yeah..infact Im surprised greatly...Quote:
Originally Posted by selvakumar
Printable View
yeah..infact Im surprised greatly...Quote:
Originally Posted by selvakumar
Mani makes money!
By Moviebuzz | Friday, 02 March , 2007, 13:06
Mani Ratnam's Guru is celebrating 50 days run today. Though Bollywood trade is reluctant to admit that the film is a hit, it is the first hit of the year.
Mani has made his Bollywood critics eat crow. They have been saying that he does not understand the Hindi film sentiments and all his straight films in Hindi like Dil Se and Yuva were turkeys at the box-office.
Guru made at a cost of approximately Rs 10 Crore by Madras Talkies has grossed nearly Rs 41 Crore from domestic Indian market. And overseas Guru is this year's biggest hit, and is reported to have got a distributors share of Rs 14 Crore!
Now that he has proved that he can deliver hits at the Bollywood box-office, people in Mumbai are paying more attention to his next film Lajjo. The film has Aamir Khan and Kareena Kapoor in the lead, with music by A.R Rahman and camera is handled by P.C Sreeram.
Mani is now writing the script of the film which will start rolling sometime in September this year. Mani has no immediate plans to direct a Tamil film, as there is more money to be made in Bollywood!
'LAJJO' enna aAchu? :?
Mani is Enjoying the Awesome Result of Guru. 8-)
I think Lajjo is to start Soon if it hasn't already. :)
After Fanaa I can't wait to see Ameer again. 8-)
:cool:
:lol2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wibha
Lajjo shooting will start by september 8-)
Aamir-Maniratnam-ARRahman :clap:
one more hindi movie from Mani will be awesome - maybe a soft romantic movie with Hrithik in the lead :wink:
hrithik good in romance?Quote:
Originally Posted by MADDY
HRITHIK NOT BETTER THAN AMIR KHAN IN ROMANCE.Quote:
Originally Posted by thimuru
Mani can make anyone act.......so its just the question of finding unusually interesting combos...... :D .......Hrithik has great mass 8-)Quote:
Originally Posted by thimuru
Hrithik is very talented. Thing is that he has not got the right oppurtunity to prove himself. Mani sir will make him act. After all, he made a 3 yr old to strike gold in Anjali..Quote:
Originally Posted by RPB
he made prasanth act in thiruda thiruda? :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by MADDY
that was a action movie and no need for "great" acting skills....... :roll: ........watever was reqd for that "kathir" role, he had done it..... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by thimuru
Of course. It is one of the very few movies where Prasanth was watchable. Prasanth intro scene, where Malaysia confronts him when he is trying to steal the jeep, is done pretty well.Quote:
Originally Posted by thimiru
You feel very sad for Anand. The guy had Prasanth for lunch in that film. But his career wasn't even half as good as Prasanth's.
And Heera. Her performance in that film is her best.That movie should have done much much better than it did.
If I am right Kathir was played by Anand and Prasanth's role was Azhagu.Quote:
Originally Posted by MADDY
i had that confusion, thought of checking wikipedia or imdb but was lazy to do that..........but now i know, we have a IMDB with us here :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
:-)
ThirudA thirudA is one of my favourites. RGV was the co-writer of the script. Anand's intro is equally good. The dissolve from the India map to the burgled house... and Anand on the roof (PC Sreeram getting wild orange here). He falls through the roof on a flustered girl and asks: " nooru roobaikku sillarai irukkumA " :lol:
If I remember right it was Rahman's fourth film, the BGM was great (I am a sucker for violins !), the visuals, SPB and his tactics ("sarkAr sothukku aasaippada koodAdhu" :D) and one of the climax stunts ever.
It should have done much better. Perhaps with more star value it would have been more saleable, though nearly all the performances were good.
pr...the dialogues should have been made clear!
yedho kenathukulla ukaandhu pesura maadhiri kusu kusunu pesikitaina
Watching Thalapathy.
Arvind Swamy's intro (Jaishankar and Sriidhya's too).
townsfolk follow a water-diviner and the machine digs for water. Celebrations abound as water rains on all the crowds.
Till now we have no idea who these three are.
Then a woman comes and speaks the first (only lines) of the scene to the Srividhya. "thappu paNNittiyE mA, oru puLLaiyOda niruthittiyE.....innoRu puLLai pethurindhA, innum paththu ooru nalla irundhirukkum"
Srividhya pauses (and we hear the train puff theme music IR :thumbsup:), so we gather who she is. Jaishankar places a comforting hand on her (we guess who he is and we know that "he knows", so understand what kind of person he is).
MR's grasp of visual storytelling, is just amazing :notworthy:
andha pulla ippo enga irukkano...Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
a superb movie by:
Rajinikanth
Maniratnam
Ilayaraaja
PR :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
visiting this place after a while, its nice to see the old-timers haven't lost the touch!
great point PR :clap: .......
i remember one scene in Uyire/Dil se where the terrorist group executes their Republicday/Independence day plan in their minds........each person will visualise their part in the assasination plan :(
also, everytime, SRK approaches Manisha physically, her mouth gets stuck open and she gets a attack sort of thing......later in the movie, Mani links it to the child-rape scene of Manisha, which is y she doesent like men nearing her.......ARR uses the same BGM for both the scenes - which is the link - truly amazing 8-)
thats true - in fact, hushed dialogues seem to be a sort of mani ratnam trademark. has someone asked him about this??Quote:
Originally Posted by thimuru
Remember the ponnu pakkara sequence in Roja - where madhu's sis and arvind swamy have a chat over coffee with the village elders looking on in the background. First time I saw the movie I had no clue what the hell was going on... gets irritating at times. I understand the content of the scene meant that the dialogues had to be hush-hush. But - when weighed against the significance of what was being said, surely the lines could've been more audible.
I remember a mani ratnam feature by anita nair which started with a conversation she had with her cabbie on the way to the big man's house. On being told that she was going to talk to MR, the guy said something like, "Would you please ask him why is it that all his heroines shriek and the heroes mumble when they deliver their dialogue?" :D
its a open secret that Maniratnam is a Mahendran-inspired product.......Mahendran, if i'm not wrong, is the first person who dared to de-dramatize the tamil cinema and its viewers.......soft, silent dialogues were a important step towards it :D .....Maniratnam took it to the next level with inaudible dialogues, a bit artificial :oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by ramsri
but the legend, proves he is a ever-evolving person and his critics need to update themselves :D .......Guru is the perfect example on how Mani can break his monotonity......dialogues were loud, clear, lengthy just like any maarwadi businessman speaks :D ......
Ramsri Welcome back :victory: :2thumbsup: :clap: :cool2:
enga pOyitteenga ivvaLavu naaL ?Et tu ? MR hardly had any inaudible dialogues pre-Roja. And artificial is a word I'd hesitate to use with that phase of his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by MADDY
The curt-dialogues (Thalapathi and beyond) that he is lampooned is something that is just blown out of proportion. He has always had a sensible mix without being vaLa-vaLa. Most importantly he never ever has a piece of dialogue for something you can see on screen. If someone comes drenched in the rain in an MR film you won't have someone asking him: "En ippidi mazhaila nanajittu vareenga ?". That would be radio play writing. Largely the dialogues would fit into the expected conversation of the characters, and move the story forward.
As for the hush-hush of TT....I still like it. Thiefspeak, I say :-)
Welcome back Ramsri :D
PR has said enough about MR&his dialogues.They are crisp&his characters never talk more than what is needed.I like that style.
If at all I have a problem with a Mani film,it's with the climax of Agni.........I really had to strain my eyes to see what was happening(Prabhu&Karthik shifting Vijayakumar from 1 room to another inside the hospital).
IMO It was one of the most interesting climaxes in TF History. One of those instances where MR just snatched the baton and sprinted, leaving the competition and even the audience gasping for breath. Stunning visual style.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinefan
First of all Agni Natchatram camerawork is phenomenal. Impressive even by today's standards. When I drive home in rains late night this week I can't help thinking of a lone rickshsaw in a wide AdyAr(?) road. The sodium vapor lit yellowness, the bright-yet shady subways, the inconsistently lit electric trains, the too-bright-to-be-sharp sun in the hot sunny outdoors are all excellent.
The climax is just MR-PC Sreeram cutting loose. The basic idea of the climax is from Godfather, where Michael shifts Don Corleone's hospital bed. MR crafts the build-up scenes to it extremely well. With the families getting closer ("enga veettu ponnu dhaan" - Sumitra about Tara - such a normal line that is so touching)
The eye-straining lighting makes an otherwise people filled climax so eminently watchable. The audience has to consciously attempt to keep pace with what's going on. For instance the sequence where a child distracts the gunman, is pretty cliched. But the lighting makes the lapse of concentration so believable that it takes the thrill to a new level.
My favourite is that short sequence where Prabhu runs up to get a bottle of saline. You see him in shots of quick steps, somersaults across a table to get the saline (second bottle mind you, you don't expect to get the correct bottle in the very first bottle you pick, even if you are a hero !). And when he is on his way back downstairs he gets shot and he drops the bottle. This is from the staircase which branches out both sides in a V.
The bottle is dropped and we see it in slow motion from above (Prabhu's PoV) as it falls and he shouts "Ashok". Karthik eneters the frame from below to take it. For a moment MR messes with your sense of direction. You don't know what is above-below-left-right. And he prolongs that wonderful moment in slow motion. Visual stylist non-pareil :notworthy:
nandri, nandri :) its good to be backQuote:
Originally Posted by Cinefan
thanx for the rousing welcome - cinefan, PR...
getting right down to the res - PR's note on the Agni Natchatram climax was truly inspiring (makes me want to watch the flick all over again!) - there's a lot more to be said about that movie but I'll park that aside for a while till I can come up with a suitably insighful post... :)
turning attention instead, to the topic of dialogues in MR movies (which we've been talking abt anyway...) there's a scene from Kannathil Muthamittal which comes immediately to mind:
This is the one where Madhavan is giving his speech at a writers congregation in Sri Lanka while his daughter (Keerthana) is sitting on a park bench across the road talking to a bearded stranger (the guy of course, is one of the rebels - a human bomb, but we don't know that right now...)
Keerthana: yen tamizh oru madhri pesareenga??
Man (sardonically) : idhuvum tamizhdaan...
:notworthy:
that one line, to me, drove home the point with the kind of force that reams of dialogue (about the liberation movement, tamil eelam etc.) could never have hoped to match. and the best part, is that its the kind of thing that works on two levels - you could take those words at face value, or you could choose to read between the lines and discover a hidden meaning there which would otherwise have gone unnoticed.
so the proof of the dialogue is really in the interpretation...
subtlety - thy name is mani ratnam! :thumbsup:
I've never thought this way :oops: Ramsri :notworthy:Quote:
Originally Posted by ramsri
Welcome back Ramsri :) :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ramsri
I couldnt get you exactly? :roll: What is the hidden meaning here?
Roshan -Quote:
Originally Posted by Roshan
Not sure how to explain this elaborately :) but let me try...
The guy in the park is a human bomb (though we don't know it at the beginning of the scene). Now because this is mani ratnam territory, we know this character is being introduced to us for a reason - which will presumably be brought out as the scene progresses. The trick for the director here is to use the conversation between him and the girl to gradually reveal to the audience what kind of man he is and what he's doing on that park bench at that juncture of the story (remember this is a man who's about to die in a few minutes - giving up his life for the Cause). And in a style so typical of him, MR chooses not to give the young man an impassioned speech about why he is what he is, what his motivations are and all that jazz (which would scarcely have been believable given that there's a 10-yr old girl at the other end of the conversation). Instead the dialogue between the two is woven in a way that offsets the girl's childish innocence with the derisive remarks of the terrorist. So when he says "Idhuvum tamizhdhan", you're sure it's not just his accent he's talking about, but something far more significant - it's about the spirit of being a Tamil... he's almost saying "Nangalum tamizhargaldhan" - or maybe even "Nangadhan tamizhargal" - it's a philosophy that has formed much of the basis for various Lankan militant groups claiming a Tamil Eelam of their own. And he says it in a way that instantly explains his background, his principles and all that he stands for. If you're really listening to the character speak, you realize right away that something profound has just been said. And the effect it creates is of the kind that no protracted dialogue or inspired acting could've hoped to create. It's just brilliant writing :notworthy:
The scene, for me, is a masterclass in cinematic subtlety... not just because it manages to convey a message like that, but because the message is only there for those who want to read it. You could a) read a totally different meaning to what he said, or b) completely miss the import of what was said, or c) not bother to analyze what was actually said - and in all three cases, you would end up enjoying the scene just as much... :2thumbsup: [/i]
Ramsri's interpretation of that scene was quite obvious I thought, but his writeup is elucidative. :thumbsup:
Another scene from Dalapathi deserves a mention - the one where Surya, Kalyani and her husband are at the temple... (Kalyani and Surya are of course, mutually unaware of each others' presence and of the blood relation that exists between them). A train horn sounds in the distance - immediately, as if by instinct, all of them turn toward the direction of the sound as the camera pans to show us how they react. The expressions on Surya's and Kalyani's faces are almost identical (we know why) and consistent with the mother-and-long-lost-son-pining-for-each-other sentiment reinforced at various points in the film.
Jaishankar's expression on the other hand, is a study in inscrutability - again, we know why - the train does not mean as much to him as it does to the other two. And yet, he presents the benevolent facade of one (in fact, the only one) who is sensitive to the turmoil they are going through, even though he himself is distanced from it... :thumbsup: , I say!
Like that other brilliant scene from Nayagan which we've discussed before (maybe elsewhere), this one too has no dialogue - which only adds to its appeal. Someone made the point earlier about how MR would never have a line of dialogue for something he could show you on screen... well, this scene is a standing example... :clap:
BTW - what was the name of Jaishankar's character in Dalapathi? Come to think of it - did he even have a name?? :confused2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ramsri
No
Nice one ramsri. Well captured. Makes me want to revisit.
:exactly: One of the very few writers who knows the difference between writing for films and writing for radio-plays. I can think of a ten different ways in which that scene could have been ruined.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramsri
btw I don't think Jaishankar had a name in that film.
This ostensibly belongs to some other thread, but no, it belongs here. Anyway I posted this in orkut.
Quote:
Nayagan's crying scene became way too iconic, rarely a performance oriented role became that iconic, elevating Kamal to a thespian stature, and celebrated around the Country(all the more special for a tamil film) like never before, while an elementary casual viewer might underrate what I'm going to say next. It's the context of crying in that particular scene which would become a textbook for few, but for majority, operatic. Now to the film, Velu doesn't cry his heart out at every turn, he isn't broken when he faces death in different forms. Because, Velu is an animal, and a survivor, a true 'master of the game'. But only when he has an opponent...
Case in point ->
1) When his dad dies, he avenges the inspector.
2) When Vaapa (who took care of him) dies. He kills the inspector
3) when his wife Neela dies. He kills the whole Reddy family!
All of 'em are his OWN mistakes. Velu vents his frustration out when there is a perpetrator involved, but what happens when there is no one to be blamed?
When his son dies, he expresses it out with groans and self-disappointment, but this is hardly noticed with care and better perspective! Instead, we get few idiots who overused this particular moment at the expense of being a 'mimicry artist'! As we can see, when others do it, it's funny (I personally find it amusing, not funny). But when Velu naicker does it in the film, it's not!
Few more, although this is more of a comparison, (updated from my original) Will post more in coming days..
Quote:
Pudhupettai looses its grip right somewhere along the second half (final third was downright laughable.) Similarities are ample with AE, Inba's journey to become a politician is much like Kokki's journey, both being slum dwellers, Inba's marriage is broken in the end, he leaves his wife, Kokki leaves his kid and meaningful relationships with women are anything but defunct (one leaves him and the other dead - this of course, was interesting as such) Kokki kills his dad, Inba kills his brother, although for different reasons as it appears, both being difficult childhood, and bad upbringing. In both the cases, the characters are instinctive survivors who would do anything to achieve their goal, and their journey into politics ends in different ways, and their last assault is for different reasons, Kokki for revenge, and ultimate survival - ironically he ends up in a fairy tale, Inba's however is quite opposite, ambitious & opportunistic, although ending up from where he started (hence, making it cyclic, and more interesting.) What Mani does in 45 minutes (or less?) is stretched for a longer run time to nothing significant 'thematically', mainly to surface realism and offer a different narrative. Perhaps "authentic" is the word for Selva's portrayal, but the themes with which he handles is handled better by Mani, although less authentic in its portrayal. BTW, from what I see, the prostitute angle is a homage to Mani's Nayagan, and Sonia's character (and her brother) is more of a homage to De Palma's Scarface, where Al's friend marries his sister, infuriating Al to shoot him, here it's the other way around, Kokki marries his friend's sister, infuriating him to shoot Kokki, although Kokki survives. Selva has such characters to irreverence of Kokki, who use women for personal gratification.* Selva has such long sequences trying to make it comprehensive but he doesn't realize the power of obscurity. Comprehensive films are welcome, but it could really make better use of cinematic reality, that is not to spoonfeed, but use the liberty of visual narrative/terse writing! For example, a single line from Inba, indha pomblainga kitta vechukuvE kudatha, appo appo, ponnama, paarthoma, senjOma-nu thirumbiranum covers the whole point*. 50 milli sarAyathu kaaga, SarAya kadai-yE vanga kudathu!
The beauty of AE opening is its juxtaposition of three social classes in one particular context (before the focal point of the three narratives to follow,) we see a lower class (flawed) goon who never cares about 'mores' in a relationship, we see the bourgeoisie Surya asking Esha deol to come to his place, she says, kalyanathuku munnadiya, pacha paavam (the way she says it...nevermind), then we see a high-class yuppie in Siddarth who runs around Trisha, and says a very naive hippie line pittsburgh-la mottai poddalam (slightly artificial) for their future kid. He even threatens to commit suicide to impress, and prove his "love" to her, like any irresponsible kid! Irrespective of shortcomings, :notworthy:.
That was a good one, Ramsri. The framing is brilliant here. The camera moves, pans and cuts fluidly as accorded by a virtuoso. (The scene can be watched over here.) Mani's screenwriting is of the topmost order. The other day, in a different thread, I used 'Maniesque' writing to mean the right opposite of 'expositional.' That's exactly what his writing is like.
In this aspect, I don't think there is a definitive predecessor to him in Tamil cinema. Mahendran or Balu Mahendra surely had subtly written scenes, scenes with less dialogue (or even, no dialogue) but the sparser dialogue still were significantly expositional. But, Mani took it to the next level. With Mani Ratnam, the scenes didn't speak to the audience at all. The audience was put in the scene. You hardly need words to grasp a situation if you're in it (in real life). In many cases, his dialogue is even simply tangential to the scene. Giving some wonderful moments for Tamil cinema.
While I think there are far better examples to elicit the greatness of Mani's writing than thaLapathi (not a huge fan of the film though I really do like it), I think thaLapathi posed a challenge to Mani's writing skills in an obtuse way. Before coming to that, let me quote Prabhu Ram as I'm going to pick my polemic from there. And, for once, in the appropriate thread. :)
Funny you should say that, Prabhu Ram. The way I see it (after having revisited the film sometime back), I think there are many such scenes in thaLapathi which are all but destined to be ruined. And, Mani diligently tries to pull it out of the rut every time. Not that he doesn't manage to succeed, but the result isn't as sparkling as it ought to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram
Now, I don't mean to be hyper-critical of the film. It's a finely made film, the performances are superb (never mind the overly stiff and silly Arjun), the craft is outstanding (even by Mani's standards), the music is sublime. Not to forget the iconic scenes in the film which are stuff of the legend. But, the sheer content and the way it's rendered brings down the film. Many of the film's parts are too melodramatic and over-the-top that it best suits a no-holds-barred kitsch treatment. And, yet, Mani places these scenes in his world. And, the result is a weird concoction of the subtle and the over-the-top. Mani's dialogues, even if sparse, tends to work like a sledgehammer. ("unna mARi enakkoru aNNan irundhurundhA, nI poRandhappavE engamma unna vitteRinjiruppAnga." Really! Rajini stands out in this scene nevertheless.)
Honestly evaluating, I think Mani tried to evoke the mythical angle by making it like it "happens" in myths. Like in one of those scenes, Devaraj talks to the newborn daughter of Banu Priya in her house, "idhu sUryA, unakku enna vEnAlum kekkalAm. illa'nnu solla mAttAn!" But the result frankly is somewhat unrewarding.
Thalapathy's dialogues are often saved by Mani's direction (from the performance he extracts, and not to mention the superlative cinematography, music.)
It's a spontaneous reaction indeed, nuanced and apt!Quote:
"unna mARi enakkoru aNNan irundhurundhA, nI poRandhappavE engamma unna vitteRinjiruppAnga." Really! Rajini stands out in this scene nevertheless.
and,
But it offers an unique experience which I cherish and love! :)Quote:
Many of the film's parts are too melodramatic and over-the-top that it best suits a no-holds-barred kitsch treatment. And, yet, Mani places these scenes in his world. And, the result is a weird concoction of the subtle and the over-the-top.
And Thanks for the clip, Sir!