Vanga calls Masand, Anupama, Suchitra illiterate - Page 6

Originally posted by: pathaka

These are not random fans or trolls he’s responding to

And this is not “critisism” he’s expressing disdain for here

This is about professional critics , I.e people who study journalism and mass media, get paid for their pieces,.,

So no, u can’t be a professional media person and have a personalised targeted rant in ur review of a film …u can’t question their right to make the film or tell it from a certain perspective(I.e why is xxxx the protagonist ? - because he is…that’s the story) …u can’t question the makers mental health …u can surely disagree and critique the artistic choices

But asking them to make a different story, asking them to give importance to a different character or asking them to not make a story at all , is not a film review …neither is attacking personal lives of the makers …

Reviewers are not correcting an exam paper and teaching what the answers should be…they are giving their opinion abt the film that’s made and that’s it

“This film is shit” is a valid review

“The character should have died, this female character should have divorced …the plane should have crashed..,why do good things happen to bad people …the filmmaker is on drugs” is not a review
Certainly not a professional one

That’s exactly what happened in the reviews in his case

This is nothing new. Time and again directors have faced the exact criticism and many of them have handled it with grace. I even pointed out how Scorsese was roasted for showing Jordan Belfort's debauchery in The Wolf of the Wallstreet, some even invoked the Hay's Code over it. These are all from reputed publication and critics, not internet audience btw.Saying Scorsese did not take a moral standing in his movies, showed drugs blah blah, when infact this was based on an actual living human being. The movie ended with Jordan declaring bankruptcy and teaching financial seminars to make money, much like what happened in real life. Yet, he was criticised heavily. Can we stop pretending like disliking and criticising a movie is akin to holding some vendetta against a director? At this point, people are just blindly defending Vanga just to spite people voicing their opinions. It's not just Indian audience, a similar kind of wave went through American audience when WOTF first came out. Yet Scorsese maintained his stance that it was not meant to glorify but rather tell the story of capitialistic splurge. He did not excuse Jordan's behaviour off screen, did not call Jordan an alpha male, did not call people and critics who did not like his movie uneducated, illiterate, lacking skills and guts. He simply said that portraying only good characters without moral ambiguity is boring (which again was after years when he was particularly asked about this question). Btw the movie is still criticised even after many years of it releasing. There are scores of articles calling it sexist and glorifying financial fraud.

https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-wolf-of-wall-street-is-martin-scorseses-worst-film/

https://movieweb.com/wolf-of-wall-street-controversial-overhyped/

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/dec/30/wolf-of-wall-street-christina-mcdowell-letter-martin-scorsese

https://ew.com/article/2014/01/03/the-wolf-of-wall-street-and-bad-behavior/

https://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/wolf-of-wall-streetmalegaze.html

https://www.vulture.com/2013/12/movie-review-the-wolf-of-wall-street.html

Originally posted by: ohophelia

This is nothing new. Time and again directors have faced the exact criticism and many of them have handled it with grace. I even pointed out how Scorsese was roasted for showing Jordan Belfort's debauchery in The Wolf of the Wallstreet, some even invoked the Hay's Code over it. These are all from reputed publication and critics, not internet audience btw.Saying Scorsese did not take a moral standing in his movies, showed drugs blah blah, when infact this was based on an actual living human being. The movie ended with Jordan declaring bankruptcy and teaching financial seminars to make money, much like what happened in real life. Yet, he was criticised heavily. Can we stop pretending like disliking and criticising a movie is akin to holding some vendetta against a director? At this point, people are just blindly defending Vanga just to spite people voicing their opinions. It's not just Indian audience, a similar kind of wave went through American audience when WOTF first came out. Yet Scorsese maintained his stance that it was not meant to glorify but rather tell the story of capitialistic splurge. He did not excuse Jordan's behaviour off screen, did not call Jordan an alpha male, did not call people and critics who did not like his movie uneducated, illiterate, lacking skills and guts. He simply said that portraying only good characters without moral ambiguity is boring (which again was after years when he was particularly asked about this question). Btw the movie is still criticised even after many years of it releasing. There are scores of articles calling it sexist and glorifying financial fraud.

https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-wolf-of-wall-street-is-martin-scorseses-worst-film/

https://movieweb.com/wolf-of-wall-street-controversial-overhyped/

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/dec/30/wolf-of-wall-street-christina-mcdowell-letter-martin-scorsese

https://ew.com/article/2014/01/03/the-wolf-of-wall-street-and-bad-behavior/

https://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/wolf-of-wall-streetmalegaze.html

https://www.vulture.com/2013/12/movie-review-the-wolf-of-wall-street.html

Yep and just like you think ppl justifying vanga are doing so to “spite” people , (completely discrediting any counter opinion in the process) ,

I think people needlessly dissing his work based on his personal life or interviews are doing so out of “confirmation bias”

I.e

“This guys a dick….anything he makes will be dicky…anyone who likes it is a dick”

Given the countless reviews ppl have given based off Insta clips and Twitter clips floating around without even watching the film btw (“I refuse to watch it coz I’m a good person 😇”)
And while an audience is entitled to hold that opinion, a film critic is expected to be more nuanced and open minded than that …and keep the personal out of the film review


And fyi, vangas also of the perspective that his protagonist shouldn’t get everything he wants …if he’s given a chance to talk without “shut up u dick” brigade on the opposite side …thankfully rangan was a thorough professional

https://x.com/rayfilm/status/1737151338918916287?s=46&t=lkFEzjxyCJVtRH2CCBNJyA

Originally posted by: pathaka

It’s disrespectful and classless to attack a filmmaker, his intentions or go personal in a review….what follows in response is a reflection of that

The film has plenty of explanations and justifications for each of those questions …if reviewers chose to ignore it in this case and focus on what they want to, then are they really a reviewer ?

One would expect a more evolved and professional perspective from a journalist , instead of questioning why a film exists or judging audience for liking it (like sucharita did in the kabir Singh interview) , calling the film a “temper tantrum from a hormonal teenager” (like she did in the Animal review) , or Rahul Desai questioning why the film should even exist

There is no discussion to be had there with ppl who have made up their mind abt ur intentions …

And similar to him being “butthurt” there are plenty of “butthurts” out there justifying that the film only managed to do well coz if mysoginy …oversimplifying it’s success and discrediting everyone involved

if mysoginy and violence alone sold films …then let’s just say we’d have heaps of hit films

Did Suchitra, Anupama, or Masand attack Vanga personally?

Questioning his intentions in making the movie is not disrespectful. He came off of a controversial movie, defended it by making controversial statements, and then proceeded to make an even more controversial movie. It’s very reasonable to question what his motivation or intention are with this movie. Vanga is not obligated to answer, but the question is not disrespectful in this context.

Why are you assuming that reviewers ignored the explanations in the film? That’s a matter of observation and interpretation. What if the so called explanations didn’t satisfy them?

@Bold: I don’t see anything wrong with these questions or comments. Asking why a movie exists is basically a harsher way of saying “this movie sucks” and yes it is a huge indictment of Vanga as a filmmaker. But isn’t that allowed when critiquing a movie? None of these suggests any personal attacks on Vanga.

I saw Suchitra’s review of Animal. I don’t remember it word for word but all she did was run in circles about how the movie had no plot. Vanga referred to her “that Tyagi girl”. Not the same thing.

Originally posted by: Petrichor80

Says the man who has not read a single book in his life. I don't like Masand, Anupama, Suchitra, but Vanga is so bad at handling criticism.

Originally posted by: pathaka

Yep and just like you think ppl justifying vanga are doing so to “spite” people , (completely discrediting any counter opinion in the process) ,

I think people needlessly dissing his work based on his personal life or interviews are doing so out of “confirmation bias”

I.e

“This guys a dick….anything he makes will be dicky…anyone who likes it is a dick”

Given the countless reviews ppl have given based off Insta clips and Twitter clips floating around without even watching the film btw (“I refuse to watch it coz I’m a good person 😇”)
And while an audience is entitled to hold that opinion, a film critic is expected to be more nuanced and open minded than that …and keep the personal out of the film review


And fyi, vangas also of the perspective that his protagonist shouldn’t get everything he wants …if he’s given a chance to talk without “shut up u dick” brigade on the opposite side …thankfully rangan was a thorough professional

https://x.com/rayfilm/status/1737151338918916287?s=46&t=lkFEzjxyCJVtRH2CCBNJyA

The thing is, Vanga himself doesn't maintain objectivity between his characters and his opinions of them IRL. Kabir is toxic, yes. But Vanga could not leave it at that that it's a flawed character with effed up perceptions of love. He justified Kabir's actions saying those in true love slap each other, it's not love until you have physically abused each other. I mean I'm pretty sure in committed/married relationships, that will be called domestic violence and is a punishable offence and said person will be booked under IPC Section 498A. He also always has a really weird view of what a "real man" is. His alpha male ideology, he carries in IRL. Calling Ranbir, (the person, not the actor) alpha or challenging that he will show what violence is (I'm sorry but who speaks like that let alone a director).

When Vanga himself can't maintain objectivity and projects his inner idealouges onto his characters and defends it by tooth and nail, then how can we expect those critiquing his films not to do so? He himself spins this narrative and then gets mad when people/critics point it out. None of the other directors who have made flawed characters have gone on record defending their characters. Bhansali did not call Devdas has the right to be a nashedi and is an alpha, Scorsese didn't say Jordan or Travis is the man and sympathise with them. When he has blurred the lines, I don't get why he is so pissed off at critics/viewers disliking his films.

Originally posted by: IAmLuvBolly

Did Suchitra, Anupama, or Masand attack Vanga personally?

Why are you assuming that reviewers ignored the explanations in the film? That’s a matter of observation and interpretation. What if the so called explanations didn’t satisfy them?

@Bold: I don’t see anything wrong with these questions or comments. Asking why a movie exists is basically a harsher way of saying “this movie sucks” and yes it is a huge indictment of Vanga as a filmmaker. But isn’t that allowed when critiquing a movie? None of these suggests any personal attacks on Vanga.

I saw Suchitra’s review of Animal. I don’t remember it word for word but all she did was run in circles about how the movie had no plot. Vanga referred to her “that Tyagi girl”. Not the same thing.

If you are offended by “tyagi girl” on behalf of sucharita…then the makers would definitely be offended by sucharitas “small dick energy” comment on animals collections she made 2 days ago (which were tweeted in response to her review by the animal Twitter handle …one could argue its petty but it’s a sort of rebuttal and nothing disrespectful to her…small dick is a direct personal attack, not even relevant to the film)

The critics are not behaving “classy” for their critisism to be accepted “classily” …they are not willing to engage in debate ..they are willing to shit on the filmmaker publicly …which he’s not up for ..simple

Their reviews are coloured with confirmation bias questioning everything from the morality of a protagonist reflecting on the makers moral compass, religion of the villain (why is he a Muslim, this is a pro Hindu film …vanga the bigot), to the choice of genre (why is it so violent - it’s an A certificate action film with violence) , to holding the filmmaker responsible for “rabid Twitter fights” on Twitter …(sucharitas parting words btw)

All this while taking sly digs at him or anyone who likes the film on Twitter

It’s an ugly war .:.and both sides are being ugly

Originally posted by: you2

Men/women who earn money/fame by any means..want validation the most.Now that Vanga has made the money..He wants to be held in the same level as SSR,Neel and other directors.

If he is forced to make Animal Farm next.He can only dream.

Time will tell.

Originally posted by: wat_up

very true, he just wants yes men

Originally posted by: ohophelia

The thing is, Vanga himself doesn't maintain objectivity between his characters and his opinions of them IRL. Kabir is toxic, yes. But Vanga could not leave it at that that it's a flawed character with effed up perceptions of love. He justified Kabir's actions saying those in true love slap each other, it's not love until you have physically abused each other. I mean I'm pretty sure in committed/married relationships, that will be called domestic violence and is a punishable offence and said person will be booked under IPC Section 498A. He also always has a really weird view of what a "real man" is. His alpha male ideology, he carries in IRL. Calling Ranbir, (the person, not the actor) alpha or challenging that he will show what violence is (I'm sorry but who speaks like that let alone a director).

When Vanga himself can't maintain objectivity and projects his inner idealouges onto his characters and defends it by tooth and nail, then how can we expect those critiquing his films not to do so? He himself spins this narrative and then gets mad when people/critics point it out. None of the other directors who have made flawed characters have gone on record defending their characters. Bhansali did not call Devdas has the right to be a nashedi and is an alpha, Scorsese didn't say Jordan or Travis is the man and sympathise with them. When he has blurred the lines, I don't get why he is so pissed off at critics/viewers disliking his films.

Yeh I don’t need ipc sections thrown at me to tell me why domestic violence is problematic …

No one’s defending his world view from certain statements here …

He can have a problematic world view in some aspects and still make engaging films….his success is not black and white solely attributing to mysoginy and violence …there is a more layered perspective that exists without dragging the filmmakers personal life into film reviews or holding him accountable for all the crime happening in the country

He’s not pissed at critics critisising him…he’s pissed at their cherry picking or selection bias …things that aren’t a point of Discussion in other films suddenly become so here not coz of what the films projecting, but what they “think” it’s projecting and why they “think” it’s working …and certain things that are meant to build context are ignored because …let’s not focus on context but cherry pick scenes

So “women are treated badly” is a talking point …”women fight back and take a stance” never is

No one paid them to review the person or psycho analyze him , they paid them to review the film
And before you tell me it’s impossible to do that, reviewers like rangan, hriday ranjan and a few others from Tamil, malayalam and Telugu industries have done that successfully without necessarily liking the film itself …

Originally posted by: you2

I am very keen to know if Prabhas will do Vanga's next.He has this image of being the gentle giant.There is already talk that Vanga will do Animal Farm next..