think. Neither is every successful filmmaker out there cross-checking every narrative decision with the question ‘Will the audience/studio/distributor/exhibitor/Anuj like it?’.
Also, a film isn’t made (or it doesn’t stay alive) just for the duration it plays in theatres or TVs. Future generations or even outsiders to our film culture will try it, and just so you know, they qualify well enough as an audience too. So ticket sales may be tangible values, yet they aren’t really verdicts engraved in gold. We aren’t rejecting statistics at all; we’re saying that a movie doesn’t end at the single screen or multiplex, or even the TV screen for that matter. Any movie that is remembered as a movie first, and not as a project this or that big actor/actress/director/producer/music director took part in, it is an achievement and IMO a bigger one than a financially successful, yet pretty much forgettable film.
അനു ചേച്ചി :
ആദ്യത്തെ കമന്റുകളൊക്കെ എഴുതുമ്പൊ എനിക്കെന്റെ കാഴ്ചപ്പാടിനെ പറ്റി നല്ല ഉറപ്പിണ്ടായിരുന്നു. അത്യാവശ്യം കരുതലോടെ (ഒരുപക്ഷെ പേടിയോടെ), കയ്യിലുള്ള അറിവ് വെച്ചിട്ട്, ഇങ്ങേരേ അധികം പ്രകോപിപ്പിക്കാത്ത വിധത്തില് കാര്യങ്ങള് പറയുകയായിരുന്നു. അവസാനം ഇങ്ങേര് കാഷിന്റെ ടിക്കറ്റിന്റെയും കണക്കും കൊണ്ട് വന്നപ്പൊ, ഞാൻ കൊറച്ചു പതറിപ്പോയി. ഞാൻ എന്റെ അഭിരുചികളെ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യുക എന്ന സ്ഥിതിവരെയുള്ള ഒരാശയക്കൊഴപ്പം. ചേച്ചി ഇപ്പൊ ഇങ്ങേരെ യാദോരു പേടിയുമില്ലാതെ, വാക്കുകള് ചുരുക്കാതെ നേരിടുമ്പൊ, ആ നിരാശ ഏതാണ്ട് പോയപോലെ. നന്ദി പറയണോ, അതോ കൂടുതൽ അറിവുള്ള ചേച്ചിക്കായിട്ട് കളമൊഴിഞ്ഞ് തരണോ എന്നറിയില്ല .
Also, Anuj, one can choose to use either simple words or complex ones, but it’s plain stupid to think that someone who uses not-often-used words of the dictionary, is outright incoherent or irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan Mohan
March 13, 2017
“Not a bit surprised that you invoke Capenters, Sorcese, Roland Emmerich and god knows whom in a discussion strictly restricted to Indian audiences and their tastes.” – But you made a point that can be applied to any art scene anywhere. There’s no rule that an INDIAN artist has no right to experiment and stay true to his or her vision rather than be slave to audience tastes alone. If that be the case, then I submit that Indian artists should humbly obey the decree of Your Majesty and move abroad than waste their time here operating under ridiculous constraints such as these as well Censor Scissorhands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan Mohan
March 13, 2017
By the way, I also mentioned the dud that was Mela, among many other Indian examples up thread. I see that you conveniently chose not take up the example of Mela and instead rant about supposedly irrelevant examples.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rohit Sathish Nair
March 13, 2017
it’s not like such a situation hasn’t happened for Bollywood either. ‘Mera Naam Joker’ and ‘Guide’ weren’t box office successes to start with, but today many people who belong to the old generation remember them as fine movies, not just as movies with great songs. (Mind you, the people who I got to know this from weren’t exactly film buffs). Now 50-year-old examples may not really be flukes. I don’t know if this was the first Indian film to show a boy fall for his teacher, but the fact that echoes of this angle can be seen more than once in another industry like Malayalam (Koodevide?, Mazhayetthum Munpe which was the original of Devgn’s Zameer: The Fire Within, and the recent Premam) shows how this movie isn’t to be written off. And Kerala is very much part of India, just in case you mistook it for a foreign example.
‘Mera Naam Joker’, which many say is Raj Kapoor’s most personal work, also refutes your claim that an intensely personal work will never be accepted by the audience.
Even ‘Agneepath’ wasn’t received with both arms stretched for a warm hug. Yet it is still remembered today (Not going into Amitabh Sir’s performance) to the extent that it was remade.
Even comedy, a genre which has the potential of catching on to people instantly, couldn’t escape this sad development, as even ‘Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro’ and ‘Andaz Apna Apna’ weren’t box office successes. Again, even recent examples like Lakshya, Dil Se, Swades (even a few non-SRK fans whom I knew liked it.) aren’t unworthy of a mention.
All of which is to say that an audience rejecting a film at the box-office and warming up to it later is a universal phenomenon.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
March 13, 2017
Rohit, no worries. ‘Chechi’ is a perfectly okay suffix. 🙂
As for Anuj, I began responding to his comments because I thought he had a point of view I disagreed with, but could debate to see if we could at least agree to disagree. But his comments here, and on other threads, makes it clear that his only intention is to call BR and other commenters names, and to insult any viewpoint that doesn’t agree with his. There is no discussing/debating anything with someone whose modus operandi is such.
LikeLike
Anuj
March 13, 2017
“Mera Naam Joker’ and ‘Guide’ weren’t box office successes to start with, but today many people who belong to the old generation remember them as fine movies, not just as movies with great songs.” ~ both these films are BLOCKBUSTERS on the television and VCR/DVD circuit which only reinstates my point that a “well accepted” movie (even if accepted by a very limited urban elitist audience) WILL find viewership via some medium or another. Same goes for Andaz Apna Apna and Swades/Lakshya, all of which were a rage among the video cassette and DVD circuit. Anyhow, such films are few and far between. Movies that find acceptance (either limited or universal) will TREND well at the box office irrespective of its opening day collection or lifetime footfall count.
@Rohith : I never speak of “total number of footfalls” being a parameter to measure a film’s acceptance amongst its “target audience”. As clearly mentioned by the QUEEN vs HNY analogy. Even a PEEPLI LIVE or a JOLLY LLB which have just 30-40 lakh theatrical footfalls are well accepted film within their “limited domain and target audience”. Its because both these films started at under 2 crore footfalls on day 1 and yet ended up with lifetime footfalls of 30-40 lakhs. Indicating a unanimously positive word of mouth among the “limited number of” people who watched them. On the contrary, some of the highest grossers today like Ek Tha Tiger, Bodyguard, HNY, Dilwale, Ra.1 etc did not even manage to double their first weekend footfalls, clearly indicating a mixed word of mouth among the viewers. Its just that films like ETT, HNY, Bodyguard etc are “watched” by a lot more number of people in this country, thanks to the idol worshipping and blind fan following ways of our audiences (a BANE as i’ve spoken of earlier). Now coming to VB and AK, there’s no film between these 2 film makers barring Omkara, Kaminey and DEV D (these 3 found at least limited acceptance among the metropolitan multiplex audience, however limited that audience is) which found even a semblance of acceptance even among the minute urban premium mutiplex audience (forget about the masses; they don’t even know their names). So ya, equating VB and AK films with the likes of Guide, MNJ and Swades is irrelevant and unfair.
LikeLike
Anuj
March 13, 2017
“Even ‘Agneepath’ wasn’t received with both arms stretched for a warm hug. Yet it is still remembered today (Not going into Amitabh Sir’s performance) to the extent that it was remade.” ~over 2 crore theatrical footfall in 1990, 4th highest grosser of the year. Let me not even get into its VCR and Television viewership. Isn’t that acceptance enough? The only, make note “ONLY” reason it “underperformed” was because it was sold at monumental costs to distributors who expected it to be another DEEWAAR or ZANJEER. And even though the false reporters and bogus journos might have you believe that it was a box office Flop, AGNEEPATH (1990) was an AVERAGE fair among trade circles and a HIT if we are to look at its theatrical and VCR/Television viewership.
LikeLike
Madan
March 13, 2017
“both these films are BLOCKBUSTERS on the television and VCR/DVD circuit which only reinstates my point that a “well accepted” movie (even if accepted by a very limited urban elitist audience) WILL find viewership via some medium or another.” – So it’s just way too soon to know if Rangoon will slide into ignominy overall or will be resurrected by TV/youtube (since the concept of a DVD circuit is dead now). It’s just too recent for us to know. It takes a long time for a film to enjoy a revision in popular opinion. There’s no guarantee it will happen and there’s also no guarantee that you or I would agree when it does but we will not be able to argue that it is not a cult classic once it attains that status. The point anyhow is because a film is a flop doesn’t necessarily mean the filmmaker in this case was irresponsible and even if he was, it is something for production houses to address.
Yes, I agree more production houses will wind up with turds under their belt but it mostly has to do with how they operate and in any case, you cannot lay the entire blame for it at the doorstep of the Kashyaps or the Bharadwajs. Chandni Chowk to China was fully intended as a commercial film and had a star cast and still flopped. This goes back to my earlier example of Mela. There are many ways to fail. One is by hiring an arthouse director and giving him a big budget which he doesn’t know what to do with and the other (and far more common) is to play it too safe and end up making a mediocre film that nobody wants to see. Failure is part and parcel of film industry and those who venture into producing films know this full well. If they don’t, it’s on them. I am not sure why you lament/resent VB getting so many chances to fail because it’s surely not at the expense of yet another Hrithik starrer. If your heart bleeds for some other indie filmmaker, I could at least understand that but apparently you hate ’em all in which case the big stars aren’t any way deprived of projects because somebody wants to burn money on VB.
LikeLike
sree1824
March 13, 2017
Hi Anuj, you should check out http://www.behindwoods.com. They’d be very happy to have someone like you. Who knows? You might even get a job offer 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rohit Sathish Nair
March 14, 2017
I was referring to TV and VCR obviously, when I said Mera Naam Joker, Guide and their likes were being revisited by viewers. You aren’t reinstating your point here; you are reinstating mine. Not bickering about it though.
And even then, it’s not like Kashyap’s and Bhardwaj’ films aren’t rewatched at all. Even if it is through torrents, they do have demand. Even Kashyap is aware that his films are beng revisited through torrents, and doesn’t mind them being circulated even form say, the second day. He is gaining less money, yes, but it refutes your claim that their films aren’t revisited or tried at all.
LikeLike
Anuj
March 14, 2017
“o it’s just way too soon to know if Rangoon will slide into ignominy overall or will be resurrected by TV/youtube (since the concept of a DVD circuit is dead now). It’s just too recent for us to know.” ~ let me assure you, a movie whose first Sunday box office collections are lower than the first Friday’s can never be resurrected whatsoever. Rangoon is a complete out and out fiasco of magnanimous proportions, the kinda film that puts even the likes of mohenjo daro and Chandni chowk to china to shame. Even if VB buys out the entire trade and media circuit and convinces them to manipulate facts (with help from Nadiadwala of course), the facts would not change.
“You aren’t reinstating your point here; you are reinstating mine” ~i’ve spoken more than once about things like box office trending and footfalls. As for torrents and piracy, there is no legitimate record or data on these and hence its a convenient argument for Anurag “the flop” Kashyap’s (a communist pseudo secular pig) fans to make about his disastrous and mostly unknown films being “blockbusters” (lol) on the pirated circuits. Or maybe not considering the drug addict that he is, even his viewers must be high on dope while admiring trash such as No Smoking, the girl in yellow boots and Bombay Velvet 😛
LikeLike
Rahini David
March 14, 2017
Anuj, I have become a huge fan of yours. You are so knowledgeable. Great going.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
March 14, 2017
“let me assure you, a movie whose first Sunday box office collections are lower than the first Friday’s can never be resurrected whatsoever. ” – Source? Because what links I checked show the collections on first Friday and first Sunday both at around Rs.6 cr.
LikeLike
Rohit Sathish Nair
March 14, 2017
it is convenient, and it isn’t false.Just saying. I don’t want to be the one twisting opinions now and then just to look good, and I guess I haven’t done it so far. Up to you
അനു ചേച്ചി :
ചേച്ചി പറഞ്ഞത് ശരിയാണ്. സഭ്യതയും പക്വതയും ഇയാളുടെ അടുത്തുകൂടെ പോയിട്ടില്ല. ചുമ്മാ കൊരേ കനക്കും നീട്ടിവയ്ക്കും, എന്നിട്ട് കണാകുണാണ് ആരെയെങ്കിലും ചീത്തവിളിക്കും. ഇങ്ങേരോട് ഇണ്ടായിരുന്ന പേടി ഇങ്ങേരായിട്ടു കളയിപ്പിച്ച പോലെ. അതോടെ എന്റെ നിലപാടിനും ഒരിത്തിരി കട്ടി വന്നപോലെ . നമ്മുടെ സഖാവ് ചെ ഗെവാര (ആൾക്കാര് എന്തുകൊണ്ടാണ് ചെ ഗുവേര, ചെ ഗുവേര എന്ന് പറയണത്?) പറഞ്ഞപോലെ :’കൊല്ലാം, പക്ഷെ തോൽപ്പിക്കാനാവില്ല’ .
Rahini David: I second you, akka. The level of maturity he has shown and the research he has done is something to be picked up by all of us.
LikeLike
Anuj
March 16, 2017
“let me assure you, a movie whose first Sunday box office collections are lower than the first Friday’s can never be resurrected whatsoever. ” – Source? Because what links I checked show the collections on first Friday and first Sunday both at around Rs.6 cr.” ~OFFICIAL distribution sources, BOI, Indicine and Komal Nahta. Even if we assume the numbers for both days are same (although Sunday numbers were .25L lower), ticket prices are always higher for a Sunday than a Friday and hence it obviously means that Sunday occupancy/footfall is lower than Friday’s. In other words…a complete DISASTER. Even Bombay Velvet (the mother of all disasters with over 90% losses across all circuits) could not boast of this unique achievement. The last mainstream film to have suffered this fate was perhaps JISM 2 😛
LikeLike
Madan
March 16, 2017
“ticket prices are always higher for a Sunday than a Friday and hence it obviously means that Sunday occupancy/footfall is lower than Friday’s. ” – But box office collection – which was the term you used in your earlier post – means collection only, not occupancy, not footfall. I don’t doubt your assessment that it’s a disaster (not the confidence with which you say ANY film that has a bad first Sunday can never be resurrected) but maybe more precision would help.
LikeLike
Martin Mani
March 17, 2017
Mr. Madan, how dare you challenge his decree, especially when he has underscored the supreme authenticity of his (sorry, not his findings this time, he was graceful enough to give citations) findings by typing OFFICIAL instead of official. The all-caps says it all!
LikeLike
Anuj
March 17, 2017
Rangoon’s official Sunday collection was around 5.6, about .4 lower than that of Friday as per Komal Nahta’s Film Information magazine which I believe to be the most authentic trade source since time immemorial & obviously a lot a more authentic and reliable than sham sites like boi.com and bollywoodhungama who’ve made it their expertise to fudge and manipulate figures.
LikeLike
Madan
March 17, 2017
@ Anuj: Ok, I can’t find the magazine anywhere online. But I looked up koimoi.com (which is purportedly edited by Komal Nahta) and it states Rangoon’s first day collections as 6.07 cr and up to first weekend as 18.25. Unless there was a completely weird breakout spike on the first Sat, there’s no way Sunday’s collections could have dropped below Rs.6 cr. I will agree to disagree about this point here. I have checked different sources and heard your explanations and will stick to what I have read on most of the sources.
LikeLike
tonks
July 18, 2017
http://www.blush.me/lets-gab/iifa-deliver-girl-power-message-making-fun-kangana-ranaut/
I admit I am very disappointed in both Karan and Saif. I thought they were both above this.
LikeLike
Rocky
November 5, 2018
Having watched two episodes of KWK, ( Deepika- Alia and Ranveer-Akhshay ) I have to say that it is not as entertaining or fun anymore .
Everyone just seem to be going thru a script.
LikeLike