Is Barfi a manipulative film? - Page 5

One angry desperately-wanna-be-a-Devil's-Advocate. 🐷

Originally posted by: psawyer

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

Um, why couldn't he make a silent film in today's time? If he can make a semi-silent film, then he can make a silent one too. Whether it would work or not is something that can only be determined after the film's release, but there is no reason he couldn't have taken out the handful of dialogues that were in the film.

Also, has this person not heard of The Artist? Silence is in! 😆

Originally posted by: psawyer

@AppleBlossom & blue-ice - the whole article seems ableist to me...or rather, prejudiced against disability. I guess Black and MNIK should have been silent films too judging by this criteria *rolls eyes*

As for autistic people and their ability to process emotions - it isn't that they can't feel those emotions but that they can't quantify them in the same terms as others.

To borrow Anu's phrase, I'm not drinking Barfi's kool-aid in copious amounts either (😆) but come on, logical arguments only, please 😆

Originally posted by: liverach

Why should Barfi be any different?

For that you'll have to watch the movie :-)

Your point about manipulation is valid in general but maybe after watching Barfi you will be able to understand why it doesn't apply to Barfi in the same way...dismissing this movie as simply "manipulative" is an insult to the honestly poetic way in which it unfolds...

Maybe it is too unbelievable in our times for a movie to be loved simply for it's pure and honest emotion...there HAS to be an agenda somewhere, somehow...if not, then ppl will MANUFACTURE one😆

Maybe that is why Barfi was set in the 70s...did this author acknowledge that by the way? Why this movie was set in a different time? Why it takes you into another era? Maybe because we all are just that cynical and dismissive of any selfless emotion in today's times...it just CAN'T exist...Barfi is idealistic in that sense, yes...so it depends from individual to individual who wants to subscribe to the Barfi philosophy, idealistic as it may be...aren't good stories all about the message we can take away from them? It's not about "realism" in that sense...the rest is all dependent on what a person wants to take away from this movie...if all someone could take away from this movie was that "a deaf and mute guy can't pick an autistic girl as his wife" then clearly there is nothing more to say to such a person.

^^ The movie is set in the 70's?

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

One angry desperately-wanna-be-a-Devil's-Advocate. 🐷

Perfect summation of this writer! 👏😆

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

^^ The movie is set in the 70's?

Most of it, yes...it unfolds through the 1972-1976 time-period and then some of it is in present day.

I genuinely can't even take this review seriously AT ALL. I didn't even finish this article, it's so stupid. This person MISSED the ENTIRE point of the movie. The point of the film is that love and happiness does NOT need social bounds...or any kind of bounds. And Barfi and Jhilmil, the "abnormal" ones find it while the "normal" one does not because SHE is too shakled by the social expections, she doesn't have the COURAGE to truly love with her whole heart...Barfi and Jhiilmil don't see that the other is "abnormal", they just fall in LOVE. Idealistic? Of course, but then nobody ever denied that. This person when she tries to basically say oh they can't fall in love in love just because they are NOT NORMAL...sounds like an extremely shallow and superficial person. She totally lost me from that point on.

Originally posted by: -ksh-

Actually this point struck me too...why make a film in the 70s and set in Darjeeling? But I think the reason is the director wanted to show a leisurely pace of life when people had time for each other and for the small joys of life. An era when everyone wasnt busy on their phones or iPods. I wonder if a similar film can be accomplished in today's times.