tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post1749644558879408575..comments2024-03-27T14:57:37.031+05:30Comments on Jabberwock: Dhokha in Aatish Taseer’s Sectorpur (and a bit on LSD)Jabberwockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-68804971475898415582010-04-13T11:32:49.107+05:302010-04-13T11:32:49.107+05:30"...made bleaker...""...<b>made</b> bleaker..."Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-11567979825184667892010-04-13T11:31:35.208+05:302010-04-13T11:31:35.208+05:30He uses the technique of keeping the last scene fr...<i>He uses the technique of keeping the last scene from the middle of the time line so that an illusion of a happy ending is created.</i><br /><br />Nimit: true, and I'd also read something into the fact that the last "subjective" camera in the film is wielded by an innocent child. But there's a flip side to this as well: in the final shot before the closing credits, the kid moves the camera (and her gaze) towards the television set until the image on the TV fills "our" screen. What we (and the impressionable child) are now watching is a stylishly made music video that takes a real social problem and trivialises it for pop consumption. In my view, it's possible to interpret this as a very bleak ending in its own way - make bleaker precisely because the music video is so compulsively watchable.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-7241544304386707172010-04-13T09:29:44.472+05:302010-04-13T09:29:44.472+05:30@Nimit: I agree. Having revisited KKG and OLLO (ha...@Nimit: I agree. Having revisited KKG and OLLO (haven't seen LSD), I wonder why Dibankar is hailed as "avantgarde". These films are very much classical in style and narrative driven with a beginning, middle and an end. <br /><br />Yes. They are "offbeat" in that their content appeals to a certain type of viewer. But they are fairly conservative in their style. Not that I mind it, being a fan of the classical, unobtrusive style myself. But the adjective "avantgarde" seems somewhat misplaced in the context of DB's films.shrikanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03898755392584822638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-74479010792774050672010-04-11T23:32:46.879+05:302010-04-11T23:32:46.879+05:30Although a little late in the day, let me say that...Although a little late in the day, let me say that however cynical you may call Dibakar's films (all three were quite cynical/bleak) he does not have the heart for a non-happy ending.<br /><br />Case-in-point:<br /><br />1. Khosla Ka Ghosla: he gave quite easily in to Jaideep Sahni's demand of letting the Khosla family win at the end.<br /><br />2. OLLO: In real life, Bunty-chor was finally caught and has now gone lunatic. He calls himself a genius scientist who has been captured by the special order of the Prime Minister/foreign hand.<br /><br />3. LSD: He uses the technique (also used in Pulp Fiction) of keeping the last scene from the middle of the time line so that an illusion of a happy ending is created.<br /><br />Of course, he just cannot write a scene that does not induce you to laugh at the situation, or/and (mostly) <i>at</i> the people. <br /><br />Even when Lucky is sitting surrounded by his loot towards the end, the ringtone that plays is "Billo Rani" and it becomes a funny and a sad scene at the same time.<br /><br />This may have something to do with his admitted influence of the " great humanity of Satyajit Ray" of which he spoke about briefly at Osian's Cinefan.<br /><br />Any other thoughts?Nimit Kathuriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04273752834403114009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-73141327961721030792010-04-01T09:01:24.243+05:302010-04-01T09:01:24.243+05:30Shrikanth: yes, that Brando-Cotten analogy is quit...Shrikanth: yes, that Brando-Cotten analogy is quite relevant to a lot of the discussions currently happening around contemporary Hindi cinema. The idea that Stanley Kowalski is somehow a more "real" person than a suave, urbane character played by Joseph Cotten (or Fred Astaire or Cary Grant for that matter) is highly simplistic. We had a discussion along these lines on one of my older posts as I recall - maybe the <i>A Streetcar Named Desire</i> one.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-58215496496016838052010-03-31T10:23:02.520+05:302010-03-31T10:23:02.520+05:30Post DCH we have had a lot of movies about the urb...<i>Post DCH we have had a lot of movies about the urbane rich or the powerful. Personally that is why a Manorama Six Feet Under (a small town lower middle class bureaucrat) or LSD (stories of the not-so affluent urban populace) even a Iqbal (a small town cricketer) appeal much more to me rather than say a Wake Up Sid.</i><br /><br />NightWatchmen: I completely understand that stories about the not-so-affluent populace personally appeal to you more than films about the urbane rich. But should that necessarily be conflated with the "realism" quotient of the films concerned? Sure, Satyaveer (the engineer in Manorama Six Feet Under) is a believable character, but are there any particular grounds for thinking that the three youngsters in DCH or Sid in Wake up Sid aren't believable people too? (Irrespective of the fact that you and I might not find such people as interesting as Satyaveer or the LSD youngsters.)<br /><br />If we get the impression that Wake up Sid is a "synthetic" film (compared to Manorama or LSD), is that artificiality a flaw of the film itself or does it flow from the nature of its protagonists? I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think the question is worth asking.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-62753828612140869272010-03-28T23:13:06.967+05:302010-03-28T23:13:06.967+05:30Been a bit late in responding about the question o...Been a bit late in responding about the question on realism. <br /><br />To me realism is directly proportional to how accurately the director is able to capture the milieu of the setting he is depicting. So for example "Chintuji" even though needs a high suspension of disbelief on my part seemed much more "realistic" to me than a "Bachna Ae Haseenon" or for that matter any of Madhur Bhandarakar's movies<br /><br />I agree that realism by itself does not make a movie or a work of art superior. What really gets my goat though is when the director/cast of a movie claim on interviews that their movie is "realistic" or "contemporary" but the movie as in has this whole (To quote Naseeruddin Shah) synthetic look to it. Post DCH we have had a lot of movies about the urbane rich or the powerful (I guess I include all the movies dealing with the underworld here). Personally that is why a Manorama Six Feet Under (a small town lower middle class bureaucrat) or LSD (stories of the not-so affluent urban populace) even a Iqbal (a small town cricketer) appeal much more to me rather than say a Wake Up Sid. That in part also may explain the kind of reaction that "Slumdog Millionaire" generated, where Bollywood which was living in a denial that the vast majority of our country is poor had to face up to the paucity of the work depicting it. Again a very subjective opinion is that while Bollywood movies have become much more "polished" than the movies of the past, the kind of suspension of disbelief they need are probably similar.<br /><br />And by the way it somehow seems fair game to make fun of the 60/70s movies Om Shanti Om style while if DB does a spoof of DDLJ it seems a travesty to quite a few of my friends (who by the way were impressionable 13-years old when DDLJ was released!!)NightWatchmenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08514039967852446590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-22908145286076341502010-03-28T10:34:58.779+05:302010-03-28T10:34:58.779+05:30Dude the last scene and the song when the credits ...Dude the last scene and the song when the credits roll. It's been a day since I saw the movie and I cannot get it out of my mind, largely because of the way it wrapped up.Pareshaanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07509456792127924267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-73745740389692175402010-03-28T03:48:43.248+05:302010-03-28T03:48:43.248+05:30Yet, while critics go gaga over the latter, the fo...<i>Yet, while critics go gaga over the latter, the former get shunned completely.</i><br />I don't think a normative view needs to be applied to this.I think its inherent in the nature of writing that a critic is more likely to engage with a movie at a more personal level, when he is reflecting upon it in solitude in front of a computer. <br />But then readers of such reviews are also preparing themselves to engage with the movie on a personal level,aren't they?<br />Perhaps some readers would like the critic to engage his experience and write about it on a more immediate level, for example .- "There was a whistling competition between the balcony and upper house sections of the theater" or "Many of the audience members started dancing when the song began", because such acts do enhance the movie experience.<br />I guess that it is a fair point that film criticism could do a bit recognizing the communal experience and expressing it.<br />Anyway I am not sure where I am going with this.Rahulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08600228969911790479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-68572021335460887912010-03-27T19:11:17.626+05:302010-03-27T19:11:17.626+05:30This is interesting, though: 40-odd comments and n...This is interesting, though: 40-odd comments and not a single one about the Taseer book!Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-16266363081760145172010-03-27T19:09:25.236+05:302010-03-27T19:09:25.236+05:30Nimit: I'd take that sentence as an aberration...Nimit: I'd take that sentence as an aberration; generally speaking, I don't think Ebert has had problems with non-realism, though I do vaguely recall something about one of his LOTR reviews - or was it Narnia - that puzzled me. (Maybe he just has problems with specific varieties of non-realism!)Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-51034255217861240592010-03-27T18:58:40.443+05:302010-03-27T18:58:40.443+05:30J'wock: I think we agree on most points. My po...J'wock: I think we agree on most points. My point was that for a person weaned on Bollywood style wholesome "family oriented" cinema of the 90s, it is difficult to make the adjustment and readily take to films like Dev D or LSD. I'm sure American viewers weaned on classic narrative cinema of the 40s and 50s must have been similarly disconcerted/perplexed by the emergence of the New Wave as represented by Cassavetes, Godard and the rest in the early sixties.<br /><br />Some of the troll we're seeing is a result of such discomfiture.<br /><br />Also, I guess it is fair enough to say that "New Wave" cinema (be it the Indian "new wave" of late 2000s or the French "nouvelle vague" of 1960s) is in general less amenable to popular taste and communal viewing than classic narrative-driven cinema. I'm not taking a stance here. Both kinds of cinema can co-exist.<br /><br />With regard to MithunDa flicks ruling the roost in rural India: I've seen parts of his D-grade flicks. And I must say they're not necessarily <i>significantly worse</i> than an iffy "new wave" film like Dev D. Yet, while critics go gaga over the latter, the former get shunned completely.shrikanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03898755392584822638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-60885458062185446502010-03-27T18:55:39.738+05:302010-03-27T18:55:39.738+05:30It's not just "low-engagement viewers&quo...It's not just "low-engagement viewers" of cinema who seem to think that way about the place of realism in cinema though:<br /><br />Roger Ebert wrote this about Avatar:<br /><br />"3D is a distracting, annoying, <i>anti-realistic</i>, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices."<br /><br />Whatever the merit of this statement, and considering he was only trying to express the gimmicky way in which 3D had been used, he pre-supposed realism to be a virtue.Nimit Kathuriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04273752834403114009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-36506657917555392582010-03-27T16:40:54.858+05:302010-03-27T16:40:54.858+05:30shrikanth: I don't see what's so wrong abo...shrikanth: I don't see what's so wrong about enjoying a film in the privacy of one's room rather than communally (once again, <i>3 Idiots</i> is definitely not such a film anyway - it's best seen with a large audience, and it was the biggest box-office success of 2009). In my post on <i>Vertigo</i> I provided <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2008/05/too_personal_to_share_with_an.html" rel="nofollow">this link</a> to Jim Emerson's reflections on movies that are too personal to share with an audience (which includes another link to an interview with Steve Erickson). You've commented on that post, so you might have seen the links too.<br /><br /><i>But I still think that a lot of these small multiplex films may seem very alien to large sections of our society.</i><br /><br />Of course they will, but so what? Does that mean there should be no space for films like Dev D and LSD? In any case, this brings me back to my earlier point about the B-grade Mithun films that the largest segments of Indian viewers still prefer to watch today. So what's your point? Are you completely disregarding the tastes of non-urban viewers and talking only about urban/metropolitan viewers aged 50 or more? I think I'm missing something in this discussion.<br /><br />One more thing, and I hope you don't mind my saying this: you're an intelligent viewer/commenter, so do think twice before "empathising" with an anonymous troll whose only purpose in coming here was to stir the pot by making asinine remarks to the effect that all cinema should be DDLJ cinema. Try discussing <i>Citizen Kane</i> - or even <i>The Best Years of our Lives</i> - with that troll. I don't think you'll get very far.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-3741061424947346202010-03-27T15:47:45.490+05:302010-03-27T15:47:45.490+05:30Maybe Kane wasn't the right example. I should&...Maybe <i>Kane</i> wasn't the right example. I should've probably picked say Wyler's <i>The Best Years of Our Lives</i>. Now there's a truly great film which is as mainstream as one can get!<br /><br /><i>I seriously doubt that the average American movie-watcher thought Citizen Kane was anywhere near as accessible as the average Indian movie-watcher thinks of 3 Idiots. </i><br /><br />It may seem hard to digest. But I still think that a lot of these small multiplex films may seem very alien to large sections of our society. No wonder we find a lot of people yearning for a throwback to the mid 90s (as we see in this thread). I'm not suggesting that those 90s blockbusters were great movies by any stretch of imagination. But they definitely did appeal to a much wider audience and were intended to be enjoyed communally and not in the privacy of your bedroom.shrikanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03898755392584822638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-90691166114001345282010-03-27T15:06:18.271+05:302010-03-27T15:06:18.271+05:30...Nevertheless apparently it did fare reasonably ...<i>...Nevertheless apparently it did fare reasonably well "in cities and larger towns"</i><br /><br />Even so, I seriously doubt that the average American movie-watcher thought <i>Citizen Kane</i> was anywhere near as accessible as the average Indian movie-watcher thinks of <i>3 Idiots</i>. The comparison just doesn't work for me.<br /><br />Ironically enough, a better comparison might be between Kane and LSD - <i>not</i> because I'm comparing the content or execution of the two films but because I think Indian critics and certain types of middlebrow/highbrow viewers are getting just as excited about LSD (as a "pathbreaking" film) as American critics got excited about <i>Kane</i>.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-22530281150699061802010-03-27T15:00:00.818+05:302010-03-27T15:00:00.818+05:30shrikanth: I get much of what you're saying, b...shrikanth: I get much of what you're saying, but I have issues with some of the specific points. An admirer of <i>3 Idiots</i> might reasonably argue that the film is about much more than just "the evils of rote learning", and that its examination of the education system is extremely relevant to every young Indian. Another <i>3 Idiots</i> fan with a lower-level engagement with cinema might simply say that it's a hugely "entertaining" film, and therefore has very universal appeal.<br /><br />Also, do you really want to take <i>Citizen Kane</i> (of all films) and reduce it to a story about "megalomania and power"? I would think a true <i>Citizen Kane</i> fan/cinephile would be able to watch that movie with the sound turned off and simply delight in the things Welles does with the tools available to him - without ever thinking too hard about the narrative or the "message" of the film.<br /><br />Btw, I must say your grandmother sounds like a very highbrow movie buff. I wouldn't be able to show <i>Kane</i> to most of my friends - they'd find it plain boring or esoteric. (Basically, I don't think this film is a very good example to make the points you're trying to make - maybe we should start over with another, more narrative-driven movie from the same period.)Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-9472715677727683182010-03-27T14:04:51.286+05:302010-03-27T14:04:51.286+05:30J'wock: Kane's lack of box office success ...J'wock: <i>Kane's</i> lack of box office success could've been because of Hearst's threats and several exhibitors refusing to show it. Nevertheless apparently it did fare reasonably well "in cities and larger towns" (quoting wikipedia).<br /><br />By "mainstream", I wasn't referring to its box office appeal per se, but the general universality of its themes. The subject of Megalomania and power are of far greater interest to the general public than the evils of rote learning! I could show my grandmother <i>Citizen Kane</i> and rest assured that she would atleast like it mildly. But I'm not sure she'd warm up to a <i>Dev D</i> or a <i>3 Idiots</i><br /><br />It might be too much to expect a film whose appeal transcends the enormous urban-rural divide in India. However, I'd atleast expect films to have a wide enough appeal across different age groups. Right now, I can't imagine a world weary 50 year old getting too excited about Aamir Khan's "message" films or the youth-centric Anurag Kashyap/Dibankar Bannerjee films.shrikanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03898755392584822638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-7815667751046781932010-03-27T11:45:28.071+05:302010-03-27T11:45:28.071+05:30I'd even go so far as to say that Citizen Kane...<i>I'd even go so far as to say that Citizen Kane is more mainstream than Hirani's 3 Idiots. The latter appeals to a much smaller segment of the general population than the former.</i><br /><br />Shrikanth: I don't think this comparison is particularly relevant. If you're defining mainstream as something that appeals to the largest segment of the general public, we might as well accept that the only "mainstream" Indian films of the past decade have been movies that most of us urban viewers have never even heard of: the dozens of "patchwork" B-grade and C-grade movies (in Hindi and Bhojpuri) that Mithun Chakraborty and other aging action stars have been making every year on shoestring budgets, with plots and even scenes recycled from 1980s movies. <i>Those</i> are the films that really play in ramshackle single-room "theatre houses" in large swathes of rural India, where Mithun-da is <i>still</i> a much bigger star than Shah Rukh Khan.<br /><br />My point is that there's no real way of comparing the complicated social framework of India - the urban-rural divide, the vast difference between the multiplex audience and the rural movie-watcher, and so on - with that of the US in 1941. (The US did of course have its "cattle belt", where the majority of the population might not have been sophisticated enough to appreciate a <i>Citizen Kane</i> - but those viewers, to the best of my knowledge, didn't have an entire alternate cinematic culture available to them the way India does outside towns and cities.)<br /><br />Just by the way, I was checking one of my books for the top 10 US box-office hits for 1941, and the list includes <i>Abbott and Costello in the Navy</i>, <i>A Yank in the RAF</i>, <i>Hellzapoppin</i> and <i>The Road to Zanzibar</i>. The biggest grosser for that year was <i>Gone with the Wind</i>, which was released two years earlier. (The most successful of the films actually released in 1941 was <i>Sergeant York</i>.) Needless to say, <i>Kane</i> isn't on the list.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-60374079908014731902010-03-27T11:03:00.970+05:302010-03-27T11:03:00.970+05:30I'd even go so far as to say that Citizen Kane...I'd even go so far as to say that <i>Citizen Kane</i> is more mainstream than Hirani's <i>3 Idiots</i>. The latter appeals to a much smaller segment of the general population than the former.<br /><br />Given the increasingly personal brand of filmmaking, I wonder if its fair for studios to complain about declining crowds at movie houses and shorter runs in the box-office.shrikanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03898755392584822638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-68710481558576006322010-03-27T10:44:14.294+05:302010-03-27T10:44:14.294+05:30Interesting discussion.
I'm often intrigued by...Interesting discussion.<br />I'm often intrigued by the constant "mainstream vs offbeat" debate.<br /><br />What with the emergence of the multiplex audience and increased piracy online, a lot of the current crop of films are designed to appeal to a very small segment of the general population (20-30 year old yuppies mostly). I wonder if this is a desirable trend. <br /><br />One of the distinctive features of motion picture as an art form is that it is a communal experience as opposed to say books or paintings. But since the sixties, I think movies have lost their universal appeal and have increasingly become the preoccupation of young urban men. <br /><br />This shift has been very marked in India especially over the past 15 years. Which is why I empathise with the anonymous commenter on this thread. A movie like <i>Citizen Kane</i>, for all its "artiness", is a more mainstream production with far more universal appeal and relevance than a <i>Dev D</i> or a <i>No Smoking</i>shrikanthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03898755392584822638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-54736740167670138142010-03-26T22:32:15.314+05:302010-03-26T22:32:15.314+05:30I have a problem with the concept of realism in ci...<i>I have a problem with the concept of realism in cinema, because it can be such a misunderstood/simplified idea.</i><br /><br />I totally agree with you.The fact of the matter is that every bit of theorizing about cinema is done AFTER it has happened. It is a way of deconstructing the experience into already defined cognitive schemes in your mind.That is how human mind works. Sometimes one can correlate the shooting styles etc with realism sometimes it could be method acting. But the fact is that the primary in every case is HOW YOU FEEL when you see the movie!<br />That is why I have started to say movie experience instead of movie because I want to underline the subjective part involved in it, and also the fact that experience is the king! Movie making and movie viewing will always be an organic process and it would refuse to be characterized by any descriptors.IF you feel real its realism, that's about it.Rahulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08600228969911790479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-77394713284612967552010-03-26T22:19:19.992+05:302010-03-26T22:19:19.992+05:30If it were, why would we be able to hear what the ...<i>If it were, why would we be able to hear what the characters are saying to each other? (CCTVs don't provide high-quality digital audio.)</i><br /><br />Okay, second thoughts on this bit: I'm clearly out of touch with how advanced CCTVs are these days. (Though I still doubt that a store of the sort shown in this film would have such an advanced security system.) <br /><br />Really, really need to see this film a second time. Also really, really need to stop talking to myself on this comments space.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-9122726980784940142010-03-26T22:18:29.784+05:302010-03-26T22:18:29.784+05:30LSD - brilliant narrative, perfect cast, out n out...LSD - brilliant narrative, perfect cast, out n out director's movie. Mediocre camera work, seen before. Indian noir comedy has come of age. Could have done without the hacking bits, and the Tehelka preaching bit. Hard hitting.a guy with a camerahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02997763513350676422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-62454096783142858102010-03-26T22:00:22.953+05:302010-03-26T22:00:22.953+05:30Rahul, NightWatchmen, others: just a couple of gen...Rahul, NightWatchmen, others: just a couple of general thoughts on realism, since I've been enjoying the last few exchanges. (Don't treat this as a direct response to any particular comment.)<br /><br />Even if you leave aside the fact that Realism isn't automatically a superior mode of artistic expression (though many people who have a relatively low-level engagement with cinema, or literature, or whatever, seem to think it is), I have a problem with the concept of realism in cinema, because it can be such a misunderstood/simplified idea. Eventually all movies, even documentaries, have a certain basic artifice built into the very process: a man-made device called the camera is used in various pre-planned ways (some of which give the impression of being more "realistic" or "natural") to capture a series of events.<br /><br />Many different elements contribute to this process (in different proportions), and it often happens that a particular movie or a particular scene gets labeled as "realistic" because of the impact of one of those elements, working in near-isolation. Random example: in the climactic scene in <i>A Wednesday</i> where the Common Man delivers his monologue, Naseeruddin Shah's performance brought integrity and believability to the scene, even though 1) there was nothing minimalist about the staging - the camera was darting and jump-cutting all over the place, drawing attention to itself, and 2) the monologue itself, as written on paper, was a little too pat to be considered a truly "realistic" piece of writing. If a lesser actor (or a big superstar known for his trademark mannerisms) had played the same scene, it might have seemed very fake, even if the camera had stayed trained on his face, in the same position, from beginning to end.<br /><br />I'm very excited by LSD myself, but when I hear people say that it's an exceptionally <i>realistic</i> film, I'm not completely sure what that means (and why it should be relevant to an overall assessment of the film). The second segment, shown entirely through the CCTVs in the store, is an unconventional way of telling a story (and mostly very well executed), but is it realistic in any truly meaningful sense of the word? If it were, why would we be able to hear what the characters are saying to each other? (CCTVs don't provide high-quality digital audio.) Why would all the key action in the story be set directly in front of one of the four cameras? (Though here I recognise that there's poetic licence being used to make a point about how ubiquitous cameras have become in our lives.)<br /><br />Okay, I'm going to stop for now, but will expand some of these thoughts later, and maybe put them up as a separate post. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate your continuing inputs on the subject.Jabberwockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.com