Most good filmmakers evolve with each film and when you look at their body of work in its entirety, it’s interesting to see this maturity reflected in their careers. And then there are some filmmakers who cling on to the one thing that made them interesting to begin with and every film after that is a different take on that one thing. Call it ego, denial or foolhardiness but it’s the bane of a filmmaker with good potential.
Manoj Night Shyamalan can easily fall into this category. And in India, Ram Gopal Varma may be victim to this. Both have immense talent but choose to let their egos guide them as opposed to taking a critical view of their work and reassessing their approach.
I won’t put Madhur Bhandarkar in the same league as Shyamalan or Varma; his talents and range are very limited but his shortfalls as a filmmaker fall in the same category as the former 2. Funnily in films like Page 3 I thought the shock value, which is credited to his USP, was exactly what lowered the standards of an otherwise decent film.
Hopefully the failure of another film (Heroine) will force him to revaluate his formula and make better films (or better still, not make any more films!).
Re: The rise and fall of Madhur
by abhishek ravichand on Sep 21, 2012 10:30 PM
great assesment,good to see a well thought comment rather than the usal troll blabber on net
Re: The rise and fall of Madhur
by Siddhu ism on Sep 22, 2012 09:30 AM
ohye, u better replace that raja sen @ rediff. He writes in so called english which he only can understand
Re: The rise and fall of Madhur
by prabodh naik on Sep 22, 2012 10:12 AM
One of the well-illustrated comment, rarely given in these days. It reflects your mature outlook towards movie related stuffs.
Well, at the outset I must say this: Raja Sen, for all his knowledge (or lack there-of!) of cinema, does initiate responses, which works out quite well for Rediff. Haven't seen too many reviewers garner this response. That said, the overtly verbose English does obscure his the point he tries to make often. Also, I find Raja Sen's reviews mostly too negative - as if looking for faults, than chances to get impressed. Here's a TIP Mr Sen: Try understanding why 'pop' music and 'rom-coms' or even comic-books work.
Regarding Madhur Bhandarkar though, he isn't off mark. Madhur has only had one really decent film: Chandni Bar, where he actually took a subject which was original for it's time and two fantastic lead actors. Page-3 was perhaps Konkona's most 'average' film ever, but still half decent. The rest: Traffic Signal, Corporate, Jail etc. had some cliched newspaper stories disguised as script. Same gay/ lesbian angle, same corrupt boss, a prostitute/ call-girl with a heart of gold, some scheming relatives, some 'plastic' high society females who have affairs or are drug addicts etc. And then there was "Aan", which made a cartoon out of Shatrughan Sinha and Irrfan Khan.
Some of his films might be more loved by media than others, but I shudder to think how much worse this movie would be, if it had the 'plastic princess' Aishwarya in it, rather than Kareena, who can actually act. (oh well, maybe Ash could have a Cannes launch for this film!)
Re: typical masala realistic film
by Ashwani Kumar on Sep 21, 2012 08:40 PM
just watched this movie.. Madhur has repeated Fashion and Page 3. Also G@@y scenes are his favourite.. Nothing new..
Re: Re: typical masala realistic film
by Billu Plumber on Sep 21, 2012 09:29 PM
AS per Raja: Pathetic film: Totally agreed Kareena was good: Disagreed, pathetic act by the pathetic actress
Re: Verbal Jugglery
by Ashwani Kumar on Sep 21, 2012 08:43 PM
For a change I do agree with Raja.. I watched this movie and while watching I felt I have watched it earlier.
Re: Re: STATUTORY WARNING
by shashwat on Sep 21, 2012 07:49 PM
Mr. Mukherjee , my bong friend pointed out this thing to me. Even Bongs should avoid Bong Directors. Some thing terribly wrong with them, all of them making such terrible films. Bongs are good musicians, but Direction is not their cup of tea.
Dear Raja, Every time I read your reviews, I wonder why you are given a chance to review movies on rediff. Maybe it has got to do with the quality of people rediff can afford with their limited means. Madhur Bhandarkar is one of those directors who do real study before making a film and all his portrayals are realistic and genuine. I simply love his movies, their offbeat themes and his use of his actors. Your reviews are very polar and biassed. I think you should change your area of interest. You are not marure enough to be a film critic.
It's unbelievable how Bhandarkar has been the favorite boy of the National Awards. He's by far the most over-rated dude but somehow the Awards folks tend to love his works. Beyond me.
His directional skills, writing skills are sub-standard. But then...that's how it goes in this land of filmmaking.
