[goldcigarettes]

My respect for Bala's extremely good works coexists with doubts that spring from ordinary-ness of many of his sequences.

I think now we're talking along parallel lines. My point was only about how easily we condescend to the personal sensibilities of filmmakers in general. I'm not making an exclusive case for Bala here. I talked about some arbitrary "specifics" of Bala just to take a few steps back and see where we stand in comparison. That's all. This is true for a Mani Ratnam as well. I find many parts of his films quite ordinary too. But I can't bring myself to patronise him as unsophisticated on these grounds. Why are we talking about filmmakers we like so much? I'm saying it's silly to patronise even the ones we don't think much of. The next time I condescend to Gautham's sensibilities, somebody please spank me!

It's not like I think Bala's films are flawless. Far from it, as I often clarify when I talk about his films. For instance, none of his films are as even as as the great 'kAdhal,' as far as I'm concerned. But nevertheless, he's a fantastic filmmaker in my books.

Of course there are several problems with the analogy between a dabbA novel and a popular filmmaker. Money, creative control, mani-ramani teamwork and all. But this more an attempt at rationalization than something clearly driven by cold logic.

As for such ordinary patches/pieces/films/phases, I don't even feel the need to rationalise really. It might just not work out. That's how (or as much) I try to understand. For instance, I think 'nAn kadavuL' fails at some levels (though I also think it's a tremendous accomplishment in other ways). To me, it didn't seem to be because of any "commercial compromises" at all. For that matter, I can't for my life understand how Kamal came to write a film like 'dasAvathAram.' It happens. oNNum seyyaRadhukku illai.