odadune
Star of the item number
not around much due to stuff in my personal life.
Posts: 1,494
Favorite actor: Currently a certain Kumar, but I like most of them
Favorite actress: whoever's in films I'm interested in this week
|
Post by odadune on Jan 18, 2015 2:55:19 GMT
Thank you!  Baradwaj Rangan didn't seem to like it much, but anyone who dismisses Shankar as a mere showman, as Rangan and some of his commenters do, doesn't really get him, IMO. Warning, spoilers: baradwajrangan.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/i-a-terrific-performance-let-down-by-an-uninspired-exhausting-movie/I have a complicated relationship with this director's work-I think Shankar genuinely cares about the issues he raises in his films, he just doesn't always have coherent (or wise) ideas of what to do about them, and a lot of the non-sociological parts of his films are just him trying to communicate the weird things that go on inside his head (kind of like Sanjay Leela Bhansali). One's tolerance for his films is going to depend in part on how much interest/sympathy one has for his particular brand of weirdness (again, kind of like SLB, although they specialize in very different brands of weirdness.) |
|
lydia
Junior artiste
Posts: 58 
|
Post by lydia on Jan 18, 2015 4:59:36 GMT
Agreed re-Bhansali comparison. Shankar's weirdness/incongruity, excess and crassness are all justified IMO because this is masala. When Indian audiences start to cringe and squirm at masala or treat it simply as grounds for send-ups those of us who love this kind of fare are in trouble. Here is a sympathetic analysis of I from an academic (guest) writing for Upperstall. Yes there are issues in the film but the 'strokes are broad'. (Lots of people admired the issues behind Rocket Singh - well surprise! I deals with the same only that the filmmaking language is different! Upperstall analysis |
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Jan 20, 2015 15:11:13 GMT
I would LOVE to see the quality movie that the Upper Stall reviewer saw, because I saw a very different film.
Here's my take.
Buried underneath this messy movie are the kernels of some ideas that could have made a pretty good tragic or semi-tragic, fairy-tale-like film about the commercial and modeling industries, where people can be ruthless to each other, where looks are number one, what happens when those go away, and the idea of true love transcending looks. With more economical storytelling and some well-deployed melodrama, this could have been a pretty good movie.
This film is overlong and underdeveloped. In that first fight scene with the body builders, for example, it’s Lingesa against everyone else there. I didn’t see any indication that Lingesa was particularly hated by the other bodybuilders, except for Ravi, nor was there any indication that they were all on Ravi’s side. It was a thin excuse for a big fight scene.
The China scenes dragged on and on, and Diya falling for Lee was unconvincing.
Much has already been said about the treatment of Osma. I don’t demand that minorities and people discriminated against always must be depicted in films as upstanding citizens, but when there are so few transexuals in films, every depiction of them has weight. She’s only shown as a desperate letch who turns vengeful when scorned. And her attitude towards Lee is basically how heroes usually act towards the women, yet she is vilified in a way that heroes are not.
Amy Jackson was actually pretty good. Although a white woman being cast as an Indian is hugely problematic unless she’s playing an Anglo-Indian (there was NOBODY in all of India who could have played this role?), on a performance level I’d say she was better than most of the “alabaster automatons” in Tamil films. At least she had more to do than most Shankar heroines, or Tamil heroines in general. She had career ambitions and she displayed a dark side when she toyed with Lee’s emotions.
The “Power Star” Srinivasan bits were not at all funny. Maybe “Power Star” jokes were en vogue when the film was shot, but now they are stale and hackneyed. I’m not a huge fan of the comedy in Shankar’s films (except for incidentally humorous bits), but this was a new low.
Much of the film felt like a half-baked Anniyan rehash, with the revenge angle, and multiple personas, only not as well-paced or entertaining.
Random notes:
Do commercial directors yell “chemistry!” at their actors to get them to act?
Would a model for a soda company be interviewed the way he was in this film, even if he was Mr. Tamil Nadu? Come to think of it, is any part of how the advertising world was depicted accurate?
The CEO character looks like he was imitating Bappi Lahiri.
I suspect that none of what Lee did to Osma’s skin creams would cause her to grow hair all over her body.
What influenza virus causes hair and teeth to fall out, and pustules to form on one’s body?
Was “Ladio” directed by a commercial director? It was unusually slick and well-done.
|
|
lydia
Junior artiste
Posts: 58
|
Post by lydia on Jan 20, 2015 20:46:38 GMT
Buried underneath this messy movie are the kernels of some ideas that could have made a pretty good tragic or semi-tragic, fairy-tale-like film about the commercial and modeling industries, where people can be ruthless to each other, where looks are number one, what happens when those go away, and the idea of true love transcending looks. With more economical storytelling and some well-deployed melodrama, this could have been a pretty good movie. Aren't most masala movies messy?Much has already been said about the treatment of Osma. I don’t demand that minorities and people discriminated against always must be depicted in films as upstanding citizens, but when there are so few transexuals in films, every depiction of them has weight. She’s only shown as a desperate letch who turns vengeful when scorned. And her attitude towards Lee is basically how heroes usually act towards the women, yet she is vilified in a way that heroes are not. Interestingly Ojas Rajani is a transgender stylist in real life. (I know your argument would still hold in the light of this knowledge)Amy Jackson was actually pretty good. Although a white woman being cast as an Indian is hugely problematic unless she’s playing an Anglo-Indian (there was NOBODY in all of India who could have played this role?), on a performance level I’d say she was better than most of the “alabaster automatons” in Tamil films. At least she had more to do than most Shankar heroines, or Tamil heroines in general. She had career ambitions and she displayed a dark side when she toyed with Lee’s emotions. Yes this is where I agree with Upperstall review.The “Power Star” Srinivasan bits were not at all funny. Maybe “Power Star” jokes were en vogue when the film was shot, but now they are stale and hackneyed. I’m not a huge fan of the comedy in Shankar’s films (except for incidentally humorous bits), but this was a new low. Masala movies nearly always contain baffling comedy as far as I'm concerned.Much of the film felt like a half-baked Anniyan rehash, with the revenge angle, and multiple personas, only not as well-paced or entertaining. I bought into the romance so was not as affected by this.The CEO character looks like he was imitating Bappi Lahiri. Definitely.I suspect that none of what Lee did to Osma’s skin creams would cause her to grow hair all over her body. What influenza virus causes hair and teeth to fall out, and pustules to form on one’s body? Were you expecting realism? (from a fairy-tale?)Was “Ladio” directed by a commercial director? It was unusually slick and well-done. I was rivetted by the handbag bit - (which broke up into a myriad of cubicles) |
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Jan 20, 2015 22:41:05 GMT
BTW, "alabaster automatons" was coined by Baradwaj Rangan in a previous review to describe the North Indian girls who act in Tamil movies and don't know the language and are cast only for their looks and pale skin. I re=posted the review I posted in Rangan's comments section here.
Aren't most masala movies messy?
Is that an excuse for a movie to be messy? That most of them are that way? Even as a pure piece of entertainment the film was a letdown for me, nevermind anything more cerebral. It really wasn't much fun. Even the fights were kind of meh.
Masala movies nearly always contain baffling comedy as far as I'm concerned.
True, but again, that's not an excuse, especially considering that Shankar isn't some run-of-the-mill B-grade masala director to be making lame jokes involving a joke of an "actor" and confusing references to a previous Shankar hit for comedy.
Were you expecting realism? (from a fairy-tale?)
They could have easily made up some crazy disease that does all those things instead of calling it "influenza," of all things.
I was rivetted by the handbag bit - (which broke up into a myriad of cubicles)
I don't remember that specific bit, but I thought the whole song was well done, and I was disappointed that the song was edited down in the movie.
|
|
lydia
Junior artiste
Posts: 58
|
Post by lydia on Jan 21, 2015 8:15:08 GMT
Is that an excuse for a movie to be messy? That most of them are that way? Even as a pure piece of entertainment the film was a letdown for me, nevermind anything more cerebral. It really wasn't much fun. Even the fights were kind of meh. I think they (masala films) are a messy genre and a lore unto themselves. For me the bottom line is whether they entertain (much can be forgiven to this end). Obviously this film did not entertain you. What masala films have worked for you? (and why?) |
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Jan 21, 2015 15:54:12 GMT
I think they (masala films) are a messy genre and a lore unto themselves. For me the bottom line is whether they entertain (much can be forgiven to this end). Obviously this film did not entertain you. What masala films have worked for you? (and why?) No genre is inherently anything. At most you can say that masala movies TEND to be a certain way, or that you don't mind them being that way. Films can blend comedy, action, romance, drama, etc. and still work as a coherent whole. "Singam" worked for me. I'm not saying it's a masterpiece or anything. But it doesn't pretend to be anything loftier than what it is, which is a red-blooded masala film. I was able to forgive things like the forgettable songs because Surya chewed the scenery memorably, it had a good villain, and the action scenes were well done. Looking back on Shankar's own films, "Anniyan" worked better than "I". Using the Garuda Purana as a guide for punishing people for their sins was a novel idea, and it had a certain cathartic appeal for the audience. It combined creativity with crowd-pleasing appeal. With Shankar's films it usually feels like he's elevating masala material with some novel ideas and treatment, but this time it felt like he was dumbing down some rather interesting themes. If any of his films was begging for a decently developed love story, it was this one. |
|
lydia
Junior artiste
Posts: 58
|
Post by lydia on Jan 21, 2015 21:43:47 GMT
I think they (masala films) are a messy genre and a lore unto themselves. For me the bottom line is whether they entertain (much can be forgiven to this end). Obviously this film did not entertain you. What masala films have worked for you? (and why?) No genre is inherently anything. At most you can say that masala movies TEND to be a certain way, or that you don't mind them being that way. Films can blend comedy, action, romance, drama, etc. and still work as a coherent whole. I believe masala is inherently incongruous, containing abrupt tonal shifts (sometimes weird segues) and a visual excess that Western audiences are not used to. It is an inherently popular form of entertainment which often takes Westerners by surprise because it seems to fly in the face of the 'realism' that we have been weaned on via our own film making traditions. (a bit like naive art). It is weird to anyone who hasn't grown up with it and sometimes an acquired taste. Are you merely disappointed with Shanker because he hasn't met the a level of sophistication that you thought him capable of? If the romance in I hasn't worked for you what masala romance has? |
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Jan 22, 2015 16:34:15 GMT
I believe masala is inherently incongruous, containing abrupt tonal shifts (sometimes weird segues) and a visual excess that Western audiences are not used to. It is an inherently popular form of entertainment which often takes Westerners by surprise because it seems to fly in the face of the 'realism' that we have been weaned on via our own film making traditions. (a bit like naive art). It is weird to anyone who hasn't grown up with it and sometimes an acquired taste. Are you merely disappointed with Shanker because he hasn't met the a level of sophistication that you thought him capable of? If the romance in I hasn't worked for you what masala romance has? Shankar is basically a masala director, but his films are above the usual masalas in that they have some higher story concept, combined with inventive song and action sequences. Even so, his films could always do with about 20-30 minutes edited out (a combination of one or two songs and some flabby scenes). With Shankar's films I tolerate some of the flab simply because the rest of the film makes up for it. Enthiran was his most integrated film in this respect. Yes, Santhanam is in it, but he doesn't have a ton of pointless comedy, and he ends up being crucial to the story. If anything, in the first half, most of the humor comes from the robot. The romance between the scientist and Aish is perfunctory, but again, it's tolerable because the story gets more interesting once the robot falls for Aish, and the film needed a little bit of a break from the robot scenes now and then. I would have cut the Kilimanjaro song entirely, though. WRT to the average masala film, the formula has been done so many times that it needs some shaking up. For one, the idea of a separate comedian/comedy track is outdated and pointless. I'm fine with a comedic character if he's actually somewhat integrated into the relationships and story of the film. If he's just there for grafted-on comedic vignettes utterly disconnected from everything else, I can do without him. Make the comedian a decently written supporting character rather than isolating his work from everything else. Hindi films used to have separate comedians like this, but nowadays they are better at making the humor come from the main characters. If the leads fall in love simply because the film requires it, their relationship after that better be interesting, beyond the requirement of having a love story in a film. This is where the romance in "I" somewhat redeemed itself for me. How Diya fell in love with Lee was as superficial and contrived as any Tamil film, but I thought they had good chemistry after that. |
|
lydia
Junior artiste
Posts: 58
|
Post by lydia on Jan 22, 2015 20:13:11 GMT
I believe masala is inherently incongruous, containing abrupt tonal shifts (sometimes weird segues) and a visual excess that Western audiences are not used to. It is an inherently popular form of entertainment which often takes Westerners by surprise because it seems to fly in the face of the 'realism' that we have been weaned on via our own film making traditions. (a bit like naive art). It is weird to anyone who hasn't grown up with it and sometimes an acquired taste. Are you merely disappointed with Shanker because he hasn't met the a level of sophistication that you thought him capable of? If the romance in I hasn't worked for you what masala romance has? With Shankar's films I tolerate some of the flab simply because the rest of the film makes up for it. Enthiran was his most integrated film in this respect. Yes, Santhanam is in it, but he doesn't have a ton of pointless comedy, and he ends up being crucial to the story. If anything, in the first half, most of the humor comes from the robot. The romance between the scientist and Aish is perfunctory, but again, it's tolerable because the story gets more interesting once the robot falls for Aish, and the film needed a little bit of a break from the robot scenes now and then. I would have cut the Kilimanjaro song entirely, though. The romance between Aish and scientist was a viewing strain as you say but I would have got rid of Kadal Annukal and left Kilimanjaro because of its flamboyance, energy and all round gorgeousness.
WRT to the average masala film, the formula has been done so many times that it needs some shaking up. Maybe a little shake up but I hear voices from India saying 'more realism', cut it down (drastically) ... Critics are cringing and squirming at what they consider to be tacky, inappropriate scenes. Ok audiences are more sophisticated but I hope that in modernising they don't neuter the effect so that we get bland offerings likes Gunday or Happy New Year -where it becomes cool to use masala tropes just for the heck of it and not invest in crafting it into something better. For one, the idea of a separate comedian/comedy track is outdated and pointless. I'm fine with a comedic character if he's actually somewhat integrated into the relationships and story of the film. If he's just there for grafted-on comedic vignettes utterly disconnected from everything else, I can do without him. Make the comedian a decently written supporting character rather than isolating his work from everything else. Hindi films used to have separate comedians like this, but nowadays they are better at making the humor come from the main characters. Yes I agree about the comedy but have become used to the idea of tuning out for the duration of those unfunny bits. That's an approach to masala viewing that I'm sure others share. You are offered just about everything (a smorgasboard) and you take from it what you want. If the leads fall in love simply because the film requires it, their relationship after that better be interesting, beyond the requirement of having a love story in a film. This is where the romance in "I" somewhat redeemed itself for me. How Diya fell in love with Lee was as superficial and contrived as any Tamil film, but I thought they had good chemistry after that. I thought the fact that Diya was forced into a pretense of love which she felt uncomfortable about was different. (no stalking for a change) In those awkward moments when she was forced into spending time with him, I saw a change in attitude. (This is obviously subjective). I agree about the good chemistry. |
|
odadune
Star of the item number
not around much due to stuff in my personal life.
Posts: 1,494
Favorite actor: Currently a certain Kumar, but I like most of them
Favorite actress: whoever's in films I'm interested in this week
|
Post by odadune on Jan 23, 2015 1:58:07 GMT
|
|
lydia
Junior artiste
Posts: 58
|
Post by lydia on Jan 23, 2015 3:34:56 GMT
SPOILER within. Two well reasoned and entertaining perspectives. Help to balance the bashing that many critics seem to have dished out. Thanks for sharing. Osma is definitely controversial. I tend to agree with filmi girl not because of the vamp similarity (although it's there) but because Osma was a nasty piece of work - not vilified because of her gender. Ok the hero did not fancy her and expressed repulsion but she wasn't getting the hint so maybe he was just angry at her constant advances. (Also he was a very simple-minded chap - (not educated) - whose world was a gym so the reaction suited the character. |
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Jan 27, 2015 16:14:24 GMT
There is more to Osma's characterization than a mere vamp, and that glosses over the very real discrimination transgendered people face in India. Shankar's films have always included some regressive, highly offensive element, whether it is the skin color jokes about the dark girls in Sivaji or the girl killing herself in Enthiran. But in "I" he has used that regressive element as a crucial part of an entire film. The image of transwomen in Shankar’s “I” has concrete legal consequences everydayThe “deceptive cruel transgender woman” is an image into which real police conduct real investigations that cost real money, for which real people are jailed and really killed, for which real newspaper reporters are sent to cover real cases that happen in real courts. Try laughingly telling the person suspended from the ceiling of Pulianthope police station, bleeding for hours: “Lighten up, yaar! It is just a stereotype! Over time, we will educate the police! For now, its just a movie!”
The suffering of transgender people has been extensively documented. There is ample evidence to show that it happens everyday, everyday, everyday [6]. Yet the transgender person emerges as the sick monster that is responsible for their own suffering. Something about the laughter in the theatre today seemed to indicate how this reversal happens. Witnessing and documenting trans suffering doesn’t provoke outrage: instead it becomes a kind of pornography, a fodder for deep and genuine enjoyment. When witnessed, for some it leaves no impact; they feel a sense of unruffled calm no matter how loud the noise. For others, it even provokes a real sense of pleasure: smiles, big belly laughs, thundering applause. The pain turns into a kind of tragicomedy, a lilting music.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prem Rogue on Jan 27, 2015 16:30:01 GMT
I am a cis-gendered woman, writing to all You unapologetic ‘I’ supportersThis letter is in response to the unapologetic defenders of the blatant transphobia in Director Shankar’s film ‘I’. I have seen a few opinions like this floating around. And I can’t take it anymore. These insolent, unapologetic, cis-privileged opinions will only silence the plight and suffering of an average trans* person. These opinions, in fact, are a softer and more potent form of perpetuating the oppression of trans* people. — Dear movie-goers, I am only a cis-gendered woman, who seldom is a consumer of the entertainment industry, who wants to get this point across. Being a doctor is a profession. Identifying as trans* person is a gender identity. One can’t even think of comparing two such roles. As ridiculous as it might sound, I think I should say why such comparisons are not merely nonsensical but lethal. In real life, doctors are not being insulted and dehumanized. They are not being abandoned by their parents for being different. They aren’t shunned by their friends or ostracized by strangers. Their plight isn’t being systematically ignored. Doctors aren’t bullied, starting from their adolescence. They aren’t called ‘ombodhu^’, ‘potta^’, ‘ali^’ and such hateful names. Historically, doctors haven’t had the need to beg or get pushed into sex work, because they had not the worry of dropping out of education or ending up in unemployment. Doctors aren’t alienated because of who they innately are. No one turns their faces away from doctors due to revulsion. Doctors do not experience the excruciating realisation of being different from their peers and the strongest will power to accept their identity. Only as recent as last year, trans* people have been given recognition as an official ‘third gender’. Even when a doctor needs to seek justice from this flawed institution, he or she need not fear about being ignored, silenced, insulted or worse, sexually assaulted just because of their existence. Doctors are not the butt of every cheap joke in reel and real life. In the glorious Tamil and Indian movie industry, so many films have shown doctors as noble people, good human beings. Sure, films like “Ramanaa” and “Vasool Raja MBBS” also exposed some of the horrors and hypocrisy plaguing the current health care sector. But the ‘Good Doctor; Doctors are Noble’ notion prevails all the same. Can you think of at least a few movies that treated trans* as normal people, like you and me, with love, disappointments, dreams, anger, frustration, laughter, jealousy and basically as people with their own lives? I can think of only “Muni 2: Kanchana”; I heard “Onaayum Aattukuttiyum” was a good one. However, the sheer number of transphobic ‘jokes’/songs have been numerous; people instinctively make fun of and laugh at trans* people. What is the most famous trans* character you can think of in a Tamil movie? For me, it’s Prakash Raj from the movie “Appu” starring Prashanth and Devayani, where the heroine is kidnapped and pushed into the sex industry by the trans* pimp who is violent and cunning and borderline psychotic. Do we know how much that portrayal affected the trans* community? I’m no movie analyst, but in a society where they were already denigrated I suspect that such portrayal in films have induced even more transphobia leading to further alienation of them. I’m talking only about the attitude of people I have seen in my life. Nevertheless, you and I know that this transphobia is widely prevalent.
Sure, any person, cis- or trans*, can be sex starved and villainous; but have trans* people been portrayed anything other than that in mainstream movies?There lies the crux of problem. Being casually portrayed as people who always lust after any male available nearby isn’t seen in “I” alone. Off the top of my head, I can think of two songs. ‘Thiruvizzhalanu vandha, iva koyil vara maataa’, from the movie “Jayam”. Remember the trans* woman cornering the hero’s (conventionally ‘unattractive’) friends and singing, ‘Aasa vaccha raasa, naa meesa vaccha rosaa’? ‘Unakkum venum, enakkum venum, kattu katta kaasu venum’ from the movie “Vaanam”. A trans* woman pulls VTV Ganesh near, using his angavastram and shakes her hips and bust near his face, and everyone is supposed to laugh at his discomfort. Because, he actually wanted to be teased by the beautiful sex worker, a ‘real’ woman. I’m sure the list of such micro and macro aggressions, if listed, would fill us with horror and indignity at people who use the trans* community to provide cheap ‘entertainment’. Now, tell me again that characterisation of trans* people is just a part of the movies and one should only focus on the bigger parts of the work and laugh things away. Because you’re not merely laughing at a transphobic joke, you’re murdering a part of humanity by your laughter. This opinion of mine is not complete. It does not talk of the suicides, the rapes, the depression, the poverty and such because I can in no way appropriate the voice of trans* people. You may also want to read ‘I’ – All That Makes It A Horribly Offensive Movie For Transgender People for more about the transphobia in the movie. — ^ ali, ombodhu, potta – derogatory term that refers to transgendered women and other gender-nonconforming people.
|
|
lydia
Junior artiste
Posts: 58
|
Post by lydia on Jan 28, 2015 23:50:45 GMT
So basically Prem Rogue you are saying that there should be no negative portrayals of transgender characters given the social context.
I am not viewing the film from within this context so I do not register the potential damage of the characterization.
Quote from Prem Rogue "You may also want to read ‘I’ – All That Makes It A Horribly Offensive Movie For Transgender People for more about the transphobia in the movie."
Interestingly the writer of this article is in agreement with Filmi Girl re-the vixen portrayal. (only that he finds this portrayal objectionable, she does not ...cultural difference perhaps?). Interesting also that Tamil Nadu has a fairly progressive stance on transgender. (positive talk show host and festival).
|
|
Since Sept. 6, 2022, Chiloka has not been reachable. (