VB : I am not anti-national but will comment on what is anti-human! - Page 5

Originally posted by: Franco

I don't even remember any anti national stuff in hamlet

How did it allegedly come about in this film

Originally posted by: Fiery.Phoenix

I haven't seen the movie, so won't comment on the content. But if people are talking about freedom of speech and expression, then it works both way. If people wanna protest and boycott, then it's their right and will, when the same freedom is enjoyed by the director. I think people are defending director's freedom and not the boycotters cuz they know it'll affect the movie...😆

People are always protesting when it comes to religion, then why the problem if protest is happening to defend the army ? I don't see any issue here...

Originally posted by: poppy2009

Thank you!

PS: Ranveer looks like Farah Khan's husband in your siggy!😆

What can I say yo...I would rather people protest for army/humans than protesting for God, some invisible uncertain entity...😆

Hahaha, oh man, Ranveer ka raita bana diya with that comparison...😆

Originally posted by: Fiery.Phoenix

I know right 😆

VB's an idiot to pass off some army stuff as Hamlet...Should have just stuck to the theme of Hamlet

He should've just stuck to just adaptation of hamlet

Disney remade hamlet in the lion King and that film was a super hit . If VB just did what they did he could've avoided all this controversy
🥱 🥱

Originally posted by: poppy2009

Have any of you guys read Basahrat Peer's book on which the script / story of Haider is based?

He actually goes on to accuse the Indian Army of funding a Terrorist based organization in Kashmir for an anti-insurgency operation against Kashmiri Muslims.

I will just say one thing...if VB truly wanted to show both sides of the Kashmir conflict, why base your story on a book that is so fatally flawed and strongly anti-army?

And fine, India is a democracy, everyone has the right to express themselves in any way possible (even if it is reporting half-truths and giving a distorted version of reality), then why this hypocricy towards the end of the film, where the Army was thanked for their effort to help the Kashmiri's during floods?

It was simply an act of appeasment, so that the censor boards would give the nod for the film's release. Nothing more.

Also...an entire movie based on the plight of Kashmiri Muslims and what they suffered and just a passing mention of Kashmiri Hindus's, who were ruthlessly driven out of their own home state or else mass-murdered? What will impress the audience more? What is shown or what is just mentioned?

If VB really wanted to show an anti-human film, then he would have dedicated at least one portion of the film, where he actually 'showed' what Kashmiri Hindus's suffered there, instead of just 'mentioning' them in passing. If what happened with Kashmiri Muslim's is anti-human, then what about what happened to Kashmiri Hindu's? Don't they deserve a valid voice?

I saw Haider yesterday and I was quite pissed off with VB's version of what happened in Kashmir.

IMO, Haider is a deeply biased film, which is made worse because VB doesn't even have the guts to say that he has indeed made a film which speaks strongly against the Indian Army and the Indian State. He tries to gloss over it by offering lollipops in the end by thanking the Army, when clearly the entire film paints them as the biggest villains in Kashmir.

I can see why some members who have probably lived in J&K or are Kashmiri Hindu's are butt hurt. Anyone would be in their place. Its a very offensive and hurtful film from their point of view.

PS: Btw, I am not upset that the film showed only the Kashmiri Muslim POV...what annoyed me to no extent was that VB did not even have the courage to say what he was trying to say in clear and simple terms. He showed something and is pretending that it is not the case and that he has indeed made a very unbiased film. When clearly, he has not.

^vsaras,

I saw Haider as a very political film, where a Kashmiri Muslim family drama is the backdrop and not the other way round. The family drama is simply incidental for telling the story of what happened in Kashmir from a particular POV.

When did I say that VB cannot question the army? Of course, he can. What I am questioning is why is he being so hypocritical about what he has shown in his own film by saying that the film is not anti-army?

Haider is an anti-army film. The fact that the film is based on a book which was anti-army and the fact that the author of the book is also the script-writer for Haider proves it.

Who has stopped VB from saying what he wants to! If he has the rights to make a statement against the Indian Army, then even the others have the right to defend the army and blast him and the film for showing, what I personally think, are half-truths and a distorted version of what happened.

Originally posted by: vssaras

VB is mainly creating a Hamlet adaptation...it's a story of a conflicted family with betrayals within the family itself...now he wants to set this fictional family in a tragic situation...so as a backdrop he takes on the Kashmir issues and touches on them...now a family can be either a Muslim family or a Hindu Family...obviously in Kashmir..with so much bad blood...there can't be a family with both Hindus and Muslims..is my guess..

Now here if he had chosen a Hindu family..from what I hear already multiple films have come out including Roja...so he decided to make it a Muslim family..who by the way are Indians too..and want nothing to do with terrorists...

Every film need not show all POV...VB is a film-maker..not a social worker..he is writing a fiction bringing out certain unpalatable facts of what happened...as Indians we can't say heinous acts does not happen in India..it does everyday...so why such an outcry if torture done by Army is questioned...no torture should go unchallenged..now should we start appreciating Hitler or what...

Just because VB has the guts to question the actions of the Army...he can't now appreciate their good deeds..what is this..everyone has the right to speak out on both good and bad deeds...we are humans..we take part in both kind of deeds..

Did you even read the interview which this thread is about...VB's main aim is to give the audience an entertaining film...a family drama...this is not a documentary..he does not have to do this or that...it is just a story...highlighting some social ugly truths and asking people to choose peace over revenge...

You guys are so much concentrating on the backdrop and what is or is not included in that..you are missing out on the main story..that's tragic...😆...did you even appreciate how beautifully VB blended the Hamlet elements with the message he wants to convey..

Originally posted by: poppy2009

^vsaras,

I saw Haider as a very political film, where a Kashmiri Muslim family drama is the backdrop and not the other way round. The family drama is simply incidental for telling the story of what happened in Kashmir from a particular POV.

When did I say that VB cannot question the army? Of course, he can. What I am questioning is why is he being so hypocritical about what he has shown in his own film by saying that the film is not anti-army?

Haider is an anti-army film. The fact that the film is based on a book which was anti-army and the fact that the author of the book is also the script-writer for Haider proves it.

Who has stopped VB from saying what he wants to! If he has the rights to make a statement against the Indian Army, then even the others have the right to defend the army and blast him and the film for showing, what I personally think, are half-truths and a distorted version of what happened.

Originally posted by: Pharma3

In my opinion when someone is making a movie on such sensitive issues from a highly volatile region where people have suffered a lot it is necessary to do lot of research and not show half baked one sided stories in the name of creativity. If some people are hurt then they have complete right in being so because everybody is entitled to have an opinion.if people have gone to extremes of asking for boycott then there must be some valid reason. Take for example the movie roja where mani ratnam balanced it really well. He has shown from the terrorist point of view as well and have not blindly supported Hindus or Muslims or terrorists or army. For such subjects one need to be very careful. Sometimes people do get affected from the movies.

VB's film is based on Basharat's book...the script of Haider is written by Basharat.