Is Barfi a manipulative film? - Page 3

Originally posted by: Dexterkilaila

Could be but I'm more inclined to believe otherwise because PH is the same for both films. Isn't the production house responsible for publicity and marketing? Correct me if I'm mistaken. In any case, I haven't watched Barfi yet so I wouldn't know how manipulative it is or if it is manipulative at all. But based on past commercial bollywood films like Black, TZP, MNIK etc, I wouldn't doubt if what this writer is saying is true.

The writer of the article was rendered so speechless with Barfi!'s mostly silent charm that he made a super long rant and still couldn't convince half of the people.

Originally posted by: U-No-Poo

This article is being termed as 'khichdi' because all the arguments seem forced and baseless. I would say silly, to a certain extent. Sure, the film has it's flaws. Who says only flawless films are sent for Oscars? Heck, the Academy itself doesn't always award and/or nominate deserving films. But all of that is debatable. And I'm sure everyone would be open to it. But this person seems to be taking Barfi's success as a personal insult, phir to opinions ki baat hi khatam ho gayi na. Isne toh moochon par hi le liya 😆

^ upper lip pe liya 😆

[quote] But that's the whole point naa...your argument doesn't NEED to be valid as long it's contrary...as long as you're the only "brave" soul speaking the "truth" while everyone else is drunk on Barfi kool-aid...that is the basic tone of this extremely lame article. [/quote]

Originally posted by: blue-ice

The author is a girl...toh moochon per toh nahi le sakti hai🤣

Originally posted by: U-No-Poo

I don't know, I always thought every star has his/her own PR mechanism 😕

Well yes, Black, MNIK and TZP (to a small extent, IMO) were manipulative films, but Barfi isn't a heavily loaded sack of melodrama like these films were. To put it in another way, it doesn't use it's characters disabilities to evoke any unwarranted sympathy. But we can have this discussion once you watch the film.

Another W*F point - " Since the director couldn't make a silent film in today's time"

Originally posted by: krangara

But that's my point - I don't think ALL the arguments are forced or baseless. The writer has made some valid points; sure, some of them are silly, but I don't think we can dismiss the article or the writer's opinions outright. 😕

Originally posted by: krangara

[quote] But that's the whole point naa...your argument doesn't NEED to be valid as long it's contrary...as long as you're the only "brave" soul speaking the "truth" while everyone else is drunk on Barfi kool-aid...that is the basic tone of this extremely lame article. [/quote]

So, do you think it's okay to simply join the 'I am drunk on Barfi kool-aid' bandwagon even if you do not like the film?

And there WERE flaws in the film - what's wrong in pointing some of them? Plus, I don't think the author is claiming that the movie is BAD; she is just saying that it is like any other masala film where you have to suspend some rationality to enjoy it; which I definitely agree with.

U-no-Poo has pointed this out to you clearly already but incase you're still missing the point...the argument is not that Barfi doesn't have ANY flaws...the argument is that this article is nitpicking over the STUPIDEST of things in the movie...nobody is touting Barfi as the greatest/most flawless film of all times...yes it requires suspension of disbelief like any other movie...but that doesn't make it a typical MASALA film as you are calling it either.

Barfi has touched people's hearts...that doesn't mean it's flawless...it means it was charming and sweet...nobody is touting it as the greatest movie of all time but this article seems to be taking it like that and is written in a very defensive tone only intended to microsopically pick out any "flaws" as this person can find in order to totally dismiss the movie.