Sindhanai Selvar Dr.Kamal HaasaR - favourite movies,scenes 2

Quote:

---

That is what makes Hey Ram very engaging. Saket the fundamentalist is NOT caricatured. He is shown to be doing exactly what most people would turn to in such a situation, and thus we truly follow his journey.

---

:clap: - idhai vida theLivA solla mudiyAdhu. I hope this guides people who didnt quite get this earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

I easily prefer Hey! Ram to Vanaprastham as a film. As a performance, I think Lal deserved to win. Kamal was excellent in Hey! Ram* but I suppose it'd harsh on Lal, who already should have won for his performance in Iruvar. I hope he wins one more and joins Kamal and Mammootty. :)

*-Is it just me or others too spot the tendency to underplay Kamal's performance while praising his filmmaking in a surreptitious manner.

---

yes very true :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamizharasan

Except for Kamal's controversial discussions about the God in that movie,

---

:? Which ones are you referring to?

To me one of the interesting parts of the characterization is to show that Saket Ram is still progressive (அட வாயா... மாமா தான் இல்லையே) and continues to be a skeptic (இங்க யாருமே ஸ்வயமா பேசறா மாதிரி தெரியலையே....என்ன பிசாசு பேச வைக்கறதுங்கறேள், உங்களை என் மாமா தரப்போற காசு பேச வைக்கறதுங்கறேன் நான்). Even though he subscribes to some form of Hindu cultural oneness which he feels is under attack.

He does not suddenly become an unquestioning religious fundamentalist. When his existence and future in a secular (as in irreligious, not the Indian meaning of the word :-) ) existence is challenged by a horror, he seems to plunge back to the familiarity of his roots. Here religion, caste, family, way-of-life are all one indistinguishable lump. To think of them independently is largely not possible in our context. In a way Saket returns to what he then thinks is his identity.

When he tries to sever himself off all these then the basis of his 'culture' is itself on this ice. He has to come to face to face with the antagonism that propelled him in this direction. And one show of horror, the horror that he had almost himself perpetuated, is enough to shock him back to act in accordance with his true nature. Restores his basic sense of balance - which is perhaps more fundamental to his identity than he had previously imagined.

That is what makes Hey Ram very engaging. Saket the fundamentalist is NOT caricatured. He is shown to be doing exactly what most people would turn to in such a situation, and thus we truly follow his journey.

---

I never had any problem Kamal going against Gandhi after those incidents affected his life. It was very clearly mentioned in the final scene that if you look at Gandhi at surface level then he may look wrong but if you look at the deeper level(light fills the room when Gandhi picture was opened) you will understand the reason behind his ideology. I really did not agree with his dialogues in his argument with Vasundara das in entirety. Again I really do not want take away any credit from Hey Ram. IMO Kamal's performance as an actor did not deserve national award. (Kamal deserved awards for Mahanadhi and Guna though) But the movie and direction definitely deserved the national awards as voted. Psuedo Anti-Gandhi ideologies in the movie switched it off from the politicians. Our politicians did not even have basic knowledge to understand the fact that this movie was not against Gandhi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plum

k_g, that is oh so common. Even for Virumandi, which I thought was an outstanding performance from Kamal, although I myself went through the "his filmmaking was better than his acting in Virumandi" phase.

I agree Lal over Kamal for 2000 acting awards. But the best movie and best director - really, that was a cinch. It should have been for Hey Ram.

I think the insult to injury was that 2000 was sandwiched by 1999(Ajay Devgan) and 2001(Anil Kapoor). That just fuelled the rage even more. I am not sure Devgan for Zakhm was National Award worthy. Ofcourse, Mammookka shared it in 1999 for Ambedkar to cushion the impact.

BTW, Mitunda might surge ahead of Lal this year. Apparently, he has done an offbeat film in bengali that was well-appreciated. Whenever he has done that, he has got an award, in the past. idhukku dhAn amavaaaikkoru padam aadikkoru padam nallA nadikkaNum. Total impact irukkum. RegularA nallA nadichA, taken for granted aagidum :-)

---

In deed, Plum. I think the real sham will be if Ajay Devgan wins another one and join Kamal-Mammootty. Then the awards will lose whatever little credibility it has. The mere fact that NT wasn't awarded one is indigestible as it is..

He was outstanding in both Hey! Ram and Virumandi, I can't think of many actors who could really bring poignancy through the eyes as he does here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thamizharasan

I really did not agree with his dialogues in his argument with Vasundara das in entirety.

---

Which lines?
காந்தியின் குரங்குகள் lines?
புலி/ஓநாய் தர்மம் lines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

புலி/ஓநாய் தர்மம் lines?

---

Best lines written ever in a Tamil film 8-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thamizharasan

I really did not agree with his dialogues in his argument with Vasundara das in entirety.

---

Which lines?
காந்தியின் குரங்குகள் lines?
புலி/ஓநாய் தர்மம் lines?

---

Probably both and more. Again context is the problem I understand. The dialogues as such sounded great. Even from the context it looked fine. But I don't agree with them. If you have taken the path of eye to eye and Violence is the only answer for violence then they may have sounded great. But I don't agree with those principles. With that said, IMO, Kamal is the best dialogue writer we ever had in Tamil Cinema for serious movies. Anyway Saket Ram would not have told the same thing after he met with his friend (SRK) in Delhi. I never had any problem with Kamal as artist. But I don't agree with his ideologies sometime and that does not take away any respect I have for him. Let me ask you this, Have you agreed with all the discussions in Hey Ram.

Watched parts of Dasa recently:

3 :rotfl: moments (seemingly unfunny lines)

Azhagiyar Singar - Madonna (The way he says "Madonna!?" :lol: )

Fletcher jeep spotted-a? :shock: :rotfl2:

BN: "Accelerator irukkudhulla?
Driver: "Irukku saar"
BN: "Amuthuyya!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bala (Karthik)

Fletcher jeep spotted-a? :shock: :rotfl2:

---

This one is side-splitting :rotfl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamizharasan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thamizharasan

I really did not agree with his dialogues in his argument with Vasundara das in entirety.

---

Which lines?
காந்தியின் குரங்குகள் lines?
புலி/ஓநாய் தர்மம் lines?

---

Probably both and more. Again context is the problem I understand. The dialogues as such sounded great. Even from the context it looked fine. But I don't agree with them. If you have taken the path of eye to eye and Violence is the only answer for violence then they may have sounded great. But I don't agree with those principles.

---

You are not supposed to agree with them, right?
That was pretty much the point of the movie.
But rather than caricaturing the question, he puts it in unsettlingly 'real' terms that the viewers 'at the moment' even feels an uneasy empathy. That is why this movie works so well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TA

Anyway Saket Ram would not have told the same thing after he met with his friend (SRK) in Delhi.

---

Yes. That's the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TA

I never had any problem with Kamal as artist. But I don't agree with his ideologies sometime and that does not take away any respect I have for him.

---

kuzhappitteenga.

In Hey Ram, Saket travels the whole political spectrum. From ஐயங்கார்வாள் சொல்ற பேச்சை கேக்கற காலமெல்லாம் மலையேறிப் போயிடுத்து to என் ராமனைப் பத்தி பேசினா, செத்தடா நீ.

MGR dialogue, Nambiar dialaogue ரெண்டும் கமல் பேசினாப்ல. கதாநாயகன் சொல்வதோடு ஒத்துப்போவது அல்லது முரண்படுவது, என்று இந்தப் படத்தை அணுக முடியாது என்று நினைக்கிறேன்.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TA

Let me ask you this, Have you agreed with all the discussions in Hey Ram.

---

I am not sure what agreement/disagreement means here. The movie finally makes a point about peace, brother, humanism - which I don't think anyone disagrees with.

But it achieves it - not by caricaturing the opposition. It paints the 'other side' with such richness and credibility - something that has just not been seen in our films.

For example....

When the Raja says...

For centuries we have worshipped valour and its implements. He(Gandhi) wants us to stop this and worship a new God...(pause) himself


He is perfectly right from his PoV, isn't he? He is a King. A defender of faith. Not faith as an individual spiritual quest, but as a social practice. He inherits a long tradition which he perceives to be under attack. It does not help that this is coinciding with the decline in his own powers.

His interpretation of religion comes from the duties as he has seen and inherited them. They are essentially masculine. He sees Gandhi as effeminatizing the religion and its practitioners. And he takes it upon himself to stop the rot there. The imagery and myth of his understanding of his religion weave seamlessly into his political philosophy.

It is not about agreeing/disagreeing. The film is is about understanding the 'reality'. Appreciating the challenge of retaining one's humanism in the face of multiplicity of conflicting opinions.