Posted:
Today's nonsensical musings take me back a few days ago to my friend's (let's call her Dumpling) birthday dinner. Also in attendance was her boyfriend (let's call him Charleston Heston). Mr. Heston and I are good buddies and share a lot of common interests. We went and saw Obama on campus together. We firmly believe Nic Cage is America's greatest national treasure. We both think that Sharknado is the greatest movie series of our times. We have always dreamed of a female Doctor and 007, 50% of that dream did come true. We both enjoy playing Axis and Allies while flying high. In fact, you could say is that Mr. Heston sometimes is the white boy version of me, sans the passion for Bollywood.
One of Mr. Heston's favorite movies though is "The Fifth Element", a flick I have never really seen other than glimpses channel surfing. So naturally, he was eagerly awaiting the release of Valerian. And but of course, he saw it within days of its release.
I asked him what he thought of the movie. "I enjoyed it" he replied adding "I'd totally go again". So I prodded him on what he thought about critics panning the movie. He shrugged his shoulders and said, "I had a lot of fun". That's all that mattered to him - that he had fun.
Two days later I was having lunch with family. My brother-in-law is also a huge "fifth element" fan, who was super excited about Valerian. I asked him about Valerian too, and he too enjoyed it. He too shrugged off the failure and focused on the fact that he enjoyed it.
Once again you might wonder what is the connection between Valerian and Bollywood. Well, Hollywood or Bollywood, movies are movies. Movies are mass market entertainment commodities. For decades movie makers, movie goers, and anyone who's anyone in the movie industry have debated and argued about what makes a good movie.
For many, the Box office is the King. It is the volume of revenue that matters. So ridiculous movies like Chennai Express end up being counted amidst the greats. To a few others box office does matter, but it's not just the volume, but the ROI. How much did it make for every rupee invested? This is where movies like Lunchbox or English Medium take the cake. Minimal expense, but high returns.
Then there is the variety who pretend they have graduated from Julliard school of performing arts, offering a lengthy critique on the objective art of filmmaking that no one truly understands, but claps in favor of the Emperor's new clothes. Nothing against these folks, there is nothing against the objective art of filmmaking. But even the perfectly mastered components need a deeper soul a certain je ne sais quois to make a movie good. For example, let's take Jagga Jasoos that had technical mastery over so many components but the final package failed. Same with Bombay Velvet which was far worse than Jagga Jasoos, but had so many check marks in the technical aspects. This is why Russian figure skaters will always be better than American ones, it's not just technique - the soul counts for so much.
But going back to Mr. Heston and my brother-in-law and their review of Valerian.
I HAD FUN.
Such a simple and elegant criteria of judging a movie.
Did you enjoy a movie and have fun? If so, for you at least, it is a good, perhaps even great movie.
Were you miserable? Did you want to claw your eyes out and demand your money back for tolerating this torture? If so, for you at least, it is a bad, perhaps even terrible movie.
I like this criterion also because Mr. Heston and my brother-in-law are the most laid back people I know about their likes and dislikes. Very rarely will they express an opinion on a movie or TV show without you asking about it? They will recommend movies and shows to you as friends, but never really follow up or insist you watch it. If you disagree or call something they really love as terrible, they just shrug and say something like "I guess" or "I can see that" and end the matter there.
I like this criterion also because Mr. Heston and my brother-in-law are the most laid back people I know about their likes and dislikes. Very rarely will they express an opinion on a movie or TV show without you asking about it? They will recommend movies and shows to you as friends, but never really follow up or insist you watch it. If you disagree or call something they really love as terrible, they just shrug and say something like "I guess" or "I can see that" and end the matter there.
I wish I were more like them. I want to have fun and I want everyone else to have fun. But our idea of fun may not be the same. So as long as we each have fun, that's cool. Why be so bothered that someone else did not enjoy the same thing? I need to let go. You need to let go. We all need to let go and be more laid back.
But sometimes fun is not the only criteria right? Movies like Ugly or Gangs of Wasseypur that delve into violence or the darkness of human nature are not necessarily fun, are they? Then while Salman movies are fun, we question if we should support the actor. And I could be wrong because I am going off on a limb here, but some people do not want to enjoy JHMS because of their opposition to sexism and other similar concerns (Mind you this is about one sliver of the audience. This is not denying that people just find JHMS crappy because that's just what it is crappy). Also the "FUN" element means movies like Sharknado are indeed cinematic masterpieces compared to the Oscar winning Moonlight.
So should I update the criterion to "Fun and/or personal or life enrichment"? Can we still accept relativity in this expanded criterion?
I am still mulling on it.
On another note, I am still mulling why I would go to war for Harry Potter and some other passions? What have they done for me? I am also mulling why someone would want to ridicule or put me down because they dislike Harry Potter. Why impose their will on me? Then again, why do I think everyone who watches Duck Dynasty is an inbred redneck? Like the movie Crash! We are all victims and victimizers at the same time.
