Wankers versus Prostitutes: Talk about our movies!

Anonymous

May 15, 2005 Reply

ok….!a)seeing that u have called me “sexy” and “hawt” i hereby come to the conclusion that for u, the only criterion any woman would have to fulfill to be that, is just to be a woman!!that, or!! u like ur readers to think u know only sexy hawt chicks;-)or, you think that the fact that YOU know them makes them sexy and hawt.or, you decided to be kind to me for a change…

b)tanks!i’d saved only the latter part of the convo for de project.but heigh ho!look what i have here!!

c)in spite of everything, i must say that was a rather ‘productive’ chat:p u’d be a journo’s dream suderman!!u spout ‘qoutable quotes’ JLT!!!

–“NEITHER sexy nor hawt”

p.s. and FYI,i ABSOLUTELY RESENT being called a “chick”.

anantha

May 15, 2005 Reply

Thalaiva… sooper. I mean, semma ideas!
Dharani seems to have a nice analogy thing going, but I am not sure whether that thing about Mallu food being simple (It is minus all the frills and variety!)would pass muster!
Come to think of it, I’d rather use spice levels as a comparison factor rather than the complexities of the menu! Kerala < TN < Andhra (both in terms of spice levels and audience taste for ostentatiousness!

Suderman

May 15, 2005 Reply

Sexy Hawt Thang:
He he!
a. Bingo. All of ur reasoning is correct!
b. No mention.
c. Ha ha! Thanks!
I thot the sexy and hawt bit more than made up for calling you a chick! 😀
P.S: Dear readers, little does this babe know that I’ve been hypnotised like Shallow Hal that now I can only see the inner beauty of a woman! Besides, the Sexy Hawt Chick just seemed to be an appropriate nick in a Suderman page! Damn, women have very little sense of humour! 😛

Suderman

May 15, 2005 Reply

anti,
Dharani was talking about kappa and kanji and simple mean curry! Very basic food, however bad it may look, tastes good and fills the stomach!

Harish

May 16, 2005 Reply

Dharani.. semma analogy!! 🙂

Suderman.. semma discussion!!

Anonymous

May 17, 2005 Reply

Hey sudhish…read the whole dialogue…gud reasoning…talkin abt dharni, he was at our office not long ago…had a conversation wid him abt mani ratnam…n he had a gud reasoning(which i didnt agree) abt the common thread in mani movies… Srinivas.

Anonymous

May 17, 2005 Reply

I can imagine what the films you’ve made will be about Suderman, with your sense of reasoning(?)displayed here.

Suderman

May 17, 2005 Reply

harish!
thanks pa!

Suderman

May 17, 2005 Reply

srinivas,
en nanban paththi thappa pesurey? he he! Dharani is an incredibly intelligent guy! Im sure he has a point!

Suderman

May 17, 2005 Reply

anonymous:
did i ever say im gonna make a movie that’s gonna help you prepare for GRE?
no, if u want logic and reasoning, grammar and comprehension and all the rest, I’ll suggest a really cool thing to do.
play chess. oh, I forgot… with yourself! 🙂
Cheers!

Girl

May 18, 2005 Reply

*Hug*

>Sexy Hawt Chick! says:ok can u jus for a moment think…without arguing and telll me, if everybody were to make conscientious movies, would it be the death of the movie culture?

HAHAHAHA! Oh my f*****g god, what d’oh! I rest my case.

And Bombay is the worst film I have ever seen. The fact that a Mani Ratnam made it means nothing no more than sticking feathers on your butt makes you a chicken (Fight Club!). Bombay is a whole load of rubbish. A highly overrated filmmaker who is so bogged down by his excesses, it has become a distinct pain in the posterior to even sit through 20 minutes of Mani Ratnam’s so-called modern masterpieces like ‘Roja’.

Pity Agni Nakshatiram, Mouna Ragam and Nayakan were awesome.

I thank your paper for publishing Lalitha Sridhar, who rips the Holier Than Thou Mani to shreds, thuslike:

http://www.indiatogether.org/reviews/films/km.htm

*Hug* 😛

Suderman

May 18, 2005 Reply

Shwe:
*Hug*
I can have a decade long debate with u on Bombay… but I’ll just say this much.
The purpose of a movie is to tell a story. Bombay said it, in a way that people loved it (the box office figures speak for that, it reached the intended audience… )Im sure that what you think of the film is as relevant to Mani as the number of feathers you stick in your butt to call yourself a chicken! 😀
Im sure he didnt make it for people who grew up munching French fries and watching Fight club…
He made a film for a very Indian movie watching sensibility and it worked big time there.
For someone like me, it’s a almost contemporary classic in Indian cinema (but for the idealistically silly climax) simply because this is a film which marries the ingredients of commercial cinema to political communication…
Very rarely in a Indian film do we see the twain meet!
You and the likes of Lalitha Sridhar could do with a crash course on Indian cinema and sensibility and spend some time with the people who watch these films and know what their lives are about, what affects them and what excites them… There are little joys which Indian cinema provides its viewer, unseen and unheard of anywhere else in the world, where people just watch it for entertainment. Here in India, cinema goes beyond that, people define their lives watching cinema they connect to… so when a filmmaker capitalises on these very emotions and delivers a politically correct message on the importance of secularism and goes on to demonstrate the possibility of cultural harmony through a simple love story — by putting two people of different faiths under one roof as a scaled down representation of two communities of different faiths living in love under one roof that makes a nation… to me, it is indeed a beautiful thought well executed, in the most gripping way possible, in a sensibility which is quintessentially Indian!
When you watch a lot of Hollywood films, you tune your sensibilities to a different frequency, you stop relating to what is around you, you call it rubbish and insult the very people who make your nation by sheer condescension and before you know it, you become “them” (American of course)…
So here’s a tip… next time you criticise an Indian movie which has done commercially well, look at the people it was addressed to. Understand them first and you’ll appreciate Indian cinema better!
*Hug*

Ari

May 18, 2005 Reply

Funny i cant stop myself from commenting to this one about box offices..

did by any holy chance did u even watch “TITANIC” which did so well in the boxes, btw was it even a good movie? ok was it even close to watching for the second time?

Now lets get DESI, was DDLJ or just abt most of the HINDI movies offlate which did good at box.. were they even close to term “watchable”?

No

but hey its not the directors alone to blame.. do realize the following factors are the main reason i believe are the cause for not allowing enough expression or different modes and methods of films been shown:

1.censors
2.censors who would come in bikini in 1970’s movie but wont allow violence
3.censor boards which allow “tirupatchi’s violence” and not “alavandhan’s”

its like a circle, if the censors say ok not just for movies whose relatives act in, we would have a large inflow of movies which would raise the range of exposure(i dont mean flesh at all, everyone has porn for it).

educational institutes have to start exploring ideas in filming too. never dismiss an idea which is passing by.

I wouldn’t want to defend myself with the following statement but hey what the hell:

Films are so personal, more like religion. Some of them are open to it, some of them like it stereotyped cause its easier to relate.
The ones who dare to stay out are the ones whose names wouldn’t come in history books, but would be released in heaven 😛

Girl

May 18, 2005 Reply

Okay.

I hate Mani Ratnam because he takes interesting issues and bollocks them up. I am not talking about analyzing the man’s movies in film courses (they aren’t worth that much anyway) but you were talking about Pithamagan misrepresenting gravediggers as animals.

Similarly, a film like Kannathil Muthamittal does NOT address the real issue of adoption in all its seriousness (people at adoption agencies who are far removed from the glamour of Mani Ratnam’s films will tell you what it is all about…the real difficulties and problems involved.) A movie like Kannathil Muthamittal (which I really liked, because of some great parts) skims only the surface of the issue, so much so that many problems are left unsolved. A movie like Roja is torture to sit through because of dialogues that go like “nee oru theeviravadhiya maathithe”. I mean, I am not cynical or anything, but this is truly unbelievable. Does Mr. Ratnam ever read the newspapers, that he chooses to see life with such rose-tinted glasses? Santosh Sivan’s Terrorist was loads better.

These are questions that I, as a filmgoer, have the right to ask. This is not trite film school bullshitting, this is cutting straight to the heart of the subjects Mani decides to take up. I mean, if he chooses to make movies on such important issues, people have a right to talk about them and ask questions, don’t they?

I may watch a lot of Hollywood movies but I am not judging Mani by such standards. When I enjoy a Michael Madana Kama Rajan, I don’t enjoy it the way I would a Woody Allen comedy, so using the “Americanized mind” argument is not going to work with me.

🙂

Suderman

May 18, 2005 Reply

Ari…
you make me laugh dude!!
Tell you what, suck on Quentin and the like!
Dont even bother watchin Indian films, you’re beyond it man!
Seriously… what are you doing in this country that makes hits out of Titanic and DDLJ?? You sure do make it sound like you are living in a country of idiots, dont you? get away to the land that makes great films man… If I cud have, I wudve sponsored your ticket!
Dont waste more time in India my boy! How do we get you outta here?
🙂
That was my reaction to your statement about DDLJ being not watchable… forget Titanic, which too I believe, is a classic!
Having said that…
Abt your point on censorship, you can find a friend in me there… I totally, completely, absolutely agree… Censorship shd be done with! We don’t need Censors. People are grown up enuff to decide if they wanna watch sex or violence. We are a country rich in sex and violence, pity we arent allowed to show it on the big screen…
And about ur third point on cinema being as personal as religion:
Cinema is just a medium to tell a story…

You could be Filmmaker A:
A filmmaker who decides that you are gonna make something which only you and a select few can appreciate… and make cinema as an abstract art form… cinema born out of purely the creator who is blind to what his audience is or could be… Done to satisfy the need to create something you believe in, irrespective of what the rest of the world might think. This kind of a filmmaker is an abstract artist who probably prefers masturbation to sex cuz he’s doing it purely by himself, for himself, of himself… this kind of a filmmaker, according to me, is so full of himself that at the end of the day, he’s just jerking off, holding his dick and having an orgasm!

OR
You can be Filmmaker B:
When you make a film which will affect people, strike a chord somewhere, make them laugh, make them cry, introduce them to a totally new world of people and their lives with so much detail that every single person who watches your film gets sucked into it! This form of cinema is mass based and is complex to create especially because it requires understanding of your target audience, their tastes and sensibilities.
A filmmaker feels the pleasure of his creation when he sees more people appreciate his work… Now, this is like real sex. When there is an actively participatory partner in your act!
To me this form of communication with a mass of people is the essence of good cinema. And ultimately, a person who is intelligent enuff to move people is capable of the technique, since filmmaking is one of the most scientific arts ever.
So at the end of the day, it all boils down to where you are coming from? 🙂

Suderman

May 18, 2005 Reply

The bride:
Oh, Im so sorry… I didnt know Mani Ratnam told you he made a film on adoption!!
lol!
Flash news: He didnt. he never claimed to! if you thought that it was a statement on adoption, you thought wrong. He cant help it. He was just telling a story of a girl in search of her roots…
a girl yearning for her mom’s love.. a mom who has no time for her child cuz she’s busy fighting for a cause!
And Mani Ratnam does have a signature approach towards endings… they are all idealistic… because to him the the function of cinema is to gratify an unfulfilled dream.
Which is why most of Indian cinema falls in the fantasy genre.
Over the years, love in the Indian mileu has always been unrequited, remained an unfulfilled dream… which is why most of our films are love stories!! This is one of the first few things they teach you in film appreciation! So before you get into critic mode, it might help to learn some basics…
So, Mani Ratnam’s fall in this interestingly fascinating slot of Realistic Fantasy! It is fantasy but in the mould of realism.
There is the introduction of the world and a conflict well analysed and depicted and an idealistic resolution because he as a director is an optimist… (actually this is one of his most repeated quotes in interviews…I’ve asked him most of the often asked questions and you should see the confidence and honesty in his words… he knows what he’s doing… and the fact that people buy it proves he’s right! FYI Spielberg does exactly that!! In every single film of his, you can see a conveniently idealistic resolution of a conflict)
Anyway, so if a director’s signature is to show the gratification of an unfulfilled dream, whats your problems… Films arent always about issues, they are about stories of people! You probably got the wrong approach in tryin to be one of those psuedo intellectual critics, reading some really half crapped out bad shit!
For all your “criticism” of the Roja last line of reforming a terrorist, you should know something… know why we Indians watch Indian movies… Its cuz they are so fucking full of hope!!
Indian cinema rules. fuck you hollywood asslickers! he he!
P.S: not that I worship Mani Ratnam, cuz originality is one place I wud give him 4 on 10! 😀 Content and balance: 7 on 10!

Girl

May 18, 2005 Reply

Hahahaha. Someone finds fault with Mani Ratnam and you call them “Hollywood asslikers”?

You’re right, dude (sorry, was that too un-Indian for you?). I am better off keeping my “pseudo-intellectual” opinions to myself. 🙂

Suderman

May 18, 2005 Reply

The Bride:
Oh-oh! Guess my tone was a lil too harsh! Sorry!
Peace! 🙂
Though I didn’t call you pseudo intellectual!! That was for the critics who publish long essays on what’s wrong with Mani to make some money and then wait to go watch his next film, so that they can write one more!
And hey,
“Hollywood Ass-likers??”
lol!
that one too wasnt entirely for u… it was for all those who think Indian cinema sucks AND believe English films make a lot more sense AND actually compare the two!
There, just say that isnt you and you aren’t an Hollywood asslicker… and you arent a pseudo intellectual till you actually write one of those essays!

Girl

May 19, 2005 Reply

Sweetie, I have been to street theatre festivals where villagers from the audience throw exactly these kinds of questions at the director of the street play. Would you call them “Americanized”? They clearly have a mind of their own.

Believe me you are not being too harsh, you are being too repetitive, and it becomes boring beyond a point to explain to people why I think the way I do. This is worse than fifty year olds telling me to preserve our “Indian culture”. This is rather a disturbing trend. 😦

disagree

May 19, 2005 Reply

Mr. S, the way you talk about films, I don’t understand the validity of you calling it an art form. It can never be an art form so long as you entitle yourself to your audience’s opinions and not your own. As long as we identify cinema as an art form it is obvious that it is based on individual expression, not the expressions of millions that you don’t know. A work of art isn’t created by the teeming millions, a work of art is created by a singular mind that has identified its path to express what it thinks of the teeming millions, be it positive or negative. That is exactly why Van Gogh didn’t have any of his audiences in mind, and hey, would you be calling Van Gogh a bad hoarding painter who didn’t apply the correct colours in his work and hence his audience thought he was a wanker?

disagree

May 19, 2005 Reply

Just because the audience hasn’t been exposed to meaningful cinema doesn’t mean you can undermine their intelligence. A ‘Veedu’ (By Balu Mahendra) is always going to marketed pitiably compared to a ‘Ghilli’. This always has been the fault with Indian Cinema, temporary gratification of the producers, speaking of which, I wonder who is the wanker now.

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

the bride:
well, if u wanna argue from a “villager critics” point of view, there isnt much debate there, is there?
what percentage are you really talkin about?????? there is always gonna be an alternate opinion because we as a people are very different. at every fest, there sure must be a handful of villagers, no doubt, trying to look all intelligent trying to find issues in simple stories… make up your mind who want to be… a critic? a plain villager? or a villager critic??
simply put, if it is commercially successful and critically acclaimed by a huge section of the media, it has to be good communication, good mass based cinema… Most of Mani’s films get there!
In a nation of 1 billion plus, there are always gonna be different opinions… doesnt mean we take all of them seriously. its impossible to please them… so these smart asses rather stop watch his films if they do want to protest cuz thats the only way you can discourage something you dont like… you dont consume!
and yes, im getting bored with this too, cuz Ive heard this before!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

Mr/ms disagree:
Please do NOT compare mediums.
A Van Gogh with all due respect to him is for the galleries.
An artist does for himself. But an artist isnt mass media!! How many people who watch our cinema know who Van Gogh really is???
Van Gogh was NOT a mass-based filmmaker!
So till he makes a movie… for mass consumption, like MF Hussain did for his personal pleasure, he doesnt become a wanker!!
The point is Van Gogh did not get borrow crores to make his movie!!
The minute you invest something for public consumption, it becomes a business!
You simply cannot compare a business with an art-form!
Hence, my argument is that you just CANNOT compare commercial cinema (in which the role of the audience is participatory) with cinema made for personal consumption!
Most critics forget that basic premise. I’ve had critics wonder how Shah Rukh could afford business class in chalte chalte or how they could run around Swiss Alps in a David Dhawan film!!
Maybe they should try reading comics or say Indian mythology. They’ll find a whole load of faults to feast on, issues to rip apart and feel important and intelligent, you know!

Disagree

May 19, 2005 Reply

So you’re saying cinema is a business? Too bad, man.

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

Disagree:
And if you thought cinema was charity, too bad man/woman/whatever!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

disagree:
about your second point abt the fault with Indian cinema, I would agree to a certain extent…
it is a very difficult viscious circle. Our cinema and the film industry has been through bad times. The collective conscious of the society keeps changing and a filmmaker needs to feel that pulse and make films that cater to that to taste commercial success…
With a growing shift in focus from society to the individual, films are indeed becoming about personal conflicts than popular causes.
But cinema isnt the medium to educate cuz it has a different function in our society. It is used for escape. When it is the fantasy genre, there is very little you can do… A Mani Ratnam tries to do exactly what you are saying… bring in the art and the message into that commercial format.. he succeeds, magically I must add, with the mass and the critics. But there are always going to be exceptions like the street theatre villager critics The Bride was talking about!
The fact that Mani Ratnam is able to do this (create communication whose content is audience driven and form is director driven) makes him one of our celebrated directors, even if he is found wanting in originality. The point is that the likes of mani ratnam are rare.
Hardly 10-15 per cent of Indian cinema has been successful. We need to celebrate this 10-15 per cent… instead of clubbing it along with the 85 per cent that has failed.
This 85 per cent that has failed, worries me. but it isnt an Indian thing. Cinema all around the world has a similar ratio of hits to flops.
The likes of Van Gogh (whose product is creator-driven form and content) are misfits in a mass based mediums in cinema. Which is why they are history.
The likes of Mani Ratnam (whose product is creator-driven form and audience-driven content) are rare, which is why they are celebrated!
The rest of Indian cinema is indeed, like what you said audience-driven form and audience-driven content. But that is only because of the tastes of our people and the gratification that they seek from cinema. Escape!

Disagree

May 19, 2005 Reply

Instead of trying to be a smartass, why don’t you try and open your mind to what another has to say. To you cinema is business, to me it is art. To me it is not charity. It is a form of expression, not a prostitute as you want it to be.

disagree

May 19, 2005 Reply

Another thing, since you seem to be interested in cinema. I don’t understand why all you people decide that this is what people want. How come Satyajit Ray was celebrated even when he was not catering to what the audience wanted? Art is an insight into the collective consciousness (the audience’s). What appeals to the film-maker most often appeals to the audience also. A film-maker has no right that this or that is what the audience wants and/or expects. The film-maker is best suited to only apply to his art what appeals to him. Cinema sadly has become an applied art/business like MTV or advertising thanks to people like you.

Übermaniam

May 19, 2005 Reply

i agree with disagree. i’d also like to add that the problem is not that we do not know what is good cinema and what is bad and the purpose and other such high-falutin ideals. it’s just that the idealists have no money and the moneyed no ideals. cinema is an art form, it has been reduced to a business. just because it has become a business, doesn’t mean it’s not an art form. debasing something doesn’t make the original meaning of it go away. it only makes more people forget what it is meant to be and pretend what it is is what it is. comprendo? thank you, everyone.

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

hmmm… let me sum up the debate so far…
It’s now official..
Wankers versus prostitutes!
A filmmaker who creates art for the heck of satisfying himself is a wanker and a filmmaker who creates art for consumption by others is a prostitute!!
He he!
I totally agree!!
But when someone strikes a balance between jerking off and selling his body, he’s taken too seriously enough that a simply thing as story telling becomes a subject of analysis and fault-finding!
Just goes on to prove, you cant please everybody!
and god bless Satyajit Ray! Wish more people saw his films!
And disagree: I DO know who you are! 🙂 Welcome back! Though you know its something I rather not do!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

Doppsy:
I think you have a very cynical point of view.

Or maybe its just that you dont understand how showbiz works.

There have been plenty of good movies which have failed (and has permanently discouraged those filmmakers) and awfully bad movies which have clicked (and encouraged good filmmakers).

But the point is: they failed or clicked for a specific reason.
The people, their tastes and the collective conscious of the society.

If you dont give the courage to the man who has dared to dream, how do you expect him to fight??

A point Kamal Haasan has been making for years now. Encourage a good film, make people watch it… instead of running down the rare and few Mani Ratnams we have, however unoriginal they maybe!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

Disagree:

i dont understand the big deal about cinema being a business…

whats wrong about business… if not for business, what would we do for bread, butter and popcorn??

don’t you pay money to watch movies?

if you don’t like the business, discourage it, don’t watch movies, don’t pay money!

and cinema is applied art and I dont think theres any need to be ashamed of creating it!

if you dont like it, dont watch!
if you have a problem, boycott!
the majority will have their say!
and the last laugh, of course!

know when an artist feels happiest? When he hears applause. He does it for applause. He does it for recognition. Anyone saying that he’s doing it only and sheerly for the love of the art will limit his indulgence to scribbling in a notebook! The minute you throw it open to people, you want recognition…

the minute you want recognition, as an artist you seek gratification for your creation… there’s nothing wrong with it.

Filmmakers just like to see that kind of gratification… the more the merrier.

The box office collections is how he’s shown appreciation!

True, cinema is a form of expression.

But what is the purpose of expression when you dont know who you are talking to?

Dont speak just cuz you got a mouth and it makes these fascinating noises!

Understand who you are talking to and talk to them in a language they understand… then you become a good communicator!

after having done that, maybe you could next think of being a good artist!

Anonymous

May 19, 2005 Reply

Sssssssssssssuper Sssssssssuderman!!
-Ag

Disagree

May 19, 2005 Reply

Mr. S, Your girly threats of revealing me are not intriguing. Your opinions are though. Have fun making your movies.

And uh,
“Dont speak just cuz you got a mouth and it makes noises!”

Nice one.

Girl

May 19, 2005 Reply

This looks like fun.

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

disagree:
that wasnt a threat, was it??
there u go, misunderstood me again!
Is that your new fulltime job?
cheers!
🙂

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

it is, isnt it??
you are to blame! he he!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

that last comment was for The Bride!

Girl

May 19, 2005 Reply

Aw. You give me too much credit.

Dreamer

May 19, 2005 Reply

The bride:

I hate Mani Ratnam because he takes interesting issues and bollocks them up

Why do you burden Maniratnam with the social/moral responsibility of taking a definitive stand on these real issues. He is a director not some social activist. He skims at the surface of these issues because he sees these issues just as a common man would. He is making a movie not a documentary for the Government of India Adoption board.

A movie like Kannathil Muthamittal (which I really liked, because of some great parts) skims only the surface of the issue, so much so that many problems are left unsolved.

KM was a brilliant example of an artist entertaining his audience yet making them think. You say a lot of issues were left unsolved. That was probably because Maniratnam did not see solutions or did not want to impose his solutions on the audience. KM was subtle yet intellectually stimulating. It is as though he is showing you the terrorists with their own justifications and the innocent child caught in a war ravaged world beyond her comprehension and asking you which way do you lean? The questions left unanswered were entirely delibrate because it isn’t possible to provide answers so easily. If it were so easy Sri Lanka would be peaceful now.

A movie like Roja is torture to sit through because of dialogues that go like “nee oru theeviravadhiya maathithe”.

Sheesh! By viewing that line out of context and isolated, you make that one line sound so artificial and corny! The entire movie built up towards that line showing the gradual and subtle metamorphosis of the terrorist- when his brother dies, when his hostage sympathises with him, the fireplace conversation where the hostage raises questions that he cannot answer, the final confrontation where the hostage unsheaths the cold facade of the terrorist pointing out he is human after all. Now after all this that line doesn’t seem so tortuous to me…does it still seem that way to you?

Suderman:

….So, Mani Ratnam’s fall in this interestingly fascinating slot of Realistic Fantasy! It is fantasy but in the mould of realism……

….know why we Indians watch Indian movies… Its cuz they are so fucking full of hope!!….

Noone could have said that better! I bow to thee!

Anonymous

May 19, 2005 Reply

hi sudhish!
stumbled upon your blog while jogging in cyber space. Very interesting indeed! will definitely mark your blog as a fun spot! will be back>>>
ciao’
-akshata

Girl

May 19, 2005 Reply

>The entire movie built up towards that line showing the gradual and subtle metamorphosis of the terrorist- when his brother dies, when his hostage sympathises with him, the fireplace conversation where the hostage raises questions that he cannot answer, the final confrontation where the hostage unsheaths the cold facade of the terrorist pointing out he is human after all. Now after all this that line doesn’t seem so tortuous to me…does it still seem that way to you?

LMFAO! Keep your day job pliss.

Dreamer

May 19, 2005 Reply

the bride:

I appreciate your concern regarding my job, and can’t help but admire the brilliantly disguised sarcasm that you manage to convey in that one line! Forget me keeping my job, I wonder how you managed to find one.

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

The Bride:
Oye, lets not get personal with people we dont know. that was uncalled for, wasnt it?

Dreamer:
I apologise on her behalf!
There are some people who believe they know it all. its best to leave them alone and not burst their bubble!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

akshata:
thanks! wheres your blog??

Ag:
thanks! but Ag?

Vinod

May 19, 2005 Reply

This argument can go on forever… I agree with Suderman on most points, especially that the audience completes the movie and that you can’t look at all movies with the same perspective…

And there’s this book on the making of DDLJ which all of you people thrashing DDLJ should read… You keep saying that DDLJ is cliched but you read it and you’ll understand how DDLJ broke all existing cliches and maybe movies now are cliched but DDLJ was not…

It’s a classic!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

Vinod:
You said it. Classic is the word. DDLJ rules.
It’s completed 500 weeks and still running!!
That’s the kind of commercial success that beats even Sholay!
You are right, this argument can go on but I think we’ve covered most of the points!

Girl

May 19, 2005 Reply

Ashyo! Sorry, dreamer. Just a general expression used. I apologize on behalf of me and my fabled employer.

Anonymous

May 19, 2005 Reply

But, but… I thought this was a blog! Not Kurukshetra!
Still, Suds, u do have some deadly logic there…am impressed….
Shelob.

anantha

May 19, 2005 Reply

Wow.. This is interesting!
The funny part about DDLJ was/is that it strived to break cliches while using others along the way – e.g. that karva chauth thingy and “Santa-Banta” kinda jokes. So.. that way it might have been unique!
But ya, this whole thing about ppl not liking Mani Ratnam and ppl defending him is becoming stale! I am not saying which group I belong to, because thats become stale too.

Ari

May 19, 2005 Reply

Classic haha cant and wont argue about that at all.

Suderman:
And about the buying the tickets for me, great your most welcome. Btw if I did sound like i hated indian movies u got me wrong completely. (not too surprised)

Im trying to deal with the issue of escalating the treament of plots.Which is so bloody tough cause of those censorboards.

The whole world copies idea and treats them completely differently. From Magnificient 7 to AvaiShanmughi. Kurasowa stole ideas too, but its the treament of script which is very carefully dealt with. Hope u’ve watched “Yojimbo”, the story did have its own version of “vadivel” and it was hilarious.

The whole point with an argument is not to take sides end of the day, but to discover there are more than two possible directions to it.

Abt QT suckin, well sorry mate! I’m ur fiend out there. Unfortunately everyone thinks QT makes movies with violence (for pete sake there’s a huge dramatic factor in his violence) and they miss out the humor, the concepts, the pain he takes to find the classic music composed.

I don’t blatantly love QT cause I do watch most movies more than once to feel the amount of effort taken for creating such a thing.

A bad comparison which i can’t afford to miss. Recently watched “SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE”: the first half is taken very carefully with a good amount of pace and movement in narrating the story. Somehow the second half looked like it was taken with least care. Watching the “War” scenes, I felt bad about why we take lesser effort.

“HIROSHIMA” is a movie about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, directed and written by AK. Do watch this movie to show differnt and more genuine way of narrating.

Sud, I believe this country has great story tellers and I believe India has a great potential to create and churn its own award benchmarks.

Sadly, its completely over shadowed by the size of business which doesn’t allow Indie Movie makers to get on the roller coaster ride.

I love the Indian Cinema Industries, but am forced to dislike most of the recent movies due to their lack to quality and effort. if a movie isnt given 100% it shouldn’t be released. Point simple Point Blank..

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

thanks shelob!
disagreement is important!
For the sake of balance.
if we dont ask questions, we ll never find answers.

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

anti:
the debate wasnt abt liking DDLJ or Mani Ratnam as much as it was about the wanker versus prostitute debate!
🙂

Dreamer

May 19, 2005 Reply

the bride, suderman:

I just typed a rush-of-blood reply to the bride’s comment.
No offense taken and no offense meant.

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

ari!
dont get me wrong… im a QT fan myself! what i was saying is there’s more to cinema than QT and his brand!
but if u like indian cinema and dont recognise or appreciate DDLJ, then what exactly is Indian cinema for you??
second,
it is good to crave for perfection when you are upto somthing but tis also unfair to expect it in the Indian scenario cuz everyone learns on the job… no matter what course you do, you still have plenty of learning to do…
And that learning happens on the job, when you make a movie.
So when you make a million mistakes making a film, you learn a million lessons along the way.
And then go on to make a million other ones.
perfection is so far off, given the number of variables in filmmaking! every frame requires scores of elements, detailing and homework. There are 24 frames per second. 60 seconds per minute and 100 minutes a movie… do you math, you’ll know why its impossible to achieve perfection!
It can be achieved, with something Hollywood has plenty.
Time, money and expertise.
We dont get that kinda money, money or resources to play around with. Welcome to the real world!

Girl

May 19, 2005 Reply

>There are some people who believe they know it all. its best to leave them alone and not burst their bubble!

That was brilliantly ironic.

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

The Bride:
How creative 😛

the difference is… you dont need to know it all to appreciate… you just like something… you dont need reasoning or knowledge!
Im from the film appreciation school!

You are from the film criticism school… but to criticise or rip something…you better know it all before you make an ass of yourself!

so there, smart ass!!

Arvind

May 19, 2005 Reply

it is not about liking or disliking Maniratnam.he is one of the very few good direcors around here…his aesthetics ,his visual style are all admirable….offlate he is compromising a lot on the content.style over content.and he is overhyped exactly bcos of the “slick style” of his.

His Mouna Raagam and Nayagan were classics.In those movies , the style complemented the contents very well.but after that,right from thalapathy,roja,bombay,dilse…he went off the track…too much style and a big compromise on contents..

my point is simple..and i have been repeating this time and again…but mani fans r not giving solid counter arguments…the thing is ,
“if u take an issue ,shouldnt u take some care addressing it.if u use it just as a backdrop ,fine . but then ,u tell that the film is abt that issue or u make the film in such a way that it has the feel of this kinda-serious-issue-based-film , but u dont give a damm abt the issue and escape in the name of “common mans point of view or abt a childs point of view” , isnt this pure escapism?? “

Mani’s recent films(barring Iruvar and some of kannathil) sensationalise some issue and doesnt care to address the issue..

there was a similar discussion in lazy’s blog an year back and i would like to copy -paste something i wrote at that time..

hi all,

…and coming to this discussion, this is mainly about “HONEST FILM MAKING Vs INTELLIGENT, STYLISH FILM MAKING”. according to me, a gud film needs to satisfy both these qualities. honest films,sometimes could be veryyyy boring. but, according to me ,an intelligently made film with NO HONESTY is nothin but pure BS.. unfortunately, maniratnam falls under this category.

this is not going to be Maniratnam bashing session. this is jus a fair analysis about a gifted director . MR gave 2 great movies — NAYAGAN and MOUNA RAAGAM—- .those 2 were jus classy. one dealing with marital problems and other about a person whose life is nothing but a “response” or a “yedhirvinai” to all the crude things he was receiving through out his life. As a young kind, he was forced to kill the police officer coz he killed his father, forced to run away to bombay and forced to kill the inspector, forced to kill the seth and so on. his life is only filled with “reactions” to some evil things he keeps getting through out. the ” nirutha sollu, avangala nirutha sollu, naan nirutheren” is a PERFECTLY fitting dialogue. and so is the “NEENGA NALLAVARA,KETAVARA?” . these dialogues ,though much later is termed as a typical MR style dialogues, have done justice to the story. also, these two movies are HONEST attempts. we all hoped to see many such films from the talented director. but then, what happened next is the sad part of the story.

Mani struck in some hole after the release of this movie called “Roja”–a so-called patriotic movie and the much talked about “flag -burning ” scene ,where many people said they got “goose bumps” after watching this scene. an analogy, letz take a R.V.UdayaKumar’s movie ,where u see a charecter killed or brutally injured in order to create some “cheap sympathy” among the viewers. similar is this “flag burning scene”. the same guy who hated this RV.Uthyakumar’s way of creating creating sympathy got goose bumps after seeing this scene from Roja. PUZZLING ,isnt it??

but, i dont want to be a liar and a hypocrite. let me tell u that i also got goose bumps after that scene from “Roja”. but now, when i look back, i feel crazy and a bit weird . i totally hate that scene now. this is what called as “desa bakthi vyabaaram”!! but, let me analyze why that guy ,me or anybody for that matter, who hate Rv udaykumars films got goosebumps seeing MR’s films. i jus like to copy paste some of the views of Mr.Praveen, a hubber at forumhub.com. and i agree with most of his views. here is his post,
——————————————————————————————————————–
here are some of my views about maniratnam.
first of all, let me say that i was quite impressed with mani after i saw “mouna ragam” and “nayakan”. this opinion of mine took a
beating after every time i saw his successive movies. “agni natchathiram” was pathetic! every time i saw it, i wondered if it was
possible for the same person to have taken both this film and, say, mouna ragam. this film marked the starting of what i call mani’s
ATTEMPT TO FOOL THE AUDIENCE INTO THINKING SOMETHING IS HI FUNDA JUST BECAUSE ITS
DIFFERENT OR BECAUSE THEY CANT UNDERSTAND IT. i quote several instances :

1) the whole film was taken with a soft filter. the reason for this? it is a subtle way of “urutthufying” the viewer’s brain, to confuse it into interpreting what it saw as a piece of art.
2) introduction of meaningless scenes: eg, prabhu goes in a jeep to the villains house and shouts. karthik shows the guy a lighted match, or when prabhu and karthik spend hours giving each other ugly stares, with nothing else in the scene.. i believe its supposed
to highlight the emotion being expressed..
3) no two adjescent scenes were connected.
4) the comedy track had nothing to do with the film. it was there just because the film needed a comedy track. and it wasn’t even funny.
5) the climax had those blinking lights (since when did short circuits produce blinking lights for half an hour?)

as you can see from the above, THE WHOLE FILM IS AN ATTEMPT TO PASS OF DISTRACTION AS ART.

now lets take anjali. was the behaviour of children natural? in my opinion, the whole of the first half was unnecessary. the later half
was somewhat remedied by some good direction and decent acting by that girl. anjali also marked the beginning of a totally new
(and again unnatural) style of dialogue delivery in tamil cinema. all sentences were spoken in the following format:

(verb of short sentence), (short sentence)

for example, pAthEn pA, nAn pAthEn (anjali)

or niRuttaNum, elllAthiyum niruttaNum.
muDiyAdu, niruttta muDiyAdu (dalapati)

this is again an attempt to confuse the audience inthe subconcious level.

cram, its not only the heroines who are impulsive.. most heroes need to be totally unpredictable. they have to do THE most
unexpected thing possible at all situations. remember karthik winking at revathi after she helps the police jail him.. or aravind swamy
lighting his cigarette with the stove flame, or dumping madhubala on the snow (before pudu vellai mazhai)..

in dalapathi , the dialogues, for example,were like :
question: yEn?
answer: dEvA.. or something like that..
when i first saw this film (i was pretty young then) i was totally impressed. it was only when i saw it recently that i really got behind
it.. most of the serious dialogues sent me into uncontrollable bouts of laughter.

after dalapati, mani switched over to a.r.rehman. why he did this, i dont know; for IR was the only spontaneous, uncontrived and
genuine element left in his films. with rehman, even the music was engineered to impress.

roja was again a trendsetter. thats when mani started using controversial issues to sell his stories. take roja, bombay, iruvar.. and
you’ll find that the controversy is what pulls the audiences. he gives the crowds what they want: reforming militants, couples fighting
for a secular state and so on.. its not like mouna ragam, which can hold audience interest with a domestic story. i’m not saying that
all stories should be about home issues..

i’m not saying that everything about mani’s movies is bad. infact theyre much much better than the average tamil movie. its only that i
find several flaws in them and think that his movies would be much better off without them.

maniratnam has redefined movie-making with a word called “kitsch” … what is kitsch?
it is not the attempt made to titillate or pander.
how can MR ever be called doing that? blasphemy…

on the contrary it is a contrived effort to be creative , an obvious effort to stay away from crudities, a constipated attempt to “touch”
every man and woman in the most obvious things using heightened irony, unconnected beauty, predictable unpredictability, etc etc

“kitsch” is exemplified by the advertisements , and probably BEST by the recent spate of Cadburys ads, soft drink ads etc…
the female after her boy-friend (or whoever that totally dumb lokking guy is) hits a “sixer” of the last ball, does a public “dance” …. i
can almost imagine people watching and getting
ore carried away… feeling funny and odd inside, blushing, smiling , calling it a “good” ad etc etc… and then the one ad where the
guy and the girl try to have a bite in the lift…. it is so contrived! and the worst part to come up with that idea all you have to do is do
“logical thinking”
based on human incidents….

but it works….. in ads…. and has worked in movies too. the only thing that i have against MR when he takes movies is that HE IS
TAKING IT TO IMPRESS, HE IS EMPLOYING KITSCH KNOWINGLY and when i watch his movies and in some scenes
like madhu wrestling for her saree from arvind….. i can almost picturise that idiot (MR) feeling good about his ideas!!!
yuccckkkk!

so what is not kitcsh? i saw RajaPaarvai… the scenes when kamal and madhavi fall in love is amazingly smoooth and dripping with
creativity….
i cant imagine the director taking it to impress…
——————————————————————————————————————–

below two were some of Mr.Praveen’s post. and to add this, letz take ROJA. its a perfect romantic story . but why introduce the “kashmir issue” there. aravind swamy could have been kidnapped by some local terrorist gangs or Naxals or PWG group. why kashmiri terrorists??? its juz becoz to create some “cheap sensationalism”. nothing wrong in taking the “kashmir issue”, but just using it in the background,without even caring to ADDRESS THE ISSUE is unpardonable. if u take some sensitive issues,u gotta address those issues. i dont mean the vijayakanth-style “4 page dialogues” wrt ADDRESSING THE ISSUE, but like the kamal haasan style. like the way he handled terrorism issue in “kuridhipunal” and the calcutta riots, in “Hey ram”. those are HONEST ATTEMPTS. aimed at giving a clear,unbiased view about HISTORY. not jus the one-sided views like “kashmir is all our’s .all pakis get out”.MR does not KNOW HISTORY – he has not read HISTORY , otherwise ROJA would have been a different movie than what it was / is – but then ROJA was exactly PLANNED to be the movie that it was – to rake in as much money as it can with the most insipid storyline I have come across in recent times .please read Dominique Lapierre and Larrie Collins “Freedom at Midnight ” – you will get this uncanny feeling that PERHAPS KASHMIR DOES NOT RIGHTFULLY BELONG TO INDIA AFTER ALL – now, now, don’t start jumping at me – the history of Partition is replete with so many unknown flaws / facts, one needs to be courageous enough to expose them – but MR preferred the safer path and the movie became a commercial success and alas ! was proclaimed to an epoch making movie. I doubt whether MR ever read Freedom at Midnight, or the full text of the PANCHSCHEEL AGREEMENT .But what did we see /hear in ROJA ? jingoistic nonsense like “Kashmir will always be a part of India ” by the Dreamboy Hero !!- now that was smart wasn’t it ? absolutely non-controversial , would have suited any political party’s opinion – but is that all that is to Kashmir ? NO. give me a BREAKkkkkk.

“kannathil..” . it is a wonderful story about “adaptation”.and stop this nonsensical arguments like “who told u that it is abt adoption it is abt the story of a little gurl searchin for her roots and other whole load of crap”” Mani himself, in Anantha Vikatan , answered to the question “why dint
kannthil address the issues of the Srilankan tamils and LTTE properly?” answered
“kannathil is about adoption and not abt LTTE issue.”

so, better accept that kannathi is abt adoption . it is a a very powerful story indeed. but why introduce the unnecesary “LTTE issue”. again nothing wrong in that, but jus introducing it to create some cheap “sensationalism” ,without caring to address the issue is HYPOCRISY. most ppl liked “kannathil.. “. i will tell u why .but befor that,jus see this post by senthil..
>>>>>>>>>>>>
‘kannathil muthhamittaal..!!-
” vellai pookal”..the melodious bgm soothes like a peacock feather on my cheeks while watching KM ,nandita das will be having her food with her brother and when the song subsides “boom !! ” the bomb explodes somewhere and the light hanging above nandita das flickers for that explosion becos of the vibration created by that explosion..

..Thats Mani Ratnam..Thats Him..

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
u see, this is why people like mani. the kinda titillation. as senthi said, “soothes like a peacock feather”, this is how MR actually kinda hallucinates people with his tranquilizing scenes. viewers ellaroyum oru “mappula” vizha vechduraaru. its a kind of feel good factor u get to see in his movies. the same could be said about the simran-madhavan flashback scenes, where simran first proposes to maddy and they hug infront of maddy’s sister. i know u all loved that scene too.isnt it?/ this is what praveen called as “KITSCH”.
all his lead charecters are lovable and yuppy. they are mostly urbanised or else rural cum innocent. u actually like to see YOURSELF as those charecters. so u jus love them, their way of talking etc etc……

“Iruvar” –form and style wise–is one movie which is a monumental effort–when one considers the way the film is made. this is a perfect example for making historical cum policial movies. this is how a historical movie must be made. but content wise— huhhhhhh. it is definetly not an objective,unbiased piece of history.but,nevertheless,it is a gr8 effort.but a little more courage and more openess would have made the movie a great classic,one of the top 5 tamil movies of all time.but sadly ,the honesty and conviction was not there.

i was angry with myself after watching “Mahanadhi”.went through a lot of “guilt trips” after watching mahanadhi.those are the movies which could “move” anybody’s heart.those are the movies which one should take.
Movie making needs some kinda honesty. style should only complement the substance.great directors always had great content complemented with

MR is all style with little content. We need to look at directors like Balu Mahendra( sandhya RAaGAM ,veedu ,KADHAI Mahendran ,Kamal Haasan,Singeetham Rao(Pesum Padam),K.Vishwanath(Saagara Sangaman,Swathi Mudhayam)

Mani is ofcourse has more talent and control over the medium than most of the above mentioned directors. what he lacks is jus HONESTY .
folks, i jus need u ppl ,the “all mani-defenders club”, to quote atleast one scene in any movie(except mouna raagm,nayagan), which could prove mani’s honesty.
im very sorry for the looooonggggg post and using ur precious web space,but had no other go.
happy fighting. bye…
(P.S: why does Kamal receive all accolades from the literary circles in TN ,with the likes of Sundara ramaswamy, jeyakanthan, gnanakoothan and why mani is getting only bashes from these people(except sujatha,but thatz obvious). why??)

Girl

May 19, 2005 Reply

>and to add this, letz take ROJA. >its a perfect romantic story . >but why introduce the “kashmir >issue” there.

That’s because Mr. Ratnam is obsessed with terrorists. He thinks it is intense to make human bombs sing songs in their spare time. I am sure he’d think twice about doing so if he had a close relative (god forbid) caught under such circumstances, in which case (hopefully), good sense will prevail and he will stop giving us such turkeys year after year.

F**k, this reminds me of this gut-wrenchingly horrible story I ran across on FLS.

http://www.freshlimesoda.com/fiction/revati2.htm

Please do read it. No seriously. It sounds chillingly like a potential Mani Ratnam flick.

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

arvind,
thank u for your long post…oh im sorry, it was a comment wasnt it? 🙂
i will go thru it and reply next year! lol!
Seriously, it wud ve been easier if u had addressed issues instead of dissecting lines and scenes… when you start dissecting, you kill it.
trust me u wudnt want me to dissect any work u’ve done… (is that why u havent given your blog address?)
the point is anyone can dissect anything out of context and make it look like the most stoopid thing on the planet!

congratulations on ur findings (the soft filter bit had me rolling on the floor) ! 🙂

on a more serious note, let me tell you ananda vikatan is not the bible. Reporters of Ananda Vikatan NEVER take down notes. i’ve been interviewed by ananda vikatan, i had a blast reading the answers i was supposed to have given them!! so obviously he was misquoted.
I had interviewed Mani Ratnam and asked him the same questions you guys have been asking… so I’ll just let the man speak himself.
March 24, 2002, Sunday Meet Column in The Hindu. Btw, I did this interview…
So, over to Mani…

Weeks after the release of `Kannathil Muthamittal’, the director sits back to discuss it at length. “I’m happy with the film. The appreciation it has got is tremendous,” says the seasoned director.
#But, he wouldn’t classify it under the same genre as a `Roja’, `Bombay’ or `Dil Se’. “`Bombay’ was the point-of-view of the common man. `Dil Se’ had points of view of persons involved on two sides. This film is much simpler. It presents a child’s view. What we see is through her window,” he says.
#The story is not just a tale on adoption. “It’s the story of a girl in search of her mother at the micro level. At the macro- level, she represents a whole lot of people who have been adopted as refugees. It has the point of view of a child. It has the point of view of refugees looking at their motherland, in search of their roots. So, it’s a blend of both”.
#But strangely, it is the director’s handling of the “sensitive” adoption issue that has come under fire. Like the scene of Madhavan breaking it to his daughter that she is adopted.
#”That was his character. He is blunt. He is brash. He is brutally honest. The child is used to him in that fashion. You can’t tell him how to bring up his child. His way of dealing with the issue was – to be honest. To care. To give her time and space. You can’t tell me how to teach my child mathematics. There are so many different people. Each one does it his own way,” the director argues.
#”It’s his character. He’s the kind of person who will take the child to Sri Lanka,” he adds.
#First, it was Kashmir, Bombay and the terror networks stretching to the North East. And now, Sri Lanka. All contemporary issues. “Why not,” he asks. “It’s just conversion of what happens around us. We are going through so much these years that you tend to reflect it in your work. What literature does, what magazines do, I do it through my medium. I’m no different. If you can write, why shouldn’t a film-maker make a film about the same issues. I have an opinion. I have an emotion.”
#Whether it was `Roja’, `Bombay’ or now `Kannathil…’, it’s always been about breaking down a conflict into characters and attempting to resolve it through these characters. Doesn’t that contribute to a formula that has Mani Ratnam written all over it, we ask.
#”It’s not like that. It’s all about people in situations. I see it through the eyes of people who have lived through that situation. For me it is work, a poignant way of telling a story through characters, through people who have been in the situations. It’s about people taking care of people. The base of these films is people”.

So there you, Arvind!

Next time, do a little homework, some good reading and do a good film appreciation course before you discuss usage of “soft filters” and the like! lol!

Seriously, you may consider joining L.V. Prasad Film and TV Institute. Or just spend 2 hours with the director Mr. Hariharan, he’s the best film theoritician we have in India. In two hours, you’ll realise how much there is to learn before you open your mouth to criticise!

At the moment, if I may say, your analytical skills are rather er… limited! so let the experts do the criticism, cuz it requires a specialised stream of study…

Appreciation, of course, is a different thing… you just need to love movies to do that! 🙂

Cheers!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

The Bride:
Do a good film course! You have potential! Dont waste it like this believing you know it all!

Girl

May 19, 2005 Reply

>the difference is… you dont >need to know it all to >appreciate… you just like >something… you dont need >reasoning or knowledge! Im >from the film appreciation school!

It’s not about knowledge, kitty. It’s about common sense. I mean, what kind of a terrorist would be
burning an India flag where there was no one really there to see it,
other than Arvind Swami? Was it a dress rehersal for a more public
burning of the flag? LOL.

>You are from the film criticism >school… but to criticise or rip >something…you better know it all before you make an ass of >yourself!

Jeez. First off, I am from no “school”. I watch films because I love to, be it a Tarantino movie or a Virumaandi. And so, do you mean to say that I, as a member of the audience, am nothing but a mughead, waiting to take in everything the director wishes to throw at me? That unless I get a degree from FTII (note, I did not say UCLA or AFI, hyuk hyuk), I am not entitled to an opinion?

You’d call the child in the Emperor’s New Clothes story a pseudo-intellectual too. 🙂

sj

May 19, 2005 Reply

//Arvind said…
it is not about liking or disliking Maniratnam.he is one of the very few good direcors around here…his aesthetics ,his visual style are all admirable….//

excellent dissection.

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

The Bride:
Guess that hurt the child’s ego a lil. So I’ll leave the child alone! God bless!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

sj:
Lol!

sj

May 19, 2005 Reply

Suderman, forgot to put a smiley in my prev comment. actually, i meant the exact opposite. t’was a well written autopsy report, nothing more nothin less. btw, any news on MRs next project?

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

The Bride:

I dont understand how you willingly suspend disbelief while watching Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction but immediately switch on to logic mode for watching Mani Ratnam..
If we were to make a list of logical plausibility, there would be double the amount in QT’s films too!

Differential treatment or just plain hypocrisy??

which is why I said a film course would do you good in understanding concepts such as willing suspension of disbelief and alienation!

else you will become one of those villagers at the street theatre festival who think they make for a fine critics with just a natural flair for nitpicking! 🙂

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

Sj:
I got what you meant the first time around!
And ive been outta action for a while. No news from MR yet!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

stale comment too anti! you are posting it the second time! he he!

Arvind

May 19, 2005 Reply

and btw, it is not me who said something abt “soft filters” and all that…i jus copy pasted it ,which my friend posted in forumhub. and i never said i am an expert when it comes of film techniques…

And wats abt this “film appreciation school” and “film critisize school” ….and all the crap abt “u need to have a love for movies”…..

One can love good movies only when one could passinately hate the bad ones… U quoted only half of what kamal said ,”Encourage a good film, make people watch it and reject downright the bad ones” — i have read that intrerviewand this is what he said. i couldnt understand how one could have the same passion for the movies made by a Nihlani and the one made by a Dharani(yea,his Gilli was good but Dhool was downrite vulgar and cheap)…

And regarding this “dissection” stuff,i never consider myself a great writer.i know the limits of my linguistic capabilities.i am no journo like you and i specialise in something else and so i dont want to show my blog address to every tom , dick and sudhish… and i dint dissect anything out of context.

As i said b4, this is not about liking or disliking maniratnam.With all his shorcomings,i will give anything to watch his new movie on the first day…And i do enjoy them and love them…but that doesnt end here…it is not jus about likin or disliking…there r 23 shades of grey to it!

U can very well say that u like or dislike my view…But saying that my views suck because there is a ulterior motive behind it (in this case , u tell that i am from the “film bashing school and ur from the “film appreciation school”) shows a big sense of insecurity in you!!!

And u are one whole bag of contradictions…u say u love movies ,u gotta appreciate them and all that…but some of ur reviews are crude and has more hatred-content …but these films invariably are those candy floss,feel good kinda films or hollywood action crap kind directed by lesser known directors…U bash them all….So,u big film -lover,why cant u love those films too??those candy floss sigar coated films??those bollywood sex flicks??those kickass hollywood flicks?? the truth is that u cant bear those kinda films and u hate them…nothin wrong in that and so do I dislike some of Mani’s films….but i become this “film hater ” kind and you are this objective,”lover” of films…very funny.

the thing is very simple.no one is so pure to love all the films…i dislike some of Manis films but i watch them first day cos i know he is one of the very few good directors…and u easily stereotype people…im not the kind pointing fingers…

Analyse objectively!thats all i am asking…

*Why does the media raves about the styles,visuals and aesthetics than appreciating the raw contents??is the form and style given over importance?

What factors could make Mani move from a league of good directors to a great director ??

Why is Maniratnam hyped up by the press when there are better film makers(i dont mean the arthouse kind like Adoor,Mrinal Sen etc..) like Balu Mahendra,Kamal Haasan and even Balaji Sakthivel.

Why dint a movie like “Kadhal” get the same hype from the media(national media) as a “Roja” or a “Bombay” did??Is it bcos it is not as slick as the latter films ???

All i am asking is some questions…for the past one yr i have been asking the same questions again and again…and no one is answering…all i am hearing is smart-ass kinda answers and answers like “mani is one of the handful good directors available in TN.So,dont critisize him” ….well,i know that buddy.i know Mani is a good director…But there is more to add up than liking or disliking him..

and some “moviee lovers” taking the moral high ground and preaching the importanc of taking a course in “film appreciation”

Give me the answers and let us discuss objectively.dont preach.ACT!

anantha

May 19, 2005 Reply

Okie.. Can I just say this?
A movie is just a director’s interpretation of how he thinks his protagonists might react in certain situations. Pure conjecture. That is what I learnt from all that discussion on Lazy’s blog last year!
That’s all it is – a disagreement over viewpoints. I realised soon after I fought so much about what I thought MR was saying, that looking at it objective, one could argue just the opposite and criticize MR for not doing it THAT way! Ultimately conjecture.
I am no film student, but I find MR’s love stories refreshingly different. Some of you would term Karthik’s expression of his interest to Shakti artificial, but its all probability. There could be someone who thinks the way Karthik does. Hell, I think some of my thoughts are unique. But u can’t claim that I am artificial, unless u know me enf to know how I react. A movie cannot convey everything from a character’s (and in proxy the director’s) viewpoints. Ultimately what comes on screen’s just a viewpoint and there is no point being judgemental!
Again, I have to say this. I think that its only in India (particularly South India) do we have “fan clubs” (virtual) for directors.
IMHO Arvind, (no offense btw) a link to forumhub would have done a lot to bolster your (or is it Praveen’s) argument! Halfway through the (first) long comment/post, I lost track of whether i am reading your comment or Praveen’s. Even a link to that relevant post on LG’s would have done wonders. I don’t even want to start on those cribs of Praveen. Whatever he has not experienced, he has seemed to label it as unpredictable behavior which points to a mild but standard case of hypocrisy!
(P.S Suderman, I deleted that comment!)

anantha

May 19, 2005 Reply

yea,his Gilli was good but Dhool was downrite vulgar and cheap

I actually thought Dhool was much more realistic (mainly in its vulgarity) than Gilli!

Thank you!

anantha

May 19, 2005 Reply

Arvind:
I’d have appreciated your reasoning if you had given your arguments, rather than quoting some tom, dick or praveen (not once, but twice in the past one year) and just adding a footnote that you agree with some of his points! Which ones, btw? The one characters doing unpredictable things? If the characters did predicatable things, wouldn’t we bash the movie anyways?

anantha

May 19, 2005 Reply

Okie.. my mistake, I confused Dhool with Dhill!

*embarassed*

But I don’t rate Gilli any better than Dhool!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

Arvind:
>>U can very well say that u like or dislike my view…But saying that my views suck because there is a ulterior motive behind it (in this case , u tell that i am from the “film bashing school and ur from the “film appreciation school”) shows a big sense of insecurity in you!!!<< did I really tell you ur views “suck”??? Oh! Did i?? and did i see the word “insecurity”????? dont tell me! 🙂 Cheers dude! We’ll talk when you’re in a good mood! cuz rite now, as u said, im feeling insecure… lol!

sanchapanzo

May 19, 2005 Reply

SudhishKamath,

Off the discussion – just a quick question : Can you provide me some pointers to any good ‘film appreciation course’? (please provide the online ones if any)

sanchapanzo

May 19, 2005 Reply

SudhishKamath,

Off the discussion – just a quick question : Can you provide me some pointers to any good ‘film appreciation course’? (please provide the online ones if any)

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

Arvind:
I also see you’ve mentioned something abt my reviews!!

First of all, thanks for reading them! 🙂

Secondly, i wud appreciate if u read the rest of my comments in this post (tho it is too much to ask). I did not say love all movies u see… i also said that only 10-15 per cent of our movies really work with the audience. They click for a specific reason… But thats anywhere in the world, 85 per cent of films made are bad!!

A critics job is to help you make up your mind on whether u shd watch a movie or not… its a job i have learnt to love… so i share my experience with u like any friend would…

Which is why even when i find Kaal hilarious (when it is supposed to be scary), I ask you to watch it.. cuz you wd anyway find it entertaining!

Film appreciation is not about encouraging bad cinema, its abt appreciating what is good and celebrating it!!

You can read my review of Kaadhal to see what I mean!

And for Gods sake, chill down man! cuz when you get emotional, you lose focus, you forget your argument and end up posting a whole lot of words that dont mean a thing with some unintentionally funny stuff!

Wishing you all the best!

Girl

May 19, 2005 Reply

Kill Bill is not a movie that you take too seriously. It is a great movie, but the suspension of disbelief is hinted at, right from the start, when we are given to understand that this woman has received a bullet in her head, and has lived to tell the tale. There are so many other hints to tell you not to take the film seriously. The scene in Vernita Green’s house, when the Bride and Vernita are almost ripping each other apart one minute, and are sharing cups of coffee during the other.

Also, do you really think I liked all that blood spurting out of heads just because it was ‘realistic’? Kill Bill is a fun ride, a film that Tarantino made for himself, with some interesting references thrown in along the way (especially the interesting way in which he explains the concept of a comic book superhero.) Kill Bill 2 got pretty sappy, and the scenes with Budd were so long-drawn and irritating, I wanted to slap Tarantino down and ask him to stop waving his d**k about already.

I know a lot of people who think his films are too ‘cosmetic’. Well, they are entitled to their opinions.

Remember, I once told you that I don’t understand how people can criticize Indian movies for having “songs” and yet like a Moulin Rouge.

But Mani’s holier-than-thou attitude ticks me off. I mean, a movie like Roja asks itself to be taken seriously, but ends up trivializing the issues that it talks about. Also, I have nurtured a lifelong grouse against the bastard for filming what is perhaps the most nauseatingly perverted song of all time, ‘Rukumani Rukumani’.

And hey, don’t knock villagers. Most of the ones I have seen would hate anyone who insulted their intelligence (Mani Ratnam being a case in point).

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

Sanchapanzo:
Sorry yaar, i wudnt know about online courses! but film appreciation is something u gotta do at a film school cuz u’ll get to watch plenty of movies and discuss them and why they click… FTII Pune has a annual summer workshop if u want something short term…
film appreciation is finding out more about why films work rather than nitpicking! Which is why I find myself out of place when I have to write a review… Getting into critic mode is something I’ve learnt to love on the job!!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

The Bride:
*you really are making me go… Urggggggh*

Of course I know QT uses alienation devices!!! The point Im making is, so does Mani!

Mani Ratnam films have song and dance, if not alienation what else is that???

Songs, dances, comedy and stylised action are devices filmmakers use to trigger off willing suspension of disbelief. dint you know that????? Which is why I said, do that course!!!!

and whats this all puritannical brahminical attitude suddenly towards rukmani rukmani??? remembered moral science mode which was off when you made that comment abt preserving Indian culture a few comments above or when you have a track like ‘Rape Me’ in the My life soundtrack???

Hypocrisy again!!!

Gawd!! Lets continue this over email. Im feeling embarassed for you now!!

Girl

May 19, 2005 Reply

>puritannical brahminical attitude suddenly towards rukmani rukmani???

First off, I despise that statement. Also, if making seventy year old women gyrate and shake their *beep* (censored because you went puritanically “urgh”) like twenty year olds is perfectly normal with you, I think it is you who are in danger of embarassing yourself.

And hahahhaa, by having “Rape me” as my soundtrack song, I wasn’t fantasizing about dating some eighty year old man displaying signs of obnoxious pelvic movements (sorry, Mani saar. Cut! Pack up!) So there.

Arvind

May 19, 2005 Reply

i could have given you the link but its long dead and swallowed up in the archives…and the LG’s comments were also not there…i have searched for it and couldnt find it…

okay,my 2 cents…

I am no film-hater and i dont find pleasure in finding faults with some reputed directors movie and thereby stroking my own ego.Agrees that Mani is one of the few good directors in TN.So,lets take the other good directors…

*Balu Mahendra
*Kamal Haasan
*Rudhraiya
*Bharathiraja
*Jayakanthan(though he directed only a coupla films , those were classy)
*Balaji Sakthivel(he maybe new,but his “Kadhal” is enough to prove his genius)
*Mahendran(though i dont like some of his films i dont like)

If u take any of the above directors, u could feel the conviction they had in making their films…most of them dint have the aesthetics or the visual thinking sophistications of Mani.What they had is their conviction to tell a story honestly ,without any silly attempts to explicitly make the viewer “feel good” about the movie…

the cut the long short story…they made movies which people liked(or disliked) eventually.and not the other way round.they dint backtrack and made movies which could have been “likable” by the people. They made movies.people liked them sometimes.disliked them manyatimes and made those movies utter flop.

These guys are like Howard Roark , who “wanted customers to build” and not “build for wanting to have more customers”…Similarly these guys “wanted audience to make movies” and did not “make movies to have a wider audience base” !!! that doesn’t mean that Roark cared less about customers and these directors dint give a dammn about the audience…. As some one said b4 in this same comments section(should I give a “link” here too)….

“Art is an insight into the collective consciousness (the audience’s). What appeals to the film-maker most often appeals to the audience also. A film-maker has no right that this or that is what the audience wants and/or expects. The film-maker is best suited to only apply to his art what appeals to him.”

I am in no way saying that one must make only art house kinda movies…U could make good commercial movies…As Kamal used to say , “there is nothing called art or commericial films…there r only good and bad films…there could be an extremely bad film in the name of art and there could also be some real good films which are called commercial”…. I believe one cant make a commercial film(a similar analogy is one cant make a cross over films).. U make a film…Market it..advertise and When it runs well ,it becomes a commercial film….similarly when the film crosses over to other countries,then it is a cross over film….So,a directors focus is to make a film honestly,true to its central idea and let the post production takes care of the rest…. But if one inserts unwanted , kitsched scenes , the scenes which are engineered to impress the audience ,then ,sorry buddy,I am not for it !!

Why is Mani being praised so much?It is because he balances the aspect of taking sensitive subjects and making it a commercial success…There are other directors who had taken mare sensitive subjects than Mani and there are directors who are more commercially viable than Mani. But it is this combination of both that makes him special…..But that is a very very difficult job to do and requires a lot of compromises in the contents…. Let me explain…

Take Kamal for example…. When u take his “serious” attempts like Mahanadhi ,Guna , Devar Magan , MMKR(yea..though it is a comedy,it is a tight rope walk)
Kuruthipunal , Hey Ram , Anbe Sivam …..8 out of ten times he fails to make the movies a commercial success…. But they would be critically acclaimed…but not a commercial success… Even in the above list of seven movies , only 2 of them are hits…..So,making a good movie a commercial success is a very difficult job which Mani does quiet often(though there could be some exceptions)…….

But any one of the above movies of Kamal could have been a commercial success if he had compromised a bit.Why did those movies fail?Why did a Hey ram or a Kuruthipunal fail??It is because of the heavy content it had ….and people were unable to comphrehend those…If only he could have reduced the contents and made them more slick ,it would have been huge hits..but he dint compromise…he wanted the contents,the layers behind the contents, to reach the few audience it had than making a void ,half baked movie which only touches upon a issue without any conviction and thereby lacking in ideals.

And which is why an “Iruvar” is a flop…though it is a classic ,it is a flop bcos it had too much contents for the audience(though I feel it could have told more),,,

Not many seems to be interested in Anathan’s speech after periyar’s death about the corruption inherent in the party….In those long duals between Kamal and Naaser in Kuruthipunal about the battle between ideals and about what is it that a reble wants from the society and the govt…….., in those talks between Sharukh and Kamal abt Kybher pass and Aryan invasion theories…..those were too heavy for the audience…

So,Mani mainly compromised on the contents. To make his movies a commericial success(conveniently rephrased as ‘to reach a wider audience’)… That is why I don’t love him as much as I did as a Balu Mahnedra or a Kamal….

Compare Naaser in Kuruthipunal with that terrorist in Roja….Couldn’t u see the black and white stereoptyped images in that guy from Roja….. And multitude of layers and shaded of grey behind Naaser…

Compare any of the simple lucid scenes from Moondram Pirai or Aliyadha Kolangal or Marupadiyum with those of too-smart kinda scenes from Agni Natchatiram or Dil Se…

Cant u feel the sincerity shown in depicting the villages in any Bharathi Rajas flicks or even in Virumaandi,than some crazy “paatis” in Roja and one dimensional folks in “Bombay”???

I could go on and on and on….

Still I am saying that I respect Mani very much….If u could list the top 15 tamil movies … his Mouna Raagam , Nayagan , Iruvar and Kannathil will surely find a place…But Mani is not praised for these works….Rather , he is praised for his pseudo-serious movies like Roja , Bombay , Dil Se and Alaipayuthey….

I jus take a break and stop here…More later…

And btw,Sudhish I loved ur review of “Kaadhal”… But some of your other reviews were crude…Maybe bcos u don’t like them…Perfectly correct…. Same way , we critisize the films we don’t like and appreciate the ones we like….there could be some good things in a film we don’t like and some nasty stupid scenes in a film which we likes….a review is all about telling those….So,no single person can absolutely like or dislike a film…I hope u got my point…there are no absolute “movie lovers” and no “movie haters”….

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

The Bride:
Thats exactly what i mean by puritanical, brahminical, orthodox views!!

Wat has age got to do with it?

Whats wrong with seventy year old women doing them??? you want to deny them their sexuality??

have you seen women in the village dancing??? I stayed in a village earlier this year (one of the remotest, in fact). Ive seen em dance. I have one on video in fact!

Reproduced below lyrics of the song Rape Me:

Rape me
Rape me, my friend
Rape me
Rape me, again

I’m not the only one [4x]

Hate me
Do it and do it again
Waste me
Rape me, my friend

I’m not the only one [4x]

My favorite inside source
I’ll kiss your open sores
Appreciate your concern
You’ll always stink and burn

Rape me
Rape me, my friend
Rape me
Rape me, again

I’m not the only one [4x]

Rape me! [17x]

This you say is okay to fantasise if its a twenty year old man but perverted if it is a eighty year old man!!

Hmmm!!! I rest my case!

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

Arvind,
That brings us back to the Wankers versus Prostitutes debates… While Kamal tends towards the wankers by indulging in his fantasy, Mani tends towards the prostitutes by keeping in mind his audience. The good news is that neither of them are at the extreme end of being a Wanker or being a Prostitute…they are just TENDING towards that, being somewhere in the centre!
Just as you think Kamal is honest and Mani does to impress, there are an equal number who believe Kamal is indulgent and Mani is more objective and consistent!!
Balaji Sakthivel also made ‘Samurai’ btw. So we need to wait a see if he’s consistent!
There is a small difference in me doing a review and you doing an analysis. Since I specialise in the business and you dont, Im slightly better placed than you to tell you why you need the film appreciation course. Only so that you get the same inputs as I do and then be able to criticise or appreciate a lil more objectively!
Mani Ratnam, Kamal Hasan, Shanker, Bala, Gautam Menon, Dharani and the like, all need to be celebrated because they are neither total wankers nor complete prostitutes. They try to strike a balance in the centre… when they dont strike this balance, the audience rejects them, so do the critics!

Arvind

May 19, 2005 Reply

AGREED!

Mani is no pros and kamal ,BM ,BR are no Howard Roarks either…so,whom should u celebrate more???

I couldnt understand the logic behind hailing Mani as the best director from TN when there is Kamal and Balu…

I am not against celebrating Mani…Celebrate Him…But dont ignore the other great guys..

When was the last time an article was written in ur paper about Balu Mahnedra or Mahendran???

Thats why i am cribbing…

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

anti,
just thought Ill reply to your comment last cuz we more or less are saying the same thing!
What you are saying is exactly what MR says in that interview he gave me three years ago!
You are right, the filmmaker has every right to decide how his protagonist or any character should be.
Just like we cant find faults with superman and wonder why he cant spin a web if he’s that Super, I think we cant question a terrorist if he chooses to burn a flag!!
Jules and Vincent wouldnt ahve been Jules and Vincent in Pulp Fiction if they didnt discuss foot massages, quarter pounder with cheese, the metric system in Paris or quoted from the Bible in the most unlikeliest of places and situations… creative licence, provided by alienation techniques, which, are available in plenty in any Indian film, especially a Mani Ratnam film!
Actually, if people do want to find faults with Mani Ratnam, it should be for his heavy duty influences… but then, who doesnt have influences??

Suderman

May 19, 2005 Reply

Arvind:
The newspaper writes about filmmakers when they make their films and talk to the press. Thats the only occasion we write about them. So lets just say that they are not written about when they dont make movies!
Mani Ratnam does not open his mouth unless he’s made a movie! It’s a policy thing, he does not give interviews otherwise.
Which is why i get hardly a one line quote when Im covering his assignment but when I cover a Balu mahendra assignment, I get pages of notes cuz he talks! We have done interviews with Balu Mahendra each time he’s made a movie!
Our paper dont not consciously makes a effort to promote someone or deny someone publicity!

Girl

May 20, 2005 Reply

Okay. This is RICH. I am popping arteries here, so ignore the maniacal laughter in the background.

I am 24 years old. I’d rather die than do it with an eighty-year old man who is in potential danger of popping his clogs off while we are …er, at it. And so an eighty year old madasaar mami wanting a 25-something (in the film) Arvind Swami to play tabla on her butt is nauseating. Another butt plug who employs this unusual tiltilation device is Shankar, who more or less did the same thing in Gentleman, which was otherwise quite a good movie, and not as pretentious as Roja.

Anyway, Mani can take his head out of his ass, and suck on his perversions in private. Just leave innocent bystanders like me out of it.

Also, ‘Rape Me’ is very famous for being misunderstood as being only about sex. But I am too tired from want of sleep to explain.

(If I do a film course, will you tell Mani uncle to stop making movies? Pleeeesh!?!?!)

Suderman

May 20, 2005 Reply

>>But I am too tired from want of sleep to explain.<< i guess it shows!! 🙂 Goodbye maami!

Girl

May 20, 2005 Reply

Hey S, am bored with this topic. Let us discuss why Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Devdas and Black are such wanktastic movies *still suffering from the flu, no pun intended*. Am dying to trip on these two movies.

L*J

May 20, 2005 Reply

I dont get the point of this argument. One hates Mani’s work and one loves it. Big deal the former should’nt watch his movies then. Its good for you and the rest.

Some movies educate you, some movies entertain you, luckily some do both. So you’ve gotto decide when you are watching that movie, whether you want logic to suffice your limited imagination or fantasy to entertain you.
Where does creativity come into picture if you only want to believe what your eyes can see, which more often than not is misconstrued by your brain.

We need more people to a appreciate good movies rather than nitpick on it. Movies are the entertainment life vein of this country. Where would all of us sentimental fools go, if all movies were sad, grim, violent, logical and without hope?

All said and done the success of the movie speaks for itself. That gives a cue to the director or producer what kinda movies or ideas people will buy what will go unnoticed.

I personally get a huge rush when I come out of the theatre after watching Mani Rathnam movies. Hats off to you sir

Girl

May 20, 2005 Reply

http://www.chickensoup.com/

anantha

May 20, 2005 Reply

Totally agree with the Jules and Vincent analogy! A killer spouting lines from a Bible. If thats not unpredictablity, what is?

Girl

May 20, 2005 Reply

>Just like we cant find faults >with superman and wonder why he >cant spin a web if he’s that >Super, I think we cant question a >terrorist if he chooses to burn a >flag!!

Fuck. Can I put that up as the ‘Quote of the Week’ in my blog?

And bunny, the guy who shoots noodles is Spiderman.

Suderman

May 20, 2005 Reply

The Bride:
Thanks for taking my count upto 97. There’s nothing else left to tell you!
Actually I do have a few things to ask though…
Have you been listening to ‘Rape me’ all the time of late??
Never mind…
Isnt saying goodbye to you too much for a “hint”?
🙂
Btw, I thought you said you were bored of this! Wake up, there is NO handcuff!
Dumb ass, you didnt get the point of the usage of superman there!! high time you got that sleep! Go away now! Is that too much of a “hint” too??

Suderman

May 20, 2005 Reply

Anti:
🙂
Chumma, just to make it comment number 99!

Suderman

May 20, 2005 Reply

Lyn!!
Super point! Thank you. For letting me take the score to 100!
That’s enuff for this debate!

Thank you Bride, Disagree, Anti, Ari and the others!

End of discussion!

Girl

May 21, 2005 Reply

Hey, Suderman. I’d love to hear some erudition and pissdom on Black.

And yes, you are welcome.

Girl

May 21, 2005 Reply

>Btw, I thought you said you were >bored of this! Wake up, there is >NO handcuff!
>Dumb ass, you didnt get the point of the usage of superman there!! high time you got that sleep! Go away now! Is that too much of a “hint” too??

Okay, dumbfuck, glad to see you are chickening out at last.

But your wankery has inspired me to write my most favourite blog post yet. And good luck with your err movie.

So long, Sunder Man, and thanks for all the fish.

Suderman

May 21, 2005 Reply

good luck Bride!

Wankers versus Prostitutes: Talk about our movies!

Comments

Leave a Reply to Girl Cancel reply