Kamalhassan's Ideology in his films

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

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.

---

:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

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.

---

Nalla point :) Neenga quote panna Woody interview-um idha reinforce pannudhu

who is this woody allen.. does he make good movies??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

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.

---

Oh okay. I asked because you seemed to be arguing that Kamal is not spiritual but rather a staunch atheist, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Hence the confusion. But I don't get the point about fetishizing the spiritual in a utilitarian sort of way. Can you elaborate? Who does that? Bergman and Tarkovsky?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kid-glove

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.

---

Oh, I do (not sure if it is there surreptitiously!). It's not about the characters being atheists. They need not be. It's about how secularized his camera is; how materialistically gods (or more specifically, the sites of gods) figures in his films.

Anyway, my basic point regarding Mani was that his films are not spiritual in the way Kamal's films are. This absence of the spiritual dimension is what I characterized as truly “atheist[ic]” (or "a pure form of atheism" as I've said in the previous post.) And I don't think it means being agnostic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MADDY

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

---

Not bypass but maybe u can say skip or avoid such discussion

btw, there is a scene in raavan, where rai spells some dialogs b4 that broken statue.

Kamal has directly accepted that there is something called Iyarkai but he is still doubtful about Iraivan. Who else is not?

Agree P_R. Woody keeps it to 'personal' mode even when he's very open about the absence of moral compass & bleakness of existence. Not obsessing too much about the social ramifications. Apart from say increasing crime rate of Manhattan and West London..

Equa,
I'm still suspect of this, "a general indifference towards god or spirituality, which I'd rather characterize as a pure form of atheism".

Regardless, as you say,
"I'd be glad to switch to a different word if it would convey exactly the meaning I've in my mind."
There's a need for clarity. Coz these terms (like word 'Secular' in Indian context) go beyond literal meaning.

//Dig: Title evvalavu apt-a vechirukken paarunga :razz:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MADDY

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

---

Not bypass but maybe u can say skip or avoid such discussion

btw, there is a scene in raavan, where rai spells some dialogs b4 that broken statue.

---

vikram's reply to her in that scene..azhaga ,chekka chevelnnu iruppara?..kadavulna vere epdi irupaaru...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

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.

---

Nothing that I disagree with here, PR. And as I said, I particularly like (b).

But this doesn't mean atheists have to ram in a message repeatedly to call themselves that. There are a lot of people out there who are not at all interested in doing that and still call themselves atheists. The atheists vs. agnostics debate (whether agnostic is a separate class or is it a orthogonal characteristic that is applicable to both non-believers and believers, though usually the former) has been going on forever. And personally, I don't particularly subscribe to any one particular classification.

The point being discussed here is if the indifference towards a spiritual dimension means necessarily agnosticism. Do you think it does? I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_R

To reduce rather abruptly the 'message' Kamal keeps ramming in repearedly is: 'There is no simple divine intervention'

---

If giving out this message makes one non-spiritual (not sure if you're saying so, this is just to be clear on where we stand), consider the number of people we'd have to throw out of the window.