VB : I am not anti-national but will comment on what is anti-human! - Page 6

Originally posted by: vssaras

How do you know VB did not do the research...if you read the interview of this topic...he is very aware of the Kashmir issue and has longed to make a movie for a long time...

VB's POV is that none of the films including Roja has been said from a Kashmiri's POV...he is doing that here...a new side to the story..

[/QUOte

Edited by Pharma3 - 11 years ago

Originally posted by: poppy2009

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

How can I see the film as being different from the book?

No, I did not go to see the film with any bias. If that was the case, I wouldn't have gone to see the film at all. It upset me pretty much. I would have preferred not watching it at all, had I known about it.

Why should I believe what VB and Shahid say? They will obviously defend the film. Just because they say that the film is essentially a family drama and not a political statement does not make it the truth.

Btw, I am not at all in favor of boycotting Haider or anything.

But the at the same time, if something upsets people, then they have the right to say that too.

There is no comparison between Omkara and Haider. Omkara was a pure adaptation of Othello, with the focus just on the characters and their interplay...whereas Haider is a strong, political film, which makes a very clear (and controversial) stand on certain thing. If you are expecting that people will just ignore that and only concentrate on how wonderful Tabu and Shahid were, or how pretty Kashmir looked, or how nicely the Hamlet theme was woven in, I am sorry, but you are wrong.

The reaction to Haider is simply because the makers sought to get this type of reaction from people. Had VB only made a family drama, then there wouldnt be such strong reactions that it is getting now.

Originally posted by: vssaras

Then it is not VB's fault as you are seeing the film upside down...nor did the film makers mislead the audience in their promotions...Shahid said it multiple times that Haider is mainly a family drama..VB & Shahid put it out there as the completion of the trilogy of Shakespearean tragedies...when you saw Omkara..were you looking at the story of Othello or the backdrop in which it was set...

The very fact you said that VB is hypocritical in praising the army...this film is not anti- army...this film is basically anti-revenge...a call for peace in the state of Kashmir which is still in such a conflicted state..

Looks like you read the book and went in to see the film already baised against it...actually you are doing the exact same thing which the film points out..just by association...just because VB interacted with Basharat...you think their thoughts are one and the same...this very thing is happening in Kashmir...just because Kashmiris are in the proximity of terrorists..they get labeled as terrorists...

Here VB and Basharat are not one and the same...his book is not the same as Haider...

Originally posted by: poppy2009

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

How can I see the film as being different from the book?

No, I did not go to see the film with any bias. If that was the case, I wouldn't have gone to see the film at all. It upset me pretty much. I would have preferred not watching it at all, had I known about it.

Why should I believe what VB and Shahid say? They will obviously defend the film. Just because they say that the film is essentially a family drama and not a political statement does not make it the truth.

Btw, I am not at all in favor of boycotting Haider or anything.

But the at the same time, if something upsets people, then they have the right to say that too.

There is no comparison between Omkara and Haider. Omkara was a pure adaptation of Othello, with the focus just on the characters and their interplay...whereas Haider is a strong, political film, which makes a very clear (and controversial) stand on certain thing. If you are expecting that people will just ignore that and only concentrate on how wonderful Tabu and Shahid were, or how pretty Kashmir looked, or how nicely the Hamlet theme was woven in, I am sorry, but you are wrong.

The reaction to Haider is simply because the makers sought to get this type of reaction from people. Had VB only made a family drama, then there wouldnt be such strong reactions that it is getting now.

Originally posted by: solembaum

Do you mean to say that army cannot have committed any atrocities? This is a movie that talks about atrocities committed by army... but that does not make vishal bharadwaj an anti army man... or even an anti national... he is highlighting pne aspect of the army which many people in the country seem to gloss over... and it is important that someone do it so that all their atrocities dont get buried under the gratitude that their good deeds inspire... like in every other sphere of life there is good and bad in army also... and this is a story that highlights the bad... usually all bollywood stories highlight the good... this one highlights the bad... the Kashmir issue itself is such a tangled thing... and there are so many angles from which it can be looked at... this is one of the angles and VB only says that he is not anti national or anti army... but his film talks about a particular story which shows army in a bad light... I think when people are happy when army is shown as all good and unblemished... they should have room intheir heart when army is not shown that well as well .. because that is the truth... go and ask people in areas where AFSPA is in place how they feel about the army...

Originally posted by: Pharma3

I thought he was making a movie based on hamlet. What is it to do with the army

Originally posted by: poppy2009

@solebaum,

When you are making a film on a topic as touchy and sensitive as Kashmir, and only showing one point of view...that is Army committing atrocities on innocent Kashmiri muslims, there is bound to be reaction from people.

VB showed that Army commits atrocities in Kashmiri's...why not show the reasoning behind it? Why not show that 90% of the terrorists who committed genocide against Kashmiri Hindus's were not from Pakistan, they were all from Kashmir itself.

Why not show that the reason why militancy became so rampant in Kashmir was because those very locals were sheltering the terrorists in their homes and giving them information about the Armys whereabouts which led to innumerous Army Officers and Jawans losing their lives.

And fine, if VB doesn't want to show that, its his prerogative entirely.

But then, no one has the right to stop others from condemning him and the film he has made too.

The criticism is not because he showed Kashmiri muslims in a sympathetic light...it is because he completely failed in showing what happened to others in Kashmir. He painted the Army in black, without showing why they did certain things that they did.

If a film can show why an innocent Kashmiri ends up becoming a hardened militant, can't people question why it doesn't show the reason why Army has to take a hard stance in Kashmir?

Originally posted by: poppy2009

@solebaum,

When you are making a film on a topic as touchy and sensitive as Kashmir, and only showing one point of view...that is Army committing atrocities on innocent Kashmiri muslims, there is bound to be reaction from people.

VB showed that Army commits atrocities in Kashmiri's...why not show the reasoning behind it? Why not show that 90% of the terrorists who committed genocide against Kashmiri Hindus's were not from Pakistan, they were all from Kashmir itself.

Why not show that the reason why militancy became so rampant in Kashmir was because those very locals were sheltering the terrorists in their homes and giving them information about the Armys whereabouts which led to innumerous Army Officers and Jawans losing their lives.

And fine, if VB doesn't want to show that, its his prerogative entirely.

But then, no one has the right to stop others from condemning him and the film he has made too.

The criticism is not because he showed Kashmiri muslims in a sympathetic light...it is because he completely failed in showing what happened to others in Kashmir. He painted the Army in black, without showing why they did certain things that they did.

If a film can show why an innocent Kashmiri ends up becoming a hardened militant, can't people question why it doesn't show the reason why Army has to take a hard stance in Kashmir?