Critics and confusions

[jaiganes]

endhiran is a scifi subverted to aachi masala in the crudest form possible.

உங்களுக்கும் சாருவிற்கு உள்ள ஒற்றுமைகள் என்ன; வேற்றுமைகள் என்ன? கொஞ்சம் வெளக்குமாற்றால் வெளக்க முடியுமா?

i am a software engineer and he is a writer.
however it seems we have the same effect on you.

[jaiganes]

For the record:

Nobody was saying Enthiran should be appreciated for the *hard work*. I for one was appreciating Shankar's vision which made the job of other technicians easier. Don't twist my (our) words.

That is a management aspect - not creative. So I guess we have to leave that too at the doorsteps. If someone served me something to eat, I would only rate it going by the taste. If I were to go by the number of hours it was prepared or how efficiently the cook arranged his work area ergonomically - well that is least of my concerns. The dish should be hygenic and tasty and worth the money I spend for ordering it. I think a film critic also works by the same principle.
Apocalypse Now - one of the cult classic films was made after inordinate production delays - it reflects on the inefficiency of the production crew - but as a movie to the viewer it is a classic.
So for all the shankar lovers who appreciate Endhiran for the "sheer effort" or for "Sheer project management skills", it is appreciable - right, but not a factor to review the film.

[Nerd]

I think we are talking about two different things here.

1. Shankar ~= SAC. No, because SAC can't conceive a 3D animated storyboard even in his dreams. You or for that matter anybody liking the film is a different issue, but Shankar has got it in him i.e. creativity, mastery of the craft, how to make his actors act etc which are some of the things essential for a good director. So Shankar is an excellent director. And I repeat the screenwriter is different from a *director*.

2. Enthiran is a bad film. OK, I grant that to you but I just don't agree with your views and thats why I brought up VA as an example. I mean I did not like VA an inch and you seemed to have liked it. So no surprises there, we both look for different things in a film. Another example is VTV - we both are at extremes.

W.r.to Enthiran's sensibilities as a film and Shankar's sensibilities as a director so many examples have been given and of course you or anybody is more than welcome to disgaree with/BS that.

My point, which fuelled the creation of this thread is this: If one disagrees with a critic's view there is no harm in bringing in, the reviews of his for other films and try to understand if that reviewer has been consistent.

[app_engine]

So no surprises there, we both look for different things in a film. Another example is VTV - we both are at extremes.

I think there are tons of movies where possibly Nerd agrees with the critic jaiganes
(avaL appadiththAn / uthirippookkaL / muLLum malarum as older samples and possibly kaLavANi / Shivaji recent ones)

[Nerd]

I think there are tons of movies where possibly Nerd agrees with the critic jaiganes

This applies to all critics and their audience. And its actually extremely difficult for a critic to satisfy even one member of the audience, all the time. Baradwaj Rangan usually gets it right but I was shocked to see him praise Vamsam (one example out of many).

[venkkiram]

எவ்வளவுதான் Chocolate ருசியாக இருந்தாலும் அதற்கான Wrapper இல்லன்னா பப்பு வேகாது. சந்தையில் விற்பனையாகாது. ஷங்கர் Chocolate , Wrapper இரண்டையுமே நல்லா செய்து விற்பனை செய்வதில் வல்லவர்.

[jaiganes]

I think we are talking about two different things here.

1. Shankar ~= SAC. No, because SAC can't conceive a 3D animated storyboard even in his dreams. You or for that matter anybody liking the film is a different issue, but Shankar has got it in him i.e. creativity, mastery of the craft, how to make his actors act etc which are some of the things essential for a good director. So Shankar is an excellent director.

2. Enthiran is a bad film. OK, I grant that to you but I just don't agree with your views and thats why I brought up VA as an example. I mean I did not like VA an inch and you seemed to have liked it. So no surprises there, we both look for different things in a film. Another example is VTV - we both are at extremes.

W.r.to Enthiran's sensibilities as a film and Shankar's sensibilities as a director so many examples have been given and of course you are anybody is more than welcome to disgaree with/BS that.

My point, which fuelled the creation of this thread is this: If one disagrees with a critic's view there is no harm in bringing in, the reviews of his for other films and try to understand if that reviewer has been consistent.

Fair enough - please do not think that i got offended and that is why this new thread. I found that it is genuine not to accept a critic or reviewer's take on a film. If we can understand what aspects make a film likeable to one and unacceptable to a critic we can better understand how we appreciate movies.
Let me try my best to cover your 3 bullets.
1. SAC Vs Shankar - now this point came up because we were discussing - content wise what is Shankar formula and how different it is from SAC formula. However you and maddy took it as a personal offense on Shankar the person himself and started taking sides. As a follow up you have come up with a few points - but all of that is "Technique" or "method". how things were made. Well as a member of audience I have very little curiosity on "making" aspect. whether callsheets of "Stars" were well planned or not etc.,
2. you bringing VA into the picture is perfectly OK. you did that to check if I have applied the same yard sticks to all the movies I write about. Fair enough and honestly that is how we can appreciate a true critic - one who is honest about his/her views on what a "good film" is and as a reader we have to only compare past reviews to say if the current piece is consistent or not. However I want you to read through VA post and see if my views have changed or not. Do you think that I am a Gowtham Menon fan putting trash into endhiran thread? not possible because VTV was much hated by me and it is a well known fact.
VA - as a film is not something I loved - in fact I have mentioned that it did not catch me and make me appreciate that, yet I had to acknowledge that it was not a film that wanted me to do that - it was honest. Whereas Endhiran lacks this basic honesty. It has a flawed view on humanity - its sum decision is summarized as
1. human feelings for humanoid robots is a bad thing - because the robots will go crazy and { human feelings = (and only=) love for a woman}. - That is such a stupid conclusion to arrive at after all that first half buildup. To justify this conclusion there is a bloodbath in the climax - which is too much even if one accepts the special effects glitz.
2. human society doesnt need robots - why? no certain answer is given - a rather SAC like conclusion is arrived at - without much deliberation - that is the reason why I say that scifi genre which is all about deliberate meditation on human existence is dumbed down to aachi masala level. And content wise this is exactly what SAC would have done - hypothetically - because SAC wisely wouldnt indulge in scifi and would barely make movies in this budget.

[jaiganes]

எவ்வளவுதான் Chocolate ருசியாக இருந்தாலும் அதற்கான Wrapper இல்லன்னா பப்பு வேகாது. சந்தையில் விற்பனையாகாது. ஷங்கர் Chocolate , Wrapper இரண்டையுமே நல்லா செய்து விற்பனை செய்வதில் வல்லவர்.

Ok .we are not discussing Shankar's abilities here. please take it to the endhiran thread or the Best director thread.

[jaiganes]

@Nerd - To be fair to Baradwaj Rangan - he was writing a piece on sophomore efforts of Susindran and Pandiraj and he was complementing Pandiraj in that light alone.

I have a different take on Vamsam - which I liked it as a good screenplay, but as a content there were many regressive elements in it which makes it a pot of milk with drops of poison.

[thamiz]

Jaiganes:

Nice thread!