I've been a regular visitor of Kumudam.com for the last several months, mostly to watch interviews. There is a marked difference between interviews here and those you see in TV. Some of the interviews have been simply outstanding. Kutty Revathi, Mahendran, Nasser - (all offline) - and Thamizharuvi Maniyan are some that I liked the most. I was all the more excited when Gnani entered the arena with 'Gnani Pesukiren'. Gnani has had a left leaning approach to most of the issues he has dealt with in the past, so I expected his interview to be very incisive and sharp. And they were, for the most part.
His recent interview with director Ameer exposed what an immature idiot Ameer is. He not only refused to address Gnani's criticisms but also stifled the possibility of having a civilized conversation. Constantly getting into petty squabbles, it was a sad display of egomania. Because, Gnani eventually stooped low to Ameer's level (albeit only for a short time). Then I tried to find if anyone has blogged about this interview and landed on the video below (almost a year old).
Needless to say, Ameer's convoluted defense seem to find admiration among many who had assembled there (definitely among those who had commented for the video). The exchange reminded of some that we have had in this blog, but more specifically this. Just to quote a part of the exchage:
Let's agree that 'Pokkiri' is a bad movie, then we shall discuss why it exists and what purpose it serves - that's where honest subjectivities creep in.
I'll quote what I said again,
"1. Pokkiri provides an escape from the troubled realities of the audience. kuthu songs lighten up their spirits. Movies like Pokkiri are essential for the smooth functioning of the society. 2. We cannot criticize it just because you don't like it. It's all subjective."
There are two syllogisms that don't quite flow together. The former doesn't warrant the latter. While Pokkiri may be 'essential' it's not "subjective bias" that leads you to criticize the movie. That's why I gave that example - a false syllogism that is widely used.
I haven't seen '300' yet, but assuming that Scott was right in his criticism (I don't know what value the word 'right' holds in these discussions) and if you contrast it with the movie's apparent BO success -- it may not say that 99% of those who paid for it are fucktards -- it does say that 99% of them are people who don't mind being unsophisticated fucktards for 90 minutes. People's willingness to take shit once in a while should not been mistaken as people value shit.
All art forms are subjective, but there is some universality that has evolved over time (much to our dismay). It's one of the "necessary evils" I suppose - but it exists. That's how we produce and communicate through art forms. Even the weirdest of artistic expressions won't appeal if the weirdness isn't visible - if it is limited just to the artist 's understanding of it. Of course, that brings us to the whole "do we consume how it's supposed to be consumed?" debate.
But in spite of all these complexities, I think it's intellectual dishonesty to say that "Mahanadhi and Pokkiri are good movies. It's just that I hate Pokkiri. But I'm sure a lot of others like it, which makes it no worse than Mahanadhi."
Yes, it's all been said several times over, but I still couldn't stop myself from flooding the video with comments.
It's interesting that people even tried to have this kind of QnA session with all these people present together. A melee would have been inevitable had this pseudo exchange continued a little longer. It was a major irony when Ameer mentioned Mahendran to drive a shallow point. If only he knew the things Mahendran had said in his interview in Kumudam (in spite of making some of the most decent movies in Tamil).
On a different note: I don't really find any difference between SJ Surya, Chimbu and Ameer (and probably hundreds of others whose interviews I haven't seen).