Both are fine!
Printable View
Both are fine!
To quote the famous bodystoda : ennai chonnEn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scale
Suitably edited my post
Scale,
But you're not confronting my basic question here. It should be obvious that I'm not defending that song sequence. We're hardly debating whether it is inconsequential or outlandishly silly. I'm likely to forward the song myself (unless I'm feeling lazy enough to pick the remote control). Call it as you wish, that doesn't matter. What makes me curious is being unable to get over it.
Let's pause here. This comes from the idea that the film has to be "realistic" at any moment; i.e. the prime concern about a scene is simply its plausibility. Look at how your rationale is completely externalized, i.e. the scene works depending on whether you think it's "prevalent" or not. There's no other perspective that you bring in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scale
Again, a completely useless dictum at play: "heroism" is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scale
oru doubt!
why shouldn't there be a lip-synching song sequence in a movie - to be natural.the movie can look natural even with a song sequence right?...if people dont realise about lip synching at all..its fine.
If the song can seamlessly mix with the narration and doesnot wake the audience from his dream - sometimes it can elevate the related mood of the audience - let it be! why does cinema has to resemble the real life - it has to make people believe and take them to the dream world....that it is!
do we hear BGM in real life?adhu mattum OKva?
Ultimately,anything that helps the narration is good for cinema.Even if it is a lip-synching song.
Think about kanmani anbodu kadhalan - "ennoda kaadhal ennanu sollama yenga yenga azhuga azhugaya varudhu" outlines Guna's charecter beautifully.why should it be considered to be inappropriate?
PR, my argument here is that there's some anxiety towards the presence of these items and we need to inquire into it. That doesn't automatically mean I'm arguing for them. There are many things that I also wish had been handled differently in some of my all-time favourite films. That's not the point here.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
The supreme irony is that if you are arguing against one inserted song - considering it the defining flaw that negates a movie like udhiri pookkaL - how are you going to argue that the golden age is the 60's where more often than the songs were the better part of the movie.
Anyway, I still do not understand the point of the thread - the title seems tangential to the direction of the discussion intended and executed by the driver of the thread
Its not a matter of 'realistic' or 'unrealistic' events that shown in a movie that song doesn't happen even in the robo world of wi-fi transformation. Both are well made movies but these flaws (which some may not agree & some got along) is not to crucify any more.
Not sure if I understand what you mean here ("crucify any more"?), but my point is simply that these things can hardly be considered as serious (leave alone the biggest!) flaws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scale
Scale,Quote:
Originally Posted by Scale
Basically, I'm arguing against people's excessive concern merely about the plausibility of a song sequence in a whole film. And, as for being concerned primarily about the plausibility of a scene/film, I think it's a completely useless exercise. As I've argued above, the rationale of the "plausibles" (as Hitchcock referred to them) is completely externalized. There's no perspective they bring to the table by themselves.
Anyway, I think we've made our points clear. Let's move on.
I get that.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
I quoted it as an example of the anxiety which I feel is reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus
Object to the use of the word simply. It is a highly valid prime concern, no ?Quote:
This comes from the idea that the film has to be "realistic" at any moment; i.e. the prime concern about a scene is simply its plausibility.
Much of what I have to say here is not generalizable.
I have problems reading a novel where there are cogent conversations where the level of cogency and elaborateness strikes me as 'unreal'. I know that if such a conversation can't take place even in a novel, it will never take place. But still it troubles me. That is why I use the word petulant.
Yes and this is THE most important challenge for any writer IMO. Convincing the reader of the 'reality' that he is creating, that is where the magic is, isn't it ?Quote:
Originally Posted by equanimus