equa, after repeated patterns, I guess no other issue works you over more than this particular one. innikku oru nALla evLO post - that too, repeating the same point in almost same words! kood kood, maindain
Printable View
equa, after repeated patterns, I guess no other issue works you over more than this particular one. innikku oru nALla evLO post - that too, repeating the same point in almost same words! kood kood, maindain
Ha ha, that may be true, Plum. I hope Scale didn't mind my interruption (!) and the direction the discussion subsequently took.
Anyway, let's move on. Scale?
Recalling the film, would be useful in talking about this particular example.Quote:
By the way, you don't have to recall the film for this. The question is rather simple. Did the criticism say anything we already didn't know or realise (i.e. how outlandish that song is, etc.)? Is there not a forced sense of objectivity in explicitly mentioning it as a big flaw? This, I argue, is an offshoot of the plausibles' school of thought.
Now to the general question of: whether one outlanding song/scene can bring down the film; the honest answer would be: it depends.
Coming to the 'plausibles school of thought' - as I mentioned earlier it is usually necessary but it does not itself make a film good. But it is quite possible that in many cases plausibility is perhaps THE thing going for a film. So when that comes undone, even in passing, it can disappoint the viewer.
Again I am not saying this is the case in UP because....I don't recall the film well :-)
Regarding the last paragraph of your post, that is a bad thing only if plausibility is the only/chief takeaway from a film. That is rarely the case isn't it ? Even my example of "plausibility being the only thing going for a film" is just a கற்பிதம்.
It is just that a plausibility fail affects us so much that we find everything else unenjoyable. And that seems quite fair to me.
I liked the song.... manroma sang the song....Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
for a while I thought, I am in the English literature section..
"Plagiarism/Remakes/Copywrited remakes/Blessed Remakes (Interesting!) simply doesnt qualify for this discussion"
ithu ellam namma cinema kalacharathula.... thondru thottu kadai pudikira pazakanga.....ithu ellam inga thappey kedyathu..... for me, the most hatred word in english is "Inspiration/inspired"...... this word as most flexible meaning in industry's lexicon......
Oh, but the extent to which it brings down depends on how crucial that one scene is to that film, isn't it? Otherwise this is a very abstract proposition. (I'm hardly arguing that it's impossible to change the course of a film in 5 minutes.)Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
PR, I think we're going in circles now. You're using the word 'plausible' to mean a general sense of believability, but I use in a specific context where it takes more primacy, to mean something much more clinical; generally speaking, in the sense Hitchcock coined the term "plausibles."Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
I am using believable and plausible interchangeably. :oops: What is the difference ?
Suththi-suththi orE vishayathai dhaan sollittu irukkEn, which is : when believability is compromised (even if ever so slightly) the viewing experience can drop tremendously.
I think we've digressed way too much already. I started out by responding to Scale's post on UP and MM, but then went on to make a much more general point.
Let's continue this all-important discussion elsewhere. :)
I think in the case of Udhirippookkal or Mahanadhi, the 'buy -in' of the 'vision' of the creator is so huge that as a viewer I did not essentially get pissed off and walk off the seat while watching the song 'Appavoda kalyanam paaru'. It is an agreement that the movie's creator and me reached after seeing so much - this song appears in almost the tail end of the movie - kind of setting up the pre-climax scene of the movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
There are thousand other ways that the message of the song could have been conveyed - like a scene where the sister-in-law goes to the marriage in tow with the kids and creates a scene there - (a route most of the Balu mahendra, barathiraja proteges would have taken) - however that would have come as so jarring and loud and dramatic, that what sundaravadivelu does to her in the pre-climax could have also come out as a 'natural reaction' and less dramatic and less sensational. So a song with the whole marriage parallelly flowing with a 5 minute song is like killing 2 birds in one stone - hence the restrained melodic touche that raaja provides to the song. Agreed that believability that had been so strictly maintained in the film would suffer a little - but that is an acceptable compromise for it adds up to maintain the 'vision of the director' to keep saying the most hard to swallow things in a subtle yet impactful way all the way till the end where the 'cause and effect' of the monster inside Sundaravadivelu is let loose ultimately ending the the 'absolutely heart wrenching' freeze frame of children walking by the river.