This blog entry is in response to this excellent entry written by Divya here (http://maddendum.blogspot.com/2008/08/nothing-is-obvious-from-history.html). The italicised text is from her entry and the normal text is my response to it.
"People in their everyday lives (especially the ones with as much common sense as you and me) are seldom spurred to "change"...........................
............................... someone with a 'not so practical outlook' of life."
People know me as someone with, as you put it, “a not so practical outlook of life”. I know for myself that I have a utopian view of the world and I dream of the what ifs and the what could be. It is a sad truth in today’s world that the majority of people have accepted the world for all its negative aspects and they are too afraid of disappointment to bring themselves to think idealistically.
I feel principles are losing their meaning in this world as they are now adopted more for convenience and are no longer an integral part of life. Politicians state principles to garner votes, and everyone knows how wonderfully principled their lives are. The average citizen adopts principles to say that he/she believes in the elected government to bring about change when in essence he’s using this to hide behind and basically say that there is a scapegoat to blame for the problems in this country and that he/she can’t be bothered. I personally feel at times that I’m on a deserted island for I am strongly idealistic and if I believe in something I keep fighting for it and I live life by the principles I have set myself. But this is my opinion of myself and I’m sure there are others who think differently.
"Looking back at history, ................
............... condemn British rule as imperialistic."
When you’re living a life where you know its your land, and your world and rightfully it should belong to you but instead someone else is reaping the benefits, you can’t help but resent the situation. There were people of varying opinions in the country, some who felt that their society was oppressed and some who felt that they were being treated as slaves. People were slowly starting to wake up to the realization that, they are not independent to decide what they wish to do, not independent to even voice their opinion and all this while feeling like they were being treated as outcasts in their own home.
The one unifying factor for all these people was that they felt that their problems were due to the white man in the funny clothes speaking the funny language. The only thing that was lacking was a spark to actually make them unite. Gandhi proved to be that spark, he took up the responsibility of being one with the people and fighting for their cause. The ideas of being independent and free from the Raj were festering in people’s minds, but it was never out in the open (except for the failed Mutiny in 1857). When Gandhi and the congress at the time spoke about having a free and independent India, all these individual thoughts of the people now had a collective (and public) voice that was saying things that completely appealed to what the majority of the people were feeling. This empowered them and enabled them to fight for their cause; and since it was a cause that appealed to the masses, it brought them together. Indian people at the time can be defined, not as people speaking a language or belonging to a specific community, but as people of this region fighting for a common cause “Freedom from the Raj”
Yes, there were doubts and there were fears. My grandfather is 94 years old and he’s seen all that happened during the latter part of the struggle. He is one of the few people who felt that the British Rule was good for India because it kept our country united and would ensure better development than what we would have managed by ourselves at the time. But, as you rightly said, there was the confusion, in my grandfather’s case it was one of trust. He said the reason why he wasn’t whole heartedly for the British staying was the doubts he had as to whether or not we’d just be a sort of feeder country to the empire. And going down that path, he knew, would be a disaster of unfathomable proportions. He also felt that actually going out and fighting for freedom was something people did out of a misplaced sense of heroism (plus his family was against it).
"And for the older generation of Indians, the congress and the nationalist movement, in many ways, despoiled local culture just like the British did. When done by the British, it was seen as defiling everything Indian and traditional. But by the congress, the same thing was viewed as nationalism. "
This I’m curious about. I really haven’t read much about the nationalist movement despoiling local culture in any way. So don’t take me wrong, I’m not questioning the validity of your statement, I’m just asking for more information about it.
"So each man's convictions .............
...................Hindustan Values?. "
This is more of a question of mob mentality. When you have a horde of people who are fighting for a cause that they feel is worth fighting for, the borders of reason are stretched and sometimes even lost. A good example is if you take a look at the current Amarnath Land Row Issue in Kashmir. Indians are coming out across the country (and even the world) and voicing their opinions in various ways, be it online or in the media. But what shows a clear sense of mob mentality is the opinions that read something like – “These Pakistanis don’t want us Hindu’s to own any land in our own Hindustan”. It is a complete exaggeration of the current situation but mob mentality works in a way that there are people who agree with this and even consider further exaggeration. The same way, the Sanskrit speaker who could play tennis was seen as a pervert because of the growing (and united) resentment towards the British rule and this out of sheer mob mentality extended to British Culture as well.
"Right now,..........
............. what it means."
This IS one side of the picture, and it is to some extent quite honest because a lot of mention of sacrifice and heroism is backed up by both eyewitness accounts and the records of the British as well. In terms of the other side of the coin, the obvious reason for us to go under the British yoke was our sheer abundance in resources that were in extreme demand in the west. Spices, silks and even natural resources was all there for the taking in the divided state that our nation was when the East India Company walked into Bengal. What is harder to find is the British side of things in terms of their plans. What were their intentions for us had we not fought for independence? Would we have still been under their rule even if we didn’t fight and they were extremely weakened after the two world wars? I’m sure there are some British Scholars somewhere who know about this but in India we couldn’t be less bothered with any more details about it because it is all a part of the what ifs that didn’t happen.
"And I am not ..........
...................it quite exciting."
Again, going by eyewitness accounts, the influence of western culture was more prevalent in the affluent parts of society and much less so to the middle and lower income class of people at the time. The rich found it to their convenience to adopt English ways and imbibe western culture into their lives to appease the current masters of the time; this was something that both the middle and lower class couldn’t afford. The lower income class was totally unaffected by this and the only aspect of western culture that they felt was the whip and the burden of taxes. The middle class then was the same as it is now, unconcerned for the most part. They went on with their lives and carried their responsibilities like they do so today. It was only when the whole country was in an uproar that they decided to wake up and side with Indians. So yes, it might have been exciting to experience western ways but unless you were well off, there is a very minute chance that you would have had the opportunity.
"For all we know, ............
.................. brilliant struggle."
Spoken like the dreamer that I am. For long, I have been optimistic of our country and its people changing and as time goes by, I can’t help but feel that the only way things can change for the better is drastic change. A civil-war is pushing it a bit far but it could happen. I’m thinking more in terms of a mass revolt, a new fight for independence (from the currently flawed political system) but hey, I’m just a dreamer.
“But knowing our government …………………………
………………………..Have we always been? "
I agree with you on this but I think traitor is a strong word to use to describe someone, and for the middle class if prefer to call them the hypocritical class that can’t be less bothered. They are above the clutches of being affected by basic inflation (of say foodstuffs) but at the same time (they think) they have more than enough to do in their lives to be concerned about actually taking a stance for issues like the Nuclear Deal. I call them hypocritical because the only time they get out of their comfort zones and voice their protest is when something concerns them directly, like a hike in fuel prices. Only in times like this will you find the middle class out in force saying that the government needs to care about its people.
I don’t know if I was born an optimist but I know that for as long as I’ve been aware, I have been one, and that is not about change any time soon. I feel that our country has a great capacity to achieve anything it wants and that every problem that affects our country can be resolved with ease. The only thing that stops us is the fact that we’ve accepted all these problems and gotten accustomed to living with them around us while just mildly voicing our complaints every now and then.
I feel that selfishness to our own cause and completely apathetic views to the problems that afflict our country have led the country to the position it is in today. People are far too narrow minded and affected by tunnel vision to see the big picture. The amount of energy and resources spent in fighting battles like Hindu vs Muslim, Congress vs BJP, or who gets water from the Kaveri River, is quite frankly ridiculous. If this energy and passion and resources were used to instead just realize, not even do anything, but just realize that before we’re Hindus or Muslims or anything else, we are Indians, it would already be a time of "India Shining"
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
Why I hate News Media -- Round 2
I feel that the responsibility of the press is to keep the people informed, keep them up to date on what is TRULY happening around the world. I stress on the word truly here because it is the one aspect that the media tends to bend to the very extremes, the truth. I've talked before about how the media jumps on the bandwagon for anything and everything. Well, now I'm talking about how the media sensationalizes even the most mundane by bending the truth and making it seem like a disaster of gargantuan proportions.
Take for example, the long saga of the Arushi murder case in Noida, India. The day it happened it was headline news that a father killed his daughter as an honor killing. I agree that the cops are partly to blame for cooking up this story and trying to conclude the case without any kind of even superficial investigation, but that does not give the media the right to continue to develop on the story (beyond known fact) and completely tarnish someone's reputation (dead or alive). After the first day of this news breaking out, the press went all out to find evidence to back up the police's claim and they even stooped to the level of hacking emails and facebook accounts to come up with messages that might show that the girl was of poor character, and that her relationship with her dad was strained, hence warranting the honor killing (I really do not wish to elaborate on this).
Move forward in time a few weeks and surprise surprise, after extensive investigation, it was proven that the father was completely innocent and that the girl did nothing wrong. And what do you get from the media, nothing. It is thanks to this media and the fabricated story of the cops that a father had to endure incredible trauma when in reality he would have been in mourning about his daughter's death. But, there is not even an inkling of an apology or a mention that they might have made a mistake. Absolutely nothing. And this infuriates me. A parent's connection to a child is something that only the parent can fully know the magnitude of and this is even stronger in the case of a father and his daughter, and the news media of India went all out to vilify this relationship.
I've actually been wanting to write this for a while now and I've just been letting the thoughts take shape in my head. What triggered my actually writing was this article
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3312296.cms
Please note that I'm not commenting on what the news is about but more on the media. I don't know (and neither does anyone else) know for sure if this was a dowry killing or not and if it is that is a subject for another discussion. But, as it is clear to see, before there is any proof of the circumstances and what actually happened, the news media has come to its own conclusion with absolutely no idea of the facts. No post-mortem report, no interrogations, but they already have a case of dowry killing according to them.
I feel that this literally amounts to character assassination and I'm sure that in any other country the news media would likely be sued (when proven wrong like the Arushi murder case).
Now if this were a single person's opinion I wouldn't really react this much since everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But this is the news, the media, the people who have the power to influence the decisions and the thought process of millions in just a few words (If you doubt this, just read the comments on the link above). Using the cliched statement from Spiderman "with great power comes great responsibility". And quite frankly, the news media does not seem to be even remotely responsible to possess such power and furthermore they are not in the least bit accountible. The trend of the news media in India these days is clear to see, sensationalist headlines and a whole lot of nonsensical fluff (Paris Hilton's dog anyone?). With a headline that is sure to make people read the article, the media makes its intentions extremely clear.
They're here to sell newspapers and increase TRP ratings, not report what really happens.
Take for example, the long saga of the Arushi murder case in Noida, India. The day it happened it was headline news that a father killed his daughter as an honor killing. I agree that the cops are partly to blame for cooking up this story and trying to conclude the case without any kind of even superficial investigation, but that does not give the media the right to continue to develop on the story (beyond known fact) and completely tarnish someone's reputation (dead or alive). After the first day of this news breaking out, the press went all out to find evidence to back up the police's claim and they even stooped to the level of hacking emails and facebook accounts to come up with messages that might show that the girl was of poor character, and that her relationship with her dad was strained, hence warranting the honor killing (I really do not wish to elaborate on this).
Move forward in time a few weeks and surprise surprise, after extensive investigation, it was proven that the father was completely innocent and that the girl did nothing wrong. And what do you get from the media, nothing. It is thanks to this media and the fabricated story of the cops that a father had to endure incredible trauma when in reality he would have been in mourning about his daughter's death. But, there is not even an inkling of an apology or a mention that they might have made a mistake. Absolutely nothing. And this infuriates me. A parent's connection to a child is something that only the parent can fully know the magnitude of and this is even stronger in the case of a father and his daughter, and the news media of India went all out to vilify this relationship.
I've actually been wanting to write this for a while now and I've just been letting the thoughts take shape in my head. What triggered my actually writing was this article
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3312296.cms
Please note that I'm not commenting on what the news is about but more on the media. I don't know (and neither does anyone else) know for sure if this was a dowry killing or not and if it is that is a subject for another discussion. But, as it is clear to see, before there is any proof of the circumstances and what actually happened, the news media has come to its own conclusion with absolutely no idea of the facts. No post-mortem report, no interrogations, but they already have a case of dowry killing according to them.
I feel that this literally amounts to character assassination and I'm sure that in any other country the news media would likely be sued (when proven wrong like the Arushi murder case).
Now if this were a single person's opinion I wouldn't really react this much since everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But this is the news, the media, the people who have the power to influence the decisions and the thought process of millions in just a few words (If you doubt this, just read the comments on the link above). Using the cliched statement from Spiderman "with great power comes great responsibility". And quite frankly, the news media does not seem to be even remotely responsible to possess such power and furthermore they are not in the least bit accountible. The trend of the news media in India these days is clear to see, sensationalist headlines and a whole lot of nonsensical fluff (Paris Hilton's dog anyone?). With a headline that is sure to make people read the article, the media makes its intentions extremely clear.
They're here to sell newspapers and increase TRP ratings, not report what really happens.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Media -- What "Integrity"
At one point of time, I always thought that the media was a good field. You are informing the people about the truth about what was going on in the world, the country, their own city even. Yes, I know that it was an utopian way of looking at it but I never really understood politics back then.
But since last year, the whole media field is one that I find utterly repulsive. You must be wondering what happened to make my view change so drastically. It all began with the election time in Tamil Nadu when I first got a glimpse at the ugly side of the media, the side that makes it a very powerful political tool. There were two TV channels, each controlled by the two main competing parties going at each other with full gusto. One was going full steam about offering people free TVs and land if they voted for one party while the other was making equally outrageous promises.
Then there was literally mass buying of people from one side to the other, and when i say buying I literally mean that people were paid huge amounts just to change their stance. I don't know how many millions of rupees exchanged hands during that period, but people sure did change their stance, everyone from respected faces to movie stars. And how they changed, everything from falling prostrate at the feet of their "new" party leader to vilifying their former leaders using the foulest language possible. And all this was highlighted by the media more and more in a bid to woo the votes of the people for themselves.
But the best joke of all was when the final counting of votes was taking place. Both channels were displaying the count of the number of seats won by themselves and the other party together. And shockingly, both channels showed that their party was leading by over 40 seats. Only the supposedly neutral channels showed anything close to reality. Until the very last moment, until the final result was announced, the losing party's channel still showed them as leading by 50 something votes after which they abruptly ended this program and began showing a movie or something and resumed its everyday schedule like the election process never happened. The other channel showed celebrations of a grand magnitude and then it released the fine print in its promises of offering TVs and land to everyone.
While this was last year, more recently, even the neutral news channels seem to exhibit a habit of strongly taking one side or of ignoring a matter completely. Throughout the cricket world cup, news channels were hell bent on analyzing every aspect of the lives and the performances of the Indian team players rather than focusing on important news. News channels also have a tendency to try and outdo each other with each one making "sensational" sting operations and other such claims. This happened to such an extent that the government had to bring about a law to put a stop on such sting operations.
While you would hope that the media would be better outside the country, it isn't. The VT incident was capitalized upon by the various news channels which kept showing the killers face and even the videos over and over again to secure their TV ratings and in the process getting a maniac's last wish fulfilled. Media is also being used as a way to placate the people by making them believe in something that isn't quite true at times.
According to me, the clearest proof of a lack of integrity is when people jump the bandwagon and show their support of it as though they have supported it all their life. This is widely the case with fans of Chelsea FC in the English Premier League. These fans were nowhere to be seen until the Abramovich era. It is a similar situation with the media world. They made several mentions of the fact that Indians are making their country proud when a person of Indian origin became the president of one of the West Indian islands. Everyone now knows about Sunita Williams, the NASA astronaut of Indian origin. The key word here is "Indian origin", because she was born and brought up in the United States to an orphaned Indian father. She is also half Slovenian because of her mother and the only link she has to India is through supposed distant relations of her father in Gujarat.
Despite all these facts that show that she is barely Indian except for her origin, all the media in the country proclaimed that she was doing India proud. There were people supposedly praying for her safe return because of all the glitches on the International Space Station. While this sounds like a very concerned and considerate act, it was actually more an act of garnering media attention. There was not a single mention of the other astronauts scheduled to return with Sunita on Atlantis. There was just the constant repetition of stock video from her time in space and the constant proclamation that she is doing India proud. Upon her safe landing, her distant relations and a bunch of utterly random people in Gujarat even went to the extent of organizing a party and celebrating with fireworks just for their one moment in the media spotlight.
All this left me utterly disgusted with people. If you want to be proud of someone, be proud of the Indians who are risking it all to protect our country's borders, be proud of the people who are helping the country progress. Stop looking for some distant person who barely has any connection to the country just to proclaim that they are doing the country proud. Try to have the integrity to stand for something honest, stop kidding yourself that someone of Indian origin somewhere does something just to make India proud. If everyone was doing this, then England should be proud of America because it is of British origin and somewhere up in heaven there is a humanoid ape that is proud because its descendants are doing well for themselves.
But since last year, the whole media field is one that I find utterly repulsive. You must be wondering what happened to make my view change so drastically. It all began with the election time in Tamil Nadu when I first got a glimpse at the ugly side of the media, the side that makes it a very powerful political tool. There were two TV channels, each controlled by the two main competing parties going at each other with full gusto. One was going full steam about offering people free TVs and land if they voted for one party while the other was making equally outrageous promises.
Then there was literally mass buying of people from one side to the other, and when i say buying I literally mean that people were paid huge amounts just to change their stance. I don't know how many millions of rupees exchanged hands during that period, but people sure did change their stance, everyone from respected faces to movie stars. And how they changed, everything from falling prostrate at the feet of their "new" party leader to vilifying their former leaders using the foulest language possible. And all this was highlighted by the media more and more in a bid to woo the votes of the people for themselves.
But the best joke of all was when the final counting of votes was taking place. Both channels were displaying the count of the number of seats won by themselves and the other party together. And shockingly, both channels showed that their party was leading by over 40 seats. Only the supposedly neutral channels showed anything close to reality. Until the very last moment, until the final result was announced, the losing party's channel still showed them as leading by 50 something votes after which they abruptly ended this program and began showing a movie or something and resumed its everyday schedule like the election process never happened. The other channel showed celebrations of a grand magnitude and then it released the fine print in its promises of offering TVs and land to everyone.
While this was last year, more recently, even the neutral news channels seem to exhibit a habit of strongly taking one side or of ignoring a matter completely. Throughout the cricket world cup, news channels were hell bent on analyzing every aspect of the lives and the performances of the Indian team players rather than focusing on important news. News channels also have a tendency to try and outdo each other with each one making "sensational" sting operations and other such claims. This happened to such an extent that the government had to bring about a law to put a stop on such sting operations.
While you would hope that the media would be better outside the country, it isn't. The VT incident was capitalized upon by the various news channels which kept showing the killers face and even the videos over and over again to secure their TV ratings and in the process getting a maniac's last wish fulfilled. Media is also being used as a way to placate the people by making them believe in something that isn't quite true at times.
According to me, the clearest proof of a lack of integrity is when people jump the bandwagon and show their support of it as though they have supported it all their life. This is widely the case with fans of Chelsea FC in the English Premier League. These fans were nowhere to be seen until the Abramovich era. It is a similar situation with the media world. They made several mentions of the fact that Indians are making their country proud when a person of Indian origin became the president of one of the West Indian islands. Everyone now knows about Sunita Williams, the NASA astronaut of Indian origin. The key word here is "Indian origin", because she was born and brought up in the United States to an orphaned Indian father. She is also half Slovenian because of her mother and the only link she has to India is through supposed distant relations of her father in Gujarat.
Despite all these facts that show that she is barely Indian except for her origin, all the media in the country proclaimed that she was doing India proud. There were people supposedly praying for her safe return because of all the glitches on the International Space Station. While this sounds like a very concerned and considerate act, it was actually more an act of garnering media attention. There was not a single mention of the other astronauts scheduled to return with Sunita on Atlantis. There was just the constant repetition of stock video from her time in space and the constant proclamation that she is doing India proud. Upon her safe landing, her distant relations and a bunch of utterly random people in Gujarat even went to the extent of organizing a party and celebrating with fireworks just for their one moment in the media spotlight.
All this left me utterly disgusted with people. If you want to be proud of someone, be proud of the Indians who are risking it all to protect our country's borders, be proud of the people who are helping the country progress. Stop looking for some distant person who barely has any connection to the country just to proclaim that they are doing the country proud. Try to have the integrity to stand for something honest, stop kidding yourself that someone of Indian origin somewhere does something just to make India proud. If everyone was doing this, then England should be proud of America because it is of British origin and somewhere up in heaven there is a humanoid ape that is proud because its descendants are doing well for themselves.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Sivaji -- AVOID AT ALL COST
I guess it was my own fault that I went to watch Sivaji, expecting another Rajnikanth movie that was as good as his last one, Chandramukhi. To those who have no clue what I'm referring to, I am talking about possibly the biggest movie star in South India (read Tamil Nadu) and his last 2 movies. Lets just say that according to me, the difference in the two movies is as clear as the difference between a rock and a flower.
Chandramukhi was, after a long time, a really gripping and enjoyable Tamil movie. It had an excellent storyline, great songs, an excellent comedy track and for possibly the first time, it did not overhype Rajnikanth to be some kind of movie God. The only downside to it was that it was a remake of a story from the Malayalam film industry.
Sivaji on the other hand, is almost the other extreme. The movie is highly fragmented and seemed to be a stage for Rajnikanth to posterize himself and "subtly" declare his political aspirations. The songs were unbearable and seriously what does A.R.Rahman have against Rajnikanth is beyond me because the two movies that the duo have worked together on, the music has been horrendous to say the least. The songs were unbearable and I would certainly like to know how the audio for this movie became a smash hit with songs even being blasted over the radio across the country.
The comedy track is mostly stale and at times highly irritating with Vivek's performance being the only saving grace for this aspect of the movie. There are several scenes suggesting that colour is the biggest factor in determining the character of the person, the fairer you are, the better you are as a person and you can guess other extreme. I feel this is not something that should be encouraged, especially in a country which idolizes its movie stars and follows their style statements, this gives an almost racist message. The worst part of this entire movie has to be the series of scenes featuring our "dark" hero trying to become fair to woo his love. My best bet is that the fairness cream companies paid the producer a huge amount of money in order for them to be featured for almost 10 minutes of the movie.
And lastly, the action scenes, I think enough of the world has seen the Matrix, Desperado and the likes to be able to identify where each move came from. Also, I have seen some unbelievable scenarios in action scenes but this film takes the cake, it shows one man pushing and fighting off about a hundred at once. The argument that I got from most people was that movies are not supposed to be logical, but considering that this is a Shankar movie, I expected at least a tinge of reality. But it was not to be, with the best joke being the almost obvious transition and differences between the stuntman and the actor himself.
If you are wondering why I haven't mentioned anything about the story, it is because I haven't found it yet. There is a vague mention of the removal of black money (basically income for which tax is not paid) and some kind of statement that it can be eradicated by 2010 (only during the end credits). Other than that, it seemed to be some kind of tug of war between one power hungry mafia-type guy and the supposedly benevolent people's man, the hero. In the end, the hero seemed to be publishing a political manifesto through the movie, by comparing himself to an extremely popular former actor turned chief minister of the state, and by showing himself as a selfless benefactor who provides free schools, colleges and hospitals to everyone.
I also feel this movie shows something very scary, it shows the hero making decisions and carrying out his plans, with or without the support of the government. It shows him running his own almost private government, taking his own decisions without regard to what the government says. People might argue that he refused to listen to the corrupt officials of the governement who demanded bribes. But the fact is, in a smaller scale, this actually does happen around the country, people with wealth and power like to control the region to satisfy their own needs, whims and fancies. This movie gives a message that almost justifies this kind of highhandedness. Instead of saying that this is not the solution, the movie highlights this as the only and best solution for the people to get what they want.
I would like to conclude by mentioning the Director and Story Writer of this movie, Shankar. He has long been known to be someone who comes up with stories challenging the people and asking them to change to help make the country a better place. Well I guess this time, the whole Rajni marketing potential proved too much for him to handle and he succumbed to writing a story that was well below par and that seemed to be more about an actors glorification rather than the social message that he usually tries to convey. So overall, I am sorry that I went to watch Sivaji because quite frankly, it is the WORST movie I have ever seen and I am still wondering how much the TV and newspaper movie critics were paid to say "Sivaji Rocks!".
Chandramukhi was, after a long time, a really gripping and enjoyable Tamil movie. It had an excellent storyline, great songs, an excellent comedy track and for possibly the first time, it did not overhype Rajnikanth to be some kind of movie God. The only downside to it was that it was a remake of a story from the Malayalam film industry.
Sivaji on the other hand, is almost the other extreme. The movie is highly fragmented and seemed to be a stage for Rajnikanth to posterize himself and "subtly" declare his political aspirations. The songs were unbearable and seriously what does A.R.Rahman have against Rajnikanth is beyond me because the two movies that the duo have worked together on, the music has been horrendous to say the least. The songs were unbearable and I would certainly like to know how the audio for this movie became a smash hit with songs even being blasted over the radio across the country.
The comedy track is mostly stale and at times highly irritating with Vivek's performance being the only saving grace for this aspect of the movie. There are several scenes suggesting that colour is the biggest factor in determining the character of the person, the fairer you are, the better you are as a person and you can guess other extreme. I feel this is not something that should be encouraged, especially in a country which idolizes its movie stars and follows their style statements, this gives an almost racist message. The worst part of this entire movie has to be the series of scenes featuring our "dark" hero trying to become fair to woo his love. My best bet is that the fairness cream companies paid the producer a huge amount of money in order for them to be featured for almost 10 minutes of the movie.
And lastly, the action scenes, I think enough of the world has seen the Matrix, Desperado and the likes to be able to identify where each move came from. Also, I have seen some unbelievable scenarios in action scenes but this film takes the cake, it shows one man pushing and fighting off about a hundred at once. The argument that I got from most people was that movies are not supposed to be logical, but considering that this is a Shankar movie, I expected at least a tinge of reality. But it was not to be, with the best joke being the almost obvious transition and differences between the stuntman and the actor himself.
If you are wondering why I haven't mentioned anything about the story, it is because I haven't found it yet. There is a vague mention of the removal of black money (basically income for which tax is not paid) and some kind of statement that it can be eradicated by 2010 (only during the end credits). Other than that, it seemed to be some kind of tug of war between one power hungry mafia-type guy and the supposedly benevolent people's man, the hero. In the end, the hero seemed to be publishing a political manifesto through the movie, by comparing himself to an extremely popular former actor turned chief minister of the state, and by showing himself as a selfless benefactor who provides free schools, colleges and hospitals to everyone.
I also feel this movie shows something very scary, it shows the hero making decisions and carrying out his plans, with or without the support of the government. It shows him running his own almost private government, taking his own decisions without regard to what the government says. People might argue that he refused to listen to the corrupt officials of the governement who demanded bribes. But the fact is, in a smaller scale, this actually does happen around the country, people with wealth and power like to control the region to satisfy their own needs, whims and fancies. This movie gives a message that almost justifies this kind of highhandedness. Instead of saying that this is not the solution, the movie highlights this as the only and best solution for the people to get what they want.
I would like to conclude by mentioning the Director and Story Writer of this movie, Shankar. He has long been known to be someone who comes up with stories challenging the people and asking them to change to help make the country a better place. Well I guess this time, the whole Rajni marketing potential proved too much for him to handle and he succumbed to writing a story that was well below par and that seemed to be more about an actors glorification rather than the social message that he usually tries to convey. So overall, I am sorry that I went to watch Sivaji because quite frankly, it is the WORST movie I have ever seen and I am still wondering how much the TV and newspaper movie critics were paid to say "Sivaji Rocks!".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)