Kamalhassan's Ideology in his films

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.