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.
