Saturday, December 15, 2007

Bollywood Curry- Five Bollywood movies you must watch before dying.

Osiris83
His Master's Voice


I'm a sucker for comic flicks. Seriously, who isn't? Yeah, there are a few weirdoes, and I have the delight of knowing few of them. Suckers who need a reason to laugh. Anyway, that’s probably not the topic I'm going to write about. So here we go. Stay with me fellas, this is going to be insane, totally. Let’s see, since we started talking about the comedy genre lets continue with that. In 2000 Priyadarshan released a movie titled 'Hera Pheri'. A remake of the Tamil film 'Arangetra Velai' which was it a remake of the Mallu film 'Ramji Rao Speaking'. 'Hera Pheri' was a nice movie, no doubt, but the genre has slowly gone down the drain after that. There is shit-loads of new stuff released every year.

First time you watch them 10 giggles + 2 laughs.

Next time, 5 giggles + 1 laugh.

The third time… Well!

There is no reason to watch the damn movie a second time itself. The jokes are repeated. The plot is made to resemble some sort a comedy of errors. Which is copied and used in thousand countless sequels and prequels. So here I am, with 5 movies that will change the way you think about comedy as a genre. No, the list does not contain the usual suspects like Andaz Apna Apna, Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron or Stranger Than Paradise (an absurdist humor masterpiece).


FAMOUS FIVE

Boxer

A poor man's Rocky Balboa. Mithun stars as Shankar Dharma, the boxer. A beautiful movie consisting of some really funny scenes juxtaposed together. For instance, the training scene towards the final fight, where our hero (picture this) jogs/runs in the middle of the road and performs some push-ups later on.

I cannot imagine how the director must have narrated this scene. “See Mithun, you run on the highway and the first speed breaker you see, you start doing push-ups there”. A truly death defying stunt. Just brings a 'woah' from your mouth. Just notice the originality, it’s like slapping originality in the face and saying “bitch, I get more original than this”

Tehelka


Starring our very own, Dharam papaji as the 'lion of Himalayas'. He knows each and every corner of Himalayas. Together with his team of commandos, on a mission to terminate Dong (wtf?). Now, Dong is the name of the prime antagonist, played by Amrish Puri.

Now I understand that Bollywood comes up with some of the most genuine names for villains. We have had Mogambo (Mr. India), Dr. Dang (Karma) but Dong? Isn't that a euphemism for a man's hose? And he also has very nifty catch phrases like “Dong kabhi wrong nahi hota (Dong can never be wrong)”. Should have been “Dong kabhi long nahi hota (Dong can never be long)”.

Trivia:- Our very own Shaktiman India's first superhero on television attained great powers and responsibilty from this movie.


Aap Kaa Surroor: The Moviee - The Real Luv Story

Argublyy the funniest moviee of 2007. Rent the damn thing. Just forward the songs, Himesh's voice gives a cancer- this is a laugh riot all the way.

Caps, Guns, Melodrama, Nasal and above all HIMESH... this is one of the most funniesst movie to ever come out of Bollywood.

Himesh Rocks all the way to the grand finale.


Jaani Dushmaan: Ek Anokhi Kahani



Friends, Roman, Countrymen this is one of the most wackiest, funniest and oddball movie to ever come out of Bollywood. Sunnypaji is at his best doing what he does mindless screaming, frantic chasing and bashing.

And Sonu Nigam can single handedly beat Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lyod, Gruocho Max and Laurel and Hardy in this movie.


Go, rent this movie at your nearest Video Rental Shop. Words of Caution:- "Watch with a free mind "; and at the end I'm sure you will have severe cramps in your stomach.

Highlights- Akshay Kumar and Suniel Sheety as College boys.


GUNDA

Before I say a single word about this movie let me stand up and type.
Watching (or even writing about) Gunda is like listening to the national anthem. You have to stand in respect.

If boxer slapped originality in the face Gunda clearly humps it. I regard this movie as a sculpture which can only be crafted by someone having 10 hands where each hand are more precise than Michelangelo's both hands combined.

*sits down*

Just wonder, how amazing it would be if one dubs Hindi cricket commentary over porn. If someone manages to do that, that movie will see itself in this list someday.




- Osiris83 was last seen leaving Yellow Brick Lane.

12 comments:

Alfredo Giovanni said...

Nitesh,
I read your blog and really liked reading the one about your Bohemian intentions.

There are some things which, however, do not make much sense. I wish you could clarify them.

"difficult to take a plunge for innovation, and go gung-ho about entrepreneurship or creationism"
How does the theory of creationism fit in with the context of the whole post?

And
In one post you talk highly of the importance of subjectivity and its immense significance, and on the other you criticise people whose opinions have the sheer disregard of differing from yours. This results in various questions, which I hope you do answer-:
1) By talking of subjectivity and opinions, and then emphasising on the superiority and inferiority of them respectively, don't you contradict yourself? Why is your subjectivity superior to theirs? Why are you so assumptious to think that you are more highly opinionated, when even you are a fan of Godard, a person considered world...
over as one of the superior filmmakers(though I personally loathe A bout de and Weekend). So, is your subjectivity a mere disguise? Are you floating in a layer too? Or is your criticism of their herd a mere contextual reference to the world you see AROUND you, and you do not see a larger context at all?
2) You hold Jaws responsible for the death of cinema(in cinematic terms Godard killed cinema!!!), the question is: why is art and commerce so mutually exclusive? If yes, does this apply only to film? If no, then why?
3) Does Sajid Khan block say a Sudhir Mishra, VVC, or say, YOU? He does not. Infact, don't you think commercial cinema is a natural precursor for art-house, and vice-versa, that its a vicious circle to say the least? Godard based an entire career on negating an existing template. What if the template had not existed? So is the template-creation greater, or is negating-template greater? And in those terms, is a Eisenstien, Griffith better, or a Godard or a Fellini better?
More questions later.....

nitesh said...

Q) By talking of subjectivity and opinions, and then emphasizing on the superiority and inferiority of them respectively, don't you contradict yourself? Why is your subjectivity superior to theirs? Why are you so assumptions to think that you are more highly opinionated, when even you are a fan of Godard, a person considered world...
over as one of the superior filmmakers (though I personally loathe A bout de and Weekend). So, is your subjectivity a mere disguise? Are you floating in a layer too? Or is your criticism of their herd a mere contextual reference to the world you see AROUND you, and you do not see a larger context at all?

Ans) I like a quote which has stuck with me ever since I was fascinated by Cinema “"It's not enough to like this movie. You have to like it for the right reasons,” And this are the reason which separates let’s say a critic/ theorist Adrian Martin from our very lot of critic, Khalid Mohammed. The value of opinion is based on the fundamental of reasoning, this why we have debates. Why is that in a debate, one speaker always wins and outwits the other, the simple answer is reason and facts. If someone says, he has his reason and opinions better than mine, then hell yeah, go ahead prove it. The question of me thinking highly of my opinion is not my notion. Yes, if someone thinks that way and has contradiction, well bring in the evidence. Don’t just talk about it.


The question of you loathing Godard movies are your own, and its completely subjective, which here upon currently lies with u. But, when does your opinion which at this point lies subjective become point of criticism, when you come out and make it universal. If you say me “I loathe his movies on the Cinematic art form” and Cinema, I would ask you to tell me in details why you hate this movies in the realms of the art form. Which world are you talking about, when we all see the world, we see it with our own eyes, hence the cliché “beauty lies in the eye of the beholder”. The act of putting a cloak over my views and being oblivious to the world around me is certainly what I would not like to do. We all our made up of layers, you cut a tree it has layers, you look at anything it has layers, and so do human beings. Layers are part of us. But layers of disguise are not what a person talking about an art would do. If a critic likes a painting by S. H. Raza, he/ she are open to the fact that a young man too can break in and be as good as him. Moreover, to represent crap is certainly not my piece of cake or as a matter of fact any person who is concerned for the medium itself. As far as contextual reference is concerned, it’s all about sipping in the influence and representing it, and the act or representation does mean putting a blind fold over my eye. Cinema is not a gun, and a gun is not Cinema, else they would not blindfold a man before shooting.


2) You hold Jaws responsible for the death of cinema(in cinematic terms Godard killed cinema!!!), the question is: why is art and commerce so mutually exclusive? If yes, does this apply only to film? If no, then why?

Ans)

Democracy
“There’s no escape.
The big pricks are out.
They’ll fuck everything in sight.
Watch Your Back

- Harold Pinter

The release of the movie marked the end of CINEMA, and Cinema died then and there, and Blockbuster movies took over, and with the growth of Star Wars, movies are being replaced by digital dummies which is nothing but money making for Hollywood. If you haven’t read film history I suggest you to go through the excellent article by a person called Godfrey Cheshire. And mind you, I alone don’t hold Jaws for its death and the coming of Blockbuster Big Budget Cinema, but the entire film community. It's the same for the cello: if you play the cello, you cannot expect to be Britney Spears.

As for Godard killing Cinema, well your definitely one of the first person whom I have heard saying that - And I completely disagree, as matter fact Godard did predict the death of Cinema in the movie u loathe- Weekend. No other filmmaker in the history of the medium, mind you we are one of the youngest form of art has been able to mould/break/ and adapt to the changing patterns of the medium, and always be way ahead of the world.

In reminds me an incident; “When the violinist Radicati asked Beethoven about the "meaning" of the late quartets, Beethoven replied, "Oh, those are not for you, but for a later age." And it certainly hold’s true for Jean Luc Godard. What Shakespeare is to literature and Beethoven to Music, Jean Luc Godard is to Cinema.

Just few facts about Godard:-

- If Godard didn’t make breathless- you would not see the MTV style cutting and Advertisement the way it stands.
- And whatever you see in movie today or advertisement or video works, experimental or avant grade is indebted to this man.

- I would love to hear your views on how Godard killed Cinematic tradition or how about a post on this blog, on the very same topic, it would make a great read all over.

"Art," is an anti-destiny”

On “poverty” in art: “Letter of Mozart's, about some of his own concertos (K. 413, K. 414, K. 415): ‘They had the happy mean between the too difficult and the too easy. They are brilliant..., but they miss poverty.'” On art and the masses: “X demonstrates a great stupidity when he says that to touch the masses there is no need of art.”

Movies- Film as mass entertainment which stands today as a brain child of “Hollywood” Cinema can never become a pure art, unlike painting or music, till the day it’s confined to the chains of money. We are yet to discover what is Cinema? As it still stands a mystery, what you see half of the time is “Theatrical Storytelling”. So how does this answer the question of art and commerce, actually it doesn’t because Cinema as an art form is evolving mutually on a fringe tight rope in the valley of death.

During the evident of Cinema, it was considered a new form of art and championed by patrons ranging from Sartre, Bacon, Astruc, Duras, Barthes and others but we lost the first fight with the evident of talkies, and when it caught the fancy of money makers and straightaway it became a commodity. Cinema today is searching for its middle path; the growth from an infant to adult has been achieved, thanks to Hollywood. But today people are hunting and searching the middle age. And the mechanism of separating the art/commerce medium has been invented and made by the Godfather at Hollywood; perhaps Howard Hughes or Irving Thalberg would have better answered the question, as I’m definitely not the right person for it. Though as I know Cinema was never meant to be what it stands today; but you see money corrupts, and today we all stand as whore.

3) Does Sajid Khan block say a Sudhir Mishra, VVC, or say, YOU? He does not. Infact, don't you think commercial cinema is a natural precursor for art-house, and vice-versa, that its a vicious circle to say the least? Godard based an entire career on negating an existing template. What if the template had not existed? So is the template-creation greater, or is negating-template greater? And in those terms, is a Eisenstien, Griffith better, or a Godard or a Fellini better?
More questions later.

Ans)Ying/ Yang as we say in Chinese, true I can loathe a person like Sajid Khan because he makes commercial, atrocious and sinful films, a shame to the medium itself. And both this poles would exist. But mind you even in art-house we have bad films. I hold nothing against entertainment, but a vendetta against bad films; art house or commercial. So a person like Sajid Khan would stand in the same pedestal as a person who tries making an overly, pretentious good for nothing art house movie.

In life we move in a perpetual cycle were all of us are inter-linked. But the link of commercial and art cinema right has long been broken and long dead now. Hollywood which epitomizes commercial cinema stands on false merits and disillusionment which it has created in the minds of the audience over the years. Art Cinema today all over the world stands on its own merits. Today Art Cinema and Commercial Movies, stand as two sons of the same biological father. Art Cinema is not surviving loathing commercial cinema, as the divide is huge to even fulfill. Today filmmaker, critic and cinephile who champion and art house filmmaker against a total commercial filmmaker or Hollywood because they have sold the medium to the devil. It has been corrupted by the clutches of money- “Which means the underlying factor separating these two brothers is “Creation and Repetition” Money corrupts as you sell your soul, mind and heart, the creator is lost to money, this is what happens in commercial movies. People who own toilet manufacturing company hold the final cut, and the director left out. Meaningful Cinema is surviving on its own merits to offer the audience something which they have never seen, a different take on the medium. If entertainment today is filled with the repetition of similar images, patterns, story and our audience is continue to feed with crap which I’m against:- “And this is the biggest demerit of commercial cinema.” Whose main purpose is to earn money? The medium; - Film packaged as mass entertainment feeding us for years with the same does of unhealthy junk, is what I hate. It’s not a matter of choice or option in this regard, as the healthy option of good cinema has totally been killed here.

The vicious cycle is more of a mirage which people talk about. The cycle has long been dead and gone, buried beneath the ocean when Jaws sprung. And Hans Lucas merchandise lay in the hands of children.


Pablo Picasso once said “In order to bring out a stylistic revolution one must know their tradition”. Jean Luc Godard is a son of such revolution, who knows who his uncle/ aunt/ grand-father were, in other words his tradition. When Jean Luc Godard started making movies, Cinema as a new form of art with 50 years of cinematic tradition to look and understand and exploit. Jean Luc Godard is one such luminary. Pual Cezzane sat for hours coping and redoing still life of masters until he found his own voice. Vincent Van Gogh learned the nuances of impressionism and went about creating his own colors, space and vision. Godard set Cinema free, Cinema which is based on the Classical forms and methods of literature and drama, and Jean Luc Godard broke them one by one. If Godard broke and re –wrote the rules of genre cinema popularized by Hollywood he created a new cinema and new language of his own. Beside he didn’t stop their he went on to become a radical political filmmaker in the 70s and returned to Cinema in the early 80s and each phase of Godard career is marked by change in patters, images and way of conveying the medium- His search is still on. It’s very important to know where one comes from. Perhaps this has lost its meaning today, as Truffaut had remarked that their will come a time, when Cinema would be judged by people who never heard of FW MURANU, and sure it has come.


What is the template didn’t exist? Well then it would be explored. Who said the meaning of the medium has been found. DW Griffith invented film Grammar, Einstein Montage, Godard broke classical construction which is largely based on theatre and literature and invented a language of his own. And Fellin invented a dream of his own, yet he was indebted to roots in Neo-Realism and his works with Rossellini, though more for his love of dreams, image and clowns. Salvodar Dali and Bunel experimented with Surrealism in Cinema and over the year space and time is continually being explored- Cinema has not reached its limit there is lot to explore. Commercial movies and Hollywood has reached their limits. Cinema is still a mystery, a search and exploration is happening on all frontiers. If Robert bresson made his actors act appear so expressionless and placed them as models, he mainly invented and broke the due which Cinema is been given to theatre. Lumiere brothers invented their own grammar they looked to other art from for answer so did Griffith, Einstein, Melies. If the template never existed it would be created and even today filmmaker is creating film grammar to see Cinema in a new light. If Andrei Sukrov shot a ninety minutes movie in one single take complete preserving and experimenting with the modules of time, it shows that the medium is still alive and things are heading in a new direction. When in Cannes 2007 Carlos Reygades Silent Light were screened people who saw the Sunrise were dazzled as they had never seen such image before. It was captured and presented in a totally new way. Exploration and search are two key elements in any invention or work which leads to a new discovery, and hence it would keep happening here.


To ask which side is better and great is like questioning whether my father, my grand-father or me is head of the family linage. It reminds me of a poem by Rabindranath Tagore called The Hero, where the small boy is guarding his mother, and protects her from a group of bandit. And the last line resonates to my resonance about the thought itself “Was it not lucky that the boy was with his mother”



In the end more or less I have tried answering question to the foundation and basis of my growing up as a cinephile.

alfredo giovanni said...

Nitesh,
Its a highly informative piece that you wrote. And without sounding presumptious, and offensive, I can quite easily say that you are one cinephile who absolutely loves TELLING people he is a cinephile. Look at all the trivia you littered in one reply. I wish I had even half the knowledge you have about film. However, most of my questions are still unanswered, despite your earnest attempt.

By question 1), I never meant to criticise or comment on the validity of your opinions. Very very simply put: If you believe you are entitled to your opinion, which affords you the right to love Godard(which by the way, most film lovers love, so are you also following a herd then, have you also been blindfolded), then why are others not entitled to an opinion which affords them to love Saif Ali Khan and Sajid Khan. If someone is interested in how Saif shoves up Kareena's ass, how do you prove that your interest in Franju, Brasque, Kafka, Rohmer, Chabrol, Resnais, Porter, Lumierre, Ford, Sica, Breton, Bazin et al is superior? I hope I am clearer with the question this time.

Second part : When you make a judgement on people's disinterest in films, is the context the Amity that contains you, or is it that people world over are so illiterate or ignorant of cinema. That was what I meant by context.

2)" If you haven’t read film history I suggest you to go through the excellent article by a person called Godfrey Cheshire. And mind you, I alone don’t hold Jaws for its death and the coming of Blockbuster Big Budget Cinema, but the entire film community."

On one hand you talk of subjectivity and individuality being the supreme form, and then you support your argument by proclaiming that since the entire film community dislikes it, therefore you have a right to dislike it. Isn't this floating in a layer, following the tread path?

" Star wars started a tradition of digital dummies"
This point angers me. It really does.
a) Why is digitality a bad thing? Your Christopher Doyles, and the post-modern meanderings of Wai are supported so much by the technology they have? Who says digitality equals bad cinema, less effort, or bad intention? Its a mere tool in the hands of the maker, like deep focus, steadicam or a simple cyclorama. How he uses it still depends on his talent?
b) Which recent films are your favourite? I would really love to know. Except the obvious 2046 and In Mood for love.

"Jaws announced the coming of big blockbuster cinema".
a) It didn't. It started the Summer Blockbuster tradition. Big Blockbuster cinema started with Douglas Fairbanks Jr. for God's sake.

"If there was no Godard, you would not see the MTV style cutting."
a) One question: Have you ever heard of a man by the name of John Cassevetes? He was attempting what Godard was, before Godard attempted it. How would you know though, its not written in those books.

"I would love to hear your views on how Godard killed Cinematic tradition "
I have already told you the context I spoke this line in. Anyways, Godard is someone I am still exploring. How about a write-up from you on Scorsese, or Kurosawa, or Leone. An original, quote-free write-up? Those are the directors I love.

And imagine, amidst all this unneeded and redundant clarification, my question is virtually buried. It was, why do you think that commerce and art are so mutually exclusive? If yes,then why and does it apply only to the medium of film? If no, why?

3)
a)I am satisfied with the first part of the answer. Its fine, albeit a bit too conventional. Its like saying, there are no arthouse or commercial films as such. There are only good and bad films. I am waiting for one of your blogs, however, to criticise a work by Godard( how about King Lear), or Wai. What subjudice.

b)"Hollywood which epitomizes commercial cinema stands on false merits and disillusionment which it has created in the minds of the audience over the years."
And yet, even today, Hollywood has some of the greatest living directors in the world. Lynch, Scorsese, Eastwood, P.T.Anderson, Wes Anderson, Linklater, G.V.Sant, Spielberg(whose genius is undeniable), Soderbergh, Tarantino, Rodriguez. The best part is, all of them are commercial as well.

And tell me, if Hussain sells his paintings for 90 crores, is his artistic skill belittled?

"If Godard broke and re –wrote the rules of genre cinema popularized by Hollywood he created a new cinema and new language of his own. Beside he didn’t stop their he went on to become a radical political filmmaker in the 70s and returned to Cinema in the early 80s "
I know all of this as well. His contribution with the Dziga Vertov, Gorin, Brecht, Maoism, Marx. They are all subjects of folklore. But they do not serve any purpose here.

And then, again the second part of my question is not answered. Simply put: Is the rebel greater, or is the person who wrote the constitution greater?


Do answer the questions which I put here Sir. I would much rather not invest so much time, if I am bombarded with needless trivia next time.

nitesh said...

Nitesh,
Its a highly informative piece that you wrote. And without sounding presumptious, and offensive, I can quite easily say that you are one cinephile who absolutely loves TELLING people he is a cinephile. Look at all the trivia you littered in one reply. I wish I had even half the knowledge you have about film. However, most of my questions are still unanswered, despite your earnest attempt.

By question 1), I never meant to criticize or comment on the validity of your opinions. Very very simply put: If you believe you are entitled to your opinion, which affords you the right to love Godard(which by the way, most film lovers love, so are you also following a herd then, have you also been blindfolded), then why are others not entitled to an opinion which affords them to love Saif Ali Khan and Sajid Khan. If someone is interested in how Saif shoves up Kareena's ass, how do you prove that your interest in Franju, Brasque, Kafka, Rohmer, Chabrol, Resnais, Porter, Lumierre, Ford, Sica, Breton, Bazin et al is superior? I hope I am clearer with the question this time.


1) Well brother it hold true for all Cinephile, and people like Martin Scorsese, Jean Luc Godard, Pierre Riessant and others lead the gang. It seems like my quotes and reference to other form of art seems trivial to you, Lets not forget that cinema is indebted to other forms art, and by quoting and referring to other forms I’m mainly forming and filling the nomenclature of DNA. Perhaps it is trivial to you but inter-textual quoting and reference is something I love, and something which other cinephiles love to, perhaps you don’t. If you know something the only way of telling others is talking about it.
I’m not following a set a pattern to love Godard or the set of filmmakers I like. Beside I don’t think you totally understood my answer- I suggest you read it, as what you have asked I have answered it very clearly there.
Second part : When you make a judgment on people's disinterest in films, is the context the Amity that contains you, or is it that people world over are so illiterate or ignorant of cinema. That was what I meant by context. On one hand you talk of subjectivity and individuality being the supreme form, and then you support your argument by proclaiming that since the entire film community dislikes it, therefore you have a right to dislike it. Isn't this floating in a layer, following the tread path?

Perhaps you question serves the purpose of answer itself. We belong to School called Film. And mind you even though we individuals churning out our own works; we are indebted to the school of thought. The fact that I hold the movie responsible is truly my point and it’s a universal truth. And the reference to entire film community is mainly a proof to show the truth. And it’s nothing to do with individuality. If Nikolas Tesla invented alternating current he needed to show proof; it has nothing to do with his individuality, the world operates that way.

a) Why is digitality a bad thing? Your Christopher Doyles, and the post-modern meanderings of Wai are supported so much by the technology they have? Who says digitality equals bad cinema, less effort, or bad intention? Its a mere tool in the hands of the maker, like deep focus, steadicam or a simple cyclorama. How he uses it still depends on his talent?b) Which recent films are your favourite? I would really love to know. Except the obvious 2046 and In Mood for love.

CGI+ VFX in one word are replacing humans. Which is a bad thing? I would not want to watch movies where the actors have been replaced by a computer generated artificially induced creatures.
2) Doyle/ Wong kar Wai are using the technical tool- Camera, and The Lab Prcocess to enhance their work, they are not replacing humans with digital avatar. The only WKW movie to realize on CGI/ VFX was 2046, that too for brief sequences non-humans; trains, building. But if you say the use of new lenses, lab process is similar to VFX/ CGI you mistaken.
If you like and appreciate Beowulf and such movies good for you, and if it angers you. Again I say. Go ahead do a post on this Blog, why u loves Digital movies. We all would love to read your opnions. But simply proclaiming things doesn’t work.
- If you have some vendetta against Wong Kar Wai and Godard prove them brother lay down your facts and opnions.
I saw plenty of movies in 2007, but here are some of my favourie.
Here are my some fav movies of 2007
1) YI YI- Edward Yang
2) Ugetsu- Kengzi Mizoghuchi
3) The Searchers- John Ford
4)Regular Lovers- Phillippe Garrel
5) Do Anaakeh Barrah Haath- V Shantaram.
6)Mocuheette- Robert Bresson
7)Three Times – Hou Hsisen Hou
8 )Café Lumiere- Hou Hsien Hou
9 )What time is it there- Tsai Ming Liang
7) The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford- Rombert Domminck
8) Ivan’s Childhood- Andrei Tarkvosky
9) Grave of the fireflies- Isao Tahakata
11) The Conformoist- Bernado Bertulucci
+ Almost all of Kurosawsan works
+ All works of Jean Piere Meliville
+ All works of Wes Andreson
+ Mizoguchi/ Ichikawa/ Kim Kim Duk/ Park Chan wook all works.
+ All works of Kim Ji Woon works
+ Plenty of documentaries/ short films/ interviews.
- Man too much to say lot of them are my fav.
a) It didn't. It started the Summer Blockbuster tradition. Big Blockbuster cinema started with Douglas Fairbanks Jr. for God's sake.

ans)Movies made over 100 millon dollars+ budget is defined as Blockbuster Cinema, Fairbanks didn’t make Blockbuster, it started with Jaws and quite definitely it invented the Blockbuster Cinema. And the movies were released during the summer break of may/june hence summer blockbuster
Quoting the Premier Magazine.
“In the wake of Jaws, a new word — "blockbuster" wasn't used to describe a movie until Spielberg came along — had to be invented to describe for what Spielberg had done. No film had ever seen the success of his shark movie, and audiences lined up literally around the block to see the film again and again. That was only the beginning for the Long Beach University dropout who snuck onto the Universal Studios lot before he eventually reinvigorated the studio with a string of hits including E.T. and Jurassic Park that were not only big at the box office, but also good films.”
So, check your facts, dude. And don’t be too big for your boots.

a) One question: Have you ever heard of a man by the name of John Cassevetes? He was attempting what Godard was, before Godard attempted it. How would you know though, its not written in those books.

- Have u ever seen a movie by John Cassavates? If yes, why not have a discussion on him.
Shadows- Was released year before Breathless, it did mark a huge departure in the ways movies are told and shot. Improvisational acting, non- professional actor’s low budget etc, but Cassavates did mark a breakthrough in the norms of film form in States and certainly its one definite piece of work, but it dint change film grammar. John Cassavates was an actor director, Godard Critic turned Director.
Here are few works of the man I have the privilege of owning.
- Love Streams
- Gloria
- A woman under influence
- Opening Night
- Shadows
Perhaps, I will soon write on the man.

"I would love to hear your views on how Godard killed Cinematic tradition "
I have already told you the context I spoke this line in. Anyways, Godard is someone I am still exploring. How about a write-up from you on Scorsese, or Kurosawa, or Leone. An original, quote-free write-up? Those are the directors I love.

ans) Then don’t bullshit around Godard Killed Cinematic Tradition and stuff when you grow up speak, else shut up. This is what I learned from the Americans to speak of things only they know.
- Yeah soon I will write pieces on Kurosawa san, I have almost seen all his works this year, and read his autobiography and watched several documentaries, and I think I would come with a piece soon, so watch out.
- As far as Sergio Leone goes, though I love spaghetti Western I’m not much fan of his works or seen his movies to be entitled to an opinion. And Martin Scorsese well I’m still exploring this man maybe in the near future I would write something on him.
- And if those directors you like, Good for you talk about them, but don’t go out talking things you don’t know.

3) If yes,then why and does it apply only to the medium of film? If no, why?

. As I said you better ask Howard Hughes or Irving Thalberg. I’m too naïve to the opnion. As I grow perhaps I may discover.

4)I am waiting for one of your blogs, however, to criticise a work by Godard( how about King Lear), or Wai. What subjudice.

Have you seen King Lear? That you talk about criticizing it. A person can criticize and talk if one has seen things. I’m yet to watch the movie. When I see a movie I don’t like I would do whether it’s Godard or Wong Kar Wai.

5) Is the rebel greater, or is the person who wrote the constitution greater?

Well read the last answer again, things are clearly answered.
Do answer the questions which I put here Sir. I would much rather not invest so much time, if I am bombarded with needless trivia next time.
- If you think your time is too precious go talk somewhere else. And if you don’t like trivia find some other profession.

nitesh said...

Forget to mention, this year I did have the chance to watch most if not all of Stanley Kubrick works, and documentaries on this Great visionary.One of my fav filmmakers.

supriya said...

Is the rebel greater, or is the person who wrote the constitution greater?

i would like to add one single line

what if the rebel itself becomes a constitution ........ then who is greater?

supriya said...

well just read.... the comments
and saw GODARD KILLED CINEMA....
i am very inquistive to read your answer...

alfredo giovanni said...

Nitesh,
This could have been a meaningful debate. Unfortunately though, you chose to reduce it to personal attacks. Is it a personal predujice you harbour? Do you have a problem if someone other than you throws around facts, figures, and other trivia around? Do you find it tough to comprehend the tone of writing and distinguishing between a request and an attack? Clearly, your writing is a result of sad pre-conceived notions against me, and I hardly have the inclination to go about personal ranting on a medium as wasteful as the internet.


""By question 1), I never meant to criticize or comment on the validity of your opinions. Very very simply put: If you believe you are entitled to your opinion, which affords you the right to love Godard(which by the way, most film lovers love, so are you also following a herd then, have you also been blindfolded), then why are others not entitled to an opinion which affords them to love Saif Ali Khan and Sajid Khan. If someone is interested in how Saif shoves up Kareena's ass, how do you prove that your interest in Franju, Brasque, Kafka, Rohmer, Chabrol, Resnais, Porter, Lumierre, Ford, Sica, Breton, Bazin et al is superior? I hope I am clearer with the question this time.


1) Well brother it hold true for all Cinephile, and people like Martin Scorsese, Jean Luc Godard, Pierre Riessant and others lead the gang. It seems like my quotes and reference to other form of art seems trivial to you, Lets not forget that cinema is indebted to other forms art, and by quoting and referring to other forms I’m mainly forming and filling the nomenclature of DNA. Perhaps it is trivial to you but inter-textual quoting and reference is something I love, and something which other cinephiles love to, perhaps you don’t. If you know something the only way of telling others is talking about it.
""

First, you DID NOT answer my question in the first reply. Second, why would you be so presumptious and arrogant enough to believe that cinema as a form would warrant discussion from others, like it warrants discussion from you. Why should they be so interested so as to hold lengthy point-proving sessions? For a general public, a film is either good or bad, and deciding why it is good or bad is entirely another isolated analytical layer, which not everyone is fascinated with either being absorbed in, or being forcefully pushed into. And in such a GIVEN situation, why do you think your opinion on a Sajid Khan film is superior to an average man's opinion on the same? Now do you understand the question. Please say you do.

Now, all the cross-contextual references( I give a damn to your cinephile community, I have a lot of friends who do better than quoting Picasso and Dali, and whose talent in films could put many to shame). And even though, those cross-contexual references are something I have NO problem with. But atleast they should serve a purpose. The quotes did not help answer any of my questions.

b) Thanks for answering. I got the answer. See? Thats the purpose of the interaction. Not showing off our encyclopaedic film knowledge.


2) " CGI+VFX replacing humans".
Now you start narrowing it down. And look at your earlier post. You merely proclaimed that digital technology is bad. How could I have known that you were referring to the blasphemous replacement of humans in the film? You should have been more specific. Had you been careful to be specific earlier, we could have avoided the whole discussion on Wai and Doyle.


And by the way, since you love quotations-:

Godfrey Cheshire once said,
" The whole digital transformation might mean we are losing out on some elements. But it is not a depressing change, it is infact fascinating. Change, is a part of the natural working of environment."

PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST WAI/ GODARD
I have already admitted to having not watched many of their works. So a question of personal vendetta is a mere assumption on your part, and assumptions should remains that - mere. On the other hand, you do seem to have a personal vendetta against me. Remember, there is a difference between an argument and a discussion. I prefer niether.


"Here are my some fav movies of 2007
1) YI YI- Edward Yang
2) Ugetsu- Kengzi Mizoghuchi
3) The Searchers- John Ford
4)Regular Lovers- Phillippe Garrel
5) Do Anaakeh Barrah Haath- V Shantaram.
6)Mocuheette- Robert Bresson
7)Three Times – Hou Hsisen Hou
8 )Café Lumiere- Hou Hsien Hou
9 )What time is it there- Tsai Ming Liang
7) The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford- Rombert Domminck
8) Ivan’s Childhood- Andrei Tarkvosky
9) Grave of the fireflies- Isao Tahakata
11) The Conformoist- Bernado Bertulucci
+ Almost all of Kurosawsan works
+ All works of Jean Piere Meliville
+ All works of Wes Andreson
+ Mizoguchi/ Ichikawa/ Kim Kim Duk/ Park Chan wook all works.
+ All works of Kim Ji Woon works
+ Plenty of documentaries/ short films/ interviews."

ALL of them are your RECENT films?


As for the term blockbuster - It refers to any film that grosses over 100 million dollars. While Jaws was the first film to achieve it, it was merely a relative expansion of the term and not its creation.

Some text.

Tom Laughlin's cult classic film Billy Jack is credited with being the first "blockbuster" due to the clever marketing strategy of opening the film in multiple theaters in the same market at the same time, thereby increasing the gross numbers for the film. Studios now open certain films on thousands of screens in an attempt to inflate box office revenues of a film to "blockbuster" status.

Since about 1975, the threshold for a blockbuster film in North America has often been placed at $100,000,000 in ticket sales, an amount first achieved by the film Jaws, although The Sound of Music (1965), the first film to make more money than Gone with the Wind, was a gigantic hit in its day. (It played more than a year in some first-run houses.)

In response to the huge success of Jaws, many Hollywood producers attempted to create "event films" with wide commercial appeal.

"Dont be too big for your boots"
Yawn.


3) ans) Then don’t bullshit around Godard Killed Cinematic Tradition and stuff when you grow up speak, else shut up.

This takes the cake. The context was of Weekend. And you start insulting me for a joke you can't comprehend. Sad world.


3)") If yes,then why and does it apply only to the medium of film? If no, why?

. As I said you better ask Howard Hughes or Irving Thalberg. I’m too naïve to the opnion. As I grow perhaps I may discover."

Then why the heck have you been wasting my time here?

5)"Do answer the questions which I put here Sir. I would much rather not invest so much time, if I am bombarded with needless trivia next time.
- If you think your time is too precious go talk somewhere else. And if you don’t like trivia find some other profession."

Sure. If trivia is what fascinates you about filmmaking, then we should seriously consider a profession change for someone out here. And if you want me to go, I will. Thanks. I leave you with your unread blogs, and 0 comments. Sad ending.


















And if the nature of future posts going to be so personal, I hardly have the time to invest.

Lex said...

My friend alfredo giovanni, you sound too confused and inconsistent with whatever it is that you're trying to say. elucidate reasonably, will ya :)

Anonymous said...

lex
"elucidate, will ya?"
No.

Shubhank said...

"Art attracts us only by what it reveals of our most secret self." -- Godard

I do not like quoting famous people, mainly because the message sometimes overshadows people's thinking but meh..

My two cents.
IMHO Art and Commerce can never be mutually exclusive. When you spend on something you hope to recover it back and not be the subject of tease or beleaguer.
If it is the other way round, you are definitely an idiot or are attached to a Siamese twin who has 3/4th of your brain and is a retard.

Regarding the use of CGI. Yes, Beowulf did give me a high. 3D is wonderful. I am an ardent fan of the Star Wars and will defend it. The story required CGI, so did 2001: A Space Odyssey. The difference is the allegorical nature of the latter. Science too is art and honestly fuck off if you think useage of CGI is killing the cinema. The only thing is, how cleverly it is used.

Regarding subjectivity and opinions, its a matter of perception and interpretation. Not everyone will appreciate Kiarostami's 'The Wind Will Carry Us'. If you did not like it, it is your perception. If you love it, have a reason to do so, If you hate it have a reason to do that as well. If you think the movie is not an entertainer, just say this is the reason why you hated the god damn movie. Support your views.

Fuck, I loved Transformers. Yeah, it was a commercial flick but goddamn Ive been a fan of the toy line and the cartoons since I was a kid, living in fantasies. The movie brings all those delusions in front of me. I loved it. Period.

Finally, just what the fuck is art? Dont go by the dictionary definition of the word. I consider video games as art too. Recently, I have been hooked on to Final Fantasy X. Love it, the metaphysical elements are mind blowing. The cutscenes are gorgeously shot, the cinematography is just plain slick. I love it, for me it is art.
Roger Ebert can chew on his balls if he wants to. I have had silly arguments with people on the subject of science being art.

Anyway, the whole point is, be clear about your perceptions and dont call the above discussion a fucking debate. It is an argument, going no way.

indianidollive said...

Dear Sir/Madam

Allow us to introduce ourselves.

We are www.sify.com, India’s premier online portal and the first choice for several of India’s popular reality shows. For a record fourth time in a row, we have been selected to be Indian Idol’s online partner.

Besides our regular offerings of daily coverage, videos, discussion boards and the likes, we will also be commissioning the Sify Indian fan club. This letter is to inquire if you would be interested in hosting your links on our site.Your link will be prominently displayed on our page

If you are interested, please contact us on Indianidol08@gmail.com

We look forward to hearing from you soon

Warm regards,
Indian Idol Team(sify)