What Exactly Do Madhur Bhandarkar’s Films Mean?
This news item was posted in Critic, Your Voice category and has 3 Comments and so far.
I can’t figure out my opinion about Madhur Bhandarkar’s ideology in the films that he makes. Out of the four he has floored everyone with, I perhaps just saw ‘Page 3′ and few glimpses of ‘Chandni Bar’. I didn’t bother to go for ‘Corporate’ but ‘Fashion’ I may end up watching this weekend.
You know the whole scenario is a huge paradox. To begin with, people love Bhandarkar movies. I think ‘Page 3′ became such a hit that people even bought home CDs to add up to their collection in spite of the film’s direct references to taboo topics like homosexuality and pedophilia. Each time the film was discussed, I could not hear an end to the many ‘waah, waahs’.
But my trouble is, I did not like the film that much. I think it was ok with regular doses of sensationalisation. A part of the truth was shown and the ‘aam janta’ accepted it as the whole truth. Ya, I wrote three paragraphs to share the fact that I too was a Page 3 journo sometime back. So, maybe I can take the liberty of claiming that I may have seen the high-class world at close.
Yep, there is a bit of superficilaity, unequal marriages (I mean a beauty ending up with an old uggle), hints of homosexuality and loads of bling (I may have missed some more examples). The point is, does the same not exist in the lower-class and middle-class? Are children not raped by the sick-minded in common classes? Don’t housewives have nothing else to talk about but their clothes and make-up? Don’t we wear a facade of good manners with a person we don’t like only to bitch behind his/her back? Don’t arranged marriages give us the most hard-to-digest pairings? I don’t know, whether it is fair to pin down a particular group and show only a half-truth as the complete truth.
Then again, is the whole world really that bad? If you are a successful model, is it implied that you slept your way to success? Does your good designing skills as a man necessarily make you gay? Do all celebs end up wanting psychiatric help? Are drugs and cigarettes an intrinsic part of fashion world? Well, these are the questions I have been reading about in the reviews on ‘Fashion’. Folks from the fash frat feel that the portrayal is not realistic.
I think, maybe, Bhandarkar’s films belong to the middle-class psyche, which tells us:
Oh, they are rich and famous. So behind the hoity-toity mask of glamour, I am damn sure a dark truth lurks by!
And we, the common people, join him in his belief because isn’t it human nature to criticise what we can never have? A classic case of sour grapes and an incomplete understanding. Well, that’s as close as I can get to a conclusion.
3 Responses to “What Exactly Do Madhur Bhandarkar’s Films Mean?”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
Recent Posts
Facebook Eying XMPP Protocols For IM.
325 Millions Users Milestone For Facebook.
Microsoft Wins The Usage Race As Per comScore Study.
Introducing The All New Sony Vaio X.
The Money Is In ‘Virtual Possessions’ Now.
Russia To Back Sanctions On Iran.
Animal Rights Activists Furious Over NASA’s Plans For Squirrel Monkeys.
The Hajj Pilgrimage To Continue Despite Swine Flu Fears.
Iran Detains Protestors At Anti U.S Demonstrations.
NATO Airstrike Kills Friendly Troops.
Neo said on Saturday, November 1, 2008, 13:21
I think we enjoy Madhur’s movies cos they are not the same as tons of others that have nothing to say beyond the same love story put in a different sense. Bcos it is so close to reality, it is loved. A movie director has no obligation to show everything in his movie. If he wishes to show a certain sect or community in certain POV, then it is up to him totally to ignore the other side. It is a movie, not a work or historical accuracy or a journalistic piece in reality and facts. I loved ‘Page 3′ cos each day i pick up the paper and wonder why that crap is actually in there. The movie showed another side of the whole Page 3 story.
Conversely i could question you that despite being a Page 3 journalist for whatever time you have been, as you claim, how many, if ever, stories did you cover about homosexuality, pedophilia, drugs, abuse and others in that section?? I’m guessing not often enough, probably never. So how would that put you in a position to question someone else covering a certain angle?
what about Traffic Signal? Ever watched?
You say, “I don’t know, whether it is fair to pin down a particular group and show only a half-truth as the complete truth.”
I would like to know where Madhur actually told that his movies showed ‘Complete Truth’. There is no movie in the world that claims to do so cos directors are artists and they like to paint the screen the way they wish. What about the outlandish Karan Johar? Over-indulgent Sanjay Leela Bhansali? t this rate, every director is the same.
Saba said on Sunday, November 2, 2008, 18:05
Thank you for the response Neo. I respect your POV and would appreciate if you respected mine too. I do agree that films in commercial cinema are not documentaries but all I am asking for is responsibility on the part of the director.
Like you many others too pick up the newspaper everyday, and when they turn to Page 3 they wonder what the crap is written there. Do not misunderstand me as the messiah of the high class, all I’m saying is thet Page 3 may not be important to you but it is important for business. People form business and social associations through parties and new entreprenuers get introduced likewise. At the same time, I do maintain that the smiling faces you see may not be actual smiles. It could be a whole act.
Now coming to the personal attack. Well, since you brought it up I am forced to reply that I never did any stories on the subjects you mentioned because I did not encounter them.
As for my questioning Bhandarkar’s films. Well, we live in a free world and I have the right to disagree and likewise for you.
A film is truly the director’s canvas. He or she has the right to paint it any way he or she likes. But at the same time I maintain, he or she should place the strokes responsibily. My issue is with the blatant generalisation. And as far as Karan Johar and Sanjay Leela Bhansali go, their films are in a different league altogether. Bhandarkar’s films promise a realistic premise. By the way, I saw ‘Fashion’ and Bhandarkar himself makes a fleeting appearance there with the claim for being a “realistic filmmaker”(and I quote from the film). Plus, just including the wardrobe malfuction and Geetanjali Nagpal rip-offs do not make ‘Fashion’ a realistic film. Also, the treatment meted out to the gay community in the same movie is degrading and limited to stereotypes alone.
I wish Bhandarkar would learn from the likes of Shyam Benegal when it comes to handling societal panaromas.
All that said, thank you for your standpoint. Keep reading.
Jaiyant Cavale said on Friday, November 28, 2008, 13:38
Madhur Bhandarkar according to me is banal and a pseudo intellectual. He has not only portrayed glam industry in a poor light but has also succeeded in making the snug Indian middle class feel more self righteous than they ever were. What we need are courageous movie makers who do justice to the topics of LGBT, prostitution, religion, couch casting etc. We must remember that these issues are not limited to the glamour industry and can be as you say, found in the lower middle class as well. And these are not even issues, just a part of humanity. I can’t say more but can vehemently state that he is a great businessmen and knows how to attract the smug middle classes to watch his mundane and tasteless movies.