Originally Posted by
mappi
Kumarsr,
A movie is actually 'whatever the viewer wants it to be'. Few people try to be 'perfectionist' stating that what they state is what should be slated. Irrespective to what the makers may have thought (I had been slapped many number of times with that line), I approach a movie as it appraoches me, and I don't care about the insider's informations. Such arguments come into place only when the fans & audience realise "Genre Filmmaking", until then, there is no wrong in expressing whatever you think about the movie. We have a habit of mixing anything & everything, and that's entirely a different topic.
'Your film got 1 million viewers'
- 'I am glad that it will have 1 million different views'
Thats the end statement of any film maker. Recently I had a long (unofficial) conversation with a film maker and we were interrupted by other fans in regular intervals. "The scene was quite simple - a guy falls from the top of a building. Just a second before he is approached by the hero". I was not not amazed on the impact the scene had on the viewers, but was with their feedback. Some said that it was sad he commited suicide, other claimed its a tragic accident, few stated that it was the hero who scared him that made him fall, others went a step ahead and did a psychoanalysis inferring what made him jump, others blamed their relationship and pitied the guy, a lot laughed at the fall stating that it was one of the lighter moments in the film, others concluded that it was intentional, when few others judged that it was decisional.
The interesting part is that, for all the feedback the film maker was just smiling and nodding his head, as though every viewers interpretation was absolutely correct. Thats the magic of cinema. I know what and why exactly he kept that scene that way, but I will not speak it out and take the charm of film making. Its not getting acquainted with a film personality that counts, but respecting him as well as any other viewers sentiments is what that is important. That's the fuel to the machine called cinema.
One thing I always follow is that - creating a theory around a result will obviously point to the result - should not do that. In the context of UV, if you already consider Manorangan & Muttharasan are same and then start discovering symbols in the film, it will point to it. Else if you approach them to be 2 different persons, the same symbols will indicate something else. Thats the magic, but finding the trick needs an appraoch, eventhough both are logically correct with its own share of falacies. For that matter any decent film will hold it, not only Uttama Villan.
For instant : I can take the bubble theory, put it inside and comeout stating that it about 'multi-talent'. Or state that the galaxy is a hot pot where one bubble brusts to make few others and then arrange it in such a way to invade the Uttaman story. Or Uttaman as the art, so natural and innocent, which is been stuck with venom, back stabbed etc., and finally reaches the censor board, which is deaf to its freedom but listens only to the governing (social) parties - and then its all about how Art wins over its governing bodies. Or technically speaking, the shot where you see the back of Kamal in the Mall is the same shot of the frontal of Senguttuvan. Or the 'screen' - peephole - that shows Manoranjan being carried away - POV of Aparna and how its cut to the theatre - the stage. Or how the enjoyment of the victory by the people magically turns into the cheers of audience ... So on so forth.
Being a story-hunter, I can talk about the Uttaman story, its references or other similar tales which are funny and thought provoking. Or being interested in technical endeavors be it acting or naration or filmaking itself, we can go deep into the craft - editing/cinemotography/direction/etc., - which I feel less is talked about with Uttama Villain as people are quite busy with the screenplay as it was done by Kamal. If Ramesh Aravindh wrote the screen play and Kamal did the direction, the turn of events would be interesting to note from the fans end. Reminds me of Kannadasan's words. Anyway, the value is not how much you can talk, its how much you can take. Being a pot maybe great to be filled, but don't forget that a pot takes the same amount of water from the well as will as the ocean. Its upto to an individual to explore oneself, and each of his expressions defines who he really is.
Good going Arvind, I take the opputunity to thank you and the rest of the few including kumarsr, for giving flavoured views on different aspects/subjects of the film. Learnt a lot, and expecting more.
Nasc thanked for this post
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks