How talking the walk makes “it” big.

First there used to be stories, then came plays and then came screenplays. The transformation of paper to stage or reel is indeed a highly likable one. People could read the text and watch it as a motion picture and compare. Sometimes it worked better, sometimes it invited criticism. In other words walking the talk is indeed something that everyone would look forward to – just to see what became of it.

Another important and fascinating development that took place as stage plays and motion pictures became really big (so big that screenplays became original and scripts were written only so that a movie can be made on them) was the reviews, features and analytical pieces written in appreciation/criticism or even interpreting the films. From occasional sections in newspapers, to film journal regulars to dedicated reviews the “about movies” texts have come a long way. These days we have an IMDb where people fight it out based on their tastes and views on movies. There are question answer sections where people discuss their interpretations of the film or how they could or couldn’t get the hidden abstract meaning of something in the film or how the film is much bigger than what others think of it. There are thousands of movie blogs that do the same just like this one.

Now that I have given a long enough introduction, let me come to the point of this article. Just the other day I read a review of Gangs of Wasseypur by one of my favorite bloggers- GreatBong. What fascinated me was his real long introduction about Gang movies and the smooth comparison of GOW with Goodfellas. On a personal level I hated GOW-1 and loved GOW-2, but that is not the point here. What amazed me was the by the end of the article, I had started looking at GOW as something, I never really did. I literally had to think about the core idea of this article to shrug myself and get back to my original opinion of the movie. Yes I enjoyed the desi flavor of the film (part 2)  and liked the raw dialog but at the end of it all it was just an entertaining film (part2) and I enjoyed it at the same level as Oye Lucky, Lucky Oye, but the way Greatbong had articulated his article did make me ride in his thoughts for some time. Talking the Walk had made it bigger.

Another remarkable example of this syndrome was when the movie Inception came out. Everyone had their own interpretation and it turned out to be a bigger IMDb hit than its actual reception. Just the fact the people wrote thousands of article on a dream story (a story about dreams, well!!) made it into something much bigger. Abstract became mysterious and hence fascinating. The sheer inquiry of what the fuss is all these texts about made the artwork bigger than what it was.

An important aspect here to note is, at the end of the day, an article, a speech, a review about a film is just someone’s opinion of the film but the fact that articulation and supposed prestige associated with the author/speaker/reviewer. Moreover, it becomes really difficult to guess whether the text was written as part of one’s habit or one’s desire to write it. Given the capacity of human nature, it may very well have been written to drive a section of the dedicated audience away or towards the motion picture. I personally feel, that sometimes the language of certain texts seem “trying hard to make you believe in my words” kind of a deal. Sometimes, there is a sense of pride saying “I know more than you, you know” and sometimes requesting “please give this a try, trust me”. It’s all very fascinating.

My article here is not for or against talking the walk. It’s neither to prove a point nor to dismiss one. It just amazes me, how words can be so powerful and so convincing. The BIG in the article could mean small too. It’s just how one takes it.

Tags:
16 Comments
  1. sputnik 7 years ago

    @suprabh,

    If you don’t mind divide the article into smaller paras as it is hard to read it this way.

  2. Serenzy 7 years ago

    ” I personally feel, that
    sometimes the language of
    certain texts seem “trying
    hard to make you believe in
    my words” kind of a deal. Sometimes, there is a sense of pride saying “I know more than you, you know” and sometimes requesting “please give this a try, trust me”.
    It’s all very fascinating ”

    ^^
    Nice Thought.

  3. sputnik 7 years ago

    Not a fan of over reading and some people do that just to either show themselves as smart or praise an otherwise undeserving movie because of their fandom or agenda.

    GOW starts with the opening titles of Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi. Greatbong writes how Gangsters sit with their whole family and watch this TV serial. But I would like to over read and make another point.

    Wiki says this about Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi – “The show has been the longest running serial on Indian television with 1,830 episodes.”

    The movie is another “Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi” – a never ending saga with so many characters and new plots which goes on and on. May be it was Anurag warning or proclaiming this as his KSBKBT 😉

    • Baba Ji 7 years ago

      LOL! its a tv soap on “domestic life” of gangsters .actually they looked more like a bunch of petty two bit street thieves to me than some hardcore underworld gangsters.i would not elevate them to the level of “gangsters”.

  4. Baba Ji 7 years ago

    here’s a bit on zizek who is master of overreading: its an extract from his avatar review

    “What follows is the couple’s lovemaking, intersected with archetypal scenes from the revolution, some of which reverberate in an all too obvious way with the sex; say, when John penetrates Louise, the camera cuts to a street where a dark crowd of demonstrators envelops and stops a penetrating “phallic” tram – all this against the background of the singing of “The Internationale”. When, at the orgasmic climax, Lenin himself appears, addressing a packed hall of delegates, he is more a wise teacher overseeing the couple’s love-initiation than a cold revolutionary leader. Even the October Revolution is OK, according to Hollywood, if it serves the reconstitution of a couple.

    In a similar way, is Cameron’s previous blockbuster, Titanic, really about the catastrophe of the ship hitting the iceberg? One should be attentive to the precise moment of the catastrophe: it takes place when the young lovers (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet), immediately after consummating their relationship, return to the ship’s deck. Even more crucial is that, on deck, Winslet tells her lover that when the ship reaches New York the next morning, she will leave with him, preferring a life of poverty with her true love to a false, corrupted life among the rich.

    At this moment the ship hits the iceberg, in order to prevent what would undoubtedly have been the true catastrophe, namely the couple’s life in New York. One can safely guess that soon the misery of everyday life would have destroyed their love. The catastrophe thus occurs in order to save their love, to sustain the illusion that, if it had not happened, they would have lived “happily ever after”. A further clue is provided by DiCaprio’s final moments. He is freezing in the cold water, dying, while Winslet is safely floating on a large piece of wood. Aware that she is losing him, she cries “I’ll never let you go!” – and as she says this, she pushes him away with her hands.

    Why? Because he has done his job. Beneath the story of a love affair, Titanic tells another story, that of a spoiled high-society girl with an identity crisis: she is confused, doesn’t know what to do with herself, and DiCaprio, much more than just her love partner, is a kind of “vanishing mediator” whose function is to restore her sense of identity and purpose in life. His last words before he disappears into the freezing North Atlantic are not the words of a departing lover, but the message of a preacher, telling her to be honest and faithful to herself.”

    😀

  5. Baba Ji 7 years ago

    so according to zizek, God crashed the titanic ship to avoid the “true” catastrophe – a possible unhealthy live of a random couple in future. Meanwhile ,the death of hundreds of others on the ship does not matter,that is no the “true” catastrophe 😉

    then he says kate is selfish rich woman so he pushes leo in the final scene. fair enough, then why would she need a “vanishing mediator” , a preacher to make her realise what she is? 😀 he contradicts his own logic in each of his statements.this is just one random example,

    • sputnik 7 years ago

      That’s some WTF over reading of the Titanic. LOL

  6. ank_16n 7 years ago

    According to me no two person can have same opinion about every movie….yes there can be 2,3,4 or may be 5 movies that u can agree upon….

    But even those two will have different aspect/Liking about that particular movie…

    Review of a reviewer/Critic dependes whether he liked idea/have liking about any particular genre……and there are critics like Rajeev Masand who like Hollywood types movies (if he didn’t find a particular flavor of Hollywood movies in Bollywood movies he will write bad things about it even if he likes that movie)
    then there are certain Critics like Raja sen—there funda is say this movie is confusing general public will not be able to judge the theme or aim behind the movie so i can give it a 4star )…

    so its mainly depend on the particular liking/habits or things in movie that he can relate to or sometime a water tight screen play along with Acting of Lead actors that can make or break a movie for that Critic..!!

    I totally agree with ur view on Inception thing..!!

    every human mind works in a particular way and react differently in different situations……so one might don’t like ones Acting (saying it was OTT) but other might relate to it..!!

    So never to Trust or make perceptions about a movie from What a Particular critic or 100′s of people are saying……apni khud ki akal ladao…
    if u find a movie Interesting watch it if don’t then move on…..and don’t be afraid to express ur views…

    Atleast that’s what i was able to make ..!!

  7. Serenzy 7 years ago

    Babaji,

    “actually
    they looked more like a bunch
    of petty two bit street
    thieves to me than some
    hardcore underworld gangsters.i would not elevate
    them to the level of
    “gangsters”.”

    Totally Agree!

    Zizek on his Version of Titanic “Catastrophe” was ROFL.. 😀

    Espc. ‘that of a
    spoiled high-society girl with an identity crisis’ Part
    Hahahaha.
    🙂

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account