Mirrors (2008)

Genre: Horror
Director: Alexandre Aja
Cast: Kiefer Sutherland, Paula Patton,
Language: English
Runtime: 110 min.

Dull horror movies fall in a range of categories: movies that have got a good setup but don't make use of it, movies that have got nothing much other than gore, movies where nothing happens, etc. To this list, Asian horror remakes now add a new category: movies that nobody is clear what they're about. Alexandre Aja's trial at supernatural horror falls into this category.

Based on a 2003 Korean film "Into the Mirror," Mirrors reflects the life of Carson. Carson is a troubled ex-cop recovering from alcoholism. His wife and kids stay away from him and he desperately needs a job to reunite with his family. So he joins as a night watchman, a local shopping complex that was burnt down in a recent fire accident. On his first day he notices a peculiar thing - among the scorched remains of the complex, the mirrors alone look completely unscathed. The alternate shift in-charge tells him that the previous watchman, whom Carson has come to replace, was obsessive in keeping them clean. The intrigued Carson soon starts noticing strange things whenever there's a mirror nearby. He gets more and more involved with the mirrors to the extent of putting his family in a grave danger.

The movie starts promisingly. We see a man gruesomely killed by his own reflection in a mirror. Titles starts appearing against a backdrop of reflected skyscrapers, accompanied by Javier Navarate's excellent title music (the starting resembles John Carpenter's classic theme music of Halloween). But the promise starts fading soon. A familiar bell rings somewhere inside our head when we meet Carson as a troubled cop. Why cop protagonists of horror movies are always troubled? So that we can fairly guess what will happen to them? Soon come the mandatory scenes of Carson exploring the dark complex with a torch. Feeble lighting, grungy set design and ambient music come together in these scenes to form a decent build up of atmosphere and some mystery. While the atmosphere fades out quickly the mystery remains. For a while the movie plays out as an investigative procedural and at last everything gets resolved. The only problem is we are not sure what is getting resolved and what the resolution is.

The movie fails simply because it has got the basics wrong: the script doesn't stick to a single supernatural theme nor does it create the ground rules that are indispensable to follow the plot and to make sense of it. The happenings are so unrelated that we are left with no clue of what to make out of the ending.

For gore lovers, there is one standout sequence involving a bathtub and mandible. It would have been a little better if not for the conspicuous special effects. Carson's family and his bonding with them are not emotionally well developed, which results in an impression of too much time getting wasted in his mundane and drab interaction with his family. In addition, there is no shortage of clichés. Sample: When Carson shoots a mirror in the complex the bullet holes in them disappear, but when he shoots a mirror in front of his wife to make her believe the supernaturalism of mirrors, we know we've seen the result countless times. No idea when moviemakers are going to grow tired of this cliché but we are long dead tired.

The script doesn't allow much in the area of characterization. Keifer Sutherland has nothing much to do other than roam around with a torch and look anxious but he sufficiently fills in the troubled cop template.

Mirrors is a half baked attempt at horror that loses track halfway and never finds it. In effect, it's just another addition to a genre that's already oversaturated with junk.

The Deer Hunter (1978)

Genre: Drama
Director: Michael Cimino
Cast: Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, John Cazale, John Savage, Meryl Streep
Language: English
Runtime: 182 min.

In the long line of movies based on wars, The Deer Hunter is another allegory of the psychological and life changing effects of war. A movie that could've been a rather powerful one is betrayed mostly by the usual culprit - running time.

It revolves around three friends Mike (Robert De Niro), Steven (John Savage) and Nick (Christopher Walken) who leave for Vietnam from their quiet little American town. For them, their town is the entire world. They work in the local steel factory and after work shift they drink, bicker with each other, sing along with radio and do everything that characterizes an uncomplicated town life. One night they attend Steven's wedding ceremony and party; the next morning they leave for a deer hunting trip; the next day they leave for Vietnam to serve their country. The three are captured by the Vietnamese and held as POW under a mid-river hut where Russian Roulette will change their lives forever.

The movie is noteworthy for its oblique treatment of its subject. Throughout the movie not a single word is spoken of the futility or cruelty of war; the scenes do all the speaking. The very elaborate first act literally places the audience among the townspeople. The work at steel factory, wedding party, Mike's feelings towards Linda (Meryl Streep), teasing Axel (Chuck Aspegren) by moving the car just when he's about to open the car door, Mike's refusal to lend Stan (John Cazale) his hunting shoes and many other small details firmly establishes the typical town life of the three friends. These seemingly trivial details are the ones that contrast the nature of their life in Vietnam so powerfully. And their life in Vietnam, the second act bashes us with: when Steven says they don't belong to the war field, we can't agree more with him, for we know exactly what their life back at home was.

The strong foundation laid by the first two acts is not developed into a solid whole by the third act. The actions of Mike and Steven are understandable but the motivation behind Nick's strange behaviour is not explained well and we're left to grope in the dark for psychological explanations.

Acting is consistently good. Christopher Walken makes Nick memorable while crying at the hospital in Saigon and in the climax (won Oscar for best supporting actor). Robert De Niro is excellent as the tough guy who is unperturbed by the brutality and madness going on around him in the death camp and singlehandedly keeps up the morale of his comrades. In the same sequences, John Savage too does well as a man driven crazy by fear and stress. Meryl Streep and John Cazale fill in their roles adequately.

Cinematography and production design perfectly build the overall mood of the film. While the fog permeated stillness of mountains, the unfrequented road to the mountain, calm streets and the skyline at sunset, mellow us with the serenity of the town, the congested military hospital in Saigon, thousands of refugees leaving their towns and the muddy river, thrust us into the harsh reality of Vietnam.

But all the positive qualities put together cannot counterbalance a big negative factor - its length. Three hours is too much time for what is dealt with in the movie. By cutting short lengthy sequences that are less expository, the director could have easily given a tauter product. Leisurely pace and a weak third act prevent this good drama from being great.

Review: Scarface (1983)

Genre: Crime, Drama

Director: Brian De Palma

Cast: Al Pacino, Michelle Pfeiffer, Steven Bauer, Robert Loggia, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and Paul Shenar

language: English

Runtime: 170 min.

Scarface is about the rise and fall of a small time crook fuelled by greed, and fall of Brian De Palma fuelled by the same greed - greed to create an epic crime saga out of virtually nothing. Just a long running time and some skillful camera movements alone cannot make an epic. Without the faintest hint of emotional underpinning, this movie is just an empty vessel that creates too much noise.

Tony Montana (Al Pacino) is a Cuban refugee cum criminal with a big aim - he wants the world itself. His opening comes when he gets a chance to run a deal for a mid level drug dealer, Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia). When the deal goes awfully wrong, he and his friend Manolo (Steven Bauer) escape with the money and cocaine. Frank is impressed and Tony starts working for him but not without laying eyes on his mistress Elvira (Michelle Pfeiffer). Shortly, a profitable but risky deal from Bolivia comes their way, Frank feels it’s too risky but Tony wants to accept. Frank warns, “the guys who last in this business are the guys who fly straight, lowkey, quiet. And the guys who want it all chicas, champagne, flash - they don't last”. So we now know what to expect; dispute leads to Tony leaving Frank. Later, Frank comes to know of Tony's intentions towards Elvira and tries to kill him. But Tony escapes, kills the ex-boss and marries Elvira. He accepts the Bolivian deal, starts ascending the underworld and goes on to build a drug empire. Though, he doesn’t remain at the top for long. Trouble brews and then starts his descent.

The problem with this movie has its roots in the lead character. Tony is an utterly despicable character with not a single redeemable quality. He is a dispassionate killer and a man who’s drenched with greed. He is tender towards his mother and sister, but that doesn't make him a normal man. With no way to emotionally connect with such a character, it becomes very difficult to watch his rise or fall for three hours, accentuated not by a lesser degree that he fills the screen for almost its entire running length and that he’s an irritating chatterbox.

But he's a man of guts. During his first drug deal with Columbians, the double crossing Columbians tie his companion to a pole in the bathroom and saw off first his arm and leg using a chainsaw. When they tie him next and bring the chainsaw near him, he shouts "F--- you!". It is this admirable quality that makes the first 100 minutes that illustrate his rise, relatively engaging compared to the later part. An hour before the end, it becomes too tiring to sit through and the incessant flow of the f-word makes it all the more irritating. It is surprising that the characters talk our mind. Elvira tells “Can't you stop saying "f---" all the time? Can't you stop talking about money? It's boring, Tony.” Exactly. This and other scenes towards the end make us wonder if De Palma intended the entire movie to be a sort of parody.

The above mentioned chainsaw encounter is the only memorable instance. A few shots of horrified expression in the eyes of the gagged victim, chainsaw nearing his arm, spatter of blood and the utterance of “now the leg", put together form a montage that evokes an acute sense of horror. It is a perfect example of the dictum that true horror is not in the eyes but in the mind. Only if the present day gore-fest directors could learn this valuable lesson.

As Tony, Al Pacino proves himself again, as he did earlier as the diametrically opposite Michael Corleone in Godfather series. Michelle Pfeifer has the thankless job of playing a literally dimensionless role. Her character could've very well been a doll. In a scene near the end her blank expression when simultaneously using cigarette, drinks and cocaine together, epitomizes the futility of this character. Others adequately fill in their roles. Paul Shenar stands out among them as the Bolivian drug manufacturer. His soft spoken and mild mannered behavior oozes an evil charm that makes him immensely watchable.

Technically there is nothing outstanding. The usual camera movements and sets of De Palma films are present here too.

Scarface is a 3-hour-long scar on the audience’s time.

What is character development?

19 Mar 2010

--------------

Hari: Seen Hurt Locker?

Me: No. Yesterday it was 8.30 when I was ready to watch a movie. So I selected one with short running time - Ring 2. But 20 minutes into the film, power cut. Waited till 10, no power, so slept. Power resumed at 12 :( You?

Hari: Raging Bull. Again.

Me: Againa? Is that so good? I'm having the DVD, yet to see. Less priority because of all dreadful aspects: running time more than 2 hours, about a boxer, black and white, Martin Scorsese etc.

Hari: One wonderful aspect: Robert De Niro

Me: Should be, though I'm not a fan :) But he was good in Taxi Driver, Ronin and The Deer Hunter. Especially Taxi Driver. When talking to a security during his assassination attempt he looks exactly like a crank and in that talking-to-mirror scene.

Hari: Chanceless. It was like watching a different person playing the lead role in the second half. He must be a lunatic to have gained around 27kgs in 2 months to look the part of a boxer on his way downhill. I was in a dilemma to choose between Travis Bickle and Jake La Motta. Finally choose the latter.

Me: Oh, I'll see it soon. But I can never sit for a second time for a drama :) I always wonder how that is possible for any person :)

Hari: It helps in observing it more minutely! Why would Black and white be a dreadful aspect to you I wonder!

Me: hahaha I have given the wrong impression. I love black and white, just that I'm afraid to see a drama film in it. At the same time, I think films like Godfather and Eastern promises would have been very different and less likable if they were in black and white. The deep reds and blacks are very important in building the atmosphere of those films. That is why I insist on seeing films in original DVD prints and not with all colours washed out in the low quality prints :)

Hari: Afraid to see drama. hahaha! After watching Raging Bull, I was on youtube watching his interviews. There was also a lovely video tribute to him showing various clips from different movies. He is a different guy in each!

Me: A man who has grown to direct a spy thriller that will make Le Carre happy - Good Shepherd. You have seen that?

Hari: Nope. It was a recent movie shot in black and white?

Me: 2006. A long winded movie with slightly boring personal life intertwined into a brilliant spy thriller. It captures the mood of Le Carre's cold war novels perfectly well. If ever you'd be interested in seeing spy thrillers, this would be your type of movie.

24 Mar 2010

--------------

Me: By the way, yesterday I watched Raging Bull :)

Hari: Oh! So?!!

Me: hahaha So what? Drab. Though not boring. Absolutely not my kind of movie. I kept on wondering how you watched it the second time :)

Hari: Oh God! hahaha.... ok ok

Me: hahaha It is me who has to say "Oh God!"

Hari: We both have the right as our tastes are polar opposites :)

Me: hahaha yes yes. I too think they are polar :)

Hari: Not in the least impressed with De Niro or the camera work?

Me: I don't know much to appreciate performances :) De Niro is intense but didn't find him much impressive. May be that is because of the character he's playing - a pathetic, utterly despicable character. Even more than Al Pacino's Tony Montana in Scarface. I didn't like the film for two main reasons: 1. it is just a character drama and absolutely no plot, 2. De Niro's psychopathic extremities gets repetitive and tiring after an hour. B&W cinematography surely gives the feel of the 40s. More than cinematography, editing during the boxing scenes impressed :)

Hari: In my case I like a film when it is just a character drama and has absolutely no plot :D

Me: That is what I understood after seeing this film :)

Hari: hahaha....if you think this film has no plot then you should see Johny Deep's 'Dead Man'. You will hunt me down and kill me after that.

Me: Who is the director?

Hari: Jim Jarmusch

Me: Ghost Dog director? Seems Dead Man is one of the recent Westerns. I may watch :)

Hari: You know Ghost dog?

Me: I know the name of the film; Forrest Whitaker has acted; A remake of or inspired by Le Samourai. That's all I know

Hari: Oh yes. Same film. I din't like it that much. I watched it after Dead Man. And you said you might watch Dead man right? Ok, I tell you again YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Me: hahaha. Now I've known one film you'll like for sure - Le Samourai.

Hari: When I tweeted that I dint like Ghost dog one guy said that I should have seen Le Samourai

Me: Yes. But now I get a doubt if you'll like :) Because it's not a character drama.

Hari: Not that I like only character drama...it has to have me hooked one way or the other

Me: I don't see any hooks in Raging Bull. But you see hooks that can hook you for the second time. That's the problem :) Ghost Dog is about a lone assassin, killing somebody and getting chased by police and a villain group?

Hari: My hook for Raging Bull was De Niro and his character development. Yes Ghost dog is about that...but it was too slow...Dead Man was even slower but...well...it was about existentialism! :D

Me: I don't see any character development in La Motta. He remains the same from the first frame to the last frame. Not even a hint of redemption. Maybe I don't have an eye for it :(

Hari: There is development. He keeps getting worse as the years pass by. He has a thick head and can't think straight. He starts with adultery, then becomes suspicious, jealous, loses interest in what used to be his passion, stuffs himself, becomes a sluggard, becomes paranoid that everyone is screwing around with his wife, becomes insecure when she leaves him, rants about his fate in that lonesome 'why why' jail scene, and finally becomes a totally different pathetic person far from the champion, making lame jokes as a standup comedian. He ends up blaming his brother for not taking proper care of him.

Me: Oh, super. So this is what character development is? This is what I think: Character development is not about change in a character. It is about how much we know about a character as the movie progresses. In this case, he's a nut and remains a nut from start to finish. All the happenings around him just repeatedly reiterate that he's a nut, nothing more (that is why I feel it's dull). Wrong?

Hari: He was a nut earlier and still was the bronx bull...people respected and feared him...and he was a nut later too but a real nut now....there is a difference between the two... from power to disgrace he takes a fall due to his stupidity, arrogance, short-sightedness, suspicion etc., I think character development need not be between two extremes like good and bad... it can as well be the stages between two points of equally bad situations

Me: Please read this again: "Character development is not about change in a character (whether from good to bad or from bad to worse). It is about how much we know about a character as the movie progresses." I think you're talking about the change in character while I'm talking about the audience's knowledge about a character.

Hari: Ok got it. But you mean you everything you knew about La Motta at the beginning is exactly the same at the ending?

Me: Absolutely yes. That is what I think.

Hari: Oh I dint think so.

Me: hahaha. Substantiate. I think whatever you think, like he standing up against the big bosses, gaining the title, losing the match and his private life because of his meanness etc., are things that happened to him. There is not even a change in his character. As a character he's the same throughout the movie. What other dimension of his character do you come to know as movie progresses?

Hari: I thought as a handsome boxing champ he was a confident person in life. But was surprised when he turned out to be insecure when his wife says the opponent is good looking and wreaks vengeance by smashing his face. He always could be seen to be in good terms with his brother though he had frequent run-ins with everyone else, but when it comes to his wife, he even suspects his brother.

Me: For me it was crystal clear from the beginning that he's eccentric to the point of psychopathic. I was waiting and waiting for something interesting to happen based on his character, nothing did. I was waiting at least something, let alone interesting, to happen based on his character, again nothing. All that happened were repetition of the same events, till the end. In a sense it occurred to me that whatever happens after he meets his second wife is a back story of his earlier marriage. His first wife whom we see quarreling with him; he should have gone through the same routine with her too.

Hari: hmmm...interesting...maybe I was too awed by the way he played the character that I did not bother about anything else...he seemed real...and putting on 27 kgs so that he could get the sluggishness and mannerism right was something that was stunning to me... maybe I was more awed by his acting and the cinematography in the boxing scenes and anything else...

Me: I think now you've understood your own opinion on Raging Bull a little better :)

Hari: nope...still not very clear until i understand character development first!

Me: hahaha You know very well that there is a lot more to a movie than character development. So if a character impressed you, only a part of the movie impressed you :)

Hari: haha...ok no further arguments. me too leaving now...bye!

Me: Just one line: It's not argument but discussion :)

Hari: sure sure.thanks for starting it...now I want to know the various aspects to look for while appreciating a movie...i don't usually analyse a movie like that...its a matter of feeling... i like it or don't like it... i don't question myself why it is so

Me: hahaha Personal feeling is the foundation of all analyses. All the best for your learning :)

Hari: danks! bye

Me: Bye :)

13 Jul 2010

--------------

Me: Hello, have you seen The Hurt Locker?

Hari: Yes

Me: Liked it?

Hari: It was ok. Nothing much happens. The story as such is naturally tense because it involves ticking bombs ready to explode. You saw?

Me: Yes, I saw a few weeks back. So nothing struck you as special? Character-wise what do you think?

Hari: நான் பார்த்து ரொம்ப மாசம் ஆகுது...saw it immediately at the time of release... character-wise I think the guy is good at what he does and so naturally enjoys it...it doesn't appear as a threat to him...maybe if I had seen it again recently I could comment on it better

Me: So your overall impression of the movie is that the movie is slow but very tense since it involves bombs. In short it's slow but good thriller. Correct?

Hari: Hmm...so you are planning to shoot a movie involving a bomb ready to go in under your boss's seat?

Me: hahaha. No, I asked about The Hurt Locker in relation to our discussion we hand few months back on Raging Bull :)

Hari: Oh. About Character development? What is your opinion about the movie?

Me: First and foremost the movie is a character drama. It's a character drama given thriller coating. The ever-present question, "what type of character is he" is the pivot on which the entire movie revolves. Each and every scene gives us an opportunity to guess the answer to that question. That he remains an enigma till the end is an icing on the character development cake. That it is very tense and thrilling comes only second. I don't know what the critics think, for I've stopped reading reviews few months back. But the above is my opinion. Corollary: Raging Bull should fall at The Hurt Locker's feet and beg.

Hari: Raging Bull is based on a real life character of a boxer called Jake La Motta. Hurt Locker is imagined. In the former, if you find the character never changes during the course of the movie, it may be the reason that the real Jake La Motta just lived that way.

Me: hahaha Real or not real is not a question at all. As a movie what does it bring to the screen? That is the question. As I've already told I think character development is not about whether the character changes or not but about how much we come to know of the character as the movie progresses. I'm not asking why to make a movie based on a never-changing bum like Jake La Motta but that why the movie was not taken in a way that it creates an interest in a bum that is JLM. For your information, The Hurt Locker also is based on a reporter's account of real life incidents surrounding a particular soldier and I vaguely remember that the soldier even sued the filmmakers for using his story or something like that.

Hari: I don't understand how you say it was uninteresting. Here was a guy who once was ruling the boxing world but reduced to a standup comedian now...to know that even a person, so powerful and menacing in a boxing ring can be so vulnerable and full of insecurities and paranoia when it comes to his personal life is interesting...and above all I don't like raging bull from what I got to know about the character...for me it was the way it was portrayed by De Niro... the effort and the way the boxing matches were shot...

Me: Our whole discussion was based on the idea that you found Raging Bull a good character drama. திடீர்னு இப்படி பல்டி அடிச்சா I have no problem :)

Review: The Shining (1980)

Genre: Horror

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Cast: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd and Scatman Crothers

Language: English

Runtime: 142 min.

In his preface to a recent edition of Pet Sematary, Stephen King mentions that most people find The Shining the scariest of all his novels (though his personal scariest is Pet Sematary). Written in the most prolific period of the author, it remains one of the best novels of modern horror. With its detailed characterization, thick sense of atmosphere and instances that elevate tension to unbearable levels, it has the right ingredients for a devastating horror movie. What more? It has the entire structure of a horror movie with all its subtleties built into it, and for a screenwriter it only takes to do minor changes to make it suitable for screen. But Kubrick along with his co-writer Diane Johnson opted to change the basic premises of the novel and has created a hollow, muddled screenplay with incredibly shallow characterization. As a result, even the best directorial efforts and production values were not able to provide an engrossing viewing experience.

The movie begins with a spectacular aerial ride towards Overlook hotel, showing how isolated it is from the rest of the world. It is the start of winter and the hotel is going to be closed for 5 months. Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) attends an interview for the job of its winter caretaker. The manager sketches some background history of the hotel, about his job and about a 'cabin fever' incident that happened a decade ago when a winter caretaker cut his wife and two daughters into pieces with an axe, stacked them up in a room and blew his brains with a shotgun. Jack in not bothered and accepts the job.

Jack arrives with his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) on the closing day. Jack is a writer with troubled history as schoolteacher and aims to complete his novel in the seclusion the hotel is going to provide. Wendy is a tame housewife who is not in the least angered even when her husband insults her in a shocking way. Danny is a psychic, a voice inside him gives glimpses of future events and people's minds. Later, the hotel's chef, Dick Halloran (Scatman Crothers) meets them. He senses Danny's ESP power and calls it "Shining". He himself has shining power and warns Danny not to go into room 237. A month passes by and then starts a series of strange events surrounding Jack and family.

A major aspect that can make us sit through the entire movie is the overpowering sense of dread developed throughout. It is difficult to get more atmospheric than this. Imagine being all alone in a vast hotel where the nearest human is hundreds of kilometers away and you can't reach them because of the snow covered roads. But the screenplay doesn't satisfyingly transform dread into horror. In effect, the movie works well as five or ten minute segments but not as a coherent whole; it is too slack to prolong our interest till end. Many scenes has the camera zooming in on a character, slowly punctuated by a gradual increase in the tempo of eerie music, giving an expectation of something frightful to happen, only to abruptly cut into the next scene. This goes on and on till it eventually becomes tiresome. Basically, nothing much happens in the whole movie. Kubrick has not cared to develop suspense and culminate it in horror as much as he did to make the movie technically superior.

The characters are half developed at best. The movie depicts Jack not as a normal man going mad but as a man already unstable just tipping over the edge. When it takes over 2 hours for this to happen it feels too overstretched to contain our interest. Jack Nicholson's constant twisting of lips and eyebrows doesn't help either; soon it starts bordering on irritation. Shelley Duvall does better as a frightened mother, especially when trembling with fear in the staircase and bathroom scenes. In the novel, Danny's 'shining' plays a central role in holding the plot together and advancing it. This aspect is not fully utilized in the movie - it could have made less difference if Danny was a normal boy. The same goes with Halloran too, he doesn't have much to do.

One thing that has more presence than the characters is the Overlook itself. The deserted hotel simultaneously induces a sense of vastness and inescapable claustrophobia. The pristine interiors with all its rich colours, ornamental decorations, and carpeted floors and the enormously snow laden exterior makes it hard to believe that the entire hotel is a set built inside a studio. It is one of the most perfect sets ever created. The camera has a field's day along its halls, corridors and rooms showcasing the meticulousness that went into creating it. It is especially effective when it steadily follows Danny's tricycle throughout its course inside the hotel, in the long take. Cinematography is consistently ace, be it the opening aerial shots or the chase through the maze.

Another lifesaver is the music by John Alcott. The chilling and at times eerie music plays a major role in developing the pervasive sense of dread. As the film proceeds, it grows discordant perfectly matching the growing madness.

There are many stories of men doing gruesome acts when possessed by evil. But are they really possessed or just gone mad? What is the difference? While the novel chillingly brings out the nuances of a mind gradually getting possessed by evil, the movie tries to deviate by taking the 'mad' route at first but changes course towards the end. With its technical elegance, the movie could have been a great addition to the horror genre, had the screenwriters opted to be more faithful to the novel. At least it would have worked as a good psychological thriller had it maintained the same course till the end and ran 45 minutes lesser.

Why do they make dull aka (?) 'art' films?

Following is a brief discussion in Apr 2010 with Hari, a film enthusiast friend who’s on his way towards realising his film-maker dream. It started with a discussion on stories and changed track to the question "what is art?" When Hari mentioned about his forgotten friend, I asked,

Me: Is he the one who wrote a write-up in the name of story?

Hari: hahaha yes, the same

Me: Why is that such persons always wanted to write about dull subjects? Do they think writing so makes them look like a genius?

Hari: Maybe, he dint think it to be dull... isn’t it subjective.

Me: What sort of a person cannot think that was dull?

Hari: In the short film festival that I saw, there was an animated feature called 'Thomas Comma'. It is the story of a comma who wants to find the perfect sentence to be a part of. He does not want to be just another comma who is part of just another sentence. He goes in search of great writers, but finds they are just typing rubbish for money. No great literature or art is to be found anywhere. He strives and strives with no success. He gets depressed. He rues about his life. He wonders why he alone feels that he has to do something different and great and why he simply does not surrender to mediocrity like millions of other commas. The rest of the story says if he did or did not attain what he wanted to achieve.

Now this was one story which I liked. There were no subtitles and inspite of that, I managed to listen to the dialogues in rapt attention. I didn't find one moment of it dull. But 80% of the audience thought so. They never understood what was going on. What they saw was a silly comma shaped thing going around the screen. They shouted, hooted and created a ruckus to stop the film.

Now, oh great king Vikram, tell me if the movie was really dull or not. Was I wrong in paying attention to a dull story or where the others wrong in not understanding it? Answer me or you head will blow into a million little pieces.

Me: hahaha I don't know the answer. I'm thinking what could be the answer. But I know for sure this is the longest reply you've ever typed. Anyway my head is going to explode :(

Hari: Now was the director here purposely creating a 'dull' feature so that he would be thought a 'genius'? Or was he just creating something that was close to his heart and may be because of that only people who could relate to it could understand? If so wouldn't it make art 'subjective'? similarly, may be that friend wrote about something he had seen happening to his friends...the matter might have been close to his heart...maybe he didn't want to create a mass masala humor post.

Possible?

Me: The subjective part, I already know. At first read, what you've written above appeared enlightening. But on the second read this question came up: Just because art is subjective does it justify anything can be created and called as art?

Hari: Definitely not. The ones that create an impact in you by capturing the truth and changes the way you think might qualify as art. Most of the high brow films and literature do that. Shawshank redemption is art. It is not a movie for time pass. Different people find different takeaways from it. Some find inspiration to hang on to drudgery in the hope of release one day. Now that is art. Vijaykanth giving shock to a transformer in not art. Sure.

Me: hahaha. Excellent example. But seriously, I'll definitely say that transformer shock too is an art. Why do you think it is not art? It is an art that makes people laugh; it's the art of making people laugh. Does art only has to make people think or cry?

Hari: Agree comedy is an art. But in the case of our Narasimha it was not intended to make you laugh in the first place. It was just accidental art.

Me: Why is it not like something like you've told: "Different people find different takeaways from it." Some take it as serious action and some as comedy. Why not?

Hari: People who take it as serious action need to be checked for mental stability :)

Me: hahaha But it's not a convincing answer.