Is sensible entertainment a myth? - Page 3

Skepblun

Originally posted by: chocolover89

But sensible/quality doesn't mean only SERIOUS films or films that "deviate from convention." You can easily show sensible stuff in a light hearted manner. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Otherwise, we're only left with documentaries...which are hardly ever going to rake in the moolah.

I think Priyanka had once said something like in our films saat ras hotein aur 9 kahaaniyan or something...meaning essentially you can break down every film to just a handful of basic storylines...like all love stories follow this pattern: boy girl meet, fall in love, get separated, get back together.

What makes every film different is the treatment it's given. A serious treatment doesn't automatically make it quality. That is a myth, IMHO. A quality film, for me, has a pretty solid story + characters that connect well with me, with great acting + directing.

Really? Then what is sensible? And what's the claim of liking different things whereas in reality the filmmaker tries hard to keep conventions in place? In TZP you have this housewife, cry baby mom, caricaturish teachers - many same old emotional push buttons are in it. Even a little bit of difference would have made it a documentary? Suppose teachers weren't caricaturish, and there'd be a song for entire family and not just maa, plus tears weren't shed every moment then it would be a documentary? Even slight restraint and deviation from same old elements would rob it of entertainment?

I didn't say a film necessarily has to be serious (though I believe facts should be in place if some real life issue is discussed).

What is great acting? How come a man trembling in disease or giving a sermon is a better actor than a man thrashing goons?

Characters that connect - if films are becoming so successful then it means the characters did connect with audience that patronised them. Then why bashing a certain type of films and dismissing them as trash?

Open magazine had once given an article how Bollywood is fooling the viewer. Why do they feel viewer is fooled now only and everything was fine in past?

Like I said why should a movie be completely dull? there is nothing wrong in taking creative liberties, also tzp was a hit

Originally posted by: Skepblun

@MaroonPorsche

That's what I am saying then. If entertainment is mainly about escapism and fun then why such hoopla over good/bad films or accusing some films as insulting audience intelligence or mocking a Salman and his success? Why lament at falling "standards" of Bollywood?!

@NKapoor3

3 Idiots is an example but it has also taken several creative liberties, has lot of gags, stereotypes and is more light hearted. A comparatively serious TZP with sermons on education did less than this entertainer. Raju Hirani puts entertainment first. His priority is to include some fun or emotional element in every moment of the film, subject or message is secondary. All his energy is spent on sugar-coating the pill. He's sometimes equated to Hrishikesh Mukherjee but HM did get more serious in his films (barring absolute comedies like Golmaal) compared to Hirani, whose main aim is always to keep the film all happy and goody-goody despite emotional elements here and there.

So what hue and cry over different content when convention and lightness is all that audience laps up?

Barfi doing 100 crore is surely an achievement and sign of slight change in audience taste. But how much deviation from convention is there in it? How original it is? Isn't it a love story at its core and aided by "good" (hit!) music?

But still some critics, fans and commenters rant on quality of cinema, standards and audience intelligence as if they're dying for radically new and different content!

@vedant123

I wrote the first post in the topic on all aspects of entertainment not just films.

TV audience likes something new?! Tell me what is new? Same old faces doing same old scenes! I don't see difference in romantic scenes of Geet-Maan or Arnav-Khushi!

Ekta Kapoor's serials are known to start off with a claim of being different and later end up on same path, separation, leaps, SIL/MIL/DIL conspiracies, affairs, polygamy.

SAB TV is such a joke that they keep showing same thing in all serials, keeping lame tracks in rotation week after week.

I see Golden oldies being discussed in real life too not just I-F. But when stuff like it returns the same audience doesn't look at it.

The audience claims they want new or different stuff yet they want their stars to do same things. Poor Shatrughan Sinha is till date expected to shout "Khamosh!" and even his daughter is made to do "Abey khamosh" routine to pay tribute to her Sinha legacy! And I have lost count of the number of times Amitabh's been asked to mouth his 2-3 old time one liners or recite his dad's Agneepath poem. Even when stars try to move forward from old stuff, audience doesn't let them do so. Several artistes have admitted to feeling fed up or stagnated.

For eg. in case of Amitabh, Paa is his only totally different attempt (devoid of typical Bachchan mannerisms) that became successful (even here the basic story was no different from old films in which man isn't aware of existence of a child, single mother struggles to bring up child and child finds father and ultimately unites parents. Progeria was just a gimmick in it).

Aren't rants on different, quality and new stuff pretentious in some ways then?

Problem lies with the audience too. They love it when their favorite tv bahu is crying,spends 20 minutes just to decide on what daal to cook.

@adhd

So that's what sells and we accept it, then why rants on quality and why look down upon stuff that's in vogue? Especially critics and certain online junta talks as if they are starving to watch an Inception here.

I got the Forbes Celebrity 100 special issue recently and the article on Salman is kind of grudgingly written. Its beginning is filled with Hindi slang, and instances of popularity of Salman's films narrated by taxi wallahs and Salman's fans are called "Salman ke pagal". Excuse me? Why such apparent show of class differentiation? As if the best people to interview on Salman are autowallahs and taxi drivers mainly?

In articles on SRK or Aamir no one talks about how their films work best with suited-booted lot or upper middle class. At best one line is written for overseas audience in SRK's case.

What's the snobbery all about? The urgent need to show difference in class while acknowledging success of other actor - even though his films do well in urban areas and he has crazy fanatics online too.

The rest of the celebs and filmmakers who are successful in entertainment industry are offering no exceptionally excellent quality that media is so condescending.

Even when you're replying, you wrote "embarassing confession" to describe you liked Bol Bachchan. I don't deny I've sometimes done the same, trying to label some stuff I liked as "guilty pleasure" or "trash I love". Of late, I've begun to wonder why do we feel need to call some likes embarassing, but declare some favourites unconditionally without being apologetic about them!

On TV, I agree with you!I didn't know about Saath Nibhana Saathiya. But it used to be #1 on TAM charts every week, I watched it once, out of curiosity and wondered "This is the #1 serial?!!" 😲 That was the episode in which MIL was scolding DILs for putting oil in diyas instead of ghee. Whole episode based on *this* issue? Wah!
What's the need to complain if such stuff is being rewarded so amply?

I think the answer of some of your questions lies in the following articles: http://screen.indianexpress.com/news/the-great-mainstream-masala-movie/800534/