Friday, May 18, 2007

How I Forgave Vishal Bharadwaj

I have finally forgiven Vishal Bharadwaj for making Omkara.

The reason I was so disappointed with the man was because I so admired him. Because he had made a perfect gem in Maqbool. So it was a big disillusionment when Omkara turned out melodramatic and commercial. I should have expected it, with the stars it had, instead of actors like Irrfan and Pankaj Kapoor in Maqbool. Yet, with my reverence for Vishal Bharadwaj, I had hoped against my reason. And came away disappointed at the histrionics that stopped short of acting, the melodrama that stopped short of feeling, the hype that overshadowed the story.

And then one day I played the music of Omkara in a few leisure moments at home – obviously whatever objections I have to the movie do not extend to the music. As I heard a beautiful, unfamiliar voice sing, I picked up the cassette cover to discover the singer. I saw that it was Bharadwaj himself. And was floored by the amazing talent of the man.

As his mesmerising voice mellowed my feelings, I reminded myself that Omkara had enjoyed a success Maqbool could never aspire to. It not only earned a lot of money, but also a great deal of critical acclaim. In fact, I haven’t yet heard an unfavourable word about the movie: you’d think the Guy and I were the only people who were disappointed in it.

Why should I be angry with Vishal Bharadwaj for making a movie that was a success by every parameter? Why should I criticise him for wanting to be successful? After all, Omkara earned him the recognition his earlier movies never had. Why should I grudge him that? Why should I blame him for giving people what they want? After all, no one seemed to have liked Maqbool as much as I had. I had watched thunderstruck as it unfolded on the screen, thinking more than once, “Shakespeare would have smiled.” It seemed to have captured the spirit while casually discarding the body of Macbeth. It is only if you are acquainted with the play that you can truly appreciate the movie. Omkara, in contrast, felt like a laboured translation for minds that would never meet the original.

And then maybe, just maybe, he knew very well he was doing. Maybe he was cocking a snook at all of us, deliberately making a movie that everyone would praise, and laughing in his sleeve all the while. Maybe he wanted to direct "stars", most of who never got much further from acting themselves, and make a movie that was talked about. Maybe he is laughing at us all the while. I would be happier if I could believe that.

I still wish Omkara had been able to measure up to Maqbool. I still wish it had been a piece of art rather than a popular movie. I compare it with the subtlety of Maqbool and the delightfulness of Makdee, and grieve that he is more likely to be known as the maker of Omkara than of the other two.

But I forgive him. An artist too needs money to live and create with, and praise to live on. If making an Omkara allows him to live another day and make another Maqbool, so be it. If it is a price he is willing to pay, why should I complain? After all, he made an Omkara, not a Kabhie Khushi Kabhie Gham or even a Corporate. I was disappointed in Omkara because it was his movie – if Karan Johar had made it, I would have called it brilliant.

So I forgive Vishal Bharadwaj. Because his voice moved me. Because he makes beautiful music. Because however many popular movies he makes, he has given me one Maqbool.

16 comments:

Masood said...

Lucky him... :P

p.s. I've not seen Omkara so cudn't think of anything else that i could comment! :D

Amit said...

somebody let Vishal know of the forgiveness, he'll feel glad:)

GettingThereNow said...

Haven't seen either Maqbool or Omkara. Gotta see them now to figure out what you are talking about :D

Anonymous said...

its called a 'genre'...i guess most directors like to experiment with different one's (may be to see how good/versatile they are)...shaad ali tried his hands at a musical recently

OR....

its all about the medium...the actors i mean..u cannot expect bipasha and vivek oberoi to deliver the same as naseer and om puri....

OR...

one wouldnt like to be stereotype...even someone like AR rehman was once being criticised for making 'similar' music...

OR...

not all works of art of an artist are equally appealing...there are always some, which were called their best works...which may not be the one that gave the person himself the most satisfaction....for them it ususally is the one they found the most challenging..

lastly...not all stories/scripts have the same potential..

just some more reasons...and i really dont think he was trying for commercial success only...the rope is very tight you see :)

Unmana said...

Anonymous:

Firstly, why no name?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your first paragraph. A genre is only a certain kind of art (cinema, in this case), so every movie should be in some genre, right?

I agree completely with the second point: I did mention the presence of "stars" as compared to "actors".

Are you saying that I'm stereotyping? In what way? I don't think I accused Bharadwaj of being similar, I actually intensely admire his penchant for making movies on Shakespeare's plays!

The next paragraph, again, is not quite clear... I'm not sure whether you mean it's the most challenging piece that gives the artist the most satisfaction, or the other way around.

Are you saying that Macbeth is a better play than Othello? I don't think I agree with you there. I think Othello has the scope to be made into a much better movie than Omkara.

Again, I don't get what you mean by "the rope is tight". I am not quite convinced, myself, that he was trying only for commercial success: I think it was pretty obvious in my post that I am going to believe that to console myself. :-)

Unmana said...

Something I forgot to mention in my third para: doesn't the director get a say in who is to be cast in the movie?

Anonymous said...

Q: Firstly, why no name?
A: my answer has 2 parts…a) does’nt really matter in the context of the discussion b) guess who??!! 

Q: I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your first paragraph. A genre is only a certain kind of art (cinema, in this case), so every movie should be in some genre, right?
A: yes. I’m saying that both films belong to diff genres…as you said, this one was quite ‘commercial’. Maqbool however was more of an ‘art/parallel’ film…and therefore the difference in their narration and hence the output.

p.s.: having said that…hardcore arty types would say that even maqbool was quite commercial…commercial doesn’t just mean songs and dances la ‘beedi jalai le’. Its just the level of the art….someone might not enjoy ‘sooraj ka satwaan ghoda’…but something like maqbool might be acceptable to his/her sensibilities. It may be the opposite for you…or me 

U: I agree completely with the second point: I did mention the presence of "stars" as compared to "actors".

End of discussion…!

Q: Are you saying that I'm stereotyping? In what way? I don't think I accused Bharadwaj of being similar, I actually intensely admire his penchant for making movies on Shakespeare's plays!

A: Hell no! never accused you ma’am..was just trying to say that making similar ‘feeling’ stuff would make him susceptible to criticism from some quarters(like the audience of ‘commercial cinema’)…so may be its an attempt to reach out to them as well (okaaay…you made this point already!:))

Q:The next paragraph, again, is not quite clear... I'm not sure whether you mean it's the most challenging piece that gives the artist the most satisfaction, or the other way around.
A: I think artists are quite greedy sometimes…and ambitious. They want to do it all , and prove they r the best. Which is why if they succeed with something which was not really their forte, they’d be gladder…that’s just my thought, maybe it’s not true.

Q: Are you saying that Macbeth is a better play than Othello? I don't think I agree with you there. I think Othello has the scope to be made into a much better movie than Omkara.
A: both movies are not cinematised versions of the two stories. They r just inspirations…adjusted to the modern world settings. I personally felt that the script and screenplay for maqbool was much more powerful than omkara’s.

Q: Again, I don't get what you mean by "the rope is tight". I am not quite convinced, myself, that he was trying only for commercial success: I think it was pretty obvious in my post that I am going to believe that to console myself. :-)

A: the rope between making a ‘good’ movie and a ‘successful’ movie.
The indian film industry is seeing quite few ‘overlap’ films currently. 80s saw quite a few of them with a flurry of fresh talent from film schools. As our industry and the audience evolve…the so called commercial films (srk and kj types) should fritter away…and we shall see that only good films are the ones that are successful.

I was just wondering …. hope it was not the unending demonstration of rustic expletives that irritated you..quite a few of my female friends got put off by that and their irritation did’nt allow them to get ‘into’ the film.  …just checkin’

Anonymous said...

you can blame him for trying to make what he wanted to...but not for failing in his attempt at making what he wanted to.

the actors were an integral part of what he was trying to make...

Unmana said...

Anonymous:
First of all, thanks for your prompt and detailed reply. Your answers make things much more clear.

As for the line between commercial and art cinema, well, I just don't understand it. I either like a movie or I don't. :-) And I prefer logic in movies, even if they're unreal or fantasies (Lord of the Rings, for instance), as long as they don't contradict themselves, I'm likely to appreciate them.

Are you implying that I know you? Oh well, I'll wait for you to reveal yourself.

As for artists being ambitious, if you mean Bharadwaj might have wanted to make a successful commercial movie, I concede the possibility.

"The script and screenplay for Maqbool was much more powerful than Omkara’s." I agree, definitely. After all, that's the basis of the movie. But then Bharadwaj wrote the script and screenplay (or had a major hand in it) for both movies. Let's just say he did a much better job in the earlier one. What I explored here was why: whether he was just careless, or if it was a deliberate "dumbing-down".

About "the rope between making a ‘good’ movie and a ‘successful’ movie", are you saying he wanted to make a good movie or a successful one, in Omkara? :-) If the latter, I have no more to say!

"As our industry and the audience evolve…the so called commercial films (srk and kj types) should fritter away…and we shall see that only good films are the ones that are successful." Amen! But I don't have much hope of that. After all, Hollywood is mature enough, and look at the crap they routinely produce! The industry has grown enough to give good movies their own space, and I am thankful for that.

"I was just wondering …. hope it was not the unending demonstration of rustic expletives that irritated you..quite a few of my female friends got put off by that and their irritation did’nt allow them to get ‘into’ the film.  …just checkin’ "

Actually, not at all. That part of it actually had the least impact on me. It was just trappings, like decor or costumes... Also, maybe it didn't affect me because I didn't understand most of it!

Phew. Again, thanks for coming over and jumping into the discussion. Keep coming back.

Anonymous said...

*First of all, thanks for your prompt and detailed reply. Your answers make things much more clear.
Oh any time…I’m usually very detailed and game for a discussion anytime

*As for the line between commercial and art cinema, well, I just don't understand it. I either like a movie or I don't. :-) And I prefer logic in movies, even if they're unreal or fantasies (Lord of the Rings, for instance), as long as they don't contradict themselves, I'm likely to appreciate them.

Yes those lines between commercial and art do not exist for the audience. Never. But they always exist in the mind of the maker. Its like a project, and he (oops he/she) creates a TOC first in his/her mind.

*Are you implying that I know you? Oh well, I'll wait for you to reveal yourself.

Oh yeah! You can make an educated guess. Oh its got nothing to do with keeping myself under wraps…but it’s a bit of fun…..to me..:)

*As for artists being ambitious, if you mean Bharadwaj might have wanted to make a successful commercial movie, I concede the possibility.

Ambitious = Versatile (Experimenting with new things). Is that simple enough? 

*"The script and screenplay for Maqbool was much more powerful than Omkara’s." I agree, definitely. After all, that's the basis of the movie. But then Bharadwaj wrote the script and screenplay (or had a major hand in it) for both movies. Let's just say he did a much better job in the earlier one. What I explored here was why: whether he was just careless, or if it was a deliberate "dumbing-down".

He was trying to do different stuff!!! It was a completely different film. In fact, both should’nt even be compared, just because they were made by the same guy. He did a fantabulous job with his resources. His characterisation was brilliant and so was the narration. What did you not find logical/real in the movie??...lets get into the details. You can’t just start off a note from the high ground saying ‘I “forgive” so and so’!! Wow! Thank you!!
This is so unfair and you haven’t mentioned even one thing that you thought had a flaw or could be done differently by the filmmaker! Please use your words carefully…

*About "the rope between making a ‘good’ movie and a ‘successful’ movie", are you saying he wanted to make a good movie or a successful one, in Omkara? :-) If the latter, I have no more to say!

‘Walking the rope’ means ‘doing the balancing act’. Which in other words meant trying to do both simultaneously. I thought I’d used an appropriate simile?!


*"As our industry and the audience evolve…the so called commercial films (srk and kj types) should fritter away…and we shall see that only good films are the ones that are successful." Amen! But I don't have much hope of that. After all, Hollywood is mature enough, and look at the crap they routinely produce! The industry has grown enough to give good movies their own space, and I am thankful for that.

I agree. But Hollywood (most of it) doesn’t even represent cinema for me. But even they produce great movies quite regularly.
Indian industry has not grown in true terms. It produces the same number of films as it used to about 2 decades back. The money has flown in and the ticket rates are high due to the success of the multiplexes. It is the audience (the new educated breed) which has evolved, or the number of such people has grown rapidly. Thus such films get appreciated more now and also make some good money.
Go ahead and see some Iranian, polish, Arabic fare, if you can catch hold of any. That’s what cinema is, to me, and to a whole lot of cinema buffs around the world.

*Actually, not at all. That part of it actually had the least impact on me. It was just trappings, like decor or costumes... Also, maybe it didn't affect me because I didn't understand most of it!

Ohh no. Those were such an important part of the film!!! Ahhh…no, they were not décor..plsss. Ask the director how many discussions they would have had to put in the right ones. They have a flavor of their own; help in creating the setting. You just see what you want to see! Don’t do that, or you’ll be limiting yourself to enjoying things which appeal to your existing sensibilities. Give the artist the best chance to express what he/she has to. And do not be so judgemental.

*Phew. Again, thanks for coming over and jumping into the discussion. Keep coming back.

You are welcome! No problemo!! (This one’s from terminator…and I can assure you - it was not just for the effect!
BTW...their wa no discussion existing already...all comments were from people who had'nt even seen the films! whaataa discussion!!!

Unmana said...

“Yes those lines between commercial and art do not exist for the audience. Never. But they always exist in the mind of the maker. Its like a project, and he (oops he/she) creates a TOC first in his/her mind.”

I don’t think we can guess what’s in the mind of the filmmaker. That would be individual too, it’s not fair to generalise.

”He was trying to do different stuff!!! It was a completely different film. In fact, both should’nt even be compared, just because they were made by the same guy.”

I beg to disagree. In both movies, he used a Shakespeare play as the germ of the story, and adapted it to contemporary India. I think that in itself is enough similarity between the two movies to enable one to compare them. Even without this, why "shouldn't" one compare two works by the artist? I compared the two because I have an intense admiration of Bharadwaj from watching Maqbool, and I was subsequently disappointed by Omkara. In fact, I believe any two movies can be compared, if merely on how enjoyable each is.

“He did a fantabulous job with his resources. His characterisation was brilliant and so was the narration.”

Again, I don’t agree – obviously. Also, we don’t have to agree. As I had written in an earlier post, most people seem to love the movie. I don’t. It’s a difference of opinion I can live with.

“What did you not find logical/real in the movie??...lets get into the details. You can’t just start off a note from the high ground saying ‘I “forgive” so and so’!! Wow! Thank you!!
This is so unfair and you haven’t mentioned even one thing that you thought had a flaw or could be done differently by the filmmaker! Please use your words carefully…”

Unfair? From an anonymous commenter? It is my blog, my words, my views. You don’t like it, you can move on. Besides, this post was a follow up on another one in which I’d written about Omkara, which I'd linked to in this post, and which you obviously haven’t read.

“Ohh no. Those were such an important part of the film!!! Ahhh…no, they were not décor..plsss. Ask the director how many discussions they would have had to put in the right ones. They have a flavor of their own; help in creating the setting.”

And costumes and décor aren’t important, don’t help in creating the setting?!

“Give the artist the best chance to express what he/she has to.”

Well, it is not for me to give the artist a chance. He has got it, and used it. I am merely commenting upon my experience. And much as I would like to believe otherwise, I don’t think Vishal Bharadwaj cares much if I am disappointed, when he has legions of fans supporting him!

“And do not be so judgemental.”

Dictionary.com says judgemental means “involving the use or exercise of judgment; tending to make moral judgments”. I presume you’re not referring to the former meaning here. As for the second, as I said before, this is a personal blog, so it contains my opinions. And an opinon (dictionary.com again) is a “a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty” or “a judgment or estimate of a person or thing”.

“BTW...their wa no discussion existing already...all comments were from people who had'nt even seen the films! whaataa discussion!!!”

It’s not nice to be rude, you know, especially when you’re hiding behind a screen. (And you are the same guy who advised me, a few paragraphs ago, to “use my words carefully”!) I said “jumping into” the discussion, the discussion which I had started.

Anonymous said...

*I don’t think we can guess what’s in the mind of the filmmaker. That would be individual too, it’s not fair to generalise.

You mean to say bharadwaj didn’t even know what he was making!!! C’mon, give the guy some credit, after all he made “maqbool’, remember?! . Unmana, you have to atleast agree somewhere..haha

*I beg to disagree. In both movies, he used a Shakespeare play as the germ of the story, and adapted it to contemporary India. I think that in itself is enough similarity between the two movies to enable one to compare them. Even without this, why "shouldn't" one compare two works by the artist? I compared the two because I have an intense admiration of Bharadwaj from watching Maqbool, and I was subsequently disappointed by Omkara. In fact, I believe any two movies can be compared, if merely on how enjoyable each is.
That’s the point you know. You saw the film as the film version of Shakespeare’s story. He has never said in the film, that it is in fact one. Even if it was, it’s a different work of art. Your disappointment may be stemming from the fact that, “Othello could have been made into a better movie”, as you had said earlier.

*Again, I don’t agree – obviously. Also, we don’t have to agree. As I had written in an earlier post, most people seem to love the movie. I don’t. It’s a difference of opinion I can live with.
I’m not forcing you to agree. In fact, I liked maqbool better myself. But what I believe in totally, is that the two are very different films; films which were made with different resources, motivations, ‘tools of expression’. And would like it if you could appreciate that fact when you compare the experiences you had with the two films.


*Unfair? From an anonymous commenter? It is my blog, my words, my views. You don’t like it, you can move on. Besides, this post was a follow up on another one in which I’d written about Omkara, which I'd linked to in this post, and which you obviously haven’t read.

What does it have to do with the fact that you don’t know who I am? For you, what should matter, is what I have to say. For me, expressing what I feel is important. And I am ready to discuss, defend, mend my views if I see enough reason. So you don’t have to take it personally!
By the way:
1. It is your blog alright, but not your personal space. It is available for anyone to read, and therefore to interpret and hence comment on. Why else do you have a “post comment” in there!!! Or do you only want your close friends to make sweet comments about ‘how beautiful you write/how good you are with inglis’?!!
2. When you can make scathing personal comments about others and their thoughts, why should you not be subject to criticism? I came across your comments for an innocent blogger where you referred to her comments being the ‘dumbest’ of all!! When you make such uneducated remarks about someone just expressing him/herself, expect similar things to happen to you! What goes around, comes around.
3. You seem to be acting like a kid. ‘It’s about me, my book, my blog..blah blah!! If you don’t like it..move on?!!’ Huh!!! Do you have any credibility at all?...grow up girl…this is not your personal storybook. I think one of your admirers had sent your piece on shashi tharoor to their edit team. Is that also your personal space?? If shashi or vishal were to get back to you, would you still say “its my blog”..duh!!


*And costumes and décor aren’t important, don’t help in creating the setting?!
This one’s a gem!! Go back to my earlier post and read what I meant and whether your reply makes any sense to you..!

*Well, it is not for me to give the artist a chance. He has got it, and used it. I am merely commenting upon my experience. And much as I would like to believe otherwise, I don’t think Vishal Bharadwaj cares much if I am disappointed, when he has legions of fans supporting him!
I was only trying to tell you how to ‘get’ something when it is something beyond you. It’s called interpretation, and one needn’t be sorry or defensive if they cannot ‘get it’. You seem to come across to many as a self righteous individual who just likes to criticize at the first instance what does not match your self limiting, narrow mind.

*Dictionary.com says judgemental means “involving the use or exercise of judgment; tending to make moral judgments”. I presume you’re not referring to the former meaning here. As for the second, as I said before, this is a personal blog, so it contains my opinions. And an opinon (dictionary.com again) is a “a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty” or “a judgment or estimate of a person or thing”.

Words are just words. It is the meaning that they convey, which can be different in different settings. Why do you have to quote the dictionary anyway? Will you keep writing without sounding logical ever?? When you said that you ‘have forgiven bharadwaj’ (huh), had you not judged his work already? Gimme a break, and don’t play with words now only to defend yourself. Don’t ‘forgive’ people far more superior than you. It sounds cheap.


*It’s not nice to be rude, you know, especially when you’re hiding behind a screen. (And you are the same guy who advised me, a few paragraphs ago, to “use my words carefully”!) I said “jumping into” the discussion, the discussion which I had started.
No madam, you never started any discussion. You just had 3 innocuous comments by your male friends. I had started a discussion, which you spoilt because of your rudeness. Don’t you think it’s rude when you reject someone’s opinion just because she is not visible to you?! I don’t think so…I think it’s ‘nervous defense’.

Anonymous said...

for your information....no! you do not know me....i study at the satyajit ray film school in calcutta

Unmana said...

"I don't think we can guess what's in the mind of the filmmaker. That would be individual too, it's not fair to generalise."

You mean to say bharadwaj didn't even know what he was making!!! C'mon, give the guy some credit, after all he made "maqbool', remember?! . Unmana, you have to atleast agree somewhere..haha

No, I'm saying YOU don't know what Bharadwaj was thinking. Does he routinely confide in you, or was it just a one-off thing before he decided on making Omkara?


"I beg to disagree. In both movies, he used a Shakespeare play as the germ of the story, and adapted it to contemporary India. I think that in itself is enough similarity between the two movies to enable one to compare them. Even without this, why 'shouldn't' one compare two works by the artist? I compared the two because I have an intense admiration of Bharadwaj from watching Maqbool, and I was subsequently disappointed by Omkara. In fact, I believe any two movies can be compared, if merely on how enjoyable each is."

That's the point you know. You saw the film as the film version of Shakespeare's story. He has never said in the film, that it is in fact one. Even if it was, it's a different work of art. Your disappointment may be stemming from the fact that, "Othello could have been made into a better movie", as you had said earlier.

EVEN if it was? He never said so?! The movie credits and all the promos said it's an adaptation of Shakespeare. Why don't you go look at this(http://www.omkarathefilm.com/), or is it against your priniples to actually know about the subject you're commenting on?

"Again, I don't agree – obviously. Also, we don't have to agree. As I had written in an earlier post, most people seem to love the movie. I don't. It's a difference of opinion I can live with."

I'm not forcing you to agree. In fact, I liked maqbool better myself. But what I believe in totally, is that the two are very different films; films which were made with different resources, motivations, 'tools of expression'. And would like it if you could appreciate that fact when you compare the experiences you had with the two films.

Ah, but you see you can't force me. Did you think your bulldozing would make me give in? And your last two sentences mean what, exactly? All works of art are different. Do you mean we should never make comparisons? Going by that, one could never compare any two movies, or books, or anything. Did you just make up the rule? Can I make up a rule that forbids you (ok, anyone) from disagreeing with anyone else, because everyone, after all, is a different person?

"Unfair? From an anonymous commenter? It is my blog, my words, my views. You don't like it, you can move on. Besides, this post was a follow up on another one in which I'd written about Omkara, which I'd linked to in this post, and which you obviously haven't read."

What does it have to do with the fact that you don't know who I am? For you, what should matter, is what I have to say. For me, expressing what I feel is important. And I am ready to discuss, defend, mend my views if I see enough reason. So you don't have to take it personally!

It is ettiquette (may I suggest, even expected?) to leave a name, to not hide when you're making an attack. To read what you're attacking before you attack it.

By the way:
It is your blog alright, but not your personal space. It is available for anyone to read, and therefore to interpret and hence comment on. Why else do you have a "post comment" in there!!!

(Yes, but you're supposed to read before you comment. And obviously, you didnt read what this was about. You didn't, after all, bother to click on the link and read the previous post this referred to before you started attacking.)

When you can make scathing personal comments about others and their thoughts, why should you not be subject to criticism? I came across your comments for an innocent blogger where you referred to her comments being the 'dumbest' of all!! When you make such uneducated remarks about someone just expressing him/herself, expect similar things to happen to you! What goes around, comes around.

Ah, so you've been lurking around my blog for the sole purpose of finding something you can make an attack on. OK, purpose served! You've succeeded in rattling me, which is obvious from the fact that I've spent so much time replying to your well-thought out remarks.

I think I remember the "innocent blogger" - or actually, I can't because she was anonymous too - just like you! And if we are thinking of the same comment (and - while you're free to not believe me - I make very few disrespectful comments, so I remember them), I do think saying that the ability to choose a matching petticoat for a sari makes you special is dumb.


You seem to be acting like a kid. 'It's about me, my book, my blog..blah blah!! If you don't like it..move on?!!' Huh!!! Do you have any credibility at all?...grow up girl…this is not your personal storybook. I think one of your admirers had sent your piece on shashi tharoor to their edit team. Is that also your personal space?? If shashi or vishal were to get back to you, would you still say "its my blog"..duh!!

Credibility? No - as you don't seem to get, this is my blog, not a public forum, so I don't need credibility. You are quite free to ignore me (which you seem quite unable to do). And did I say, I'm flattered by the attention?

For your information, I sent the link to Tharoor - also information that is available on my blog, but of course you're too busy thinking of vicious comments to actually read anything. I sent the link to Tharoor because I felt he had the right to know that I'd written against what he had said. And if you had read Tharoor's column where he defended his views, you'd have seen that he defended himself principally on the premise that it was a "personal opinion". Which he wrote in a public newspaper. This blog, in comparison, is a personal blog. And, as you seem averse to using the dictionary yourself, let me point out that a blog is "an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a Web page". Diary, personal thoughts. Get it?



"And costumes and décor aren't important, don't help in creating the setting?!"
This one's a gem!! Go back to my earlier post and read what I meant and whether your reply makes any sense to you..!

Actually, it does. I give up - let someone else with more patience than me, explain.

"Well, it is not for me to give the artist a chance. He has got it, and used it. I am merely commenting upon my experience. And much as I would like to believe otherwise, I don't think Vishal Bharadwaj cares much if I am disappointed, when he has legions of fans supporting him!"
I was only trying to tell you how to 'get' something when it is something beyond you. It's called interpretation, and one needn't be sorry or defensive if they cannot 'get it'. You seem to come across to many as a self righteous individual who just likes to criticize at the first instance what does not match your self limiting, narrow mind.

Many? Are you saying that there are lots of others like you who lurk here? And they've elected you their official spokesperson?

"Dictionary.com says judgemental means "involving the use or exercise of judgment; tending to make moral judgments". I presume you're not referring to the former meaning here. As for the second, as I said before, this is a personal blog, so it contains my opinions. And an opinon (dictionary.com again) is a 'a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty' or 'a judgment or estimate of a person or thing'."

Words are just words. It is the meaning that they convey, which can be different in different settings. Why do you have to quote the dictionary anyway? Will you keep writing without sounding logical ever?? When you said that you 'have forgiven bharadwaj' (huh), had you not judged his work already? Gimme a break, and don't play with words now only to defend yourself. Don't 'forgive' people far more superior than you. It sounds cheap.

I quote the dictionary because you don't seem to understand what the words mean. Have you considered that using the dictionary more often might help you too? Really.

Oh, and do take a break. A long one.


"It's not nice to be rude, you know, especially when you're hiding behind a screen. (And you are the same guy who advised me, a few paragraphs ago, to 'use my words carefully'!) I said 'jumping into' the discussion, the discussion which I had started."

No madam, you never started any discussion. You just had 3 innocuous comments by your male friends. I had started a discussion, which you spoilt because of your rudeness. Don't you think it's rude when you reject someone's opinion just because she is not visible to you?! I don't think so…I think it's 'nervous defense'.

I started the discussion by publishing this entry, see? [rolls eyes] How did you know the commenters were all male by the way? (Tip: you're wrong. Yes, you actually are. It's possible, you know. I hope you recover soon.)

MY rudeness? I thought I was being exceptionally polite and patient by responding to all your comments! NOW I have reached the end of my patience. Really. And as it is my blog, you're not allowed to comment here anymore. Happy silent reading!

Nil said...

Did someone say TOC here?
The comments are all too confusing so I don't really know who is saying what :-)

But I couldn't understand what TOC has to do whether it's going to be an Art movie or a commercial one? TOC is about completing project on time and on budget - whatever kind of project it is (art or commercial). So doing TOC in his mind will not help the director (or producer, actually?)

And someone here is expecting the director to come and announce during the movie that it's based on so and so novel (or it is not, whatever). Now that sounds like a good excuse for Subhash Ghai to appear on screen in his next movie. Interesting!

I am sorry, if I am trying to enter a discussion which is already ended. But I just couldn't stop myself when I found something related to TOC.

Unmana said...

Nil:
Are you sure he meant "theory of constraints", not "table of contents"? :-D

I didn't understand what that meant, either, but there was so much else to respond to that I decided to ignore that!