This writer is highly confused. Most of his article is terribly vague, absolutely incomprehensible, horribly dreary and totally reader-unfriendly. As such, it does not seem to make any sense. His objective of providing a critique to "Sholay" also remains miserably unfulfilled. I was somehow trying to read this singularly badly written article and hoping that the writer would eventually come up with some critique or alternative view about “Sholay”. Sorry, he has desperately failed in providing a single critique of “Sholay” throughout this article. He has failed in providing a single instance of bad direction, screenplay or story in this movie.
In his failed attempt to use flowery English, he seems to have forgotten the primary aim of his article, i.e. to provide a healthy critique of “Sholay”. His initial hypothesis “Sholay falls short, terribly short” remains unproved. Ironically, all through his article, he has only managed to reinforce the narrative that “Sholay” was indeed an iconic movie... a timeless classic…!!
He has wasted my precious morning time. I wish to talk to this author and want to tell him that this space is not a platform for displaying pseudo-literary skills, but to inform, educate and entertain readers. If he wants to talk, my number is given below.
Re: Vague and unconvincing Article
by Sreehari Nair on Aug 23, 2015 04:27 PM
Dear Abhi Shek, I usually choose to skim past comments of the kind that you've made, but I think for once, I should discharge a few debts. For your remarks are symptomatic of a certain attitude that a certain class of Indian readers possess; a class that believes airing of a counter-point symbolizes "pseudo-intellectualism". Well Dear Abhi Shek, since you've supposedly taken the pain to read the article, but still couldn't make sense of the arguments it tries to make, here's a more baby-food version of the same: a) Sholay has had an effect on our movie-watching consciousness, but it hasn't truly had a positive impact on the way we make movies. b) The sub-textual analyses that Sholay provides isn't the kind that some of our own Great Movies provide. Let's not even start to talk about World Cinema here. c) Like some of those standard Westerns, Sholay too undercuts social truths to blare its machismo. d) And finally our love for the mythology of Sholay (part of which seemed timely for 1975) seems to transcend our love for the movie itself. If everything that I have reiterated above makes for a valid argument, I guess you are the kind that needs to go through Power-Point Presentations and not Articles. (Which I suspect is also your definition of a "healthy critique"). The point is not "Bad Direction" Shek, as much as whether Sholay reaches those high standards that the very greatest of movies have. Beyond indulging in wordplay, I hv reasoned o
Re: Re: Vague and unconvincing Article
by Sreehari Nair on Aug 23, 2015 04:44 PM
And I don't know your taste in movies, but here's something very primal you should know. Terms such as "Bad Direction". "Bad Screenplay" etc. are alright when discussing "Soft Targets". However, here's a movie we all hold up like Citizen Kane. So the discussion here should be whether or not Sholay reaches those high standards that the very greatest of movies have set. Beyond indulging in wordplay, I have tried to reason out why I think it doesn't. And those reasonings would have a touch of impressionism about them, because that's what analysis of Great Movies would lead you to. If only you could keep your standard biases aside, maybe you could have seen a valid counterpoint here. For that, you also have to let go off your haughty hat, unfortunately Dr.
THIS MOVIE IS REMEMBERED AS LONG AS WE LIVE. I watched this movie in the first day of its release. Simply speaking this movie was super hit because of the story, action, music, diologues and most importantly photography.
