View Single Post
  #2  
Old October 13th, 2017, 04:44 PM
log1iszero log1iszero is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 786
log1iszero has much to be proud oflog1iszero has much to be proud oflog1iszero has much to be proud oflog1iszero has much to be proud oflog1iszero has much to be proud oflog1iszero has much to be proud oflog1iszero has much to be proud oflog1iszero has much to be proud oflog1iszero has much to be proud of
Re: View and Vision on SLB's upcoming " Padmavati ", when Trailer is alreday out.









Well,........ the protrayal of Black and white is definitely understandable. But protrayal of associating Black into Hell and White into Heaven is exactly where I feel the problems comes.

My point is simple. Yes, this is a movie or a story where you have a hero, villian etc. And Villian will always be negative, which can be expressed in storyline, why in aura and characterization?

Its where sterotypes works higher and reinforcement of such sterotypes as targetted.

Just for example, we all know the story of Ramayana... We all know, Ravana is the villian of the story, Ram is the hero of the story. Its there for ages.

But in olden days, be it in scriptures, be it plays and be it dramas or serials, Ravana was always shown in majestic manner. Why so? Because the original scriptures itself says, Ravana was a great scholar, a great culturalist who loves poetry, who plays Rudraveena that even make Vindayas to bend down, a great connoisseur of arts, someone whom Lankans love for making the entire island into Gold, someone whose glory has crossed all over the three worlds etc. As a result, historically Ravana wasn't seen just as another demon etc, rather in a very majestic manner.

In 1980s when Ramanand Sagar made Ramayana serial, around 15 mins of serial time was dedicated to praise the greatness of Ravana as his introduction. Let see what ashdoc thinks,..

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE


Now,...Such a massive introduction wasn't even shown for Ram itself....

As time changed, the typical Bollywoodish stereotyping has started into serial sectors... As multiple serials passed, Ravan character has changed from its majesty outlook as done past to more of typical cliches associated with villianry of Bollywood. The acting, facial expression, the body language all changed as time passed to more of typical bollywood villians style.

For example you can see in the last Ravan introduction as that of Hanuman serial

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE


Even such levels of cliches have became standard when you talk about Ravan generally in all visual medium.

Yes, villians do exist... But why villianry goes overboard on visual appearance? When you can do that in story, whats the point in overdoing the characterization?

Thats the problem with many of these.... sgar pai, with me?

The same Bollywood showed Akbar in good light in Jodha Akbar. That doesn' t mean that whole clan is gentle.


Its not matter of clan... The matter is if the movie talks Hero, he will be always gentle and sophisticated even doing at heights of evilness, the same if done by Villain of the story will be over-extaggerated to an extreme evil aura.

I said, in movie Ashoka, you see SRK having a very sophisticated body language even during silting throat of his own brother. Had this character was the villain of the story, the same scene would have shown in a horrific manner, as if its some devil doing it...

Its this sort of characterization what I am questioning.

One may say,..
Also padmavati is only semi-historical since it is likely based on the poem padmavat. That poem is clearly written in a manner that shows padmavati as epitome of grace and khilji as a marauding barbarian. So bhansali isn't doing anything wrong since he is merely adapting from the source.

Barbarian is doesn't mean tribal or something like that... When you see the few scenes in the trailer, you feel, the massive difference in showing a sophiscated Rajput vs Tribal Khilji kind of image when in reality both are royals.

You can see a scene of invasion by Ashoka in movie Asoka against Kalinga which all recorded as most brutal in history. After all, its was at excess of brutality, even Asoka had a change of mind. So despite of brutality on scenes, you see the warrior invader keeping the aura of regality on his body language. Let see what Kalidas has his own view,..

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE


Thats happened, because the movie has Asoka as hero, not vice versa. But if Hero can be shown extremely brutal, why not a villain have similar composite or regal manner in similar brutality?

You may also say,...
Thats where reinforcement of stereotypes works to push the movie in market.

Ofcourse, its all creativity and freedom of directors. But unforunately it also creates very wrong narrative patterns in my opinion.

Well bro,..Your points are true, however we can treat them as just movies and not historical documents. The filmmaker takes the artistic liberty with the characters, events and timelines to tell a story that they wish to tell. It's subjective and we can't say this is how a story should be told. It can't be objective - that all invaders are wild and ugly barbarians or that all must be shown with their human/regal side intact. You can have straight black and white narrative or a grey narrative. We can just say if the movie is done well or bad.

Even with some historic fiction hollywood epics, we have Braveheart that made the villain/s pretty stereotypical and The last Samurai had antagonists that were morally ambiguous.

Grey narrative mostly give deeper movies. It is when you have a darker side in a hero and human side in the villain, you get deeper, richer and mature stories. For eg. In hollywood, Marvel usually goes with a straight up conflict between good vs evil narrative, which is simple, appeals to most people young and old right at the surface...and DC goes with the conflicts within heroes and between the protagonist and antagonist on ambiguous justifications, and gives a grey picture/moral conflict for its characters....which is true to real world - most good people have bad sides in them and most bad people have good sides to them. For eg. Joker, Bane, Zod, Lex, Ra's al ghoul...etc have been shown in the movies as people with reasonable justifications for the villainy that they indulge in. Gen. Zod in MOS was made/programmed in Krypton to protect/save his people no matter what the cost is, even if he had to go against his own leaders or even if it means killing all life on earth. The intended purpose of his existence is to protect his people's survival. He is doing it to save his species....and there is a moral justification to his actions from his perspective, however from a human POV, he is this monster that came from the sky to kill all life on earth. He is not shown in the movie as some evil marauder. He and Faora are shown as valiant fighters, soldiers. His status of general does make you feel for him.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE


These layered, in depth characters and portrayals make the story rich, mature and better. But, it is up to the film maker to make that call....or they can go with a formulaic monster villain. Most formulaic villain/hero stereotypes only make a bad movie....unless it is done well with good script, plot, acting and action. Villainy, just for the sake of villainy will not make a good movie. It looks like that's how they have made this movie,but got to wait and see. aashika you must agree to this,...

However I should not repeat my point of repeat your point on stereotype of Bollywood villains as Bollywood hardly has those traditional villains any more, except possibly in 2-3% of movies.

TV industry is not Bollywood, as it has very different audience in the interiors. Even there you nitpick some period dramas with your own imagination where none could understand your viewpoints.

ps: Ranveer clothes look royal. It is his mannerisms which is shown as crude. But for a perosn who has such a controversial history behind him, it really is not off the mark There is no proof that a king should behave in a certain way.I that case, Rahul Gandhi, Indira, Rajiv and Nehru and may be even Lalu should have same body language and mannerisms

You may also say,.. not great in history and I just read some historical articles after this debate here. The movie hardly captures 10% of what is written in those historical evidences. He seems to be a person who massacred thousands of people and raped numerous women on a single day (just for the heck of it). Deaths in war are different . The portrayal of his character in the movie looks reasonable if one believes those stories in public.

Now, those may or may not be true but one can't say that a director should not believe those. Unlike most of Hollywood movies, which are real fantasy and choose simple black or white characters.

But so be it,... I stick to what I say, like sgar pai...does...


http://www.timesnownews.com/business...jamouli/104816
























Reply With Quote