The above is in response to RGV’s following post
For all those who want to know and interact with Satyendra here are his current details.
He is working in the Dept. of Applied Mechanics at Gitam University in Vizag. His email id is firstname.lastname@example.org. To my question on what he is upto, his answer in his own words..
“I am working on two books..one is titled ‘Seventeen Degrees North’ (the tale of an Indian beach) which is about the exploration of a 33 km sector of the vizag coastline which will constitute not only of a scientific analysis of it but in addition it will also contain a multitude of philosophic, psychologic and literary musings with regard to it. The second book that I am writing is titled ‘De Profoundis’ which will analyse both philosophically and psychologically all the emotions of man such as Greed, Love, Lust, Joy, Death, Hate, Revenge, Work, Reserve, Friendship etc and when published it will alter the very direction of Western Civilization”
Dear RGV, Thank you for answering my query.
20. Why did you buckle under pressure and showed Sarkar to Bal Thackeray?
Ans: Dumbo, he never asked me to show. It was me who was dying to show off.
And also thank you for showing your true colours. It is well known what kind of politician Bal Thackerey and his party is.(For the ones who don’t know I suggest simply google and read what researchers, professors and academics have to say about it’s communal Hinduitva politics.)
And when you say “It was me who was dying to show off” – this can be interpreted in two ways.
Either you LOOK UP to THACKEREY and therefore you wanted to show off your film to him. Honestly, I don’t think you were really tying to “show off” but rather did not have much choice than to screen SARKAR and get Thakarey’s un-official green signal.
I remember clearly evern during MANI RATNAM’S BOMBAY, MANI was put in a similar situation and was told to delete a few scenes and also to change the name of the film BOMBAY TO MUMBAI which he did not accept, but he accepted to delete a few scenes that were showing TINU ANAND playing THACKAREY in a “BAD LIGHT”.
Anyways, I just wanted to let you know Sir. that yes, you can brush me off by calling me a Dumbo, which I may or may not be. But, I am surprised that so many of your fans who really look up to you as a man of courage and honesty and integrity cannot really see thorough your pseudo-boldness.
Your heroes like Harshwardhan Mallik are only limited to film for others to follow but when it come to you to follow the same, you remain to the same group of NAVEEN SANKALIA, just an opportunistic money making machinery. Now, I am not suggesting making “money” is bad. I know that everybody needs it. But what is perhaps more important is how you make it. Is that elaborate lecture of Harshwardhan for only for the audience to follow and not you?
I just hope that people realize the sham. Why preach when you cannot follow!
Sadly perhaps not much can be expected even from your fans here. Barely anyone here on this blog has the guts to blog with their real full names displayed. It is very easy to talk and feel protected with fake ID’s but takes more than “steel balls” to say whatever you want to say with honestly.
Let us look at the following title and its correlation with the film:
Kaho Na Pyaar Hai
Qyamat Sey Qyamaat Tak
Kagaz Key Phool
Munna Bhai MBBS
If we think carefully, we realize that there is not necessarily a quality of ’summation’ of the ENTIRE film in the title.
All I am trying to say is, lets not judge the book by its cover. First lets read it, understand it, try to comprehend it and then re-read it again. Those who read books it will realize that re-reading often add another dimension in understanding the book. One reason for that is that the anxiety of completing the book is over and now you are at ease with the characters in the book. The same can be said for films. After watching a film a number of times, we in a way get “into” the characters and then sometimes like certain things that we disliked in the first viewing and the opposite if also true.
Now, the West, especially HOLLYWOOD has a tendency to summarize the film its title, for example Psycho, Terminator etc. but if you think carefully that is really an easy tank.
It takes a genius to come up with a title like PYAASA, KAAGAZ KEY PHOOL, however before coming up with a such a genius title one needs to come up with an ingenious film.
And just for the record, here in Hollywood and Hollywood North (where I am) people just work on a film with a “working title” sometimes as lame as PERIOD FILM or HISTORY PROJECT. The titles are perhaps thought about much after post-production. Lets not lose focus, the film is of prime importance than the title…
The film is perhaps more important than the title, if the film is good enough people remember the film and therefore the title. Lets not digress from important questions. Agyaat was a great title but beyond a certain degree because of the agyaat nature of the entity haunting the people it does not grip as well as Blair Witch Project. Incidentally, even in Blair Witch Project we hardly see any entitiy, however the film was still able to not only scare people but also was able to grip its audience.
In case of the great titled film Agyaat, it somewhere felt that your Special Effects people could not come up with a credible entity, perhaps which was suppose to happen in Post Production.
People go to see a film because of the film and not because of the Title. Have you heard anybody say “I am going to see Wanted today its SOUNDS like a great title”? Whether it is Pokkiri that later became WANTED in Hindi, a title my not necessarily have to generate interest in a film, there are innumerable inter-connected complex parameters that help make a movie interesting or generate interest. For the Blair Witch Project it was their internet marketing strategy, various film festival circuits that was responsible for its tremendous popularity. In other words if Blair Witch Project was titled Agyaat or The HAUNTED or THE HUNTING, or THE HUNT or OH MY GOD, I AM SCREWED! it would have still be as successful (if not more) because of the film and not because of the title.
Department or Company 2 or Ab Tak 56 Kay Baad will work if the film works. Wish you the very best.
I have two question for all RGV fans and you may write back here or just ask yourself this:
1. Imagine RANN without Amitabh Bachchan. Do you think this movie would have worked without AB in the film? If the answer is NO, then it is clear that something is missing in the script…
We all know the STAR power of AB and had it not been for AB, RANN would not have even made whatever commercial success it has now.
2. Do you really need to SEE the film? Only the Audio of the film is almost enough to understand the entire film. In other words, unfortunately RGV under-estimated the contribution of VISUALS thereby leading to a very VERBAL SCRIPT.
I shall soon be posting a series of detailed Hindi film analysis and hope RGV fans would like it.
The following was posted on Ram Gopal Varma’s blog as a response to his love of hate. Original pose here.
You love the ‘hate’ – Of course you do!
Entertaining thoughts, perhaps. Some inconsistencies though, similar to some parts as reflected in your films. Here’s how.
“Thakur’s family is my films, the hate club of mine is Thakur and I am Gabbar.” If Thakur’s family is “your films” you cannot be Gabbar; simply because Gabbar and Thakur are staunch enemies.
Now, if the “hate club” is “Thakur” then how can “Your” films be Thakur’s family? I guess it would be appropriate if: Your films are Gabbar’s family, the “hate club” is “Thakur” and you are Gabbar. This sorts things out well, because they put you and the (imaginary) hate club, bang opposite, just as Gabbar and Thakur respectively.
So now does this make sense, or does it?
Secondly, you seem to have interpreted ‘love’ quite simplisticly and in a uni-dimensional way, equating “love” with “sex”. This is clear when you say ” Love at least will sometimes give you good sex whereas hate will give you nothing.”
Such generalized interpretation of ‘love’ with ‘sex’ leaves no room for other relationships. How would you explain the “love” between your or anybody’s parents and children, brothers, sisters and all such that does not lead to sex – of course there are exceptions where in most cases people seek psychological counseling.
Also how would you explain all your fans, both males and females, who simply “love” you and your films- there is nothing much for them in it (i.e. loving you) except that you are preferred over somebody else. Are they loving you so that it could or may lead to sex? Of course, some admire you, prefer you and some love you, perhaps without understanding its implications, or perhaps more, without knowing your love-sex equation, until now.
You explained quite appropriately, that ‘hate’ is too strong an emotion to waste on anybody, however if one does hate you (or anybody for that matter), it implies that you/the hated is given that ‘due’ or ‘undue’ importance. Because the another way for behavioral response besides love and hate is indifference. You are very well aware that being indifferent is worst than being hated or loved. So I guess, with this background, it perhaps now makes clear, why you want more (and more) people to hate you, or atleast suggest that they seemingly hate you. Because this it gives you one more opportunity to conciously or otherwise enjoy or rather relish that due/undue attention/importance.
Remember the scene from Hey Ram when Kamal Hasaan meets Gandhi? Gandhi apparently is in denial of his ‘Mahatma’ status, suggesting “Please, don’t call me a Mahatma!” Gandhi takes that one more opportunity to advance his overt Mahatma status, by asking people around, “Am I a Mahatma? I am not Mahatma…I am just a normal human being…” It is here, at this moment when Saket Ram (Kamal Hasaan) reads, understands and plainly denies Gandhi that opportunity to deny himself as a ‘Mahatma.’
Kamal Hassan says: “…No, I am not going to give you another opportunity to deny you your Mahatma status.”
I find that a very powerful, strong and intelligent scene. Something rare in most Hindi films. Where ‘self love’, ‘hate’ and ‘intelligence’ exude in different ways.
No wonder your post is titled “I love the hate.”
This is written in response to Ram Gopal Varma’s blog on ‘The Strokes behind Rangeela’ a colourful film. Original RGV blog here.
I am glad you wrote about Rangeela, something I was eager to read about, directly from you. In 2005 I was researching on Bioscopes. I wanted to make a documentary on it. Your film ‘Rangeela’ opens with the titles via a Bioscope and then Urmila breaks into the song right after it. I wanted to know more about its significance, i.e. what prompted you to begin the film with a Bioscope? Subsequently, I tried to contact you, spoke to your PRO a number of times to know the same. Unfortunately, I never got a positive reply. I am not sure if he ever mentioned that to you or whether you were simply not interested in replying to my query then.
However, while you are now opening up, I shall be glad to seek answers to those queries. If you could kindly throw some light on the idea of opening sequence of ‘Rangeela’, specifically beginning from the titles to Urmila’s breaking into the song.
My short film eventually changed completely after I met a wonderful ‘Bioscopewallah’ who dedicated his entire life being a charming entertainer. I finally edited it, excluding all the film clips that i had initially planned to include in my documentary now titled as ‘The Bioscopewallah.’
Thank you for the wonderful ‘insights’ on blogs. It is a brilliant format especially when directors personally contribute and reflect on their filmmaking, its nuances and its aesthetics, something that people in Hollywood could follow.