First there used to be stories, then came plays and then came screenplays. The transformation of paper to stage or reel is indeed a highly likable one. People could read the text and watch it as a motion picture and compare. Sometimes it worked better, sometimes it invited criticism. In other words walking the talk is indeed something that everyone would look forward to – just to see what became of it.
Another important and fascinating development that took place as stage plays and motion pictures became really big (so big that screenplays became original and scripts were written only so that a movie can be made on them) was the reviews, features and analytical pieces written in appreciation/criticism or even interpreting the films. From occasional sections in newspapers, to film journal regulars to dedicated reviews the “about movies” texts have come a long way. These days we have an IMDb where people fight it out based on their tastes and views on movies. There are question answer sections where people discuss their interpretations of the film or how they could or couldn’t get the hidden abstract meaning of something in the film or how the film is much bigger than what others think of it. There are thousands of movie blogs that do the same just like this one.
Now that I have given a long enough introduction, let me come to the point of this article. Just the other day I read a review of Gangs of Wasseypur by one of my favorite bloggers- GreatBong. What fascinated me was his real long introduction about Gang movies and the smooth comparison of GOW with Goodfellas. On a personal level I hated GOW-1 and loved GOW-2, but that is not the point here. What amazed me was the by the end of the article, I had started looking at GOW as something, I never really did. I literally had to think about the core idea of this article to shrug myself and get back to my original opinion of the movie. Yes I enjoyed the desi flavor of the film (part 2) and liked the raw dialog but at the end of it all it was just an entertaining film (part2) and I enjoyed it at the same level as Oye Lucky, Lucky Oye, but the way Greatbong had articulated his article did make me ride in his thoughts for some time. Talking the Walk had made it bigger.
Another remarkable example of this syndrome was when the movie Inception came out. Everyone had their own interpretation and it turned out to be a bigger IMDb hit than its actual reception. Just the fact the people wrote thousands of article on a dream story (a story about dreams, well!!) made it into something much bigger. Abstract became mysterious and hence fascinating. The sheer inquiry of what the fuss is all these texts about made the artwork bigger than what it was.
An important aspect here to note is, at the end of the day, an article, a speech, a review about a film is just someone’s opinion of the film but the fact that articulation and supposed prestige associated with the author/speaker/reviewer. Moreover, it becomes really difficult to guess whether the text was written as part of one’s habit or one’s desire to write it. Given the capacity of human nature, it may very well have been written to drive a section of the dedicated audience away or towards the motion picture. I personally feel, that sometimes the language of certain texts seem “trying hard to make you believe in my words” kind of a deal. Sometimes, there is a sense of pride saying “I know more than you, you know” and sometimes requesting “please give this a try, trust me”. It’s all very fascinating.
My article here is not for or against talking the walk. It’s neither to prove a point nor to dismiss one. It just amazes me, how words can be so powerful and so convincing. The BIG in the article could mean small too. It’s just how one takes it.