Kamalhassan's Ideology in his films

A related note from elsewhere:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HonestRaj

6) Kamal... Anbe Sivam-nu sonnaru (means LOVE is GOD).... Kadavul illaina.. anbu-ngara oru unarvai eduthu edhukku illadha onrukku equate pannanum?

---

ada, ada... ennamA checku vekkuRInga! AnAl idhu avar kittaiyO thirumUlar kittaiyO kEtka vENdiya kELvi. Anyway, on Kamal (mind you, I'm just rambling), contrary to what most people say, I think he is a remarkably spiritual filmmaker. His films are pregnant with overt concerns about faith, God, spiritual reforms and so on. It makes more sense to call someone like Mani Ratnam a truly “atheist” filmmaker. The latter's films are free of concerns about God and faith in an organic sense, never mind the cuteness.

---

Equa, the word you're looking for is indifferent/agnostic (at worst) in terms of Mani, so to speak. Not 'Atheist'. This is because of the overt academic interest that has hit evangelical proportions, and in turn let's the other side to deem it as another 'ideology' so to speak..

So it makes perfect sense to call Bergman or Kieslowski or Tarkovsky spiritual (need pointers on why you phrase Kamal one, when he very deliberately goes against fetishism of 'spiritual'), while Kamal, Woody Allen, etc are staunch atheists.

It is no coincidence that Kamal fans are the ones who invoke god the most often when discussing him or his films. Of course, there's a tongue-in-cheek angle to it, but the influence of Kamal's dialogue (with them) regarding the nature of god is not to be underestimated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

Equa, the word you're looking for is indifferent/agnostic (at worst) in terms of Mani, so to speak. Not 'Atheist'. .

---

Yes. Many have mistaken one for another. :evil:

Let's look at the most personal films these two have made:

Baba: Religious advertisement (hey, I'm one in 27 fellers who like this film).
Anbe Sivam: Spiritual journey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cinefan

Idhu engalukku credit-a ille KH-ukka :roll:

---

ippadi pesuvatharkaana thairiyame avar kitta irunthu thaan vanthathu nnu ore podaa potrunga :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Seriously though, I think Kamal's case, like most people's, is much more complicated than a simple label that says Hindu or anti-Hindu.

---

the same complication applies even for a muslim.

2 scenes -

dasa - the scene where balram naidu questions nagesh about his sons/daughters,
naidu; antha chinna piLLai, athi unkalthaa?!?
nagesh: aamaam, athula enna ungalukku doubtu

UPO - the scene where the muslim terrorist speaks about his wives and specifically his last wife of age 16,

i think in both cases he is trying to hit the population raise which ( may be ) caused by the more no of wives, and importantly a kid or two for each wife

on an interesting note, a recent report says Hindus slightly outnumber muslims when it comes to no of wives but most of the hindus are not towards having 3 kids. 2 itself is a big number

at the same time, in dasa, he ALSO portray the "all muslim could be terrorist" blame which is forced on muslim community

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

மத்தளம்னா ரெண்டு பக்கத்துலேர்ந்தும் இடி விழுகத்தான் செய்யின்.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Era_Murukan

உ.போ.ஒ வெளியான பிறகு ஜிமெயில், என் சொந்த இணையத் தள் அஞ்சல் ரெண்டையும் திறந்தால் கொட்டுகிற் கடிதங்களில் பாராட்டு தவிர கண்ணை ஈர்ப்பது - 'டே பா.பன்னாடை' ரக அன்பான அழைப்புகள். கருவறுக்கப் போவதாக மிரட்டல்கள். சகல பக்கங்களில் இருந்தும் மத வேறுபாடு இல்லாமல் வசவு மழை பொழிகிறவர்கள் கமல்ஹாசனையும் விட்டு வைக்கவில்லை.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

On the contrary, I seriously doubt that Cho is a match for Kamal in this regard. I've made this point before too, I think Kamal's films (which is precisely the prism through which we're reading him) are spiritual in the true sense of the word. At the end of the day, what matters is one's engagement with the idea of a god, not the conclusion one reaches.

---

Cho is one personality who quickly came to my mind, since he has gotten quite famous in this regard recently, and moreover I find him reasonably satisfactory in debunking many lies about the structure of Hinduism (or perhaps Brahminism) which both theists and atheists have believe(d) in.

The present Dalai Lama was my second option, but honestly speaking, I look upon him as more than just another human being (probably he considers himself so, and would be indeed willing to clarify such 'doubts'), so I didn't bother to mention him here.

If I remember right, Kamal did mention on some stage that the religious conversations in his movies to be a reflection for the religious dialogue within himself. I guess his convictions are also reflected in his personal interviews or stage talks. Hence I base my ideas on his convictions on those.

As for Kamal's movies being 'spiritual', well, I disagree. They are humanitarian, sure. To me, God is beyond-thoughts-and-concepts. This is infact the view held in Hinduism and Buddhism (if one has looked reasonably deeply in either of them). This is also the view held by many Christian mystics, Sufis, even in old-time religion.

Now, was Kamal's 'anbu' in Anbe Sivam such an idea? No, it was only compassion. It is surely essential. It might lead to an experience of God (as that conceptless-entity). However, Kamal (or his characters) never claimed it does. IMHO It is fair to say that what he meant by his "Anbe Sivam" is that, it is enough if you have "anbu" and not bother about "sivam", which is not a spiritual viewpoint but only a humanitarian one. OTOH, Thirumoolar's "Anbe Sivam" is far more deep, it talks of unconditional Love, a la the Bhakthi of Andal or the Gopis, and actually equates it to that Conceptless entity called God. Human-affection and compassion is but a byproduct of this.

Love and Light.

Though already posted by Joe, this link gives relevant idea about his 'confusion' about god. This essay is surely an eye opener, inspite of its own bugs

http://www.virutcham.com/2010/02/%E0...E%95%E0%AE%B3/

There was a function at some Kovai College after VasoolRaja release(2005). Kamal was felicitated with some Man of Century title and students had chance to ask questions to him.

One question:- Kadavul irukkiraara
His Answer: Innum kandubidikkavillai, its in progress

At the same time, his recent quote"If all orphans are children of God, then God needs to undergo Family Planning " has no mistake or nakkal. Its his aathangam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anbu_kathir

Cho is one personality who quickly came to my mind, since he has gotten quite famous in this regard recently, and moreover I find him reasonably satisfactory in debunking many lies about the structure of Hinduism (or perhaps Brahminism) which both theists and atheists have believe(d) in.

The present Dalai Lama was my second option, but honestly speaking, I look upon him as more than just another human being (probably he considers himself so, and would be indeed willing to clarify such 'doubts'), so I didn't bother to mention him here.

If I remember right, Kamal did mention on some stage that the religious conversations in his movies to be a reflection for the religious dialogue within himself. I guess his convictions are also reflected in his personal interviews or stage talks. Hence I base my ideas on his convictions on those.

As for Kamal's movies being 'spiritual', well, I disagree. They are humanitarian, sure. To me, God is beyond-thoughts-and-concepts. This is infact the view held in Hinduism and Buddhism (if one has looked reasonably deeply in either of them). This is also the view held by many Christian mystics, Sufis, even in old-time religion.

Now, was Kamal's 'anbu' in Anbe Sivam such an idea? No, it was only compassion. It is surely essential. It might lead to an experience of God (as that conceptless-entity). However, Kamal (or his characters) never claimed it does. IMHO It is fair to say that what he meant by his "Anbe Sivam" is that, it is enough if you have "anbu" and not bother about "sivam", which is not a spiritual viewpoint but only a humanitarian one. OTOH, Thirumoolar's "Anbe Sivam" is far more deep, it talks of unconditional Love, a la the Bhakthi of Andal or the Gopis, and actually equates it to that Conceptless entity called God. Human-affection and compassion is but a byproduct of this.

Love and Light.

---

anbu_kadhir :bow: :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

Equa, the word you're looking for is indifferent/agnostic (at worst) in terms of Mani, so to speak. Not 'Atheist'. This is because of the overt academic interest that has hit evangelical proportions, and in turn let's the other side to deem it as another 'ideology' so to speak..

---

No, k-g, I don't think so. Firstly, when I say "a truly “atheist” filmmaker," (1) I'm talking about the films in question, and more importantly, (2) I'm using the word 'atheist' in a very specific sense (hence in quotes), to indicate an universe in which god is just absent. In terms of the general connotation of the word, Kamal's films can of course be called atheist. On the other hand, Mani Ratnam's films can safely be called atheist in any case. There's a distinct absence of spiritual dimension in his films. I'm puzzled by your characterization (of his films as agnostic) here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

So it makes perfect sense to call Bergman or Kieslowski or Tarkovsky spiritual (need pointers on why you phrase Kamal one, when he very deliberately goes against fetishism of 'spiritual'), while Kamal, Woody Allen, etc are staunch atheists.

---

But then Bergman also didn't believe in god. How are his films spiritual but Kamal's are not? Agonizing over a godless world is not the only kind of spirituality. And surely, Kamal's reflections on god isn't in line with that of Woody Allen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

It makes more sense to call someone like Mani Ratnam a truly “atheist” filmmaker. The latter's films are free of concerns about God and faith in an organic sense, never mind the cuteness

---

:exactly: Maniratnam's movies bypassess all these "kadavul irukka illaya" , "jaadhi, madha" ideas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

So it makes perfect sense to call Bergman or Kieslowski or Tarkovsky spiritual (need pointers on why you phrase Kamal one, when he very deliberately goes against fetishism of 'spiritual'), while Kamal, Woody Allen, etc are staunch atheists.

---

By the way, this also seems to assume that being spiritual precludes being an atheist. I don't quite see it that way. At least, that's not the sense in which I'm using the word 'spiritual' here. Obviously, I'm not trying to suggest that Kamal is not an atheist!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar

One question:- Kadavul irukkiraara
His Answer: Innum kandubidikkavillai, its in progress

---

I guess this is perfectly fine as a personal answer. If he is answering for all, then LOL..

Appa Thirumoolar, Ramanar, Ramakrishnar, Adi Shankarar, Vallalaar, ivanga ellaam kandupidichadhu??

"This is also a way, a common sense based, compassionate way that will ultimately end in the 'finding' of God" .. is what many of such people have said. One could at least attempt those for a few years.. oru Bachelorskku 17-18 years years padikanum... hmmm.

Faith is less important than practice.

Love and Light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Mani Ratnam's films can safely be called atheist in any case. There's a distinct absence of spiritual dimension in his films. I'm puzzled by your characterization (of his films as agnostic) here.

---

Hmm...isn't the apathy about the question of the existence of a GReater Force supposed to be a characteristic of agnostics rather than atheists (who are certain that there is no God).

Quote:

---

This also seems to assume that being spiritual precludes being an atheist.

---

Absolutely not, hence why I bring in Bergman and rest. In fact, no one could claim to have known where they fall in, but they certainly seemed to fetishize 'spiritual' in utilitarian sort of way to exist. Of course, at times, they seem to delineate the absurdity in such conceit.

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort. On the other hand, that's precisely what both Kamal and Woody Allen indulge in. Of course, the tone and mode varies. But we digress. I think we need to qualify the word 'atheist' as it has various socio-political connotations inbred into it.

I said agnostic world-view, because Mani's "films" don't really commit much in this regard. Again, we need a proper qualification. I'm not pretending there's enough demarcation in practical terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Mani Ratnam's films can safely be called atheist in any case. There's a distinct absence of spiritual dimension in his films. I'm puzzled by your characterization (of his films as agnostic) here.

---

Hmm...isn't the apathy about the question of the existence of a GReater Force supposed to be a characteristic of agnostics rather than atheists (who are certain that there is no God).

---

:exactly:

Kalyan and Anbu_Kathir are here .. Its time for me to shut up :)

but may be i shud say something.. in Dasa, Balram does mock at Nagesh for having sooo many children.. and he mocks at alagiya singar also.. Kamal is almost unbiased IMHO.. since he has seen hindu-brahminism in his very close circles, he must hate it the most.. and that does reflect in his movies... nothing bad really...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Mani Ratnam's films can safely be called atheist in any case. There's a distinct absence of spiritual dimension in his films. I'm puzzled by your characterization (of his films as agnostic) here.

---

Hmm...isn't the apathy about the question of the existence of a GReater Force supposed to be a characteristic of agnostics rather than atheists (who are certain that there is no God).

---

Oh, no, agnosticism is much more specific, isn't it? (If this were the basic characteristic of agnosticism, the majority of this world would be agnostics!) As I see it, agnosticism can occur only in the aftermath of engaging with the idea of a god. (It's clearly the last among the three, yes?) The claim that the answer is unknowable can occur only after the question is raised. There is indeed a sense of indifference and apathy in agnosticism (I agree with you here and I've always thought of this as an often unexplored dimension of it, one which I really like!), but the indifference is towards “knowing” (because one figures one couldn't) and not a general indifference towards god or spirituality, which I'd rather characterize as a pure form of atheism, one which precedes theism itself.

Anyway, this is more of an academic exercise. I'd be glad to switch to a different word if it would convey exactly the meaning I've in my mind.

Equa, the apathy can stem from

a) unknowability - technically this is the definition
b) His existence or lack therof has no bearing in my life whatsoever - this is the general meaning in circulation.

To reduce rather abruptly the 'message' Kamal keeps ramming in repearedly is: 'There is no simple divine intervention'

That said, the horror of being in a Godless Universe (a la Woody) is something very different. But metaphysical ruminations are generally/usually the preserve of those who are willing to consider it to be a greater problem than social issues in human coexistence. Kamal (or for that matter most folks) is interested in the metaphysical problem only to extent that it has implications on society.

I don't think Kamal will make a purely personal film like Woody.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

Quote:

---

This also seems to assume that being spiritual precludes being an atheist.

---

Absolutely not, hence why I bring in Bergman and rest. In fact, no one could claim to have known where they fall in, but they certainly seemed to fetishize 'spiritual' in utilitarian sort of way to exist. Of course, at times, they seem to delineate the absurdity in such conceit.

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort. On the other hand, that's precisely what both Kamal and Woody Allen indulge in. Of course, the tone and mode varies. But we digress. I think we need to qualify the word 'atheist' as it has various socio-political connotations inbred into it.

I said agnostic world-view, because Mani's "films" don't really commit much in this regard. Again, we need a proper qualification. I'm not pretending there's enough demarcation in practical terms.

---

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

To reduce rather abruptly the 'message' Kamal keeps ramming in repearedly is: 'There is no simple divine intervention'

That said, the horror of being in a Godless Universe (a la Woody) is something very different. But metaphysical ruminations are generally/usually the preserve of those who are willing to consider it to be a greater problem than social issues in human coexistence. Kamal (or for that matter most folks) is interested in the metaphysical problem only to extent that it has implications on society.

I don't think Kamal will make a purely personal film like Woody.

---

Nalla point :) Neenga quote panna Woody interview-um idha reinforce pannudhu

who is this woody allen.. does he make good movies??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

Quote:

---

This also seems to assume that being spiritual precludes being an atheist.

---

Absolutely not, hence why I bring in Bergman and rest. In fact, no one could claim to have known where they fall in, but they certainly seemed to fetishize 'spiritual' in utilitarian sort of way to exist. Of course, at times, they seem to delineate the absurdity in such conceit.

---

Oh okay. I asked because you seemed to be arguing that Kamal is not spiritual but rather a staunch atheist, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Hence the confusion. But I don't get the point about fetishizing the spiritual in a utilitarian sort of way. Can you elaborate? Who does that? Bergman and Tarkovsky?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.

---

Oh, I do (not sure if it is there surreptitiously!). It's not about the characters being atheists. They need not be. It's about how secularized his camera is; how materialistically gods (or more specifically, the sites of gods) figures in his films.

Anyway, my basic point regarding Mani was that his films are not spiritual in the way Kamal's films are. This absence of the spiritual dimension is what I characterized as truly “atheist[ic]” (or "a pure form of atheism" as I've said in the previous post.) And I don't think it means being agnostic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MADDY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

It makes more sense to call someone like Mani Ratnam a truly “atheist” filmmaker. The latter's films are free of concerns about God and faith in an organic sense, never mind the cuteness

---

:exactly: Maniratnam's movies bypassess all these "kadavul irukka illaya" , "jaadhi, madha" ideas

---

Not bypass but maybe u can say skip or avoid such discussion

btw, there is a scene in raavan, where rai spells some dialogs b4 that broken statue.

Kamal has directly accepted that there is something called Iyarkai but he is still doubtful about Iraivan. Who else is not?

Agree P_R. Woody keeps it to 'personal' mode even when he's very open about the absence of moral compass & bleakness of existence. Not obsessing too much about the social ramifications. Apart from say increasing crime rate of Manhattan and West London..

Equa,
I'm still suspect of this, "a general indifference towards god or spirituality, which I'd rather characterize as a pure form of atheism".

Regardless, as you say,
"I'd be glad to switch to a different word if it would convey exactly the meaning I've in my mind."
There's a need for clarity. Coz these terms (like word 'Secular' in Indian context) go beyond literal meaning.

//Dig: Title evvalavu apt-a vechirukken paarunga :razz:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MADDY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

It makes more sense to call someone like Mani Ratnam a truly “atheist” filmmaker. The latter's films are free of concerns about God and faith in an organic sense, never mind the cuteness

---

:exactly: Maniratnam's movies bypassess all these "kadavul irukka illaya" , "jaadhi, madha" ideas

---

Not bypass but maybe u can say skip or avoid such discussion

btw, there is a scene in raavan, where rai spells some dialogs b4 that broken statue.

---

vikram's reply to her in that scene..azhaga ,chekka chevelnnu iruppara?..kadavulna vere epdi irupaaru...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

Equa, the apathy can stem from

a) unknowability - technically this is the definition
b) His existence or lack therof has no bearing in my life whatsoever - this is the general meaning in circulation.

---

Nothing that I disagree with here, PR. And as I said, I particularly like (b).

But this doesn't mean atheists have to ram in a message repeatedly to call themselves that. There are a lot of people out there who are not at all interested in doing that and still call themselves atheists. The atheists vs. agnostics debate (whether agnostic is a separate class or is it a orthogonal characteristic that is applicable to both non-believers and believers, though usually the former) has been going on forever. And personally, I don't particularly subscribe to any one particular classification.

The point being discussed here is if the indifference towards a spiritual dimension means necessarily agnosticism. Do you think it does? I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

To reduce rather abruptly the 'message' Kamal keeps ramming in repearedly is: 'There is no simple divine intervention'

---

If giving out this message makes one non-spiritual (not sure if you're saying so, this is just to be clear on where we stand), consider the number of people we'd have to throw out of the window.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.

---

Oh, I do (not sure if it is there surreptitiously!). It's not about the characters being atheists. They need not be. It's about how secularized his camera is; how materialistically gods (or more specifically, the sites of gods) figures in his films.

---

Oh you've made it clearer and opened up an interesting point. 'Secularized' or 'Atheistic' in Mani's visual trope in materializing 'sculptures of God' does of course connote a 'Silence of God' or 'Death of God' aftereffect. But in saying that, one does feel a tinge of surreptitiousness and remain unconvinced.

I'm guessing you're using it in the exact context Philip Lutgendorf referred to world of Benegal's Mahabharath adaptation Kalyug, where God is visually drowned and then kathakali dance-drama of Bheema vs Dushasana (from Mahabharath) is played. Just at the last act when Bheem disembowels the latter & drinks his blood (Fulfilling Draupadi's vow). The Modern-day Arjun is indifferent to this 'mirror' moment, and his (soon-to-be) Draupadi is somewhat disinterested and put-off at this conjecture. Now that's the sort of 'Death of God' and 'secularized view' that I find inviting. Mani is a lot more non-committal and obtuse from Nayakan to Kannathil Muthamitaal to Dil Se to Raavan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anban

who is this woody allen.. does he make good movies??

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_filmography

World movies and Lumier are playing his movies regularly.... I have seen some of them..... really good and funny movies

BTW, kid and equa... r u talking abt this guy ?
//dig ends

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.

---

Oh, I do (not sure if it is there surreptitiously!). It's not about the characters being atheists. They need not be. It's about how secularized his camera is; how materialistically gods (or more specifically, the sites of gods) figures in his films.

---

Oh you've made it clearer and opened up an interesting point. 'Secularized' or 'Atheistic' in Mani's visual trope in materializing 'sculptures of God' does of course connote a 'Silence of God' or 'Death of God' aftereffect. But in saying that, one does feel a tinge of surreptitiousness and remain unconvinced.

---

Um, no. I meant to say his camera captures temples, sculptures, etc. as material and nothing more. alai pAyuthE, rOjA, nAyagan, Bombay, Dil Se, chathriyan, the camera stops at the level of "observing." And I don't think it connotes the silence of god or the death of god or some such thing at all. In fact, I think this is precisely the zone in which Kamal operates. Contrast the above moments from Mani's films with the way gods, temples appear in Kamal's films (guNA, thEvar magan, mahAnadhi, Hey! Ram, virumANdi, dasAvathAram). This is the distinction I was making between the two originally, before we digressed towards the agnostics vs. atheists debate. :)

Whether this sort of absence means a purer form of atheism or not is an academic debate. I'm not saying it is necessarily atheistic, but that's what I've sensed from Mani Ratnam's films. It may be because I viewed his films with the knowledge that he calls himself an atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.

---

Oh, I do (not sure if it is there surreptitiously!). It's not about the characters being atheists. They need not be. It's about how secularized his camera is; how materialistically gods (or more specifically, the sites of gods) figures in his films.

---

Oh you've made it clearer and opened up an interesting point. 'Secularized' or 'Atheistic' in Mani's visual trope in materializing 'sculptures of God' does of course connote a 'Silence of God' or 'Death of God' aftereffect. But in saying that, one does feel a tinge of surreptitiousness and remain unconvinced.

---

Um, no. I meant to say his camera captures temples, sculptures, etc. as material and nothing more. alai pAyuthE, rOjA, nAyagan, Bombay, Dil Se, chathriyan, the camera stops at the level of "observing." And I don't think it connotes the silence of god or the death of god or some such thing at all. In fact, I think this is precisely the zone in which Kamal operates. Contrast the above moments from Mani's films with the way gods, temples appear in Kamal's films (guNA, thEvar magan, mahAnadhi, Hey! Ram, virumANdi, dasAvathAram). This is the distinction I was making between the two originally, before we digressed towards the agnostics vs. atheists debate. :)

Whether this sort of absence means a purer form of atheism or not is an academic debate. I'm not saying it is necessarily atheistic, but that's what I've sensed from Mani Ratnam's films. It may be because I viewed his films with the knowledge that he calls himself an atheist.

---

uh, okay. I actually think the aforementioned mode that Benegal operates is precisely 'secularized' and less obscure, more revealing of the film's intention. And in comparison, Mani is obtuse and stops short of making his intentions clear. Then we have little to disagree..

But you said this,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K-g

I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Equa

Oh, I do

---

---

This doesn't sit well when "the camera stops at the level of "observing.""

That called for the Benegal/Kalyug example.

With this sort of discussion, I'm left perplexed. Absence of god, Secularized(his camera is), Silence of God-lam oNNu thAnE da kozappureengaLE dA! to me :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

But this doesn't mean atheists have to ram in a message repeatedly to call themselves that.

---

True. I was just trying to be subtly nasty. Cull out paNNitteenga :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

whether agnostic is a separate class or is it a orthogonal characteristic that is applicable to both non-believers and believers, though usually the former

---

A theist agnostic (type b) would be really interesting. Reminds me of Boris Grushenko in Love and Death saying that the worst you can say about God is that he is an underachiever :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

The point being discussed here is if the indifference towards a spiritual dimension means necessarily agnosticism. Do you think it does? I don't.

---

One is usually not indifferent about something that has a big impact on one's life (if I had a career counseler, he'd disagree!).

Indifference in spirituality usually proceeds from a conviction that God is largely impotent when it comes to one's day to day existence. Which, for lack of another word, is what is termed as agnosticism by general population. Possible abuse of terminology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by equanimus

If giving out this message makes one non-spiritual (not sure if you're saying so,

---

I wasn't. Was only saying you oughtn't to be puzzled by Thilaquer's statement, because the label agnostic is used quite differently from its etymological origins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anbu_kathir

If I remember right, Kamal did mention on some stage that the religious conversations in his movies to be a reflection for the religious dialogue within himself. I guess his convictions are also reflected in his personal interviews or stage talks. Hence I base my ideas on his convictions on those.

---

anbu_kathir,
Just to clarify, by 'spiritual,' I mean metaphysical ruminations, as PR put it. I'm not sure which interviews you're talking about. I've seen interviews where he quotes Adi Sankaras and Jesuses of the world, calling them atheists of their times, interviews where he traces Periyar to the heritage of Siththars. The metaphysical terrain of myths like Ramayana and Mahabharatha are touched upon at the drop of a hat in his films.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anbu_kathir

Now, was Kamal's 'anbu' in Anbe Sivam such an idea? No, it was only compassion. It is surely essential. It might lead to an experience of God (as that conceptless-entity). However, Kamal (or his characters) never claimed it does.

---

Actually, I'm not clear if Thirumoolar claimed that (I mean, I've no idea and would appreciate a clarification), but isn't it striking that Kamal invokes someone like Thirumoolar in the first place? I certainly do agree that Kamal has no time for religious hokum. So yes, he's demystifying Thirumoolar, but the question is if he de-spiritualizes.

Quote:

---

Absence of god, Secularized(his camera is), Silence of God-lam

---

IIUC...

Ayyanaar presiding over the thEvar Magan last fight

இந்த பொல்லா ஜனங்கள் பாவக்கரையை நீரில் கழுவுது
இந்த முட்டாள்தனத்தை எங்கே சொல்லி நானும் அழுவது

this kind of impotency of the alleged omnipotent is not something MR tries to show.

Quote:

---

I'm puzzled by your characterization (of his films as agnostic) here.

---

Equa, in light of your latest comment that the prior knowledge of Mani as an atheist influences this thought, let me be clear.

Yes I understand the demarcation within agnosticism. That's precisely why I categorize Mani's "films" (and not him) as such. When he stops at just 'observing', it doesn't even open up 'atheistic' world view, as I see it. On the other hand, it exudes more of a 'harmony' between Agnostic Atheism vs Agnostic Theism, as there are no open counterpoints and no debate in this regard - this could be achieved even without ramming it down the throat - as against say Anbe Sivam. If there were more visual or verbal cues of Bala or Kamal or Benegal, we wouldn't be discussing this. Thats all I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

And in comparison, Mani is obtuse and stops short of making his intentions clear. Then we have little to disagree..

---

But my point is, it's not even Mani's intention to reveal something about god's failing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

But you said this,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K-g

I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Equa

Oh, I do

---

---

This doesn't sit well when "the camera stops at the level of "observing.""

That called for the Benegal/Kalyug example.

With this sort of discussion, I'm left perplexed. Absence of god, Secularized(his camera is), Silence of God-lam oNNu thAnE da kozappureengaLE dA! to me :lol:

---

Ha ha, I didn't mean to say he makes the god absent purposefully to drive a point home. "Pitch in" is probably not the correct phrase, let's say it slips in to his films. And there's a distinction between merely observing and alluding to the silence/death of god.

I think PR has already illustrated the difference with a couple of examples (albeit from Kamal's films; but then how else can you illustrate what's not there in a film!).

P_R,
I certainly find such questions to be least of MR's concerns and his idea of filmmaking. That's why I don't sense semblance of 'atheism'. If I'm understanding all this, Indifference alone doesn't allude to Atheism. There are theistic filmmakers who are indifferent too.