Kamalhassan's Ideology in his films

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

13th July 2010, 05:14 PM
kid-glove

Quote:

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.

Oh you've made it clearer and opened up an interesting point. 'Secularized' or 'Atheistic' in Mani's visual trope in materializing 'sculptures of God' does of course connote a 'Silence of God' or 'Death of God' aftereffect. But in saying that, one does feel a tinge of surreptitiousness and remain unconvinced.

I'm guessing you're using it in the exact context Philip Lutgendorf referred to world of Benegal's Mahabharath adaptation Kalyug, where God is visually drowned and then kathakali dance-drama of Bheema vs Dushasana (from Mahabharath) is played. Just at the last act when Bheem disembowels the latter & drinks his blood (Fulfilling Draupadi's vow). The Modern-day Arjun is indifferent to this 'mirror' moment, and his (soon-to-be) Draupadi is somewhat disinterested and put-off at this conjecture. Now that's the sort of 'Death of God' and 'secularized view' that I find inviting. Mani is a lot more non-committal and obtuse from Nayakan to Kannathil Muthamitaal to Dil Se to Raavan.
13th July 2010, 05:23 PM
Sarna

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anban

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_filmography

World movies and Lumier are playing his movies regularly.... I have seen some of them..... really good and funny movies

BTW, kid and equa... r u talking abt this guy ?
//dig ends
13th July 2010, 05:46 PM
equanimus

Quote:

Originally Posted by kid-glove

Quote:

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.

Oh you've made it clearer and opened up an interesting point. 'Secularized' or 'Atheistic' in Mani's visual trope in materializing 'sculptures of God' does of course connote a 'Silence of God' or 'Death of God' aftereffect. But in saying that, one does feel a tinge of surreptitiousness and remain unconvinced.

Um, no. I meant to say his camera captures temples, sculptures, etc. as material and nothing more. alai pAyuthE, rOjA, nAyagan, Bombay, Dil Se, chathriyan, the camera stops at the level of "observing." And I don't think it connotes the silence of god or the death of god or some such thing at all. In fact, I think this is precisely the zone in which Kamal operates. Contrast the above moments from Mani's films with the way gods, temples appear in Kamal's films (guNA, thEvar magan, mahAnadhi, Hey! Ram, virumANdi, dasAvathAram). This is the distinction I was making between the two originally, before we digressed towards the agnostics vs. atheists debate. :)

Whether this sort of absence means a purer form of atheism or not is an academic debate. I'm not saying it is necessarily atheistic, but that's what I've sensed from Mani Ratnam's films. It may be because I viewed his films with the knowledge that he calls himself an atheist.
13th July 2010, 06:01 PM
kid-glove

Quote:

Originally Posted by equanimus

Quote:

Originally Posted by kid-glove

Quote:

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.

Oh you've made it clearer and opened up an interesting point. 'Secularized' or 'Atheistic' in Mani's visual trope in materializing 'sculptures of God' does of course connote a 'Silence of God' or 'Death of God' aftereffect. But in saying that, one does feel a tinge of surreptitiousness and remain unconvinced.

Um, no. I meant to say his camera captures temples, sculptures, etc. as material and nothing more. alai pAyuthE, rOjA, nAyagan, Bombay, Dil Se, chathriyan, the camera stops at the level of "observing." And I don't think it connotes the silence of god or the death of god or some such thing at all. In fact, I think this is precisely the zone in which Kamal operates. Contrast the above moments from Mani's films with the way gods, temples appear in Kamal's films (guNA, thEvar magan, mahAnadhi, Hey! Ram, virumANdi, dasAvathAram). This is the distinction I was making between the two originally, before we digressed towards the agnostics vs. atheists debate. :)

Whether this sort of absence means a purer form of atheism or not is an academic debate. I'm not saying it is necessarily atheistic, but that's what I've sensed from Mani Ratnam's films. It may be because I viewed his films with the knowledge that he calls himself an atheist.

uh, okay. I actually think the aforementioned mode that Benegal operates is precisely 'secularized' and less obscure, more revealing of the film's intention. And in comparison, Mani is obtuse and stops short of making his intentions clear. Then we have little to disagree..

But you said this,

Quote:

Originally Posted by K-g

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equa

Oh, I do

This doesn't sit well when "the camera stops at the level of "observing.""

That called for the Benegal/Kalyug example.

With this sort of discussion, I'm left perplexed. Absence of god, Secularized(his camera is), Silence of God-lam oNNu thAnE da kozappureengaLE dA! to me :lol:
13th July 2010, 06:06 PM
P_R

Quote:

Originally Posted by equanimus

But this doesn't mean atheists have to ram in a message repeatedly to call themselves that.

True. I was just trying to be subtly nasty. Cull out paNNitteenga :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by equanimus

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

A theist agnostic (type b) would be really interesting. Reminds me of Boris Grushenko in Love and Death saying that the worst you can say about God is that he is an underachiever :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by equanimus

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

One is usually not indifferent about something that has a big impact on one's life (if I had a career counseler, he'd disagree!).

Indifference in spirituality usually proceeds from a conviction that God is largely impotent when it comes to one's day to day existence. Which, for lack of another word, is what is termed as agnosticism by general population. Possible abuse of terminology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by equanimus

If giving out this message makes one non-spiritual (not sure if you're saying so,

I wasn't. Was only saying you oughtn't to be puzzled by Thilaquer's statement, because the label agnostic is used quite differently from its etymological origins.
13th July 2010, 06:18 PM
equanimus

Quote:

Originally Posted by anbu_kathir

If I remember right, Kamal did mention on some stage that the religious conversations in his movies to be a reflection for the religious dialogue within himself. I guess his convictions are also reflected in his personal interviews or stage talks. Hence I base my ideas on his convictions on those.

anbu_kathir,
Just to clarify, by 'spiritual,' I mean metaphysical ruminations, as PR put it. I'm not sure which interviews you're talking about. I've seen interviews where he quotes Adi Sankaras and Jesuses of the world, calling them atheists of their times, interviews where he traces Periyar to the heritage of Siththars. The metaphysical terrain of myths like Ramayana and Mahabharatha are touched upon at the drop of a hat in his films.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anbu_kathir

Now, was Kamal's 'anbu' in Anbe Sivam such an idea? No, it was only compassion. It is surely essential. It might lead to an experience of God (as that conceptless-entity). However, Kamal (or his characters) never claimed it does.

Actually, I'm not clear if Thirumoolar claimed that (I mean, I've no idea and would appreciate a clarification), but isn't it striking that Kamal invokes someone like Thirumoolar in the first place? I certainly do agree that Kamal has no time for religious hokum. So yes, he's demystifying Thirumoolar, but the question is if he de-spiritualizes.
13th July 2010, 06:19 PM
P_R

Quote:

Absence of god, Secularized(his camera is), Silence of God-lam

IIUC...

Ayyanaar presiding over the thEvar Magan last fight

இந்த பொல்லா ஜனங்கள் பாவக்கரையை நீரில் கழுவுது
இந்த முட்டாள்தனத்தை எங்கே சொல்லி நானும் அழுவது

this kind of impotency of the alleged omnipotent is not something MR tries to show.
13th July 2010, 06:32 PM
kid-glove

Quote:

I'm puzzled by your characterization (of his films as agnostic) here.

Equa, in light of your latest comment that the prior knowledge of Mani as an atheist influences this thought, let me be clear.

Yes I understand the demarcation within agnosticism. That's precisely why I categorize Mani's "films" (and not him) as such. When he stops at just 'observing', it doesn't even open up 'atheistic' world view, as I see it. On the other hand, it exudes more of a 'harmony' between Agnostic Atheism vs Agnostic Theism, as there are no open counterpoints and no debate in this regard - this could be achieved even without ramming it down the throat - as against say Anbe Sivam. If there were more visual or verbal cues of Bala or Kamal or Benegal, we wouldn't be discussing this. Thats all I'm talking about.
13th July 2010, 06:36 PM
equanimus

Quote:

Originally Posted by kid-glove

And in comparison, Mani is obtuse and stops short of making his intentions clear. Then we have little to disagree..

But my point is, it's not even Mani's intention to reveal something about god's failing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kid-glove

But you said this,

Quote:

Originally Posted by K-g

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equa

Oh, I do

This doesn't sit well when "the camera stops at the level of "observing.""

That called for the Benegal/Kalyug example.

With this sort of discussion, I'm left perplexed. Absence of god, Secularized(his camera is), Silence of God-lam oNNu thAnE da kozappureengaLE dA! to me :lol:

Ha ha, I didn't mean to say he makes the god absent purposefully to drive a point home. "Pitch in" is probably not the correct phrase, let's say it slips in to his films. And there's a distinction between merely observing and alluding to the silence/death of god.

I think PR has already illustrated the difference with a couple of examples (albeit from Kamal's films; but then how else can you illustrate what's not there in a film!).
13th July 2010, 06:45 PM
kid-glove

P_R,
I certainly find such questions to be least of MR's concerns and his idea of filmmaking. That's why I don't sense semblance of 'atheism'. If I'm understanding all this, Indifference alone doesn't allude to Atheism. There are theistic filmmakers who are indifferent too.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page