Vanga calls Masand, Anupama, Suchitra illiterate - Page 5

Created

Last reply

Replies

123

Views

6790

Users

37

Likes

266

Frequent Posters

MaebyFunke thumbnail
Anniversary 11 Thumbnail Visit Streak 90 0 Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 4 months ago
#41

I'm sorry but when a filmmaker sets out to make a film, then it gets judged in all aspects. If the film seems to be a reflection of the director's personal feelings and vendetta, then the critics and viewers alike have the right to call it out. When you can call out Agnihotri for imposing his personal ideals in his movies, then why does Vanga get off free? By that means, Agnihotri should also be allowed to make his movies with NO criticism whatsoever. Judge his movies only on technicalities. We are paying to watch their movies, aren't we? No director, I repeat, no director, even if they are a big hotshot is immune to criticism. Nolan is regularly roasted by critics for his movies lacking emotional depth. See how they handle it. There is a stark difference. And Vanga would have to take birth again to able to replicate 1/10th of their movies. 


https://screenrant.com/christopher-nolan-emotionless-films-criticisms-response/

"I try not to be obvious about it. That gives people a little more freedom to interpret the movies their way, bring what they want to it. I've had people write about my films as being emotionless, yet I have screened those same movies and people have been in floods of tears at the end. It's an impossible contradiction for a filmmaker to resolve. In truth, it's one of the things that is really exciting about filmmaking though. I seem to be making films that serve as Rorschach tests."


This is from the article itself: 

"As usual, Nolan is handling the criticism of his films with class, opting not to go on the attack of the critics of who are complaining about his films, but rather, concentrating on those who matter most to him: the people in the seats of the theater."


Scorsese regularly faces the same kind of criticism that was heaped on Vanga to a certain extent. His films do not have deliberate misogynistic bull, alpha toxicity but he was panned by one section of the audience for WOTF for showing the debauchery of Jordan Belfort. And this is all he said: 

“In the case of The Wolf of Wall Street, for example, I only learned the other day from an interviewer who said, ‘You’re not aware of the war [over] Wolf of Wall Street?,” Scorsese said. “So I said, ‘What are you talking about.’ They said, ‘Well, there was a big screening at Paramount of the picture, for the critics in New York.’ Apparently, I was told this, there were two camps: One camp that loved the picture and the other camp that was furious, saying I didn’t take a moral stand on Jordan Belfort. And one of the critics from the other group that liked the picture said, ‘Do you really need Martin Scorsese to tell you that that’s wrong?’ You really need him to tell you that’s wrong? He knows it’s wrong.”

Chalamet asked: “Does that moralistic attitude bore you a bit now?”

“It’s beyond boring, I think,” Scorsese replied.

Indeed, such takes sound like a holdover from the Hays Code restrictions of the 1930s and ’40s, which mandated (among many other things) that all criminal action in movies must be punished, they must not appear sympathetic, and the audience must be clearly shown that immoral behavior is wrong.


Despite all this, none of them ever resort to calling someone illiterate or uneducated for not understanding their movies, or calling someone lacking skills or guts. 


Scorsese gets roasted for his criticism of marvel movies. And chose to clear his stance and explain his point rather than going to needless bull. That is the difference. Whether you agree with POV or not is secondary. But you have to look at the way he is putting his point across. Check out the comments on this article. There is a way to communicate in a civilised manner even when you disagree. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html


Of course, you can defend whichever fragile ego man you want, I'm just showing that success should be met with humility and criticism; even if it seems unfair, it should be accepted graciously. If it bothers him so much, he should refuse to give interviews to these critics. Why does he give interviews and fuel audience for his movies and criticise them the same.  

pathaka thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Visit Streak 365 0 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 4 months ago
#42

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

Edited by pathaka - 4 months ago
you2 thumbnail
Anniversary 16 Thumbnail Visit Streak 365 0 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 4 months ago
#43

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..

ChanChanMan thumbnail
Visit Streak 365 0 Thumbnail Visit Streak 180 0 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 4 months ago
#44

This Vanga guy's behaviour isn't acceptable. Don't lead him on. 

pathaka thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Visit Streak 365 0 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 4 months ago
#46

Also btw, beloved srk telling critics to go to hell after they became personal during ra one 

Ofcourse I’m this case it’s not “insecure toxic man “….it’s just “rebellious shah”…there is never a discourse abt fragile egos and gracious acceptance of critisism in some cases …

Anupama chopras biography abt srk also mentions him personally going to a journalist , and threatening to f*** him for writing malicious gossip abt him and the lady from maaya memsab,  post his controversial scene


https://x.com/rayfilm/status/1737338276246397150?s=46&t=lkFEzjxyCJVtRH2CCBNJyA


Bottom line: don’t expect sane responses for insane behavior 😊✌️…actors and filmmakers who are doing well in their fields are passionate abt their work…and will take critisism …but don’t expect them to take bullshit lying down 
Furthermore If you take random excepts from interviews to form judgements abt ppls character, srk would have been in jail by now 

Edited by pathaka - 4 months ago
Guddu.Pandit thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 8 Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 4 months ago
#47

It's easy to say back things to those who will not have any impact on your upcoming work.

IAmLuvBolly thumbnail
Visit Streak 500 0 Thumbnail Visit Streak 365 0 Thumbnail + 7
Posted: 4 months ago
#48

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



How about asking why didn’t this character die in a situation where no human could realistically survive?  How about wondering what was her reasoning for never filling for a divorce?  What about questioning the safety of a plane being piloted in dangerous situations?  All of these are about delving into character motivations and and whether the overall story has any logical flow or not.  


Vanga basically sounds extremely butt hurt that people questioned his story and is resorting to disrespectful and classless behavior.  His massive ego got bruised so he’s doing his version of kicking his feet and whining by calling Suchitra “that Tyagi girl” and implying that he got bad reviews because he wouldn’t meet with Anupama. 

pathaka thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Visit Streak 365 0 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 4 months ago
#49

Originally posted by: IAmLuvBolly



How about asking why didn’t this character die in a situation where no human could realistically survive?  How about wondering what was her reasoning for never filling for a divorce?  What about questioning the safety of a plane being piloted in dangerous situations?  All of these are about delving into character motivations and and whether the overall story has any logical flow or not.  


Vanga basically sounds extremely butt hurt that people questioned his story and is resorting to disrespectful and classless behavior.  His massive ego got bruised so he’s doing his version of kicking his feet and whining by calling Suchitra “that Tyagi girl” and implying that he got bad reviews because he wouldn’t meet with Anupama. 

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 

Edited by pathaka - 4 months ago
you2 thumbnail
Anniversary 16 Thumbnail Visit Streak 365 0 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 4 months ago
#50

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.