Golden Period of Tamil Cinema

[P_R]

There's no perspective they bring to the table by themselves.

I am not sure I get this. Their expectation of reality on screen is based on their understanding of reality as they perceive it.

Plus a movie is by its very nature more 'real' than a book. At the risk of sounding too wierd: a book is still black on white about something that is not black on white. You have to conjure about the 'reality' with the help of what you read. With a movie, it is there. You only have to register.There may be some who may disagree, and say this is only 'passive viewing' and you have to engage with it as you would with a book.

But I think this is the reason why we have a stiffer bar for realism in films than in books.

[P_R]

Think about kanmani anbodu kadhalan - "ennoda kaadhal ennanu sollama yenga yenga azhuga azhugaya varudhu" outlines Guna's charecter beautifully.why should it be considered to be inappropriate?

Of course. Now, why did you pick this example out of all the examples you could have. In kaNmaNi there is more inherent "justification" for lip-synching than pEygaLai nambAdhE, isn't it ?

[equanimus]

PR,
I'm not saying that plausibility is immaterial. I hope that's clear. What I am saying is that's not what the film is actually about. Sure, it enables the audience to, in some sense, believe what's unfolding on screen. But merely being thoroughly plausible doesn't make the film a good one. Of course, there's no clear demarcation in this regard. I'm not pretending that there is. My point is simply that critiques that embrace or dismiss a film solely depending on the plausibilities of the scenarios that arise in the film are useless.

And let's not mix the most important challenges for the writer with what's most important for the film. (Just as an aside though, the challenges for a writer or a filmmaker are many. A writer who instinctively gets some things right, thinks the other qualities are more important because he or she's making a conscious effort. Another writer who effortlessly does the latter would think the former ones are the most important challenges.)

[P_R]

Plausibility is a* necessary condition not a sufficient one.


* largely/usually/generally/invariably

And let's not mix the most important challenges for the writer with what's most important for the film.

Ah...good point.

[equanimus]

PR,
Sure, but note that the obligation runs both ways! That's why criticising a film like 'uthrip pUkkaL' * on these grounds amounts to mere nitpicking.

* - not because I'm saying it's great, but because the rest of the film is obviously very dissimilar to that song sequence.

[equanimus]

There's no perspective they bring to the table by themselves.

I am not sure I get this. Their expectation of reality on screen is based on their understanding of reality as they perceive it.

Of course, PR, like I said, it's about what one thinks is/understands as prevalent, etc. (Ha, that's why I said "no other perspective" the first time!) There's no point turning this into an academic discussion. Look at the belief that lies beneath such criticisms. If I've to put it in your style,

P1: Ha, nobody does that. That scene is illogical. Would all of this happen to one person in one day?
P2: You know what, it has happened. One of my friends had to go through something very similar.
P3: Oh, really... Hmm...

[P_R]

PR,
Sure, but note that the obligation runs both ways! That's why criticising a film like 'uthrip pUkkaL' * on these grounds amounts to mere nitpicking.

* - not because I'm saying it's great, but because the rest of the film is obviously very dissimilar to that song sequence.

Ok adhu nEkku theriyAdhu. As I said, I only have a hazy recollection of the movie - only that it didn't quite blow my socks off.

From the way you were saying it seemed like "there is no dip" rather than "the dip is immaterial and negligible when evaluating the film UP". adhu dhaan konjam theoriticalA pongittEn.

If I've to put it in your style,

P1: Ha, nobody does that. That scene is illogical. Would all of this happen to one person in one day?
P2: You know what, it has happened. One of my friends had to go through something very similar.
P3: Oh, really... Hmm...

Was the choice of P3 instead of P1 again intentional ?

[P_R]

Oops I used the 'i' word again

[Plum]

apropos of nothing
poonthamalliyila oru poNNu pinnAlE...

[equanimus]

No, it wasn't, though I noticed it after posting. In other words, I intentionally left it as it is! (I thought P3 as the now-clueless onlooker also fit in well.)

From the way you were saying it seemed like "there is no dip" rather than "the dip is immaterial and negligible when evaluating the film UP". adhu dhaan konjam theoriticalA pongittEn.

I think what I said can be separated into two things. The first is about the nitpicking. By the way, you don't have to recall the film for this. The question is rather simple. Did the criticism say anything we already didn't know or realise (i.e. how outlandish that song is, etc.)? Is there not a forced sense of objectivity in explicitly mentioning it as a big flaw? This, I argue, is an offshoot of the plausibles' school of thought.

But I'm also quite serious about the "plausibles" in a more general sense. Isn't this a very familiar logic applied to many films (good and bad)? The sole exercise in watching the film is to deliberate whether it looks plausible or not. There's something extremely rationalized about watching a film like this. This is what I often refer to as "passive viewing." I think it's so common. I'm not sure if you've sensed this. It's as if the only possible remark one can make about the film is to refer to the parts that looked plausible and the parts that didn't.