If an online critic reviewed ANR’s Devadasu in 1952 & why Southscope doesn’t review movies.
I got a lot of comments for my article on Leader. One of the comments, that totally caught my attention was by one Mr. Venkat. He mockingly pointed out how websites would have reviewed ANR’s classic Devadasu, if the 1950 was an internet era. Click here to read it, or read below – I have replicated it below.
“Talking about website reviews about Leader movie. As usual website reviewers play a spoilsport just like they did with Arya2. Reviews say that the whole romantic thread is unnecessary in the movie. Assume if Sekhar Kammula hadn’t had inserted a romantic thread in the movie and had dealt completely with the political drama then Reviewers would have told that the Glamour quotient in the movie is missing so its difficult to pull crowd to the theatre. Thats precisely why I feel that Reviews are never a benchmark to measure movie success. Reviews nowadays have become more of a personal opinion than a “thought process” with a whole motive of degrading the commercial success of the movie.
Just for some fun I would like to draw an analogy about what would have happened if website reviewers existed in 1950 and 1960 era.
For example if you imagine that website reviewers penning their opinion on ANR’s classic blockbuster Devdas
1. Narration of the movie is slow and it can hardly get any response in B and C centres
2. Hero dies in the climax of the movie. Need to wait and see how the response would be from Andhra cine goers who generally doesn’t digest a tragic ending.
3. Being such a Big hero, ANR shouldn’t have accepted such movies where he simply ends his life for a girl.This will create a wrong impact on present generation youth. Life is more than losing your love…Blah Blah Blah
4. ANR from now onwards should accept characters which will motivate the youth and should become a youth icon..Blah Blah
and the finally the rating would have said
2.5 / 5.
The commercial success of the movie depends on how B and C centres accept the movie.”
Almost all readers have complains on reviews, but can’t help from reading them. The movie-going audience in Andhra Pradesh are really review-proof. They rely more on word-of-mouth or “talk” as call it locally to decide whether they want to watch movies. The online reviews are more aimed at the overseas audience. Unlike in India, audience overseas have to spend more money, a lot more time and effort to go watch a movie. And they have more entertainment options, so would carefully review their options. Earlier, reviews on the internet had a huge impact on the overseas collection. Most of them relied on a single voice, Jeevi of Idlebrain. But, as the net grew – so did the numbers of voices. And all reviews are not a single mass with a same opinion. Their opinions are highly polarized. But, most reviews write like they’re distributors instead of reviewers. How much the movie cost, or how big a hit it will be is irrelevant to most people. People look to reviews to know about the cinematic merits of the movie. Those who are interested in the numbers have other sources for what they seek. Luckily today, with the social-media like Twitter and Facebook people have friends & family’s whose judgement they trust to know about the movies they want to see. Most websites have given Pokiri an average rating, when it released. I cant remember a review which stated it would become the highest grosser. But, the movie eventually did end up being that. Same case with Magadheera.
Why Southscope doesn’t do reviews?
The main reason is time factor. Ours is a monthly, and the public would have already decided the movie’s fate. The other factor is review is one person’s opinion of what he/she thinks of the movie – not necessarily the organisation. What if my Editor or I liked the movie immensely, and my reviewer felt it was awful? Whose voice should be the voice of the magazine? Hence, we approached our review section differently. Our review is more like a post-mortem on what worked and what dint. We break our reviews into two sections – “What’s Good?” and “Could’ve been better.” We don’t give ratings nor tell whether you should spend your $8 in watching the movie. We arrive at a consensus on what’s good and what’s not – and then present them. Its up to you to decide whether you want to review a work. But we don’t want to curb the voices of our writers. I have seen large organisations like CNN-IBN, BusinessWeek, New York Times lets their journalists have their own blogs. The person can post their opinions on anything, while staying within editorial guidelines. And most times, there are two contrasting opinions from different people in the same organisation. Its their individual opinion. Organisations usually cannot have a ‘stance’ on such issues. Movies and liking are subjective. Hence, when our active website goes live – we would let writer have their own blogs.
PS, Correction : ANR’s Devadasu in 1953, was the first cinematic adaptation second cinematic adaptation of Saratchandra’s novel – Devadas much ahead of the Dilip Kumar’s version in 1955, Yes, the Telugu industry was that progressive back in the 50s! As pointed in the comment section & wikipedia – the first adaptation was by PC Barua in 1935.
All-time blockbuster Magadheera, coming soon on Blu-Ray!
As per popular demand, Magadheera is finally going to release on Blu-Ray. Initially, we decided to give it a miss due to the high cost and low-penetration levels in Andhra Pradesh. As per market sources there are only around 2500 devices in Andhra Pradesh capable of playing Blu-Ray discs (includes Sony PS3). But, the sheer amount of requests on my blog and Twitter made me rethink my strategy for Blu-Ray. We decided to invest in the technology and see how consumers lap it. Sharing this vision with us was Sri Balaji Videos, the largest home-video label in Andhra Pradesh. Together, we’re brining out Magadheera on Blu-Ray. Though a label Bhavani DVD release Nagarjuna’s King on Blu-ray, it was only for the overseas market. This makes Magadheera the first Blu-Ray film to be released in India and with a bonus disc with additional footage. Hope, the audience give this initiative a thumbs-up motivating home-video labels and producers to release more films on this new format. Below is the official press note in this regards. We’re also a holding a press event on this regard to officially announce the launch of the movie on DVD and Blu-Ray.
MAGADHEERA ON BLU-RAY. FIRST TIME IN INDIA.
Geetha Arts, one of the leading production houses since 1972, has not only produced mega blockbusters in Indian languages but also pioneered many innovations. This time around, Geetha Arts has joined hands with Balaji Video, the largest home video company, to woo the audiences with a new offering – The all-time blockbuster Magadhereera on Blu-Ray. It includes a bonus disc with additional material. While the DVDs will hit the stands on the 3rd week of March, the Blu-Ray will be available 2 weeks after that. The Blu-Ray discs will be made available outside India for overseas viewers. Incidentally, this is the first time a Telugu movie’s Blu-Ray disc is being released in the Indian market. Blu-Ray disc is the latest storage format which redefines home-viewing besides giving an experience on par with cinemas in picture quality and sound. A generation ahead of DVDs.
- Master (1997) was the first Telugu film to be released on an audio CD, beside the first Telugu film to be released in DTS.
- Johnny (2003) was the first Telugu film to have movie merchandising. Also the first film in Telugu to have in-film placement and co-branded advertising. It was also the first Telugu film to use sync-sound while filming.
- Jalsa (2008) was the first Telugu film to have a mobile game based on it. Also, the first telugu film using standees in theaters as a publicity tool.
- On its home production Ghajini, starring Aamir Khan Geetha Arts also created India’s first PC game, in association with FX Labs.
My take on Leader & why it works for me.
Finally, I managed to watch Leader amongst movie-goers in the theatre. Its my first viewing. I like the film on the whole. Even the greatest of classics are not flawless, so is this film. This article is not intended to point the flaws too. Nor give suggestions to the filmmakers – most of them in the industry are more accomplished then me in filmmaking. I just want to point out what worked for me in the film as a movie-buff. And also congratulate Shekar Kammula, Rana and AVM on making a good film.
Eliminating corruption impossible : Many idealistic movies are made, where hero is able to eliminate corruption completely (Tagore, Oke Okkadu, Gentleman). While I love those movies, age and experience taught me that they’re not possible in real life. It’s imbibed in the system at every level. The hero though starts at an idealistic note, later is willing to adapt. He agrees to drop cases against MLAs, so that they agree to the anti-corruption bill. The logic – even if you cant eliminate corruption totality, reduce it to as much as possible.
The contribution of beaurocracy : In a lot of the movies we see, its always shown that only political leaders run the state. While they are the ones who rule, the beaurocracy like IAS, collectors and police chiefs are the invisible hands most don’t see. They advice politicians on policies implement his vision and make his job easier with their intelligence and efficiency. In this movie they are shown as an integral part of the government. Their relation is more like a CEO and mid-level staff. Good top-level execs alone aren’t enough for him to implement his vision.
Hero’s acceptance of defeat : Realizing that ‘situations’ are forcing him to become like any other politician he accepts defeat and resigns from his post as a Chief Minister. Again this is idealistic, but in commercial cinema we cannot end it like that. It will give a wrong message that the system cannot be changed. The climax portion was convincing in cinematic terms.
Hero’s helplessness in delivering justice : I think this whole episode was handled fantastically. The hero knows he has no option but to let go a rapist to remain in power. The confrontation between Rana and the bailed rapist is brilliant. His confession of helplessness to the rape victim’s father and the father’s dialogs expressing mistrust in politicians is hard-hitting. Kudos!
Maa Telugu thalliki Mallepoo dhanda : I think it’s a noble idea to use this song as a background score. It gave me the goosebumps. The song is so relevant to our state in today’s time which reminds that despite differences between us, we’re all Telugu.
Further viewing : Political thrillers is a genre that appeals to me. Some films are realistic, some cinematic. I would like to mention some lesser known films instead of popular ones. I am sure there are many movies in other languages I am not aware of. Tell about them in the comments section and I shall include it.
1) Operation Duryodhana – Made on a shoe-string budget, this movie is a satire. Most populist films show politicians at corrupt and public as innocent. But this film shows that the public is also at fault.
2) Tamizhan (tamil film) – This Vijay and Priyanka Chopra starrer is a must-watch for genre fans. Its about a law graduate who educates the common man on how the people of power suppress them wrongly as they don’t know how law works and what are the rights they’re entitled to.
3) Saamanyudu – A more cinematic, than realistic film. Its about an editor who blackmails a corrupt home-minister into doing good things and finally turning a good man. A good watch, none the less.
Why Twitter isn’t the best platform for South Indian movie stars.
Unlike radio, TV, print media & outdoor, internet is the only mass medium in the world that offers two-way communication. In the others, the sender (media) broadcasts a message and the receiver (viewer/listener/reader) receives it. In traditional media such as print & television, the media channel that’s broadcasting a celebrity’s interview or statement acts as a ‘gatekeeper’. They decide which statement of a particular actor goes on air and what doesn’t. This gives them control over how they want to project the celebrity. Many times, celebrities have complained that they were misquoted in press or that their words have been twisted out of the context by the journalist.
With the advent of internet, especially web 2.0 – celebrities don’t need the media to do the gatekeeping anymore. They can directly interact with the end-user using social media platforms like blogs, Facebook fan pages or Twitter accounts. In many controversies, people involved complain of ‘trial by media’ – a phrase to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. In the times of crisis, social media genuinely gives the celebrity a chance to defend himself and clarify.
Social media presents the opportunity for celebrities to update with fans & moviegoers about their work and personal life, eliminating traditional media as a channel all together. Karan Johar recently hit out Priyadarshan on Twitter for calling the MNIK-Shivsena tussle a publicity stunt. He dint need to invite the media on a press conference specifically to let them know his reaction on this issue. He just posted it on Twitter and the media picked it up. Every time Aamir Khan or Amitabh Bachchan post something on their blog, it becomes national headlines. They cannot be misquoted, as everybody can see what they had to say on their blogs.
Recently, when a reputed business newspaper approached me, enquiring about Magadheera’s Hindi remake – I said we’re considering (not approached) some A-list actors in Bollywood, as only big stars can do justice to it. I don’t know how & why, but the next day – I read a report where I was quoted that Hrithik Roshan is going to play Charan’s role and Aamir Khan in Srihari’s role! I was misquoted, and this article spread far as it was reported by a credible newspaper and created so much confusion in the market about our movie. But thanks to social-media, though I am no celebrity I was able to clarify about the issue using Twitter and my blog to some extent.
Initially I wanted to get my family members and other from the industry on Twitter. It’s the new ‘it-thing’. So many Hollywood and Hindi film celebrities are on it. But after being on Twitter for the last 10 months, I feel it’s not the only & best social-media platform for celebrities to interact with the public. My argument is more-so for South Indian celebrities, whose situation is a little unique from the rest. While I am all in support of social-media, I feel an official website or blog might be a better platform. Here’s my take :
Fan Rivalries & Hate mail : South India has one of the most intense fan rivalries in the world. It’s not unusual to see people come to blows when defending their favorite actor. I myself am guilty of doing it in school. The fact that a certain celebrity is easy accessible will motivate fans of rival actors to post hate messages on Twitter. Irrespective of whether the star reacts to hate mail or not, the poster knows that his message will reach the star. Since real identities can be masked in twitter, it makes it more simple to write offensive tweets. Most people don’t express dislike or hate in real life even if the celebrity is accessible to them.
Also, on Twitter – the celebrity does not have the access/rights to delete defamatory tweets made on him, where as if it’s a blog – that certain comment will not be approved and visible for public to read. Recently, Chetan Bhagat – the author of ‘Five Point Someone’ was annoyed that a cartoonist was poking fun of him on Twitter. He couldn’t do much – where as if it were his blog, he could simply make sure the comment doesn’t show up. Movie buffs like me use movie collections as a metric to show popular or big a star is. A lot of people use the the numbers of ‘followers’ on Twitter as a metric to measure popularity which isn’t the case. Priyanka Chopra has more followers than Shah Rukh Khan where as politician Shashi Tharoor has 500% more followers than SRK! But, it’s undeniable that Shah Rukh is more famous than the other two.
Too much answerability to Gossip : Traditional media like newspapers, TV stations are legal identities that are answerable to the celebrities and law. Recently, Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie have sued Britain’s News of the World newspaper for triggering off rumors of their alleged divorce. Preity Zinta sued Mumbai tabloid Mid-day for printing transcripts of a so-called leaked CBI tapes which had unpleasant things said about her. Traditional media can’t say anything about a star and get away with it.
There are a lot of popular websites that exist only virtually, without legal real-life identities. They’re virtually untraceable. The identities of the owners and editors of traditional media have to be made public for them to operate. Blogs or websites can be started by anyone. They don’t require credentials or large capital. Most websites that publish gossip lack real-life legal identities and are virtually untraceable. That gives them courage to write anything, most times creating something out of thin air to get readers excited. The comic below aptly summarizes how gossip travels in today’s social-media era. The amount gossip around a celebrity today is way more than what it was earlier. When it comes to gossip many people have a ‘No fire, no smoke’ attitude, thinking its partly true. But trust me, most times gossip is somebody’s imagination and not even remotely close to reality.
After reading such gossip, the anxious reader would immediately tweet to the star asking him to clarify about gossip/rumors. It’s impractical and unreasonable for an actor to keep defending and clarifying gossip about him all the time. Even if the celebrity choses to be silent its hard, as they’re always pestered to clarify. The celebrity is expected to address by every gossip, everytime it’s asked – which is impractical – and again do it only in 140 characters! For ex : I clarified on Twitter that Geetha Arts never considered remaking 3 Idiots in telugu. But I get kept asking the same question over & again. If the celeb has an official website or blog, they can just post the clarification, in detail with images or video if required and just once for everyone to see. If he chooses to remain silent, he wouldn’t just blog about it.
Frequent Updation & Limitations : The very way in which Twitter operates is that, it’s expected to be updated frequently. Many celebrities update it multiple times a day. Good for those who are doing it, but the ones who don’t are expected to post something often. Most people who update regularly on Twitter, post trivial stuff about their personal life. Also, they have to post something only in 140 characters. On a blog, they can write more freely, update it less frequently – only when they have something useful to say, insert pictures or video. It is uncensored and as immediate as Twitter. Also it gives the celeb more control over what is being said by them and about them.
Surprisingly, even Twitter is trying to move away from its celebrity culture and offer more value beyond following celebrities. Reach the article on CNN. Popular celebrities on twitter post personal information like what they’re doing at present, where they are currently. And other celebrities too are expected to do the same. A lot of celebs value their privacy hence, have avoided this all together. Some of them like Kanye West, Zac Efron, Beyonce Knowles and Drew Barrymore are vocal on why they are not on Twitter. They either feel its intrusive, limiting in expression or find it too demanding. Most of the top Hollywood names like Will Smith, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie & Megan Fox are not on Twitter. A lot of celebs have official websites, blogs and Facebook presence, but have decided to give Twitter a miss. Also, due to the sheer volume of communication and time required to maintain it a lot of celebrities don’t handle their twitter account themselves but have PR team in place. Its not ‘personal’ anymore. Most celebs who do this are even open about it. Social media offers various platforms like Orkut, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn and so on. Last known there are 50 such platforms on which a person or celebrity can be on. A celebrity need not be on all platforms, but choose the right one to be present in. Due to the reasons cited above I feel Twitter is not the best platforms for celebs, especially Southern movie stars to interact with fans and audience. An official website or blog is a better way to communicate.
PS : By the way you can follow my tweets @ http://www.twitter.com/allusirish.
An interesting forward : Root cause for our society’s moral degeneration
I’m not usually a fan of forwards. Most of them are silly jokes. A lot of conspiracy theories about rich people & celebrities. But, this was simple and motivational. It tells us why in the name of progress, we’ve morally degenerated over the years. Hope you like it.
Be Updated!
