Films…what are they made for. Is it for mere entertainment or for some
Specific purpose which we don’t know about.
His views, his perspective, a cumulative perception is what a film is about.
Do the directors compromise on their films or should have they done that.
When a film becomes specific for money raising then it becomes a
Compromising element for its visionary.
Who are culpable for this, are we the one who to blame.
Its an unprecedented, unthinkable view which is not materialistic.
The society plays a major part as producers don’t want to make some
Controversial films which would ignite a rage in people, so they put
barriers in the creative aura of the director.
If we see French films, there directors can embark on any damn idea.
Liberty is the entity which they inculcate there.
I don’t know which is right or wrong.
If in India Kissing or any intimate scenes were considered obscene, I am
Not judging whether it was morally or socially right or wrong.
Ray once said 'As kissing was not acceptable in Bengali cinema, I had to
Make the scene somehow intimate' in 'Apur Sansar'
Generally on other zones also, creativity takes a big time knock.
Money plays a part, it will.
I feel sometimes the actors, who are really mega stars here can
Plant their foot forward and look forward to do some meaningful films,
because they have nothing to lose.
We have seen very few Indian films which explores into the unknown area.
Dissection with really good movies I will continue further…………
For not lets think and rethink 'is the director constrained'?.
If he is, then what are these constraints?.........
No comments:
Post a Comment