29
I was initially going to add these comments to this thread but decided to put them up in a separate post instead:
Sandy: Look forward to your Rathnam interview. However:
1)Rathnam has always been disarmingly modest about himself. This does not mean that he has not often made thought-provoking cinema. There are a number of directors in cinematic history who would be on anyone’s ‘greatest’ list and who also at different times would be dismissive about their work. Doesn’t mean much.
2)Also what an artists ‘intends’ with his work is not as relevant as what a ‘reader’ can get out of the work. This is a pragmatic point since we can never ‘know’ what the artist intended. Moreover the artist in any case cannot have absolute control over meaning in his ‘text’. A book or film or painting or what have you give rise to all kinds of interpretations, the author can never obviously ‘intend’ all of these. This sort of approach where one tries to get at/to the author’s intentions is a ‘fallacy’.
3)This does not mean ‘anything goes’. The richness of a work can be measured by just how much ‘meaning’ it gives rise to. One can write a number of essays on Dil Se. Only the brave would venture anything on Main Hoon Na! The point here is that a reading must be back up by evidence within a work. So if one wants to suggest for example that Sarkar is a deeper work than Guru one must be ready with the ‘evidence’. So for example a number of us here expressed a good many thoughts on MP, always with the evidence. A case cannot be made with any film or work, it has to be of a certain order.
4)finally Rathnam has indeed always thought of himself first and foremost as a commercial film director. hence the term ‘pop auteur’ that is sometimes used for him. But some of the greatest luminaries in Indian cinema have also been ‘commercial’ directors. Raj Kapoor and Bimal Roy are two obvious examples. Just because a director works in the popular mode does not at all make him/her one with lesser talents. A Deewar cannot be compared with a Kaalia, though both are in the commercial mode!
[Incidentally this is called the 'intentional fallacy' in critical theory.
In other words we do not know or cannot know what Shakespeare 'intended' to say with Othello, what Beethoven 'intended' to mean with the choral strains that conclude the 9th Symphony, what da Vinci 'intended' with the Mona Lisa's smile, and so on... for every field of artistic enterprise.
In each case there is a range of interpretations, there are many opposing views.. but all of this is possible because meaning cannot be 'locked in'.
But even if the author could tell us exactly what he or she intended it would still be irrelevant.]
There Are 29 Responses So Far. »
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
these individuals who really think MNIK worked seriously needs to throw water on their face
Karan Johar should just zip his ...
If I made 1 movie in 4 years and the movie doesnt make profit i wud be cross.
If I made ...
That was a BOI ploy doga.rnbdj didnt beat sik opening week.They were with 42 cr for rnbdj for 2 weeks ...
Only thing SIK beat Rab ne was the 3 day Weekend,
28 cr vs 25 cr.
Hype for SIK was really ...
I see them every year in Manali.
But recently a few have re-appeared in my town. 
Housefull ATTBB,
BOI claimed 43 cr for SIK and 45 cr for RNBDJ..Then they cgnaged it to 39 cr for SIK ...
This year Akshay will give a reply to his distractors. While Karan's friends have started deserting his camp (Read Farha ...
Ihab
its ok.i did not find lakshya engaging enough.i liked it in parts.It was too slow and boring in second half. 
" Ihab,since you like Hrithik, would you like to elaborate on you watching Krrish 16 times in Theatres . "
Lol, ...
From being most common bird to their total disappearance from cities within a very short span of time (last 10-15 ...
sandy 16 March 2007
11:36:37 am
Satyam: Would you be able to trasfer the posts from the other thread into this one.
I think it makes an interesting read…
Never mind that you dismissed it outright when I shared my views on it.
satyam 16 March 2007
11:59:34 am
Will do Sandy. No offense intended by the responses. I am nothing if not polemical on these matters, certainly passionate!
satyam 16 March 2007
12:10:04 pm
(As per Sandy’s request I have tranferred the relevant exchanges from the other thread to this one… but for all concerned note how Sany has enlivened things by showing up after all this time.. this is exactly why I was missing her presence here…)
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 9:53 am e
I would love to have Sameer’s inputs here as well but he keeps disapperaing everytime any critical analysis of Guru and Mani Ratnam happen. Don’t you think the ‘intention’ of the director matters?
satyam Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 9:57 am e
Sandy: Actually the intention of the director does NOT count for anything! But whatever the intention is you are quite wrong to assume that Rathnam (in this example) would simply reveal it in an interview. This isn’t his style.
I think quite frankly that you have this anti-intellectual streak where you simply turn off beyond a point. That’s fine of course and your prerogative you can’t say that people are just throwing out words like ‘metaphor’ and what not. Speaking for myself I wrote a number of long responses on Guru and in each case cited evidence within the film. let me remind you once again that while you laughed at our MP pieces you wrote a similar one on UJ (a fine piece) that put you in at least as much of a minority as we were with MP!
To get back to rathnam the ‘evidence’ as I see it is within his films and so obviously there that I wouldn’t even have thought this point was up for debate.
Sameer Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:01 am e
” Don’t you think the ‘intention’ of the director matters?”
Sandy to answer this, lemme give an example. There was song in Black Friday ‘Bharam Bhaap ke’ and there Aditya(Badshah Khan) is staring at the girls. And there was this HUGE theory and the analysis on NG and how Anurag was so great in creating such a scene, so on. But when I asked him(during chat) as what was HIS thought to shoot the scene way, he said its simply that he was feeling LONELY and seeked a company! So, all the analysis bit goes out. So, in other words, INTENTIONS do matter.
But, I also feel some directors create master strokes or scenes by accident which they later realize was a classic scene!
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:01 am e
Satyam: Trust you to subvert everthing that I’ve said
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:12 am e
One more anecdote Sameer…
When Satyajit Ray made a film and it was up for reviews, there was this one particular scene that every high brow critic in town was intrigued about.
They saw a crow flying in one of the scenes and were splitting their hair over what it could signify. Every conceavable theory was produced – from it being a heralder of doom to what not…you get the drift)
Eventually when Ray was asked about it, he said ‘What crow! I never even noticed it was in a scene’
So how can intentions not matter?
jayshah Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:14 am e
Intentions do matter. Surely if an interpretation matters then the intention matters just as much. Afterall a director is only playing out his interpretation on celluloid.
BTW there is no right or wrong answer in interpretations. When I was in school we had to read many Shakepearean books and poems from the 19th century. There is NO correct way to interpret things and there is hardly any way to understand intentions. Its up to us as readers to draw our own conclusions. Whether the writer or director or poet meant something else DOES mean something but it is not the bible. We look at things our own way. We look at the metaphoric aspect of poetry and try to understand what the poet might have meant. But we can NEVER be sure.
Sameer Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:17 am e
“What crow”
LOL!!! Funny stuff!
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:18 am e
“But when I asked him(during chat) as what was HIS thought to shoot the scene way, he said its simply that he was feeling LONELY and seeked a company!”
LOL! That’s really funny. And what was that analysis people did on her wearing an orange salvar kameez and hence being a symbol of Shiv Sena’s ‘facist ideology’.
LMAO…as you would put it.
satyam Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:22 am e
Jay: Your second paragraph is making exactly my points. Intentions are unknowable for one. But even if we did the interpretations not consonant with the author’s interpretation would hardly be nullified. Because a work gives rise to a plethora of meanings, all of which the author cannot ‘intend’.
Remember, interpretations matter because these depend on the evidence provided by a text. The author’s intention (even if known) becomes one of these interpretations and has no privileged status as interpretation. The author’s genius lies in creating the work and offering it up for all sorts of readings. This is the condition of all art.
To reiterate the author’s intentions are simply an approach to the work and not some sort of ‘fixed meaning’ beyond which other interpretations cannot go. If that were so there would be no art work. Every work of art depends on this.
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:24 am e
We look at the metaphoric aspect of poetry and try to understand what the poet might have meant. But we can NEVER be sure.”
Jayshah: Surely, all works of art are open to interpretation but the idea is ultimately to get as close as possible to the originator’s thoughts. When you take up a poem, you try and see what feeling it evokes in you (that is an individual’s reading) but at the same time, you also research on the factors that prompted the poem, right.
Of course, some filmmakers leave the interpretation open (hardly happens with Bollywood though, which is why I disagree so much with the others) and in such a case, I appreciate any number of views but to ‘assume’ things is not corect just as the author’s interpretation need not be the ‘Bible’
jayshah Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:25 am e
I wouldn’t make fun of interpretations. This is one of the fascinating things about writing pieces on films, art or music. Its not something that should be frowned upon. Even if one goes into the deepest of details what it illustrates is a passion and creativity in thinking. I certainly don’t possess this skill and never have.
satyam Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:29 am e
Sandy: I’ve heard many such ‘non-serious’ anecdotes. There are of course ‘critics’ who take things too far in many instances and make a mockery of the enterprise. But one is also expected to be an intelligent reader on one’s own part. As readers we have a certain responsibility too! Just as we should differentiate between Bimal Roy and David Dhawan or between Dostoyevsky and John grisham we are also required to distinguish between good and mediocre critics! That you could only find the critics who reflected on that crow in Ray and not the many others who had seminal things to say about the director indicates either more hostility on your part (the anti-intellectual thing!), which prevents you from seeking out better quality stuff or a certain naivete that confuses any bit of writing on a director (author) as valid as anything else! I think questions of ‘taste’ matter in everything!
I am not being subversive. Just brutally honest!
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:31 am e
I am a student of literature and live on things like analysis but one does that kind of thing for something that is genuinely rich and every reading brings forth fresh nuances.
Sorry, Guru is not that kinda film that needs head-splitting over its scenes.
It’s a good commercial film and let it just be that.
satyam Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:32 am e
Sandy: Getting as close as possible to the author’s thought is a dream. It is ‘impossible’ for a variety of reasons, many of which I’ve pointed out. But even if one theoretically did this would defeat the artwork. Because that would entail everyone reading a work in only ONE way in every place and at any given point. This would not be an artwork but a piece of propaganda! There is art because there is always a multitude of meanings!
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:34 am e
That’s it Satyam, I’m ignoring you now.
jayshah Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:35 am e
RE ‘Surely, all works of art are open to interpretation but the idea is ultimately to get as close as possible to the originator’s thoughts.’
Sandy I don’t completely agree with the second part of this sentence. I watch film’s for entertainment not to understand what a director mean by X, Y or Z. Its always great to see what he may have meant with hindsight but even after knowing his intentions I might not even agree ! Art is a lot about interpretations. Intention is just one man’s perogative – its not the way everyone should read the art. Its just ONE opinion. An opinion that matters completely but again its not the bible.
I don’t read books, watch films to understand them the same way the originator did. This would take all the fun out of it !
satyam Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:37 am e
Sandy: Whoever said Guru was Shakespeare?! I think you’re evading the points I’ve made here! There have been important books written on Hindi cinema that even feature good essays on films like DDLJ. This does not mean the author is equating DDLJ with Ray! Commentary can be of different kinds, just because one has offered a close interpretation of a work does not mean it is invalid. And again you’ve objected to the Guru pieces I’ve put up or the earlier MP ones. Here’s my provocative response: if it can be dismissed why not do so on its own terms? If much of what I’m saying on these two films is junk surely it can be easily taken apart?! But this still brings me back to your UJ review. Most of what you said in that very nice piece would be considered exactly the same kind of ‘overreading’ and ‘hair-splitting’ that you think I’m indulging in! What’s different there?!
rks Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:37 am e
Sandy”But somehow, I do feel the ‘intention’ of the director does count in a way. ”
I agree that directors might some hidden meaning in particular scene. But when he is directing movie for masses (to maximize reach to audience, hence more money), I do not thing director is going to put some abstruse or vague thing which very few people could decipher.
There were some comments regarding Bluffmaster(I do not remember the author) on NG. I just could not agree with the interpretation being discussed. Though a good movie, in my opinion it was adaptation of Spanish movies Nine queen and Michael Douglas’s Game.
I agree some times there could be interpretations.
1. recently I watched Mystic River, In ending scene Kevin Bacon acknowledges Sean Penn and Sean Penn moves his hand saying similar to “What could I have done”. There could be interpretation.
2. Mulholland Drive: This movie is full of interpretation. Director wants you to interpret things.
Rocky Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:39 am e
I am yet to decipher the intention of Gautam Ghose in “Paar”. What a waste of NFDC money.
Qalandar Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:45 am e
Aside: we should all remember that if we say “intentionality” matters and is the most important determinant of interpretation, then we must also admit that we are privileging newer authors over older ones. Why? Because we know an awful lot more about Salman Rushdie’s life etc. from which intentions may be deduced than we do about (e.g.) Shakespeare, Dante, Homer. How are the latter to be interpreted since (taking Homer) we have nothing except for the text from which to gauge intentionality?
Aside 2: Intentionality is especially problematic when it comes to theater or film. Consider: In the case Yuva whose intentionality MATTERS? Ratnam, because he’s the director? Anurag Kashyap, because he was the writer? Ravi Chandran, who was the cinematographer? Abhishek Bachchan, who actually played the character of Lallan? What if Kashyap’s and Ratnam’s intentions DIFFER (as Kashyap has suggested in interviews), whose intentions govern? Indeed in Hindi films the question of intentionality is FURTHER complicated by the fact that we have additional “authors” (of a sort) in the form of music directors and lyricists, whose work in most Hindi films is part OF the film but also exists, and is INTENDED to exist (by music companies) and be heard APART from the film as well! Lest anyone think I am being facetious with this last bit, consider: don’t ARR and Prasoon Joshi have some claim to authorship where a film like RDB is concerned? Aren’t ARR and Vairamuthu “authors” of Iruvar?
satyam Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:46 am e
Rks: But sometimes things work at two different levels. Shakespeare wrote for the masses of his day but he was also recognized by his fellow writers as being among the most profound of his age. History has confirmed this.
Also the ‘masses’ do patronize quality cinema a lot of times. Films like Awara and Shree 420 and Madhumati and Deewar and what not qualify as ‘intelligent’ cinema that nevertheless offered the ‘audiences’ enough entertainment. Guru is that sort of film. This does not make these films art the way Ray’s films are art but this definitely does elevate them over films like Hero no 1!
satyam Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:50 am e
Say it ain’t so Rocky! Paar is one of the finest films to have come out of that entire ‘art’ movement. I assume you’ve not seen this in recent years. I’m sure you’d like it more if you did.
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:52 am e
Satyam: What I said in my UJ review and what you, q and abzee did with MP are NOT the same things.
Whatever I said was in tandem with the story and the filmmakers’ possible perspective. I maybe wrong in a couple of places eg abhishek’s character analysis etc but more or less, I stuck to what I felt instead over ‘overintellectualising’ it.
I’ve done the same thing with my Guru review as well but again I didn’t ‘assume’ too many things on behalf of the film. But I merely interpreted staying ‘withen the director’s vision and perspective’ and that was very enjoyable as well.
Qalandar Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 10:58 am e
Re: “what you, q and abzee did with MP are NOT the same things…”
Sandy: why not go for the more obvious explanation? i.e. that I had a different interpretation of MP than you did? I don’t see this as a “right” versus “wrong” issue, at least given that I (think I) gave reasons in my writings on MP, reasons that were not shown to be incoherent or contradictory. Stated differently, I am with jay in that I don’t see “interpretation” as about finding out “a right answer”, but about engaging with the work/film/text, and trying to do in a way that is meaningful to me and, hopefully, meaningful to some others as well…
Just my two cents…
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:08 am e
“How are the latter to be interpreted since (taking Homer) we have nothing except for the text from which to gauge intentionality?”
I don’t mean to say AT ALL that you need to know a lot about the author/filmmaker to interpret his work correctly. It helps, especially with authors, since their experiences colour their intensions in some ways.
What i mean here is that one needs to follow the ‘director’ keenly —in a literal sense, allow him to direct you into his film rather than mis-reading things. That takes out all the fun also. Every single film evokes feeling in us but let that not be confused with formal interpretation, that’s all I’m saying here.
jayshah Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:12 am e
This is very individualistic. I won’t talk about MP but maybe RDB.
This movie from the numerous comments on NG I have read has been deemed as ‘confused politics’. This is fair and I can see where this interpretation has come from. However I doubt Rakesh Mehra intentionally wanted to make such a film. His intentions have been made clear by numerous interviews and also Aamir has stated many times its a movie for the youth and promotes standing up for what you believe in, being more active in society etc.
In fact I completely agree with Mehra’s/Aamir’s vision here. I read the film exactly like this.
On Guru/MP/UJ … people write pieces because they are passionate about things they have seen or witnessed. Whether they over indulge or under indulge is open to ‘interpretation’ but the ‘intentions’ are fair ones IMO !
Heck I over indulge in BO numbers and probably go into more detail then anyone wants to see !
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:15 am e
but about engaging with the work/film/text, and trying to do in a way that is meaningful to me and, hopefully, meaningful to some others as well…”
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments here. I too always interpret things, drawing from my own experiences and making it meaningful for myself. But I do get irritated when I see a particular value attached to something that does not deserve it. It’s plain what the director intended to do and there you are splitting hair over it.
This is not about having an anti-intellectual streak. It’s merely realistic assessment.
Qalandar Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:18 am e
Re: “What i mean here is that one needs to follow the ‘director’ keenly —in a literal sense”
“It’s merely realistic assessment.”
I understand, and acknowledge your views, but I do not agree, first because I am not a literalist in these matters, and second because I do not equate literalism with realism…
Let’s agree to disagree, as we have very different perspectives on this issue. However, this was a good dicscussion, and better than abusing this or that star!
satyam Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:21 am e
Sandy: I HAVE actually followed Rathnam keenly. even though I’ve seen most of his films many times I nonetheless re-visited all the major ones before watching Guru. I am all too familiar with both his Hindi and Tamil oeuvres. This allows me to see correspondences, themes etc across the director’s work. Guru forms some sort of trilogy with Nayakan and Iruvar, however one rates it in this sense.
Also the problem here is that you want to ‘decide’ on how much interpretation is valid for a film/filmmaker! But why should or anyone else follow you definitions of how deep an interpretation should go? My way is the more democratic one — write an essay on MHN if that’s your thing! I would be interested for sure.
Why does it bother you if someone else writes detailed pieces on MP or Guru is what I’m not quite able to get. You might find it overdone or whatever but why is it a problem?
Finally I don’t know quite honestly what ‘allowing a director to take me into a film’ would mean! As far as I’m concerned rathnam’s Guru enabled the interpretation I have.
Rocky Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:27 am e
Guys, this was supposed to be a post about Big B and SRK’s war of words, not Sandy- Satyam’s….
Saanu Kee !!!!!!
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:29 am e
There is scope for very little distance between interpretation and intention in Hindi cinema – let’s be very clear on that.
PS: Lending an above average/bad film a zillion interpretations does not make it a good film.
Qalandar Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:30 am e
Just so I am clear, none of my comments have anything to do with Guru, or even with Ratnam per se, but I was making a more general point. Plus, there’s the whole question of WHOSE intentions matter: …
jayshah Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:40 am e
‘PS: Lending an above average/bad film a zillion interpretations does not make it a good film’
The statement I agree with BUT it could just so be the intention is not to make it a good film but just to throw up an interpretation and see things from a different perspective – thats all.
satyam Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:54 am e
Jay: I agree with your last statement. Speaking for myself I am always interested in just looking at things from a different angle. And rather than trying to make a film ‘better’ it is because of the reasons that I cite that I like/dislike a film.
Sandy: Again you evade resonding to my specifics! That a bad film cannot be made better by ‘interpretation’ is something most of us would agree on! And I don’t see myself as being guilty of that charge! But again your statement is arbitrary. Who decides what film is ‘bad’ enough not to warrant more than a certain level of interpretation? In your responses you keep putting youself forward (perhaps ‘unintentionally’!) as the ultimate arbiter on these matters!
But again as Jay suggests even assuming it’s a film that one finds ‘bad’ one can nevertheless learn something from it. I did not like Bhansali’s Devdas but I found it useful to write several pieces on it!
Like Qalandar, Guru is again an example with me. As everyone know I can talk anyone’s head off on just about anything (unfortunately for the members on this forum!).
Rocky: Isn’t Sandy/Satyam far more interesting than Bachchan/SRK?!
satyam 16 March 2007
12:22:05 pm
(Once again I am tranferring the remaining exchange here and will respond here)
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 12:03 pm e
Satyam Re:”Why does it bother you if someone else writes detailed pieces on MP or Guru is what I’m not quite able to get. You might find it overdone or whatever but why is it a problem?”
It’s a problem because a) there’s an arrogance that reeks through that analysis that suggests that a “great masterpiece” has been callously cast aside by a mass of unimaginative fools!
b)It’s an alternative way of putting the film on a pedestal and giving it a stuture it does not deserve.
so yes, I have a problem with that.
Rocky Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 12:07 pm e
Although I am very much against the over analysis of movies or anything for that matter, but I must confess that S,J,Q ki baatoon mein Dum hai.
the intention is not to make it a good film but just to throw up an interpretation and see things from a different perspective – thats all.
Keep throwing the interpretations on the wall, sometimes, somethings will Stick.
Rocky Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 12:14 pm e
Rocky: Isn’t Sandy/Satyam far more interesting than Bachchan/SRK?!
Well- Yaaa !!!!
rks Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 12:16 pm e
Q”What if Kashyap’s and Ratnam’s intentions DIFFER (as Kashyap has suggested in interviews), whose intentions govern?”
Movie is director’s vision and every one else assist him. I do not deny that their role is less significant but director’s vision prevails.
Satyam”Also the ‘masses’ do patronize quality cinema a lot of times. Films like Awara and Shree 420 and Madhumati and Deewar and what not qualify as ‘intelligent’ cinema that nevertheless offered the ‘audiences’ enough entertainment.”
Best directors are one who can combine both quality(definition differ person to person) and quantity. Intelligent (art) movie director might win some award but ultimately he is making film for himself and very few.
sandy Says:
March 16th, 2007 at 12:17 pm e
“Who decides what film is ‘bad’ enough not to warrant more than a certain level of interpretation?”
I’m not against rediscovering films or trying to see another person’s percpective but I refuse to accpet an arrogant, overbearing assessment of a film, that didn’t work for almost anybody. (that’s bad enough I thought or are four members on NG enough to decide the stature/fate of a film?)
jayshah 16 March 2007
12:38:08 pm
Satyam I agree with everything you have said apart from the last sentence.
‘But even if the author could tell us exactly what he or she intended it would still be irrelevant’
See the author’s is just another interpretation of his/her intentions. So this matters as much as any other valid interpretation.
satyam 16 March 2007
12:41:08 pm
hmm… what you’re essentially saying Sandy is that if someone does not agree with a level of interpretation that you deem acceptable for a given film you will term it ‘arrogant’!
I am sure many people found your review of UJ ‘overbearing’ too. Again you have decided on your own that the review was about right both in terms of reflecting the director’s intentions and in terms of being acceptable to a target readership! I’m sure the many people who could even manage to bring themselves to see this would have found you review overdone!
But why ‘arrogance’ anyway? Could it be that others have a different sort of training in cinema and critical theory that allows them to of the things they do on these films?
How is it ‘arrogant’ to simply interpret a film in one’s way? Isn’t it more ‘arrogant’ to judge oneself the ultimate arbiter on these matters and call others arrogant if they cross this line that one as judge has established?
Speaking for myself I have never commented on other reviews negatively here (i.e. member reviews). I might of course disagree with things from time to time. If I think a film is a ‘rich’ work I am actually being sincere and ethical by offering all my reasons as opposed to just throwing judgments out. This is incidentally what I do on box office matters as well!
If one disagrees one should offer reasons. It is not enough to have a blanket ‘you’re overdoing it’ kind of deal. It’s not about ‘arrogance’ or any such thing. It can be about competence and education though. I do not argue ‘filters’ with Goodfella as I know his education here far exceeds mine. If he uses this (i.e. the filters or what have you) a director employs as part of his interpretation I cannot judge him arrogant because I am not entirely familiar with much of it.
If anything I am always willing to engage with everyone here and offer all sorts of responses to every sort of topic. These are for the most part very comprehensive (unfortunately for all the members here!). I try to be thorough. Not sure why this is ‘arrogance’.
You might not want to go that deeply into a film. That’s your choice. But yes I happen to be interested in the Strobe effect as I don’t see it very often in Hindi cinema and I want to figure out why Rathnam employed that technique only at that point in the film. This is a level of attention that I bring to everything from books to cinema to other art forms, even comic books! I don’t see how this is arrogance, it might be overbearing either a)because it exceeds your level of interest in a work or any work b)because you just don’t approach things that way. This is again your choice, no one can have a problem with it. But why should I or anyone else here risk an ‘arrogance’ charge if we’re writing long pieces on films?
And no one is dismissive of anyone else here. The tone of my pieces (and others who do this here) is usually passionate and certainly one that aims to engage. No one is talking from a high pedestal here. At the same time one must be aware of one’s limitations as well and I would think it’s ‘arrogant’ not to be so. For example on the present subject as I have suggested I have seen everything from Rathnam that matters in Hindi or in Tamil. if one has not seen everything one naturally has to be a little hamstrung when discussing him. for example I kept saying that I saw Guru as part of a trilogy that included Nayakan and iruvar. Someone who’s not seen both films is hardly qualified to agree or disagree. Similarly I said that Rathnam was simply a more ‘abstract’ director in many ways in the 90s. Again if one hasn’t seen much of the Tamil work it would be hard to make a comment one way or the other. Why do I bring this up? I often make what seem like exaggerated claims but I ‘intend’ them very sincerely. whether I suggest that SRK is a kind of Rajendra Kumar in box office terms or that Ghulami is the best Hindi film since Trishul (in a commercial format) I literally mean both! Because (and perhaps rather regrettably) I do know enough about Rajendra Kumar’s box office and I also haven’t missed a commercial film of any significance since Trishul released! So some of this might sound ‘arrogant’ but isn’t!
I think that it is the least sign of arrogance to talk only about what one really knows. And I have certainly not been dismissive of others here in this sense (the box office is another matter!).
satyam 16 March 2007
12:43:02 pm
Jay: absolutely. That’s what I really meant. That the author’s intention even where available becomes only another interpretation and does not have a privileged status as such on the grounds that the author has created the work.
satyam 16 March 2007
12:44:16 pm
So “irrelevant” only to the extent that such an ‘interpretation’ does not automatically have greater value than the others.
satyam 16 March 2007
12:53:19 pm
Also Sandy there are many authors (as I’ve suggested) who’ve written serious works of critical inquiry on Bollywood. The BFI series includes a volume on DDLJ. I’m sure all these works cannot be classified as overbearing works! I don’t mean to suggest that what I write is comparable with those works but what you’re objecting is not the quality of writing but the enterprise itself when aimed at certain films. I think if DDLJ deserves a volume, surely my Guru or MP attempts can be forgiven!
rks 16 March 2007
01:08:17 pm
Satyam”for example I kept saying that I saw Guru as part of a trilogy that included Nayakan and iruvar”
It seems like a triology, But two of them were made in Tamil and One in Hindi. I do not know Mani rathnam wants to call triology because he has not bragged about it like Madhur (Page3, Corporate, Traffic Signal) or Deepa mehta(Earth, fire and water).
I do agree that three of them shows monolithic individual(Gangster, Politician (I have not seen iruvar), Business man).
mgshah 16 March 2007
02:30:43 pm
first of all awesome discussions everyone…finally some topics worthy of ng…and welcome back sandy.
i’m w/ q, satyam, and jshah on this one…i think all works are open to interpretation and even though sometimes we may think that certain works are over-analyzed but who is to decide which work deserves how much analysis. i’ve felt that some people overanalyze certain work b/c i may have not liked it or even if i liked…didn’t think it was all that deep. and i’m sure there have been times when people have felt the same about me…so i’m just not sure how we decide which work deserves what amount of analysis.
and a lot of times a new interpretation of a work will change my opinion of it…for example a movie or a book about subject that i’m not aware of and can’t understand why certain things happen the way they do in it, until i read someone else analysis and they give me some background info on the time and environment that the work takes place in.
and reading this i remember when scorsesse came on conan he said that he always has catholic symbolism and images in his movies…some are intentional and some non-intentional(doesn’t realize it until someone points it out)…he said that during one of his recent movies hwen he was getting diff. angles for a shot which invovled an actor w/ arms stretched wide open and head down…the cinematographer said…”oh ok here we go the jesus shot” and marty didn’t know what he was talking about until they pointed out that all his movies have atleast one shot like that…so he went back and looked at his work and realized that it was true.
i dont know where it fits in w/in the discussion but i just found it interesting.
oh and i actually liked reading sandy’s uj review b/c i agreed w/ it and still think the movie is waaay too underrated…
mgshah 16 March 2007
02:33:29 pm
oh talking about trilogies, what do you guys think of rgv’s satya, company, and sarkar as some sort of a trilogy?…satya(local gangsters), company(the gangsters move up in rank and become organized), sarkar(almost like politicians).
rks 16 March 2007
03:03:06 pm
mgshah”…satya(local gangsters), company(the gangsters move up in rank and become organized), sarkar(almost like politicians).”
Next in line should be politics and Prime minister.:-)
jayshah 16 March 2007
03:08:56 pm
Interested mgshah you bring RGV into this thread. Regarding intentions, Nishabd is one movie I just can’t get myself to watch because it is RGV’s movie. I just don’t feel his intentions are correct in such a movie. If it was Rathnam or RKS directing I might be convinced but something irks me about RGV’s intentions when making a movie like Nishabd.
No doubt it might be a decent flick but I’ve kinda lost trust in RGV in certain types of films he associates himself with. I don’t mind Sarkar or Company but certain films just don’t prescribe to film making and I think he his intentions are slightly different. However I might be one of few who feel like this !
satyam 16 March 2007
03:21:29 pm
Mgshah: Interesting point on Scorsese. The director’s signature in films is often discernable by means of such seemingly minor moments far more than larger and more obvious themes. It’s like the wizened old lady who keeps showing up in Kieslowski’s work.
I agree with your characterisation of RGV’s ‘trilogy’. There is certainly a very logical movement in these films. Satya is of course the most human of these stories and also the one that operates at the most ‘micro’ level. Company glamorises things somewhat more though one is still given two aspects of the underworld; the cold detachment of the kingpin is juxtaposed with the passion and emotion of the lowlife figure. By the time we get to Sarkar the ‘gangster’ becomes a transcendent figure, he represents the ‘truth’ of society and as such merges into the figure of the politician (you are again on the money here Mgshah). In other words the gangster/politician is outsider no more. In Company Malik is still not a ‘normal’ part of the social fabric, on the other hand the Sarkar is the very apex of his social fold. At once incorporating the ethics of a corporate CEO, the thuggishness of a street-fighter, the bird’s eye view of the judge, the adulation normally granted to celebrities — he is in short power personified, a purveyor of the entire economy of violence in the most ‘optimal’ way.
At one point I used to prefer Satya infinitely to Company but I now believe that the latter has better stood the test of time. Here RGV attempts something more masala than the former and makes it a bit more universal. Satya is still a moment in cinematic time, an attempt at ‘realism’ within the framework of the 90s. Company though works out the classic Bollywood tropes much successfully than Satya (this also has these to some extent but RGV does not allow this film to become more than the sum of its characterisations, this being the strength and the weakness of this film). Sarkar is of course the summa of the trilogy but it is also an exercise in cinematic stillness since there is no narrative to be unravelled here, no movement to be worked out. This films operates around the ‘is’ — power simply ‘is’ here and is controlled to a great extent by a certain ‘family’ (which doubles in a non-diegetic sense). Company therefore had the advantage of partaking of both Satya and Sarkar which makes a certain sense given that it would seem to be the transitional film in the trilogy. I think that at one level Satya might be the most fully realised of the films (I do believe Company has some serious narrative issues). At the same time Sarkar is probably the most successful of these films because it is simply providing a snapshot. there is no journey within this film. I should again add here in that same non-diegetic vein that everyone going to see the film already knew what would happen in it.
As a personal matter I now value Company more than the others. Also I believe that in Devgan’s character RGV captured some of the enigma of power, a quality which is entirely absent from Sarkar, and because there was also the juxtaposition with characters lower down the ‘food chain’ the portrait here is the ‘fullest’ in the trilogy.
Of course I note with some irony here that RGV might not necessarily see it as a trilogy since he’s also planned Sarkar 2. Again this only makes sense within his non-diegetic framework, not otherwise.
See what you’ve done Mgshah! Sandy won’t forgive me for this response!
satyam 16 March 2007
03:23:46 pm
Rks: That’s true, Rathnam hasn’t explicitly called it a ‘trilogy’ but if you read between the lines there is much that suggests he has a thematic connection in mind. Plus he also pointed out in an interview or two that he thought of Guru as a ‘national’ subject and couldn’t really make it in Tamil.
satyam 16 March 2007
03:28:08 pm
Jay: I’ve long felt that RGV has a certain ambivalence with respect to Bachchan (at least Bachchan as he now is) and I tend to see Nishabd as part of this structure. I said more on this here:
http://www.naachgaana.com/2007.....bachchans/
jayshah 16 March 2007
03:28:32 pm
Also the trilogy started in 1987, second film came in 1997 and Guru came in 2007 ! What a coincidence !
jayshah 16 March 2007
03:30:28 pm
Actually RGV creeps me out a little. Don’t know why but I find something quite sleazy in him ! Hope he is not an avid NG follower !
satyam 16 March 2007
03:31:36 pm
That’s right Jay, Rathnam didn’t plan it this way but there is now an incredible symmetry about it. I remember you pointed this out before as well. Also each film has an iconic figure who represents a window into the Indian experience. And certainly who better to do it at this moment than the corporate figure?!
satyam 16 March 2007
03:34:10 pm
Jay: there have certainly been very odd rumors about RGV at different points!
mgshah 16 March 2007
04:00:15 pm
satyam, i agree w/ your comments on the “rgv trilogy”. it’s hard for me to choose my fave. movie from these three i loved satya, but haven’t seen it recently and company has just grown on me every time i watch it. sarkar, even though i know it’s not great film making but i still like it a lot. i’d prob rank em same as you company, satya, sarkar.
w/ the sequel i think he may make this a real trilogy…first one shanker comes into the business, next will prob. have him making it bigger or becoming a little darker and eventually coming back to where sarkar(bachchan) was in teh first…and if he makes a third hopefully the downfall of shankar. and i get the feeling that in either the next or if the 3rd happens one of these will have the two bachchans fighting ea. other.
jay – i still wanna watch nishabd…most people have said the two lead performances make the movie worth it. and i agree i don’t trust rgv anymore, i used to. rozana still rocks though…so nishabd is worth it just for giving us that song and i finally got the bachchan’s version of the babul song from this album. that is a weired coincidence on the “ratnam trilogy”
“See what you’ve done Mgshah! Sandy won’t forgive me for this response!”
i think we’re all gonna be in trouble for this but it’s ok at least we got this nice discussion(after a long time) going…all thanks to sandy. can’t wait to see her interview w/ ratnam…i wish she had remembered to ask about teh climax, b/c i’m sure no one else ever will and we don’t get dir. commentaries in india so we’ll just have to “over-analyze” it.
Qalandar 16 March 2007
05:15:37 pm
Interesting thoughts mgshah and satyam. On this question of an “underworld trilogy”, encompassing the “street” level, the business/corporate aspect of it, and finally the political aspect of it, the most successful Bollywoodized working of it is IMO in Vikram Chandra’s novel “Sacred Games”, which I completed only yesterday. In large part Chandra’s progenitors are not only novels like “Kim” and many others, but in a very direct way Bollywood’s underworld cinema. And there’s no doubt in my mind that with his thoroughness and deep knowledge of his subject, his refusal to dumb stuff down, Chandra blows the likes RGV out of the water. “Sacred Games” touches upon all three aspects of the trilogy you guys have been discussing, through the figure of his lead underworld protagonist Ganesh Gaitonde, and if you haven’t gotten around to the book I highly recommend it. It is a very bleak book though, and whatever hope is available is only available in scraps as it were.
I used the term “underworld figure” for Gaitonde, but strictly speaking this isn’t correct: in Chandra’s book everyone is compromised — everyone — and it makes no sense to draw any hard and fast distinction between “gangsters” and the police. In fact this is also a superb book at presenting a view of a police system so compromised and diseased the only question is WHICH hoodlum one is in bed with…it’s a very readable and exciting novel, and presents a very vivid, if dystopian, picture of Mumbai…
sujith 16 March 2007
06:22:58 pm
Hmm ‘intent’ and interpretation..
A flip side to the comments in this thread..most commercial directors make movies thinking that they have made something which people will watch, but the peeps might interpret it as a movie that sucks.
Once the movie is made and is out there i dont think there is any authority on the film(No no you should not have laughed at that scene it wasnt intended to be funny, you should see a metaphor in this..but not in that..blah blah)
But i guess it can affect viewers(Oh that was it was all about hmm…to….Oh no i misread the whole thing, im a fool)…And there is all sorts of stuff that people get to know that affects their interpetation(That actor was caught doing drugs…no wonder he did those mood bits well )
I’m sure that there are people out there who just see the movie as an end product not really bothering about the background, the maker’s other films etc…
Or people who do form an opinion of the intent behind the movie …some hoping to find out what the ‘real intent’ was …some seeking validation of their interpretation and getting a kick out of that…
satyam 16 March 2007
07:13:10 pm
Sujith: you continue to be the true voice of subversion on the forum and not least because you never forget to be humorous!
Qalandar: Sacred Games has been on my list but I haven’t gotten around to it. Very interesting set of thoughts though.
akshay shah 16 March 2007
09:36:26 pm
SARKAR 2: My thoughts….toward the end of Part 3 or Part 3..it may possibly take a GURU like path i.e..Abhishek getting older…rise of the empire and then the slow fall…Bachchan has kids etc!
satyam 16 March 2007
10:31:22 pm
And of course RGV now has the Guru model to follow!
satyam 19 March 2007
01:31:35 pm
The other point I forgot to make on this entire ‘intentionality’ debate the other day was that even if we could ascertain what an author’s intentions were this would only account for the author’s ‘conscious’ ones and would leave untouched the whole area of the unconscious. And of course it’s far too late in the day to ignore the latter. Often a lot of the influence that permeates an author’s work is not completely (if at all) realised by the author. There have been instances where artists have admitted that they learnt about facets of their own work from the critics, things they were unaware of. So in addition to all the points made earlier this is yet another one that renders the ‘word’ of the creator ‘reductive’ or ‘inconclusive’ in these matters.
rks 19 March 2007
02:08:24 pm
Satyam:Agree with your ‘unconscious’ statement. But I guess they are too subtle for common folk to catch it. But for seasoned movie reviewer it would act as fodder.
But the question is, this interpretation of uncosncious part correct?