Defending Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Saawariya

satyam |

73 | November 12, 2007 at 4:32 pm | 74 views | NaachGaana Bol| Share

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

(I will be reviewing the film later, here I am just addressing the politics of the film’s reception)

Once again the Indian media has revealed it’s utter lack of literacy in cinematic matters. Once again we see the spectacle of bankrupt journalists (for the most part) doing a hatchet job on a film that deserves better. Once again we see for all purposes ‘hacks’ pretending to write film reviews without being equipped with any of the analytic tools or the film education that is necessary before one attempts this job. Once again we witness the politics of the box office being played out in reviews.

Whether Saawariya is a worthwhile film or not is not the relevant issue here. It is important that a film be critiqued for the right reasons. It is critical that a film be judged based on what it’s attempting to do. In any case pre-conceived notions of what a mainstream Hindi film ought to be cannot be germane to such a discussion. Whether Bhansali was smart enough or pragmatic enough to attempt such a subject, whether he was foolhardy or not releasing it in opposition to a much more mainstream and mass-oriented film is also a question that has nothing to do with the content of the film.

Unfortunately we’ve seen this farce being played out before and it was repeated once again with Saawariya. The film was royally ripped in most quarters for being the worst human enterprise since old Yudhishtira lost his game of dice! The critics in their obtuseness assumed that a film they couldn’t understand much less appreciate was by definition a poor work. Once they also realized the box office of this film would be questionable they immediately smelled blood and went in for the kill. Bhansali was mercilessly ridiculed for being too indulgent, not knowing how to make a film, and for Lagaan missing out on the Oscar! This man had shamed himself, his actors, and the entire industry.

Of course the audiences get the critics they deserve. Before one approaches a work in any art form one must be sure that one has the grounding to understand what exactly is happening with and in that work. Let’s take a quick example. I pay Satyajit Ray a certain amount of money to make a film in Hindi. I know very well that no market for Ray exists in Hindi cinema but I am a bit of a masochist who likes being flagellated by Messrs Adarsh and Nahata and the other dwarfs of the Bombay film media and decide to nonetheless go ahead with the project. Naturally Ray makes a masterpiece or at the very least a very fine film but it is also (also rather naturally in Bombay) a complete disaster at the box office (many of Ray’s films did well commercially in Bengal, perhaps this tells us ‘Hindi’ types something about those audiences). Does this mean that Ray has made a bad film or that he doesn’t know how to make a film. Does it mean that he’s a fool for attempting an artistic work because such attempts usually end up being box office failures?

All the cinemas of the world are littered with the names of films that were colossal failures in their age but were later recognized as great or at least important as artistic achievements. Where would half the great films in any industry be if box office criteria were used to judge all of them? Guru Dutt would not have made one masterpiece if the dictates of the Bombay media had been followed. Orson Welles would not have made a Citizen Kane if he were just serving studio interests. The history of cinema has many tragic tales of abortive projects and truncated careers. One is always wistful about what ‘might have been’ but one is also happy about what was nonetheless possible despite the draconian codes of all these industries.

I took a bit of a detour. But much as one likes to blame the hacks for indulging in such ’self-important’ writing one has to accuse the audiences as well. There are very many silent masterpieces in cinematic history, there are very many great films in earlier eras that we are not exactly best placed to ‘receive’ as audiences if our weekly cinematic diet never rises above the Kuch Kuch Hota Hai and Heyy Babyy bar. An audience that chooses to remain ‘infantile’ has only itself to blame. One does not reasonably expect general audiences to become connoiseurs of serious cinema much as one does not expect the general populace to be well-versed in Schoenberg’s anti-tonal methods. What one can expect and demand is a general sense of humility about one does not know. It is bad enough when audiences do not have this kind of sobriety, it is however unacceptable when ‘critics’ exhibit symptoms of a similar disease.

Any field of human endeavor requires a set of skills without which one cannot operate in that area. A specific medical knowhow is needed before one starts prescribing medication or opening up someone’s insides (assuming one is not in the business of torture). A different kind of expertise comes into play if one wishes to draft legal documents involving the purchase of a Boeing. I do not write pieces on a Ravi Shankar performance as I have no knowledge of raags and sitar playing. Similarly I do not send in my resume for an umpire’s position in cricket. In much the same way when one writes on a film in the position of an ‘expert’ an understanding of what one is writing about is a sine qua non. When this doesn’t happen a web of complacency and smugness is created. The readers or audiences cannot be educated and are unable to see the limited nature of their own understanding in the matter. Mediocrity reigns in such a system and films like Saawariya are always casualties.

To be more clear about this I am not ‘prescribing’ an education here for anyone who chooses to watch movies as entertainment. But I would insist on this for those who write on movies in media outlets or who have voices influential enough to be able to pass pronouncements on the same. As for the general audiences one is free to watch whatever one wants, one is also free to have one’s likes or dislikes. But one is not free to wallow in one’s ignorance. What’s the difference? I might not enjoy a Ravi Shankar performance as much as a Kishore Kumar song but I should also be aware that this is partly because I am not able to understand the true nature of Ravi Shankar’s art. Listening to the Bombay Vikings without an adequate understanding of music is radically different from listening to Zakir Hussein in the same circumstances. The loss is infinitely greater in the latter instance. I can enjoy Shakespeare greatly just following his plotlines and poetry but to get a greater sense of why he is so titanic a writer I would need to know something about poetic language in some very technical ways. I would need to know a lot more about other dramatic works and so on. It’s a tall order. Not everyone can do so and that’s fine. But if I read Hamlet for the first time and didn’t find it remarkable I would have to question my own position before anything else. Opinions are valid on any subject as long as these are ‘educated’ ones. I prefer Bach to Mozart but I do not offer this as a serious opinion. I am allowed that opinion. I am just not allowed to oppose it to Charles Rosen’s (a scholar on the subject).

It might be protested that I am overrating Bhansali. That he’s not a Ray or a Bach or a Shakespeare. He doesn’t have to be. Not every musician is a Ravi Shanker, not every filmmaker is a Ray. But to the extent a filmmaker is trying something different or something serious he or she must be judged on those grounds. Antonioni is a great director in film history but only boring for the uninitiated. Years ago when I first saw the director’s L’Avventura I found it impossible to grapple with it or appreciate it in any sense. Today it’s one of my very favorite films. What’s changed? I have learnt a lot more about cinema in between.

Finally there is another disease that often afflicts journalists and audiences alike in the subcontinent. This is the tyranny of the box office. The idea that there is absolutely no connection between meaningful cinema and successful cinema is still a rather novel one. The answer to the question ‘how good is x film’ could be ‘x film is a flop’ with no lapse in logic perceived by the interlocutor! Again a film like Saawariya which does not seem likely to succeed at the box office suffers.

I shouldn’t just be blaming journalists and audiences. People associated with the film industry are also by and large as bankrupt and imbecilic in these matters. Farah Khan suggested in a recent interview that she found Manmohan Desai’s cinema ‘illogical’ even if enjoyable. Leaving aside the fact that one might find this judgment questionable, it is surely a bit absurd for the director of Main Hoon Na and Om Shanti Om to bring up notions of logic! In the same interview she cites Guru Dutt and Nasir Hussein and Vijay Anand as being more technically accomplished than Desai. One spots the Desai anxiety of course! But Nasir Hussein and Guru Dutt are about as much on the same plane in matters of ‘craft’ or ‘refinement’ as Bill Clinton is on the same plane with George Bush in terms of English grammar. Farah Khan then goes on to say that she doesn’t like remakes. One would have likes this opinion cited when Don released! That’s another matter though!

I am not just picking on Farah Khan. But a number of film ‘personalities’ in Bombay display this sort of smugness, ignorance, and plan idiocy.

But I have been defending Bhansali here even though I have never been a fan of his work as such. One ought to be able to separate one’s preferences from more objective evaluations. In some ways I have liked Saawariya more than any other film of his though I wouldn’t argue it’s his best film. It is though a better fit for his cinematic vision and interests than perhaps anything else he’s done. I will however address all of this in a separate piece on the film. But even if I thought the work poor I would have to criticize it on proper cinematic grounds.

Ultimately an ‘openness’ is required by an audience when encountering a different work. Every different attempt is not automatically a successful one but it might be an interesting failure. But one needs the right mindset for this. One needs to give oneself over to a work. There have been countless times when I’ve seen films, not liked these or not thought much of them, and then revisited the same after coming across a different and stimulating set of views. I have not always changed my mind but I have always been enriched my those new positions. If I have not liked a specific film more I have usually understood it better and I have certainly been enriched in my understanding of cinema. One can only learn to the extent that one is willing to be surprised by new opinions or new approaches. We are certainly free to only entertain ourselves by the Partner or Kal Ho Na Ho kind of film, there is no moral obligation to do any more. But this does not give us the right to dismiss any striving that seeks to be more than instantly disposable entertainment.

Bhansali must absolutely be defended. The way the game works most are laughing at him for not being able to accept his film’s failure. But the point he’s making is an important one and I don’t believe he has ever been pompous like a Vidhu Vinod Chopra to invite criticism on those grounds. But even were he pompous that would be beside the point. Since in any event he is head and shoulders above the writers who review his films or in most instances the audiences who watch them. It is amusing to see self-important audiences and journalists get offended by the same arrogance, real or perceived, in filmmakers!

Sanjay Leela Bhansali turns full-fledged music composer with his next film, Guzaarish

Sanjay Leela Bhansali to start Guzarish from 20 July

Revealed: Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s new muse

Sanjay wants to see Hrithik’s butt

My take on SAAWARIYA (Hindi, 2007)

There Are 73 Responses So Far. »

Jesse 12 November 2007
05:00:46 pm

A lot of good points brought up here.

“A specific medical knowhow is needed before one starts prescribing medication or opening up someone’s insides (assuming one is not in the business of torture).”

I would believe that a truly great torturer would have some anatomy down!

rks 12 November 2007
05:07:26 pm

“One can only learn to the extent that one is willing to be surprised by new opinions or new approaches.”

Very true. The post is very readable. I do agree on broad terms. But some fault should be placed at Bhansali’s door also, in not fully understanding his audience. A change should be gradual instead of drastic. We can not expect our average audience to understand and appreciate Satyajit Ray in one Friday?

ps: I haven’t seen Saawriyaa.

Rocky 12 November 2007
05:12:42 pm

Satyam, Good Piece and If my memory serves right, you laid out the exact points after the UJ debacle.

My point is Expectation, If your past movies have been decent entertainers and then out of the Blue, with no warnings you make a so called different movie then ovviously the paying public WILL feel cheated.

If you in advance warn the viewers kee bhaiyya yeh picture thoda hatke hai, then all you said above may be true.
Eg. I will never go and watch a Satyajit Ray movie around Diwali because I know in advance what to expect.

coolp 12 November 2007
05:13:25 pm

SLB should accept some blame for the way this movie was marketed. It came across as if it was a movie for masses going against another of its kind.

Also, i do not like this idea of blaming the audience for not understanding a ‘master-piece’. If you are a great director irrespective of the theme, you should be able to connect with the audience.

Rocky 12 November 2007
05:13:56 pm

RKS mine and your comments crossed on Satyajit Ray.

coolp 12 November 2007
05:15:25 pm

Also, because of the festive (happy) environment during Diwali people like an ‘entertainer’. You cannot blame them for that !!

Jesse 12 November 2007
05:20:03 pm

I don’t think the people in general can be blamed too much. Although the media should be far more responsible, for them to favor the entertainer just because they didn’t quite grasp the “darker” film and they knew it wasn’t going to be as successful as the other film is just wrong.

rks 12 November 2007
05:22:47 pm

Rocky: “RKS mine and your comments crossed on Satyajit Ray.”

LOL…that should happen between a Director and his audience…

Rocky 12 November 2007
05:23:04 pm

Black worked because it was promoted as off beat movie and was lapped up by the same media.
So it all boils down to Expectations!!!

flora 12 November 2007
05:30:24 pm

yes,although i am not going to watch saawariya(or oso),i do feel sorry for ranbir etc as the pre release hype met with unprecidented rejection by critics.
The movie should have been promoted as a sad story(the promo’s) and definitely would have fetched a better fate.

Jesse 12 November 2007
05:32:19 pm

“Bhansali was mercilessly ridiculed for being too indulgent, not knowing how to make a film, and for Lagaan missing out on the Oscar! This man had shamed himself, his actors, and the entire industry.”

The media loves exaggeration. In July JBJ was called the worst film ever, then Aag came and it was the biggest flop ever (in other words, real bad film), and then No Smoking took that spot. Take a look at Ardash, he must have titled his BO columns “business hits all time low” roughly 7 times this year alone. If one took this seriously, you would come to the conclusion that the Hindi film industry is dieing a very quick death.

Rocky 12 November 2007
05:41:15 pm

It will be interesting to see how movies like RDB,Refugee, Black,Mrs & Mr. Iyyer, etc were reviwed.
I am sure Parzania was very well reviewed by all and sundry and that is beacuse it never promised to be another HDDCS.

akshay shah 12 November 2007
05:52:45 pm

Magnificent piece Satyam….just awesome and in sync with what i’d said earlier…SAWARIYA has been trashed for the wrong reasons IMO!! Looking forward to your review!:-)

akshay shah 12 November 2007
05:56:04 pm

“The film was royally ripped in most quarters for being the worst human enterprise since old Yudhishtira lost his game of dice!”–LOL!

satyam 12 November 2007
06:09:44 pm

Thanks everyone. All of you make some very valuable points and I am agreed on most counts.

Akshay, you are too kind as always.. much appreciated as always..

beldevere 12 November 2007
06:46:41 pm

Hmm why blame the media if a movie fails. From what I have read, most people have also ripped it apart. Don was ripped apart but still made 50cr. I agree media has a role but its way too exaggerated. There are lot of us here who don’t like slb brand of filmmaking. Tastes differ.

som 12 November 2007
07:35:13 pm

now it seems the media has been blamed for saawariya’s poor performance at the boxoffice.i agree there are certain critics who are agenda driven, but putting the entire blame on them i dont think is the right way to go.whatever critics may say, ultimately a movie will run if it is liked by the audience.critics just express their personal opinions on films and they are not binding on anyone.howver it is the people like us who will decide the fate of the movie which unfortunately has not been happening with SAAWARIYA as majority of people have not liked the movie.

som 12 November 2007
07:41:30 pm

if i could remember same thing happend with DON last year when it was critically trashed by most of the respected critics in india.some news channels tried to destroy the movie from day 1 and even revealed the climax of the movie.but still it went on to do well at the boxofice as people did like the film.so it is the paying public who will have the last say regarding the film’s performance at the bo.

texas_swat 12 November 2007
07:53:14 pm

You can blame the media and the “politics”, but how would you respond to the viewers reviews on sites such as mouthshut.com ?

Interstingly, this “politics” becomes a major debate only for UJ, Nishabd and now Saawariya… but not DON, which I think was a bigger victim than the other three.

texas_swat 12 November 2007
07:55:20 pm

Som, our comments crossed.

beldevere 12 November 2007
08:37:12 pm

Now let’s look at the irony of this piece. The author himself has proclaimed multiple times that slb movies are not commercially very successful usually. So its fair to assume that slb is popular as such because of the critics and media per se. Now that one of his movies has been trashed, the same media and critics are ignorant. I am more of the opinion that slb is just an overrated director and his balloon probably burst this time around. Time will tell. Only reason his movies did decently well is bcoz of the stars in it, be it salman, srk or amitabh. Now he is pretty much exposed as a director.

akshay shah 12 November 2007
08:47:58 pm

Som: DON still had a fair emount of credible reviews in comparison!

som 12 November 2007
08:55:52 pm

yeah Akshay you are right.it got some fairly good reviews.but most of our top critics like BR,Rajeev Masand,Raja Sen,Khalid,Subash Jha all ripped apart DON.you will be surprised how a section of media went against DON in the initial days making all sorts of comparisons with the old Don,revealing Climax,making false statements like it was not doing well(Ganga a bhojpuri film doing better business)etc.etc.

my point here is whatever the critics say, howmuch the media is against your movie, ultimately it comes down to the paying public who will decide the fate of the movie.

Fari 12 November 2007
08:59:57 pm

From The Skeptic in the shoutbox:

TheSkeptic: “Interstingly, this “politics” becomes a major debate only for UJ, Nishabd and now Saawariya… but not DON, which I think was a bigger victim than the other three.” This self-pitying logic is getting tiresome and annoying. What was so “different” or “artistic” about the Don remake that it needed to be approached with grave respect on its own terms? What were its terms but the bog-standard commercialism of a remake of an already popular subject rendered “cool” in the customary way, that is by borrowing it from “safe” Hollywood successes like Bourne Identity and Matrix that are quite familiar to the intended audience?

texas_swat 12 November 2007
09:01:22 pm

“The author himself has proclaimed multiple times that slb movies are not commercially very successful usually. So its fair to assume that slb is popular as such because of the critics and media per se. Now that one of his movies has been trashed, the same media and critics are ignorant. I am more of the opinion that slb is just an overrated director and his balloon probably burst this time around.”

Thats very true.

texas_swat 12 November 2007
09:05:12 pm

“What was so “different” or “artistic” about the Don remake that it needed to be approached with grave respect on its own terms?”

No. its not about “artsistic” stuff that we are talking about, its the “politics” that the author here is interested in that was much more true for DON than any other movie.

satyam 12 November 2007
09:29:57 pm

I think some of you guys here have not been reading my piece carefully. I have not suggested that the media is responsible for the box office failure of any film. I am addressing the illiteracy of the film media in India, specially when it comes to critiquing films that are not regular commercial fare for one reason or another.

Saawariya received far better reviews in the US. Doesn’t that suggest the perfect correlation between ‘educated’ critics and positive Saawariya reviews?!

In any case I have nowhere said here that the media can somehow control the box office. Of course the media can and does often spin what really happens.

som 12 November 2007
09:38:35 pm

“Saawariya received far better reviews in the US.”

i dont think it has got any better reviews in US.just gothrough the reviews at rottentomatoes and you will see most of the critics there too have not liked the movie.

even BBC has not given a favourable review.

satyam 12 November 2007
09:42:39 pm

Incidentally I don’t see any connection at all between Don and its reception and the example of Saawariya as I read it.

I think some of you might be confusing Bhansali’s defensive statements with my piece!

Where I do explicitly agree with his perspective is when he gets angry with the media and trade voices for always speaking for the ‘masses’ or the ‘common man’. This is a considerable issue. Since childhood I have heard members of the bourgeois class (to which I of course belong like everyone else on this forum) try to somehow ‘represent’ the ‘other’ by way of abstractions like the ‘masses’ and the ‘common man’ and the ‘front benchers’ and so on. Of course not we would ever know what those ‘others’ really thought of anything from cinema to politics. We just don’t have the experience. But we cheerfully continue to speak for them. And on this screen of the ‘other’ we project our own prejudices. When we find a film not to our taste we pretend that others won’t like or that it is too sophisticated for Indian audiences and what not.

I actually love Bhansali’s point that that the ‘masses’ (accepting this abstraction for a bit) are not as illiterate as the critics think they are. I suppose he might have used his own film Black as an example which did very well even in small town India.

satyam 12 November 2007
09:46:10 pm

Som: Saawariya is currently doing 40% at rottentomatoes. Let’s say that 40% of Indian reviews have not been positively disposed toward Saawariya. But even the 60% that are negative recognize Bhansali’s achievement even if they consider the film a failure. Most of the Indian reviewers however make the film sound like Mela!

beldevere 12 November 2007
09:49:43 pm

>Saawariya received far better reviews in the US. Doesn’t that suggest the perfect correlation between ‘educated’ critics and positive Saawariya reviews?!

this perfectly symbolises the ‘holier than thou’ attitude. i would any day take a BR, Rajeev masand, Nikhat kazmi, anupama chopra, etc over than so-called ‘educated’ reviewers in US who dont know crap about Hindi movies and their history

>I am addressing the illiteracy of the film media in India, specially when it comes to critiquing films that are not regular commercial fare for one reason or another

this is the same ‘illiterate’ media who has made SLB a big name. so the first bad review his movies gets – poof – all the excuses come out. sour grapes anyone

satyam 12 November 2007
09:49:47 pm

The amusing thing is that even the great Visconti’s film on the same subject is actually a rather tepid work. It’s engaging but hardly among the director’s great films.

satyam 12 November 2007
09:55:29 pm

“this perfectly symbolises the ‘holier than thou’ attitude. i would any day take a BR, Rajeev masand, Nikhat kazmi, anupama chopra, etc over than so-called ‘educated’ reviewers in US who dont know crap about Hindi movies and their history”

Beldevere, I am saying this quite sincerely and not sarcastically at all but I think you are really embarassing yourself with this sort of statement.

As for US reviewers not knowing Hindi movies you’d be surprised..

Finally in terms of the media hyping Bhansali earlier that also proves my point. WIth the earlier films Bhansali was following a certain ‘expectation’ routine. HDDCS was pretty ordinary fare, Devdas was a remake of a classic, Black was a more unusual subject but quickly became part of a Bachchan narrative where the greatest Indian star-actor was taking on a Hollywood sort of grand role.

It’s rather unfortunate but the 90s in India also ushered in (along with other questionable economic ‘miracles’) a strong streak of anti-intellectualism among the bourgeois classes.

Your statement above is unfortunately indicative of it. As for US critics not knowing Indian cinema let’s decide whether Bombay critics know it first! I am not even talking about ‘understanding films’ here but about a plain exposure to films from different periods.

Jesse 12 November 2007
09:56:34 pm

“Saawariya received far better reviews in the US. Doesn’t that suggest the perfect correlation between ‘educated’ critics and positive Saawariya reviews?!”

I don’t really think you have to point outside to show that are critics aren’t all too good. You know there is a problem when a film like Partner is outscoring Saawariya in these “reviews”.

beldevere 12 November 2007
10:07:22 pm

>It’s rather unfortunate but the 90s in India also ushered in (along with other questionable economic ‘miracles’) a strong streak of anti-intellectualism among the bourgeois classes.
Your statement above is unfortunately indicative of it
talk about intellectual arrogance…LOLLL.

>Beldevere, I am saying this quite sincerely and not sarcastically at all but I think you are really embarassing yourself with this sort of statement.
As for US reviewers not knowing Hindi movies you’d be surprised

how long have you been in the US. based on what credentials do you claim to be a US movie expert. like i said yday – just throwing names doesnt make you an expert. your knowledge of movies is at best laughable – so yes i do like your essays for the entertainement value – so please do keep writing them. NG wont be NG without them
as far as embarassing myself goes…LOLL. let other figure that out.

satyam 12 November 2007
10:08:02 pm

Jesse: But that’s a different point. An Adam Sandler film will often get better reviews than a Scorsese film. This doesn’t mean that any critic would consider Sandler more serious than Scorsese. But a film can only be judged based on what it’s trying to do. For example I quite enjoy a number of David Dhawan films while I find others quite atrocious. David Dhawan cannot be blamed for not being Rakesh Mehra. But if I called a Rakesh Mehra film mediocre this would assume a different bar for Mehra than the one for Dhawan. With yet another example I could say that the new Batman was a perfect film and that Assassination of Jesse James was also a perfect film (not that I do for this one!). Both films would only be perfect based on what they were trying to do.

In terms of the American reviews of Saawariya I don’t mind most of the negative ones either much as I don’t mind Bawaradwaj Rangan’s negative reviews for any given film that I might otherwise like. The whole question is this: how is the reviewer approaching a film.

I am not suggesting Western reviewers as a matter of being ‘colonized’, only because in the West major critics are almost always trained for their subject. And that makes a big difference.

som 12 November 2007
10:09:16 pm

“You know there is a problem when a film like Partner is outscoring Saawariya in these “reviews”.”

jeese:Partner is atleat not as pretentious like Saawariya.noone was expecting Partner to be an example of great cinema.everyone knew what were they gonna get from a film like Partner(sheer entertainment) which it delivered and so got some fairly good reviews.

problem with Saawariya is that critics expected a lot from it expecially after SLB’s Black but unfortunately it did not meet up their expectations.it is neither entertaining nor an example of good cinema.

satyam 12 November 2007
10:09:26 pm

Beldevere: As always I see that this isn’t a serious discourse anymore. I guess I might as well stop.

Sunny 12 November 2007
10:11:45 pm

Some interesting thoughts Satyam. And yeah, I agree that critics should not just give verdicts in their reviews. Although, I’m tempted to say…why did you join the bashing group when it was Devdas? Something to think about…

Rks–”We can not expect our average audience to understand and appreciate Satyajit Ray in one Friday?”

This is the exact opposite thought of what Ray’s cinema was about. Each and every Ray film was simplistic to the core…seriously which Ray film is difficult to understand?

Sunny 12 November 2007
10:14:48 pm

and yes..I agree with Beldevere that foreign reviewers can’t be compared with our own. It’s not about intellectual superiority or whatever. I’m not accepting any argument which says a reviewer sitting in the US has a better understanding of Indian cinema that even myself

beldevere 12 November 2007
10:15:41 pm

>Beldevere: As always I see that this isn’t a serious discourse anymore. I guess I might as well stop.

were you asking my permission? i presume not. when you dont have logic to debate – you run away as you are now by using all kind of excuses. thats your prerogative.
but cmon this was never a serious discourse in the first place – a very biased article at best

som 12 November 2007
10:21:46 pm

whatever be it, i guess SLB is the most overrated director of hindi cinema.post Khamoshi, IMO he has not made a single good movie.i think his story telling always takes a backstage amidst all these grand sets and colours.in short his movies lack the soul.

akshay shah 12 November 2007
10:21:54 pm

“Most of the Indian reviewers however make the film sound like Mela!”_—Exactly! Reviews compare it to AAG?!?! COMEON!

Sunny 12 November 2007
10:23:59 pm

Jesse–Partner outscoring Saawariya has been answered perfectly by Satyam himself. See, there’s absolutely no point in comparing a Partner to a CDI or a BB to No Smoking. As Satyam always gives the Dhawan example…yeah even I would give more than 3/3.5 to many Dhawan films, and if I give a 3 to a Raju Hirani film in the future that wouldn’t necessarily mean I rate that film lower than Judwaa or Aankhen or Hero No.1, no way! It’s as simple as comparing Old Monk with Coke/Pepsi/Water to an exotic double malt whisky cocktail with different ingredients…you just have to know the mood, the setting..and what is it that you really want.

Sunny 12 November 2007
10:25:30 pm

som–yeah even I think he’s very overrated, but I did find HDDCS quite a commendable effort.

satyam 12 November 2007
11:02:58 pm

Sunny: As a matter of fact I am far more charitable towards Devdas today than I was when the film initially released. This is because I misjudged Bhansali to some degree. I still consider it a poor film but the terms of my critique would today be different from what they once were. Having said that I still consider my earlier arguments against the film valid in other ways. It is just that my perspective has now shifted. But when I was arguing against the film I was also providing a rationale as to why I didn’t like the film. This is precisely what most Indian critics do not do. As I said earlier I don’t mind many of the negative American reviews because I can understand what they’re saying. Much as I write these long essays in support of or against many films (interminably long many would say!) I was also doing the same for Devdas.

satyam 12 November 2007
11:08:03 pm

“and yes..I agree with Beldevere that foreign reviewers can’t be compared with our own. It’s not about intellectual superiority or whatever. I’m not accepting any argument which says a reviewer sitting in the US has a better understanding of Indian cinema that even myself”

This is dogmatic. Because you’re essentially saying that even if a Western critic has enough exposure to Indian cinema his or her opinion is nonetheless invalid. Of course there remains another issue. A certain cinematic training might leave one better disposed to critiquing films even when one is not very familiar with the traditions than would seem to be the case. When I read a review on a Senegalese film in the US I don’t ask for the reviewer’s credentials on Senegalese cinema and culture. Why the Indian exception?

But let’s take up a related question. The one I brought up. Let’s take a poll on this very forum. How many members here have seen films belonging to the masala tradition? If so how many? In other words how many members can really gauge whether the masala cinema represented in OSO is authentic or not? So when OSO is called a great masala film is there the right understanding of what masala really means? In my experience a number of contemporary viewers have the impression that SRK was doing masala when he was acting in DDLJ and the like!

Sunny 12 November 2007
11:10:40 pm

Fair enough Satyam . Just to be clear, I’m no flag bearer of Devdas, never thought highly of the film, and still don’t. Just asked you out of curiosity.

Sunny 12 November 2007
11:17:29 pm

errm….first of all..how did OSO come in here?
Second of all, the whole point is your opinion and my opinion…I don’t watch Senegalese films, and neither do I read reviews of the same.

Last but not the least…what is ‘authentic’? ‘Masala’ in it’s very essence a term that has nothing ‘authentic’ about it. Masala means, you could cook up a mild curry, a strong curry, add tej patta or badi ilaichi or whatever you wish. There’s nothing ‘authentic’ about masala films. You cook it up with whatever resources you have and leave the tasting to the audience. And yes SRK was in fact doing masala when he was doing DDLJ..I agree. So? What’s your point? Did I talk about SRK or OSO or DDLJ? Why is SRK and OSO again being dragged in your supposed ‘defence of SLB’? Sometimes I think everything you write is to somehow find a way to bring in the name SRK. Why bhai? Aisa kya gunaah kar diya usne?

Sunny 12 November 2007
11:19:22 pm

as for the poll…yeah let’s have it. Let’s have a Lesson in History Again!. I’m all for it.

Sunny 12 November 2007
11:25:30 pm

Oh! and who called OSO ‘great’??..I hope you’re not talking to me there.

satyam 13 November 2007
12:28:07 am

Sunny: again you’re misreading me. My point is that DDLJ or KKHH are NOT masala. And ‘authentic’ masala is not really any potpourri but a specific kind of potpourri concocted in the 70s. Much as 60s cinema is not masala cinema.

The reason I brought in OSO is because I think a lot of fans are celebrating OSO as perfect masala without an adequate understanding of what masala is in the first place!

Sunny 13 November 2007
12:53:39 am

Satyam–a lot of fans may be interpreting OSO as perfect masala, I certainly am not, and I think you know this. Neither did I get this kind of feeling from beldevere,Sandy,Tango or anyone else’s comments. Now yes, there might be fans out there who’ll make this the grand masala entertainer of ‘em all. That’s what ‘fans’ and star worshippers are about. I don’t think that’s anything to get excited over. Many people here think BB is the best masala movie this year, I disagree, in fact I didn’t even like the film very much…I’m not getting excited about it though. Fans do this, it’s not something unusual….when Aag released, there were many! comments on rediff and other boards who said Aag was better than Sholay!…this thing happens, and we should learn to take this in our strides. BTW, just read your piece on Masala Wrestle…interesting thoughts you have there..though I still disagree with your take on it’s meaning. In fact I don’t think ‘masala’ has a meaning or can be defined.

Sunny 13 November 2007
12:57:16 am

..and yes I do agree with your ’specific kind of potpourri’ statement. That’s what makes OSO good masala instead of great masala. It had a specific story yes, but it wasn’t told in a cohesive manner. That’s what separates OSO from the Sholays, Amar Akbar Anthonys, Dharam Veers and Karmas.

rks 13 November 2007
01:51:07 am

Sunny:”This is the exact opposite thought of what Ray’s cinema was about. Each and every Ray film was simplistic to the core…seriously which Ray film is difficult to understand?”
Satyajit Ray is just place holder for any director who has limited audience due to subject. Though I must confess that any thing I have seen of Ray was before 20 when I was very bad (different) with my movie tastes.

satyam 13 November 2007
10:14:11 am

“In fact I don’t think ‘masala’ has a meaning or can be defined.”

I would think Sunny that masala can be very easily defined even if there has been some slippage in meaning in recent history. Where masala was earlier quite literally a kind of filmmaking with all the ingredients (comedy, action, drama, ‘tears’, good guys/bad guys, mythological overtones and so on) it became later on a synonym for very commercial cinema. The latter weakly misreads the genre (or genres) as a conceptual matter and more cynically serves certain political ends. As opposed to apologizing for a poor film one can simply term it ‘masala’!

In any case I am puzzled by your idea that it cannot be defined. I think it can on the contrary very easily be defined. As I said earlier Shammi Kapoor or Rajendra Kumar were not practicing masala nor was Rajesh Khanna though there doing very commercial films. Bachchan certainly was in many of his films. SRK has never done masala. Farah Khan’s attempts are not inadequate masala but ‘impostors’ in this sense.

satyam 13 November 2007
10:19:25 am

“Each and every Ray film was simplistic to the core…seriously which Ray film is difficult to understand?”

I find your point questionable Sunny. Days and Nights in the forest is an avant-gardist work not easily understood. Devi, perhaps his greatest film in some ways, is again not easy to fathom. I could argue the same for some other works. It’s true that Ray is a Shakespearean filmmaker in some ways so that his films can be viewed on a superficial level more easily than the works of some other filmmakers (Kurosawa is also like this) but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the films are therefore easy to understand. In fact with such works (as in any other art form) it’s often harder to get to the complexity because the initial level of reading is rather easily available. But again not all Rays follow even this formula.

Elvis 13 November 2007
11:04:39 am

F***.Missed an interesting discussion.
Valid points Satyam.
Media in India is the pits and people easy to manipulate.Media has indeed been atleast partially instrumental in the downfall of the movie.Tho even without their duplicacy,movie was destined to fail.Not because it sucks but it is not a palatable product foer the average movie goer who is looking for easy to digest,instantly gratifying consumption.Sad but true.SLB did loose sight of this fact.Wish had time to put up my postmortem but will have to wait.

Rocky 13 November 2007
01:43:51 pm

Rajen-Media has indeed been atleast partially instrumental in the downfall of the movie.

Had it not been for the media, Film Industry would have died long back due to TV and Piracy.

satyam 15 November 2007
07:24:04 am

Thanks Elvis..

sandy 17 November 2007
12:27:15 am

This is a superb read, Satyam

Sunny 17 November 2007
01:30:55 am

Oh ho! I’ve been missing so much here

Satyam–Devi is no easy to fathom? Really? Simply a tale of superstitions in the Hindu society.As for his treatment and vision; as I’ve said in my Saawariya review, about the climax of Apur Sansar. Ray’s cinema simply immerses one in it’s scheme of things, without evoking any feeling most of the time. Some may find it dificult to fathom, coz thee’s actually nothing to fathom there. And I disagree with your take on Devi being his greatest work. That’seither one of the Apu trilogy ones or Gopi Gyne Bagha Byne(lol, I love this one), and Shakha Proshakha is probably the most heart touching.

Coming on to Aranyer Din Raatri, it’s asimple tale of learning about and inculcating respect for something which you deem lesser. It’s funny,sad…full of romanticism too, I wouldn’t call it Avante Garde at all. Taking Simi as a tribal here was a masterstroke!

So, I still stand by what I said, Satyajit Ray’s cinema is the easiest to understand, given you are not trying to understand

Sunny 17 November 2007
01:32:32 am

..and welcome back Sandhya

satyam 17 November 2007
07:28:42 am

Thanks Sandy. I’ve been waiting for your Saawariya review. To be honest I have to review it myself.

satyam 17 November 2007
07:35:02 am

Sunny: I too stand by what I said!

satyam 17 November 2007
11:14:12 pm

The greatest Ray films to my mind (in no order):

1)Apu Trilogy
2)Jalsaghar
3)Devi
4)Days and Nights in the Forest
5)Distant Thunder

Just below these (again in no order):

1)Calcutta trilogy
2)Charulata
3)Mahanagar
4)Nayak

His most overrated film in my view is Abhijaan (this is of course a popular favorite) while his most underrated is the Stranger. Mahanagar would make it to the first bracket but I think Ray mars it with a somewhat sentimental ending (rare for him).

satyam 17 November 2007
11:20:05 pm

And here’s Ray answering a question in the mid-80s (this gets to my avant-garde point):

“I don’t know about my ideas, but my technique — my film grammar — has changed, and the French New Wave was responsible for that. Godard especially opened up new ways of . . . making points, let us say.”

satyam 17 November 2007
11:23:22 pm

And here’s Wes Anderson on Ray, calling the Calcutta Trilogy “avant-garde”.

Sunny 18 November 2007
12:02:26 am

Wes Anderson may find it that, I don’t. I may have agreed grudgingly with Devi as you said, but Mr. Anderson definitely needs a lesson if he calls the Apu Trilogy Avante Garde.Anyway, without getting into the characteristics that define ‘Avante Garde’..’post’,'alternative’, ‘progressive’ and ‘avante garde’ are four terms which depend on your own progression and acquired tastes as a viewer or listener. If you term Ray as Avante Garde, that implies you still view him as experimental or non standard..which would certainly question the admiration you say you have for Ray. I’l give you another example which is much closer(than films) to my heart..Celtic Frost ae still considered an Avante Garde band by almost everybody, they are plainly thrash-metal to me though.

Coming back to Wes, I hope you can now understand why he calls the Apu Trilogy(lol) Avante Garde,he finds something unusual, doesn’t connect.. or maybe he just doesn’t get it

satyam 18 November 2007
07:28:07 am

Sunny: I didn’t call all of Ray’s films avant-garde, I was referring to Days and Nights..

Wes Anderson by the way called the Calcutta trilogy as such not the Apu trilogy!

You are free to have whatever opinion you want. I provided these examples because this idea is hardly unique with me. Here you have Ray himself saying that his cinema was influenced by Godard!

By the way another avant-garde work of his is Nayak.

All this doesn’t mean he becomes a Godard, just that some films have those influences more than others.

satyam 18 November 2007
01:18:02 pm

But I don’t disagree with Wes Anderson on the Calcutta Trilogy either.

satyam 22 November 2007
10:49:37 pm

Getting back to the original subject here I didn’t get a chance otherwise I would’ve seen Saawariya a second time in the theater. I also plan to review the film finally!

imgr8 22 November 2007
11:11:08 pm

I will wait for your review Satyam dunno why, but I will

You must be logged in to post a comment.

satyam

Related Posts

There Are 73 Responses So Far. »

Leave a Reply