Open letter to Vinod Chopra from Sajid Khan
Congratulations for the selection of Eklavya - The Royal Guard as India’s nomination for Oscars.
I saw your comments about films made by you and others in the recent past and what may/may not be worthy enough for recognition at the heartland of India and at the highest level. I am quite sure that you have made some highly respected films in the past and I am also certain that you have the greatest knowledge of films made across the globe.
I am also absolutely fine if you comment on films made by lesser mortals like me or others who may have had an accomplished body of work behind them. Even if you have deep rooted statements to make about my knowledge of cinema, technique, intelligence, calibre and personality in general - I take all of that in good spirit (and humour). After all it’s a free country (and may I add, democratic too?) and we all have a right to speak out!
But doesn’t that hold that for me too?
Shortly after Eklavya - The Royal Guard was announced as the chosen one for India’s nomination, I was asked a simple question if it was a deserving entry or not. I answered in negative. For me, Chak De India or Dharm were better candidates. It was as simple as that with me sharing my point of view. Did I start talking about your intelligence of cinema, skills and personal preferences etc.?
And by the way, how could I do that for a person who has ‘produced’ successful films like Parineeta, Munnabhai MBBS and Lage Raho Munnabhai?
But shall I add that I am yet to see a blockbuster ‘directed’ by you which has touched hearts of millions across the globe and brought in ‘moolah’ as well!
Can I also add that cumulative global revenue of all the films directed by you (Eklavya - The Royal Guard, Mission Kashmir, Kareeb, 1942: A Love Story, Parinda, Khamosh, Sazaye Maut, An Encounter with Faces) do not even come near what my debut film Heyy Babyy has earned (and still counting)?
Hence, can I add that me, a much lesser in age and far lesser experienced individual in movie making, has probably more box office sense than you?
Sure, you have a strong 25 years experience in film making and claim to have known and heard of a legend like David Lean.
My question to you is - “Are you alone?”
Isn’t David Lean the same person who won two Oscars as a Best Director for The Bridge of River Kwai [1957] and Lawrence of Arabia [1962]? Isn’t he the same person whose first directorial venture was In Which We Serve [1942] and the last as A Passage to India [1984]?
And by the way, he is called Sir David Lean and not David Lean. Alas, he is no more! Anyways, he would have been pained to see his name being dragged. Of course, I could have possibly got all this information from the powerful medium of Internet (may be even you could have!) but I am not telling.
What I am just saying is that there are possibly other deserving souls apart from you in the country who know, read, decipher and understand international cinema. And may be capturing good looking frames may not just be the right definition of making interesting cinema.
However, I love cinema and my country (in no particular order) as much as you or any respecting person would. I genuinely wish you all the best for taking Eklavya - The Royal Guard to the highest platform and bringing us laurels. A choice has been made and my sincere congratulations to you for that. I hope to see the film breaking into Top-5 at the least.
With best wishes,
Sajid Khan
Comment by inetk on 27 September 2007:
A surprisingly restrained retort from an otherwise abrasive character! I hope VVC doesn’t respond back - again - and concentrate on promoting his film for the Oscars!
Comment by Qalandar on 27 September 2007:
lol
Comment by som on 27 September 2007:
i think vvc litle overreacted .people like sajid, farah and anupam just expressed their opinions which i guess they had the right to do so.IMO there is nothing wrong in that.why should you bother who said what about ur movie whether it is the perfect choice for the oscar or not.
Comment by HAL on 27 September 2007:
Please inetk. VCC couldn’t afford ’sarcasm’ but end up making frank right-across-the-face comments! Pure fun that guy.
Comment by sandy on 28 September 2007:
Vidhu Vinod Chopra is just another Mani Ratnam, when it comes to making cinema that is totally pretentious and overrated!
Of course,as a person, I’d take Chopra over Mani anyday, for the simple fact that the former is damn interesting to talk to.
Comment by sandy on 28 September 2007:
Mani is a weak, tentative yet arrogant communicator, traits which his cinema always betrays.
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
LOL..this was great! And I absolutely agree with everything this piece has to stay. specially this part “And may be capturing good looking frames may not just be the right definition of making interesting cinema.”..so true!! People confuse technical prowess with good cinema making skills all the time.
Comment by Tango on 28 September 2007:
Yeah “A surprisingly restrained retort from an otherwise abrasive character!”
Correct as I too expected an over-the-top responce from Sajid Khan.
I think VVC is over-reacting because his problem is that ( like Ghai) makers in his banner are getting far more success than him and at the same time making quite good movies too.
Comment by som on 28 September 2007:
sandy, vvc is the guy i believe always craves for international recogniztion.he gives too much importance to their reviews.
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
@Sandy: Your hatred for Mani is amazing. If you think he is so inconsequential then why do you keep taking potshots at him?
On topic: Sajid Khan’s “look at the amount of money my film has made” line of defence is childish.
Comment by jeegs on 28 September 2007:
i Agree with Sajid khan here people went on criticising him and Farah even when they were just saying there opinion and if they are criticised than 90% of people should be coz they think Eklavya is not the right film to be send.
BTW Bhavna Talwar has done a great thing by questioning the jury itself . i still dont understand how can some one who made films like Sins and Red swastik decide which film should go to oscar and not.
Comment by HAL on 28 September 2007:
I understand when one finds Mani ‘overrated’, but certainly not pretentious. He is probably one of the very few non-judgmental film directors from mainstream Indian cinema!
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
Aarohi–I agree with what Sandy said about Mani. He’s easily THE most overrated director in Indian cinema, although Sanjay Leela comes very close. No one says he’s inconsequential, and that’s the reason we voice our opinion, I don’t consider any of Sandy’s comments potshots though. It’s like a Jimmy Shergil vis a vis Aamir/SRK..no one cares about Jimmy..so no discussion..but if you talk of Aamir in MP, some will say brilliant while some will say overrated…if you talk of SRK in CDI..same thing will happen again…people have their own opinions….these are not potshots in any sense.
As for Sajid’s retort, it didn’t come as a surprise for me..people with good comic timing are usually more level headed and sensible than pseudo-intellectuals like VVC.
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
Ouch! He pretty much puts a dagger in vvc heart. A very good retort except for the box office moolah part which he could have avoided.
Btw, my fav part here is the David lean part. Atta boy sajid
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
Sunny, for once I disagree with you. I think Mani is easily one of the best directors around. Performance wise, he gets the best out of all actors. Kamal in nayagan, rajni in talapathy, arvind swamy in roja, ab Jr in yuva, etc etc.
I don’t about his personality though, so I will go with sandy on that
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
yeah beldevere, the BO part could have been left out.. but still this was a very sensible and might I add amusingly sarcastic retort as opposed to the totally below-the-belt and undignified remarks VVC had made.
Comment by rks on 28 September 2007:
Sandy: “Mani is a weak, tentative yet arrogant communicator, traits which his cinema always betrays.”
This is a pretty strong statement to make about a person whom you talk for half an hour or so? Probably he is not comfortable with strangers..
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
beldevere–I agree there buddy, but that holds the same for SLB too na. He got AB’s best perf of this Decade in Black, he got SRK’s best perf of this decade in Devdas..but I find him overrated too :). As for Mani, the performances of actors in his films have more to do with the script and characterization rather than the direction. I don’t consider Yuva a great perf of AB by any means, it was the bad boy attraction of the character that made it feel like one. Ajay and Vivek’s perf were better there IMO. Guru was a good performance, yes..but even here the bourgeois GuruBhai appeal had a major role to play. Nayakan, well…have u ever seen Kamal Hasan any less than superb in a good script? Talapathy..the character/script again. Rajkumar Santoshi is not a great director coz he got that lifetime performance out of a non-actor in Ghayal…it was the character..the dialogues again.Ohh! i’m just rambling now..you know..you’ve just given me an idea for my next post..yay!!
Comment by sandy on 28 September 2007:
“@Sandy: Your hatred for Mani is amazing. If you think he is so inconsequential then why do you keep taking potshots at him?”
Who is taking potshots? I just don’t share your and others enthusiasm in valorizing Ratnam and his half-baked works, masquerading as ‘relevant’ cinema. So I speak up whenever I can, living in the hopeless desire that some day perhaps Mani’s work will be judged for what it is only truly worth.
In any case, no director is beyond the pale of criticism. Certainly not Mani!
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
“In any case, no director is beyond the pale of criticism”..well said Sandy ji.
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
On a topic about VVC and Sajid Khan, you find a way to bring in Mani. If this is not a potshot then I don’t know what is. And, I am least bothered about whether Mani is good communicator or fun to interview. It’s difficult to find a good film to watch, who’s bothered if the director can give a good speech or engage one in conversation or is a good unpretentious human being.
@Sunny: Comparing Mani and SLB, I would not go that far. Let SLB make 10 more movies then we can talk about it.
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
Sandy,
Have you seen any of mani’s tamil movies. I have always thought his tamil movies were way better. Sunny, I don’t agree with you fully that just a script and characters make it. I have never seen anyone show married relationships as well as Mani. Nor capture a child parent relationship as poignantly as in anjali or km.
Btw srk was way better in swades and cdi then devdas. And. Black according to me is definitely not ab’s best performance.
Comment by abzee on 28 September 2007:
Sunny- To suggest that every good performance in a Ratnam film is thanks to the script and/or characterisation is a statement that comes with a lot of baggage. By that definition, aren’t all good performances well-written parts. When was the last time you felt someone acted wonderfully in a poorly written part? Au contraire, one can seriously goof up a great part with bad acting, bu very rarely the other way round. Even if one were to agree with your statement, the larger generalisation that it presupposes suggests that Coppolla, Scorsese or the likes of Hrishikesh Mukherjee at home shouldn’t be credited for the performances in their films…cuz most of the time, if not all the time, these directors make films with fully realized and developed characters.
Comment by abzee on 28 September 2007:
Sandy’s dislike or inability to appreciate Mani Ratnam is something that I’ve resigned to live with. I love her too much to hold that as a grudge. I prefer to look at the wonderful qualities in her, especially her forthrightness in putting me in my place.
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
Aarohi–I wasn’t comparing them, I was using SLB as an example in my response to beldevere. And even if I were to compare them…so? I honestly don’t understand this notion of going ‘too far’ when comparing two film entities. Maybe you need to ‘boldly go where no man has gone before’
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
abzee–I’m not saying Mani is a bad director, please, all I’m saying is that he is overrated, that’s all. All I wanted to say with those perf/character argument was that it’s not as if Mani is this great director who gets the best perf out of everyone. It’s as simple as that.
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
@Sunny: you can go as far as you like. I said, I won’t go that far.
Comparions are pointless and show me one director of any worth who is not overrated.
Comment by zero on 28 September 2007:
I’ve had a chance to catch Mani Ratnam once when he had paid a visit to Cinema Paradiso (a DVD rental shop), Bangalore. There was an elderly gentleman who asked him about his various foreign inspirations (or something similar) and said that he could see a clear connection between Yuva and Amores Perros! Mani’s response to this was rather cold, after which I didn’t gather the inclination or courage to walk up to him and talk!
But, the point to note here is that, in general, the gulf that divides a star and fans (and their notion of the star) is huge. I don’t mean to be dismissive of cordial behavior, but when I meet a Kundan Shah (I am picking this example because I got a chance to meet him sometime last year), I’d want to talk at length about Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro, but he wouldn’t be half as inclined and very understandably so…
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
“Au contraire, one can seriously goof up a great part with bad acting, bu very rarely the other way round”
And if you read this comment of your’s again, you’ll see it kinda agrees with what I said. Yeah, one can goof up a great part with bad acting..if you put a Fardeen Khan in Guru/Yuva you have a goof up at hand. If you put a Salman Khan in Devdas you have a goof up at hand..despite of being well written well developed parts! But when you put a Bacchan in Black or SRK in Devdas on a Kamal Hasan in Nayagan..there can be no goof up. It’s not just the director’s credit. And I’ll add again, I’m not saying this to discredit Mani or SLB totally, they are good, yes..all I’m saying is they are overrated…why is it so hard to digest?
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
Aarohi–that was a failed attemot at humor bro. Of course, if you really think so highly of Mani..I wouldn’t want you to go that far, why should you. But if I disagree, I have the freedom to atleast say so, it’s only fair..right
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
Salman Khan in Devdas might have been an interesting choice.
Sunny bro, no offence but SRK in Devdas was a very bad perf IMO. SRK crossed all the limits of hamming. May be SLB had given him the licence to ham.
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
@Sunny: I am sorry, I wasn’t attempting any humour. Just a case of bad writing.
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
Aarohi–no offence..lol. SRK is not my chacha pal. You have your own opinion….fine. I just disagree.
Comment by Tango on 28 September 2007:
Zero if you meet Shyam Benegal you will see what a down to earth, simple and open-to-discussion person he is.
I was shocked at his humbleness.
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
Aarohi–that ‘bad attempt at humor’ part was directed at my own Star Trek statement pal..not yours.chil..you misunderstand me everytime
Comment by Tango on 28 September 2007:
I also found Govind Nihalani quite a normal person, though could not interview him.
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
Sunny bro, I thought you said I can’t write. Now, you are saying I can’t read. C’mon man.
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
Aarohi–LOL, actually I should have quoted my own statment before the ‘bad attempt at humor’ part…my mistake
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
Tango–I had no idea you were an active journalist. I thought Sandy was the only one. Is anyone else in this forum into active journalism? Man I feel so ignorant and stupid!!…don’t even know what my fellow members do.
Comment by zero on 28 September 2007:
Tango,
My point was rather the contrary. Even keeping aside the point that the man shouldn’t be confused with the artist, it’s rather ‘normal’ for an artist to be cold about discussing some aspects — particularly those aspects that are beaten to death, already — of his work…
Comment by sandy on 28 September 2007:
Hal: You see it as non-judgmental; I see it as non-committal, that’s precisely where our impressions are formed about Mani.
I cannot possibly be impressed by this ‘neutrality’, a tasteless timidity, of which Guru, of course, is a shining example!
And If I may say so, in his choice of raging political themes, I disconcertingly detect, a shrewd marketing guy counting the ‘mani’ he can make (the fact that Mani is actually a MBA post grad won’t be an unnecessary detail to provide here).
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
Zero: couldn’t agree more.
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
Mani is out to make some money. You can’t hold it against him.
Comment by sandy on 28 September 2007:
Abzee: The love is mutual. You’re the only guy in this world who I can forgive for not liking CDI!
Comment by abzee on 28 September 2007:
“You see it as non-judgmental; I see it as non-committal”
Wow. For a minute there, I thought it was the Merovingian speaking(where some see coincidence, I see consequence; where others see chance, I see cost).
Seriously though, and this despite my hatred for commerce grads and MBAs, you cannot be using Ratnam’s MBA degree against him. But even if one were to agree that he is too timid to voice an opinion(reading between your lines), there’s still too much in Ratnam’s work to appreciate- as a visual artist, a binder of song and narrative, an eye for behaviour and most of all a nonchalant ease in establishing characters. A case in example for the last quality would be to see just how quickly Mani establishes ABjr’s street ruffian character within a fw scenes. Other directors would’ve taken atleast half the running time to do that. Mani, with his deft handling, immediately formalizes us with the remorseless cold character that Lallan is.
Comment by zero on 28 September 2007:
Sandy,
I adore artists who value their art more than anything else and those who burn their fingers monetarily in making films they believe in, but reaching out for the audience (even in picking themes) and making films keeping the commerce in mind is no sin at all.
Take someone like Hitchcock. An epitome for this sort of “grammar” (!) in making films. But, one can’t hold it against Hitchcock to have valued (and ‘manipulated’) the audience and box office so much…
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
Hatred for commerce graduates and MBAs!!
This is the first time I have heard of this type of hatred.
Comment by abzee on 28 September 2007:
Sandy- I’ve been afraid to put up my CDI piece precisely because I don’t want to hurt you. I must make it clear though that I don’t have much problem with CDI the film. It is the politics of the film that is extremely troubling to me, and in times that we live in, even more so. It is the disguise of Nehruvian secular ideal that the film wears, while subliminally propagating an Aryan outlook that is disastrously dangerous.
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
abzee–hatred for commerce grads and MBAs??? I’m one dude! Why so..? If I may ask…
Comment by abzee on 28 September 2007:
Aarohi- I’m a secular libertarian in all things, but yes I have had very bad experiences with commerce grads and MBAs…hence, the quirky hatred. LOL! But just like there are exceptions to every rule, there is JayShah who I absolutely adore. Woh aur AkshayShah, mere chhote bhaiyyon jaise hai.
Comment by Achilles on 28 September 2007:
“my hatred for commerce grads and MBAs”
LOL … this beats my hatred for over priviledges unworthy celebrity sons
MBAs at least rule the world … unlike the bogus sons
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
“It is the disguise of Nehruvian secular ideal that the film wears, while subliminally propagating an Aryan outlook that is disastrously dangerous.”
I must have watched a different movie, coz neither did I notice the Nehruvian disguise nor the Aryan outlook propaganda. Anyway..this is not the thread to discuss CDI, I’ll wait for your piece, if you ever put it up.
Comment by sandy on 28 September 2007:
“Hatred for commerce graduates and MBAs!!
This is the first time I have heard of this type of hatred.”
Aarohi: You’ve pulled my statements out totally out of context and used it for your convenience.
Typically, Yudhishtir’s ‘Ashwathama mar gayaa…haathi’!
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
@Sandy: I am sorry for being unclear. I was referring to Abzee’s remark.
Comment by abzee on 28 September 2007:
Sandy- It is I who made the comment about ‘hatred’, and all the comments in relation have been directed to me. Aap kyon bewajah mere hisse ki gaaliyon ko apne sir le rahi hain?
Comment by abzee on 28 September 2007:
“coz neither did I notice the Nehruvian disguise nor the Aryan outlook propaganda”
I can understand if you didn’t notice the Aryan outlook(I’ve come to believe nobody besides me has noticed it, ofcourse I haven’t read Satyam’s piece yet) but if you missed the Nehruvian secular model, then I’m inclined to ask- What Did You See? Everyone’s been going gung-ho about how CDI is a film that teaches us to be one- nation before state and wot not. That is the Nehruvian secular model my dear friend. Surely you didn’t just see CDI as a sports film, cuz frankly if it were just a sports film I wouldn’t have had any problems with it…but because it addresses issues that are much more greater(and does in a fashion more troublesome than RDB), I am left with no choice but to judge it for those propositions as well.
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
“Aap kyon bewajah mere hisse ki gaaliyon ko apne sir le rahi hain?” LOL
Comment by sandy on 28 September 2007:
Abzee: Please put up your CDI piece. I have no problems with anyone expressing an ‘alternative view’ on even a monstrously successful film like Chak De. Criticism, done in good faith, and with the intention of evoking healthy skepticism, is not something I will ever stand in the way of.
However, what mildly bothers me is that you chose to gloss over every flaw in Guru. I have no issues with the exacting standards you are placing on CDI’s shoulders but what is disconcerting is that you didn’t feel the mildest strain on your critical faculties to accept Guru’s embarrassing second half.
I’d hate to believe that this is double standards at play.
Comment by sandy on 28 September 2007:
Aarohi: Sorry abt that, didn’t notice.
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
Sandy: No worries at all.
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
abzee - nehruvian.. . wow - ek film hai bhaiyya. i enjoyed it to the core.
but just for debate sake - is there a reason why you find nehruvian philosophy disturing. country before state is a good thing - isnt it. we already have too much chauvinism in some states. being a non-kannadiga in bangalore - i still believe bangalore is best because its so cosmopolitan here and seldom do i see chauvinism displayed here
Comment by HAL on 28 September 2007:
My two paisa:
I’m a bit too apprehensive about using an “overrated” tag. In most cases, I avoid it. Sometimes yes, I plead guilty. After all it’s a subjective view on a widely prevalent collective notion built by various other subjective views. As I much as I love parallel cinema from Ray, Ghatak, Sen, Shaji, Adoor, Nair, Ghosh or Kasaravalli, I would also like to see non-judgmental commercial directors in Mani’s vein, or else cinema isn’t interesting or exciting. I would like to see an impressive oeuvre with Iruvar, Nayakan, Mouna Ragam, Kannathil muthamital, etc. Even a dumb film like “Thiruda thiruda” is worth a watch. A film like “Anjali” on autistic kid with a 2 yaer old is something thats not within a tom, dick and harry. Moreover, Mani’s films are refined and subdued for the very cause of avoiding unobjectionable or resistive reaction from the audience, that glossy or unique mani-esque style is either a plus or minus (depending on how you look at it). Moreover, Mani hasn’t made a pathetic film yet. Even his fake effort, “Guru” was interesting just for his direction at different places, that alone made the price of my ticket worth it. Although I hated the film in entirety! Now, Compare him to Benegal or Nihalani, Mani’s intensity and political correctness isn’t prolific, but his versatility and approach speaks for itself. This is not to say I would place him above or below. I would just name him among the interesting directors we have in India. Other than a Vishal baradwaj, or an odd Kamal haasan directed flick, I haven’t seen any ‘exceptional’ mainstream cinema like an “Iruvar”, “alaipayuthey” or “Kannathil muthamital”. Although there were offbeat films like Black Friday, HKA, Main Meri Patni Aur Woh, etc for affluent cineastes. In plain words, I would be very sad and bored with only one effective kind of cinema. I watch RGV’s Satya, or such kind of films as much as Nagesh kukunoor, or that kind of cinema…or a Deepa mehta film, or an Ashutosh Gowarikar, etc. That said, From different styles of filmmaking, I would definitely take Mani’s style for wholeseome value, and I don’t see why anyone would not want more of him. And, if I were to rate him, I would do it with a “similar” director. How inappropriate it would be to compare a Lynch against Tarantino, or a Scorsese against Allen? Chalk and cheese. How does a VVC or SLB way of filmmaking compared to Mani’s? Their ways of filmmaking are different. Like how a depalma’s and scorsese’s varies in a Gangster flick. OR how a Terrence Mallick narration in “Thin red line”, as against Spielberg’s “Saving private ryan”. Of course, their’s is infinitely superior in terms of an universal appeal. But for Indian standards, our Manis, Vishal baradwajs, Nihalanis etc are different and distinctive in their own way. Good or bad is a matter of how you critique ‘em. But I would be sad if Mani’s style is extinct. Moreover, “pretentiousness” is never an issue with Mani. It’s rather the lack of it. The ability to offer provocative, complex and deep understanding in an issue is what Mani lacks (for which reason, he is basically attacked by Tamilians)! But when did he ever meant to do that? He focusses on the narrative more than the “correctness” of different themes. that said, I respect cinephiles like Sandy or Sunny, if they don’t prefer a Mani. It’s perfectly fine with me. But, I’m just giving out my stance and yes, defending Mani (an alternative view point if you will). Moreover, I have also seen many purists who find Mani interesting. So, at least for us, he is certainly not “overrated” by any means.
As for Mani’s temperament, he abuses his assistants, and a very arrogant guy from what I have heard. Very unlike Mahendran(Mani’s favorite), who is a symbol of humility and modesty! I was surprised when I met him. He was down to earth and simple! Actually, he was surprised that people recognize him instantly. But again, I don’t think Sandy mixed this with her opinion on Mani’s kind of filmmaking. She just finds VVC more interesting. (actually I agree here)
Comment by sandy on 28 September 2007:
correction: I meant “provoking healthy skepticism” not evoking
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
abzee–ok..my dear friend, you’re going on the same tangent again as you did yesterday about getting facts straight on a different thread. And I’m inclined to correct you again!
‘Indian state shall not privilege any religion and that followers of majority religion shall not have more privileges than the followers of minority religions in terms of citizenship. Also that state shall protect all religions equally without any distinction.’
THIS is what we know as NEHRUVIAN model. The united states/provinces and India before states was Vallabh Bhai Patel’s brainchild.
“What did you see?”..well I didn’t see the Nehruvian model… my friend.
“Surely you didn’t just see CDI as a sports film”–yes my dear friend, I didn’t..and even if I did…is there any harm in it?
“I am left with no choice but to judge it for those propositions as well.”–Well…that’s your choice and your prerogative, but don’t thrust you judgement on me..please. I didn’t see what you saw, maybe I’m blind…or maybe I’m not an intellectual film critic as you are..fine. Please refrain from such arrogance in future.
Comment by sandy on 28 September 2007:
Sunny: Chill, that’s the abzee talks, no need to take any offense!
Comment by sandy on 28 September 2007:
*way
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
Sandy–I don’t normally take offence at anything..I’m quite chilled out..n I have absolutely no beef with abzee. A similar kind of thing happened yesterday too, and we resolved it in the right manner.. fortunately. But when you talk without knowing something.. again n again, at the same time hinting at the other person’s ignorance while being wrong on your part..it does tend to annoy me just a bit.
Comment by Ravi on 28 September 2007:
Can I also add that cumulative global revenue of all the films directed by you (Eklavya - The Royal Guard, Mission Kashmir, Kareeb, 1942: A Love Story, Parinda, Khamosh, Sazaye Maut, An Encounter with Faces) do not even come near what my debut film Heyy Babyy has earned (and still counting)?
So, this makes this idiot a frikkin intellectual, expressing your opinion I agree with but this is taking it too far. You comment on something, that guy hits back, now just shut the F up instead of doing a crappy open letter.
Comment by zero on 28 September 2007:
Re: “What Did You See? Everyone’s been going gung-ho about how CDI is a film that teaches us to be one- nation before state and wot not. That is the Nehruvian secular model my dear friend.”
Abzee,
Firstly, I really liked CDI, but that’s about it; am no flag-bearer of the film.
And, I wasn’t especially gung-ho about the politics of the film (I found many of Satyam’s criticisms valid), but it definitely didn’t hit me as a film that “teaches us to be one- nation before state and wot not.” For me, it came off as a “message” about how Indian sports should work — teaching the players not to think that they represent their respective states. Surely, to be accommodate “federalism” in national sports is a stretch, isn’t it?
Anyway, I’ll read your piece before discussing this at length.
And, between Mani Ratnam and Vidhu Vinod Chopra… I’d shout my preference from the rooftops!
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
HAL neatly written. happen to agree with you pretty much. I do believe Mani is one of the best directors in India today - but also I believe that if you just took his hindi movies - he is just a so-so guy. Hence i give the benefit of doubt to sandy - though i didnt get a response on whether she was commenting on his Tamil movies also or just his hindi ones.
Its not just the language - i think its the sensibilities. For eg. Azhutha ezhuthu was a much better movie than Yuva - i thought. I think Mani is one of the best Tamil movie directors - there i have said it…lol
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
ZERO–”but it definitely didn’t hit me as a film that “teaches us to be one- nation before state and wot not.” For me, it came off as a “message” about how Indian sports should work — teaching the players not to think that they represent their respective states. Surely, to be accommodate “federalism” in national sports is a stretch, isn’t it?”..excellently put.
Comment by HAL on 28 September 2007:
“She just finds VVC more interesting. (actually I agree here)”
Correction:
“She just finds VVC more interesting in his interviews. (actually I agree here)”
Comment by HAL on 28 September 2007:
Beldevere,
Yes. I actually don’t think he is comfortable doing hindi films. But in any case, I find him to be one of the most interesting and creative directors from whole of Indian mainstream cinema. (from just his tamil works)
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
There is some merit in the thought that MR’s Tamil works are better than his Hindi works. But I don’t think he is hampered by the language. It’s just that while making the Tamil films he was in better form a s a filmmaker. Also, dialogues of Mani’ Hindi films were far better than those in majority of Hindi flicks made by people who are supposed to be more familiar with Hindi.
And, who are the directors in Hindi filmdom who are better than Mani?
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
beldevere–great point there on Mani’s Tamil Vs Hindi movies.I stand corrected, I should have said he’s THE most overrated director in Bombay cinema instead of Indian cinema, my mistake. I for one haven’t seen much of Mani’s Tamil works except for Nayagan, Alaipayuthey, Anjali and Roja..and these were damn! good movies. I find him overrated in the context of Bollywood, I mean you surely can’t expect anyone to call him great shakes for Dil Se, Yuva and Guru?
Comment by Sunny on 28 September 2007:
…forgot to add Thalapathy, not great but good nonetheless.
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
aarohi - i think its not just the language or the dialogues. I think the culture is also important. some things are more acceptable in tamil and not in hindi (thevar magan and virasat). or take for example sangamam. it was a great movie but i dont think the concept would work in hindi.
Comment by zero on 28 September 2007:
Whoa, Beldevere, when one mentions Sangamam and Thevar Magan in the same vein, God kills a dozen puppies.
Jokes apart, Mani’s Tamil films are among the most “universal” of Tamil films. I don’t mean it particularly in the complimentary sense actually.
And, I agree with Aarohi about the dialogues in Mani’s films. The dialogue by Kashyap was probably the best thing about Yuva (not to say that it was better than Aayidha Ezhuthu).
Comment by satyam on 28 September 2007:
First off on this piece:
1)Sajid still hasn’t answered why he and his sister did this double team and spoke out on Eklavya when no one including this brother/sister pair have exercised this freedom of speech in the past!
2)Whatever VVC’s issues might be, whether he’s self-congratulatory or not etc etc has nothing to do with the fact that for the first time ever I’ve seen people disagreeing with a selection so publicly or the media making an issue out of it. That CDI wasn’t selected is I’m sure purely coincidental here!
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
so tell me where this sajid/farah deal was published. frankly like i said in the earlier thread on this topic - dumbness all around.
Comment by satyam on 28 September 2007:
Sandy: Being a “monstrous success” (CDI) hopefully does not prove anything in matters of quality!
Also not quite sure where you get the authority to be the ‘moral police’ in this sense so that someone criticizing CDI on political grounds or any other grounds dare not do so if the same person has not found similar problems in Guru!
at the very least I don’t see how one logically follows from another!
Isn’t it far easier to say that you have liked a film so much and are so personally attached to it that you see any serious disagreement on it as a personal attack? Specially when it comes from people like myself or Abzee who did not find similar problems in Guru? I noticed (and of course ignored) all the really non-serious attacks you started in my CDI thread (the piece I put up on the film) from attacking Abhishek to Rathnam to what not.
Finally why are Guru/CDI twinned in your mind in this sense? So that one who praises the former and not the latter is by definition ‘biased’? Just because you found flaws in the former and not the latter or perhaps found equal flaws in both or what have you does not make you the standard. That is your opinion. Why should others who disagree automatically become unfair or biased? Specially when they’ve written lengthy essays laying out their positions which is all that one can ask for from anyone.
Comment by satyam on 28 September 2007:
And I will yet again quote some older relevant comments:
http://www.naachgaana.com/2007/09/05/the-failure-of-chak-de-india-3/
“Tied to this is the whole question of bias. I actually flatly disagree with some of the assertions being made here. To me the whole notion of ‘bias’ is actually quite irrelevant in these matters. The only thing that counts is whether one has made a case for one’s positions. This does not mean that everyone should agree with it but that everyone should argue with it on the merits or demerits. Where ‘bias’ really counts is in matters relating to the box office because here claims are ‘factual’ in nature and therefore every view cannot be equally valid. But in an analysis of a film there is no ‘right’ reading. Within limits of course. This is not a prescription for ‘anything goes’. An argument must maintain a certain ethics and a certain discursive consistency. As I’ve said earlier I may believe that the moon is made of green cheese but I might have to prove this at some point. On the other hand I might feel that living like Crusoe on the moon (with the right apparatus) is a great idea. This might be debatable. In any case this is not a factual claim.
The idea that because I do not like SRK and think highly of Abhishek basically neutralises all my views on both matters is a somewhat fatuous one. Let’s take a quick example: Jonathan Rosenbaum, a critic I enjoy reading more than most others, and someone who gives me more to think than just about any others, is someone who’s never had very high regard for Kurosawa. The latter, one of the most feted directors in movie history and Rosenbaum more or less considers him not that great. An even more specific example would be his reading of the celebrated Rashomon which he considers a failure more or less.
Should I then consider Rosenbaum ‘biased’ when it comes to Kurosawa and stop taking him seriously on the director? By the same token should I stop reading Pauline Kael on Antonioni and Resnais because she considers them pretentious? By this token one should either like every star, director, film and so on or else be simply considered biased on those subjects and therefore useless. Does Rosenbaum have a ‘double standard’ when it comes to Kurosawa? What’s the point here? It is precisely that these critics always make a case. I adore Kurosawa more than perhaps any other director, I enjoy reading Rosenbaum more than any other living critic, even when he’s writing on Kurosawa. It is not about ‘consensus’. We don’t have to believe the same things as long as we engage in meaningful discussions.
How does one have preferences in the arts and in life? We have our favorite writers, stars, paintings, and what not. Are we simply biased towards the rest? I am not much of a fan of the Victorian novel. I recognize the achievement but I am still not a fan. Does this make me biased? Am I overpraising Saramago because I love him as a writer? Do I have double standards because I seem to enjoy Beethoven but not Mozart as much? One could multiply these examples infinitely. In plain language (yet again) I am not a SRK fan, and I am usually not a fan of his brand of cinema barring exceptions. I also do not think as highly of Pacino as do a number of other people. In the meantime I am a great admirer of de Niro. So am I simply biased here or using double standards?
My critics in this regard might do far better to actually engage with the arguments. I could call a number of people biased for their Guru views or what have you but I don’t. Aamir’s fans or RDB’s fans have never called me biased for the same reason. No one called me biased when I didn’t seem to think very highly of Omkara or Saif’s performance in the film. Why is it that these charges only erupt when SRK’s films are the subject? Isn’t it because the SRK machinery that ‘polices’ all discourse on SRK and gets defensive about the slightest thing that is not to its taste on this matter and consequently prefers this name calling at every turn?”
Comment by goodfella on 28 September 2007:
This retort is as childish as it gets. VVC’s was fairly foul-mouthed and misguided as well, but at least he made some sensible points. This piece by Sajid Khan made me laugh more than his movies.
Comment by satyam on 28 September 2007:
Finally to compare Rathnam with VVC irrespective of context is not in my view a serious opinion.
And he’s actually the least pretentious director around relative to stature. Check out all the statements everyone from the likes of Karan Johar to the likes of VVC give out. You’d think they were all Fellinis!
Rathnam throughout Guru gave nothing but the most modest interviews (though I’d be happy to be challenged on this) and said almost nothing when the film was successful. I have never seen a pretentious interview of his though again perhaps someone could alert me to one.
Now on his cinema, very bluntly, if one cannot appreciate the achievements of Mouna Raagam, Nayagan, Thalapathy, Alaipayuthey, Iruvar, Kannathil Muthamittal, Yuva/Ayudha Ezhuthu (this is a double film really) and some others I would respectfully suggest that the problem lies with oneself not with the cinema.
This is not to say that everyone is forced to like the same directors. As in the above example Jonathan Rosenbaum does not like Kurosawa too much, he also has many reservations about Fellini incidentally, but he does not say they do not know how to make movies, or are overrated or what have you. Recently when he expressed a dissenting view on Bergman it was still a well thought out position and wasn’t just ‘dissing’ the filmmaker.
Now I might be termed a little arrogant for calling such views ‘non-serious’. However to be clear on this I do not at all mind someone who does not like Rathnam, I wouldn’t even mind anyone who didn’t like Ray, but the ‘dissent’ should take more serious form. And to say that CDI is the best film around while Kannathil Muthamittal is a poor film with terrible politics is not serious. Unless one can actually make a case beyond mere shenanigans which I have not yet seen.
I am all for minority positions. I am in a minority of one a lot of times! But one must try to explain oneself. To just throw out such statements sounds awfully silly.
Sandy, I am not ‘targeting’ you but as a ‘reader’ you ought to know better.
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
satyam - you are essentially doing what you are accusing others of in the last para. you write some very good posts but when it comes to SRK or Abhishek - your bias totally takes over from your logic. And since at least SRK is probably the most discussed actor in this forum - you feel SRK partisans are ganging up or whatever! not something which you are ever going to agree to but hey thats ok - at least makes the debates entertaining
Comment by satyam on 28 September 2007:
Goodfella: Agreed!
Comment by satyam on 28 September 2007:
Beldevere: Nothing to respond to there. Just revisit my above comments on bias and keep doing so till you absorb them.
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
satyam - there is nothing to respond when truth is told. i dont need to absorb anything from you - especially your intellectual arrogance. got a lot of that myself - thank you very much
GF - childish i agree but definitely good copy. something like the amar singh - srk spat
Comment by satyam on 28 September 2007:
Beldevere: since I am the only person you routinely attack here on ‘logical’ grounds or on grounds of bias my ‘logical’ (!) conclusion is that you find everyone else here totally logical and unbiased! You should more fruitfully engage with them.
As for myself as I’ve forever stated whatever I write wouldn’t offend so many so much if there wasn’t at least a kernel of truth to it!
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
i could repeat the last para to you - but whats the point. with arrogance comes adamance.
who i engage with and what i engage on is my choice right.
now lets get back to the topic on hand instead of being silly like vvc and sajid…;-)
Comment by Qalandar on 28 September 2007:
Re: “The united states/provinces and India before states was Vallabh Bhai Patel’s brainchild.”
This is incorrect. More accurately, Nehru, patel (and virtually all of the maisntream nationalist politicians) were agreed on this, and it’s quite remarkable to give Patel the sole credit for it, especially given that as a polity contemporary India bears the mark of Nehru more than of any other single person, be it Gandhi or Patel.
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
q - that is very interesting. i am not a history buff - but this is the first time i am hearing that view. Lot of folks (usually my dad’s generation) have told me that Sardar patel was the real guy behind indian polity until he was sidelined by nehru. i have had some comparisons made between sanjay gandhi and patel actually - 2 leaders who should have been but never were
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
From whatever I have read about Sanjay Gandhi, I thank god that he didn’t really come to the helm of affairs.
Comment by Qalandar on 28 September 2007:
Abzee: Perhaps I shouldn’t say anything until I have read your piece, but I will note that it seems from your comments that you draw an equation between an “Aryan ideal” and the “Nehruvian ideal”. Except in the broadest structural sense (which sense would, of course, hardly be true ONLY as applied to Nehruvianism), this is a highly problematic assertion. I can totally agree with your point that CDI peddles a Nehruvian vision (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether this is good or bad), but I do note that it is hardly the only or the first film to do so (Lagaan manifestly did so too to an extent), but if CDI is read to peddle a kind of “Aryanism”, I don’t know which Bollywood film would be exempt. None of this would necessary deflect a critique of course, and hence I am eager to read your piece.
More broadly, as sandy has made clear (and as I would have guessed even had she not said so) I doubt she is the sort to get offended for such reasons. Even if any other NGite were to take offense, that is IMO not a good enough reason to avoid posting — self-censorship and the desire to avoid ruffling feathers can be as pernicious as government censorship (witness the case of the mainstream American media).
Comment by Ravi on 28 September 2007:
Beldevere, there is a difference between Patel and Sanjay Gandhi, please do not put them in the same sentence that is an insult to Patel.
Sanjay Gandhi was nothing more than a goonda, maybe had a very few good ideas for the good of the country but his main thing was power and the blatant misuse of it, one is a freedom fighter who cared about the country and another is a rogue who scared his own mother(the ultra powerful Indira who scared the rest of the world) and misused power like crazy for personal and party purposes.
He went on a rampage during emergency and created havoc.
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
yes Ravi - i have heard that. but i have also heard that he was a good administrator. the argument usually made for him is that sometimes in a democracy, you need a dictator to get things done. of course, it brings its own share of baggage.
Comment by Qalandar on 28 September 2007:
beldevere: Quite frankly, it has become the fashion among certain segments of Indian society to bash Nehru for every conceivable thing, and to give the credit for national survival to one man uber alles: Patel. There ought to be no sacred cows in secular politics (be it Nehru, Gandhi, whoever), so I certainly do not have a problem with people criticizing Nehru — but many who do so seem to possess scant familiarity with the man’s life, writings, etc.
It is also worth noting that it is a question of the mood of the nation: in contemporary India, specifically with the urban middle classes, Patel better reflects the zeitgeist than Nehru does. That wasn’t always true, and that might not be true in 2030 (then again, it might be). Nehru was undoubtedly more solicitous of minority rights than Patel was, but it is a false dichotomy to counter this aginst nationalism: there is no necessary dichotomy between nationalism and building a relatively pluralistic state (abzee, based on my reading of his comments above, might disagree that Nehru was even relatively pluralist).
[Aside: the interesting thing about Nehru is that he gets it from all sides these days: many in India blame him for virtually everything that has gone wrong in the country (even as they give a free pass to people like Indira Gandhi, whose impact was quite destructive IMO); when he was alive the Communists and “left” routinely attacked him for being “petit bourgeois”, beholden to nationalism, etc.; and to this day based on my conversations with Pakistani intelligentsia, Nehru evokes more hostility and irritation than Patel or anyone else (that’s one for another day).]
Sanjay Gandhi was, in my view, a fascist. I don’t say this to jeer at him or use that word loosely. But, based on his career, his actions, I sadly conclude that he was so (no denying that he was more competent than most politicians).
Comment by Qalandar on 28 September 2007:
Ravi: well said, I agree completely with you on Sanjay Gandhi. And while I am ideologically unsympathetic to Patel, his contribution deserves to be acknowledged, and it would indeed be a grave disservice to him to compare Sanjay Gandhi to him.
Comment by rks on 28 September 2007:
“especially given that as a polity contemporary India bears the mark of Nehru more than of any other single person, be it Gandhi or Patel.”
That is because, they died early. Nehru lived on more to live his stamp as Statesman. Nehru stamp from my understanding was economic(social view point rather than capitalist); Five year plan and other economic model India adopted were largely influenced by famous statistician PC Mahalanobis.
Regarding uniting India, my understanding is that main guy was Vallabhbhai Patel (He was the Home Minsiter). Most of the States joined with little coaxing but Hyderbad, Kashmir and Jungarh were the main problematic states and Patel used stick and carrot policy to make them join Indian State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_integration_of_India
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
@Ravi: That’s what I have read and heard.
Comment by Ravi on 28 September 2007:
As usual RKS spot on, very hard to disagree with you on anything.
You get to keep the moniker “The most level headed guy on NG”.
Comment by Qalandar on 28 September 2007:
Re: “Nehru stamp from my understanding was economic(social view point rather than capitalist)”
I don’t completely agree. Nehru’s most enduring legacy (especially now that the economic one has been discredited) is the POLITICAL one, his contribution to “the idea of India” so to speak. One book I’d highly recommend in connection with this, and that is written by someone who is no “mere Nehruvian” is “The Idea of India” by Sunil Khilnani. Remember that in the early 1950s most foreigners felt Pakistan had a far better chance of surviving than India, and that numerous writings have persuasively argued that the “India consciousness” was quite weak for the most part, now that independence had been won. Nehru’s ideology deserves recognition for its contribution to ensuring fragmentation did not happen. This is always about more than any one person, be it Nehru or Patel, but the “idea of India” that serves as a foundation for Indians today is largely Nehruvian.
Re: “That is because, they died early.”
Could be for any reason (in fact that proves my point; Nehru’s stewardship lasted for 17 years, crucially important given how early the others died off, especially given the troubles of other post-colonial countries where leaders died early). In any event Nehru was a far more inclusive figure, and Patel far more divisive: in the traumatized post-1947 environment, Patel would have been the wrong choice and was unacceptable to large segments of Indian society. Patel’s “iron” might have been useful as a tactic to get the princes to accede, but it would IMO be the wrong way to go for a democratic leader in a country as diverse as India.
On the integration of the Indian states: there’s no evidence that in the absence of Patel Nehru would have been willing to let the country fragment. In fact his actions in Goa in 1961 — when he sent the army in despite intense criticism at the UN — as well as his resort to military force to counter insurgencies in Meghalaya, Nagaland, etc., show the contrary. The dichotomy is in many ways a false one: on the subject of keeping post-1947 India together one way or another, there is not much daylight between Patel and Nehru at all. [On Kashmir in particular, a wealth of scholarship suggests that it was Nehru and NOT Patel who was keen on it initially.]
Comment by Ravi on 28 September 2007:
1961 Q bhai , Patel did that lot earlier with Hyderabad in particular , Nehru was indecisive and Patel waited for Nehru to be out of the country before sending in the army to Hyderabad and taking care of the problem then and there.
One thing I admire Nehru for , he treated all women the same irrespective of their nationality , he slept with all of them, unfortunately leading to his death(which is arguable).
But, one thing for sure even though I do not like Nehru I would say that the foundation laid by him made India what it is right now, a thriving democracy inspite of lot of flaws that exist, just look at our neighbor to see how better of we are.
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
I have heard this “so what if he is a dictator he is a good administrator” line for Modi as well.
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
ravi, rks, Q - very very good thoughts. Was just thinking - in modern history very few people have got the chance to lead a new country and establish it. Whatever his weaknesses may have been - have got to hand it to him. Tremendous job to get India to where it is. Chak De India!(couldnt resist that as this is a film forum
)
Comment by beldevere on 28 September 2007:
true aarohi - but think about this - Gujarat is one of the best states in terms of growth etc. But balance it with this story i heard from a friend yesterday.
There was this India standing in a phone booth in Abu Dhabi and suddenly a sheikh comes there and wants to use the phone. The indian says ‘give me a min’ and the sheikh takes a cane and whips him on the head. Freedom is something which lot of us take for granted. I wonder how it is to be a Muslim in Guj today
Comment by Qalandar on 28 September 2007:
LOL beldevere: let me also conclude (and get back to work!) with a film reference too: I completely agree that CDI incarnates a Nehruvian vision of India to an extent. Except, I don’t see that as a bad thing. That vision is hardly perfect, far from it, but it is preferable to the alternate visions on offer, at least where mainstream ideas are concerned.
Comment by Aarohi on 28 September 2007:
beldevere bro, u don’t miss any chance.
Thought provoking comments guys. While attacking Nehru is the in thing, his leadership soon after independence did make a significant contribution to a lot of things that are good in today’s India. Specially when we see the dominance of the broker-politican and goonda-politician nowadays.
Comment by rks on 28 September 2007:
Thanks Ravi.
Q:My views are more of general perception and some reading. Of course my reading is not extensive as yours. Agree on Nehru being inclusive but don’t know about Patel’s divisive nature (IMO debatable).
Nehru has done lots of things but three blunders (political/foreign policy) attributed to Nehru.
1. Going to UN and asking for plebiscite in Kashmir.
2. Forward policy against China. Ultimately leading to India’s defeat.
3. Pseudo NAM, though India was firmly behind USSR (India’s voting at UN).
ps: I want a post on use of word politics in cinema context. I keep on hearing politics of RDB, CDI. Sometimes I understand sometimes I disagree.
Comment by Ravi on 28 September 2007:
Good points RKS, and exactly my bone of contention with Nehru among other things.
But, still made India what it is right now.
Comment by Qalandar on 28 September 2007:
Re: “There was this India standing in a phone booth in Abu Dhabi and suddenly a sheikh comes there and wants to use the phone. The indian says ‘give me a min’ and the sheikh takes a cane and whips him on the head.”
Anything is possible, but I find this hard to believe, having grown up in that country. I have heard such stories about Kuwait.
Re: “…don’t know about Patel’s divisive nature (IMO debatable).”
One example: After 1947, Patel strongly recommended that all Muslims be fired from government jobs and deemed ineligible for such employment. Nehru refused. Patel