MOVIES AND REAL LIFE
Note: The following post is taken from the archives of PassionForCinema.com, a much-loved platform for cinema enthusiasts. This is being republished here in the spirit of archiving, historical significance, and sharing important conversations with the readers who may not have had access to the original site. The author of the post is Shailesh Limbachiya, who published the post on June 9, 2007 at 3:10 am.
Some so called biggest filmmakers claim their film’s connectivity to real life. They give very stylish, larger than life films. Making is stylish, larger than life films is not a bad thing. But their films do not connect with common man. Why?
Because….
- Human behavior (physical, mental, biological) is not properly analyzed. Take an ex. After a long sleep, when you wake up- your eyes, hairs are changed for sometime. Your eyes get little smaller and anybody can say that you have wake up from sleep. But so called filmmakers have never given attention to these details. Their hero/heroines wake up with smiles, with fresh faces and very well arranged hair.
- While inspiring from (in fact copying) from western films, they do not take care to change some factors as per Indian perspective. In every second film clubs, pubs and disco theques are seen (which is common in Western culture). Apart from Mumbai and other metros, I am sure that there is no disco theques in India. In every second film, Hero and villains are grooming in leather jackets and suits even if the story is set up in Mumbai or India. In Qayamat (2003), Sanjay Kapoor and Arbaaz Khan are wearing overcoats in a boat (which must be very humid and hot atmosphere). And if it was a winter day then why their colleague Ishaa kopikar is wearing a gown? Because it was copy of hollywood hit “The Rock”, is it necessary to copy the costumes also? In USA, generally atmosphere is much colder than India and people have to wear suits and jackets but why our filmmakers do not take care of details like costumes and makeup in Indian perspective.
- Their characters do not match with background of character. Recently, in Shootout at Lokhandwala -Arbaaz khan scolds his son for study because he(arbaaz) did not studied well and he has to think 100 times before buying chocolate for his son and in next scene he is wearing Rayban glasses. In Rudraksh(2004), just to picturise one song (“Ishq Khudai”), the hero is converted from Tantrik to club bouncer (aur film me clarify kiya gaya hai ki Sanjay Dutt poora din Tantrik ka kaam karta hai aur raat ko club me bouncer hai.) What rubbish!
In Dum (2003) - hero Vivek Oberoi and his father are requesting a govt. clerk to release pension and in next scene they are going on Bajaj Eliminator ( a bike which cost around 1 lac rupees).
Perhaps all these filmmakers are inspired from English, Korean, Japanese style of film making but they do not see the details the filmmakers have taken care of in those films.
May be this is not fault of so called filmmakers because most of the them come with filmy background and lived their life kingsize. They do not have to bother about catching the public bus at right time; even they had not travel in public transport in their whole life. They do not face day to day difficulties which an Indian faces daily. They have grown up with parties, designer clothes, swimming pools, foreign vacations etc. and so their thinking is appeared in their films.
The film makers of golden era (60s and 70s- Hrishida, Gulzaar, Basu Chatterjee, Bimal Roy, Guru Dutt, Ramesh Sehgal etc.) came from middle class background. They faced difficulties which a common man always faces in his life. Also they were connected with literature and so their thinking and background appears in their films. Even director with rich background like Raj Kapoor (he had keen eyes and mind to see life) gave attention to minor details and so his films made direct relationship with a common man.
Comments