Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Cinematic Brilliance or Failure ?
It is not everyday that a boy meets a girl at a deserted small railway station in the hills. It is not everyday that the boy musters enough courage to talk to the girl in their first ever meeting, and also bring a smile to her face. It is not everyday that the a girl requests a stranger ; who has offered to bring stars, moon, etc and win forts in her honour ; to bring a cup of tea for her. It is not everyday that a love story ends with this, and a remarkable cinema begins.
Mani Ratnam's bollywood disaster was the first Indian movie to burn the British box office charts. It is often that a commercial disaster goes on to earn a lot of critical acclaim (Jaane Bhi Do yaaron is one of the best examples to the rule) and Dil Se met with the same fate. It's stupendous cinematography, strong performances, titillating music and Chhaiyyan Chhaiyyan was the talk of the country, but not enough to bring the masses to the cinema.
Masses or no masses, I loved the movie so much that i have so far watched it more than a couple of dozen times, sometimes barely able to open my eyes from the early morning laziness or the latenight sleep. It has always energised me, inspired me to strive for excellence in my work.
I would like to mention a few arguments as to why the movie did not appeal to the majority of the Indians. First, it was not a movie with happy ending, that of course may not be a valid reason, as there have been a plenty of sad movies that went on to become popular with the audience. Second reason could be geographical and regional dis/non/un-placement of characters, meaning audience were not able to place the story in the correct city. The audience seem to have been unsure if the story is about Nepal, Assam, Leh-Ladhak or Delhi. The editing of the movie has been blamed by some of the popular critics, though i beg to differ and like to think that it was superbly edited.
The reason that i can think of is that, the movie neither had moments where the audience could stand on their feet and clap, nor were there any moments where one needed a hankerchief to wipe ones tears. It was a subtle movie, i guess in 1998 it was about time we watched one.
It had lots of subtle moments like when Amar and Meghna talk about the three things they like and three they dislike, under the moonlit-cold night. And the disappearance of Meghna the next morning with some words dropped on the sand, "Kuchh Log, ret pe likhe naamon ki tarahan hote hain, Hawah ka jhonka Jinhe Urwa deta hai". (Not the) Best possible translation, " Some people are like names written in the sand, who are blown away by the wind".
These are aesthetically appealing shots, that need some amount of patience and a taste for slow cinema, to appreciated. Imagine an on-your-feet-applauding-cheering audience watching Orson Welles' "The Trial", I bet they would be disappointed by the entire twists and turns, and the arguments.
Mani Ratnam's bollywood disaster was the first Indian movie to burn the British box office charts. It is often that a commercial disaster goes on to earn a lot of critical acclaim (Jaane Bhi Do yaaron is one of the best examples to the rule) and Dil Se met with the same fate. It's stupendous cinematography, strong performances, titillating music and Chhaiyyan Chhaiyyan was the talk of the country, but not enough to bring the masses to the cinema.
Masses or no masses, I loved the movie so much that i have so far watched it more than a couple of dozen times, sometimes barely able to open my eyes from the early morning laziness or the latenight sleep. It has always energised me, inspired me to strive for excellence in my work.
I would like to mention a few arguments as to why the movie did not appeal to the majority of the Indians. First, it was not a movie with happy ending, that of course may not be a valid reason, as there have been a plenty of sad movies that went on to become popular with the audience. Second reason could be geographical and regional dis/non/un-placement of characters, meaning audience were not able to place the story in the correct city. The audience seem to have been unsure if the story is about Nepal, Assam, Leh-Ladhak or Delhi. The editing of the movie has been blamed by some of the popular critics, though i beg to differ and like to think that it was superbly edited.
The reason that i can think of is that, the movie neither had moments where the audience could stand on their feet and clap, nor were there any moments where one needed a hankerchief to wipe ones tears. It was a subtle movie, i guess in 1998 it was about time we watched one.
It had lots of subtle moments like when Amar and Meghna talk about the three things they like and three they dislike, under the moonlit-cold night. And the disappearance of Meghna the next morning with some words dropped on the sand, "Kuchh Log, ret pe likhe naamon ki tarahan hote hain, Hawah ka jhonka Jinhe Urwa deta hai". (Not the) Best possible translation, " Some people are like names written in the sand, who are blown away by the wind".
These are aesthetically appealing shots, that need some amount of patience and a taste for slow cinema, to appreciated. Imagine an on-your-feet-applauding-cheering audience watching Orson Welles' "The Trial", I bet they would be disappointed by the entire twists and turns, and the arguments.
Anyways, the question i began with remains unanswered, in the interest of (my) time i will end it by saying that, The Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. Watch it, if you can !!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)