[aideriimibion]

P_R - enjoyed the posts but I really dont have much to say.

[Gogogo]

'Whatever works' (to the reader) sounds open, personal and invariably irrational (:P) to resort to.

'It depends' sounds like the creation determines the importance of 'intention' through tangible factors, and not the reader.

Oh! I saw "it depends" as an ambivalent answer suggesting that it depends on many things, not as "it depends on the work."

invariably irrational (:P)

[Reafnartefs]

Forgive me for possibly redirecing the conversation towards NK but here is an excerpt from Jeyamohan's article:

மூன்று, பாலாவே ரசிகர்கள் ஊகிக்கட்டும் என்று விட்டது. மையமான விஷயங்களை ‘ஸ்பூன் ·பீடிங்‘ செய்ய முயன்ற பாலா சண்டைக்காட்சிகள் போன்ற வழக்கமான விஷயங்களை தன் ரசிகர்கள் சாதாரணமாக ஊகித்துவிடுவார்கள் என்று எண்ணிவிட்டார். ஆகவே ஒரு சிறிய முரண் அமைப்பை உருவாக்கினார். தாண்டவன் ருத்ரனுக்காக கோர்ட் வாசலில் காத்திருக்கிறான். அடுத்த காட்சியில் ருத்ரன் தாண்டவனைக் கொன்றபின் தலைகீழாக நிற்கிறான். அதன் பின் ருத்ரன் தாண்டவனை நேருக்குநேர் சந்திக்கும் காட்சி. கொலை. அதன்பின் மீண்டும் முந்தைய காட்சி. அம்சவல்லி வருகிறாள்.
வில்லந் கதாநாயகனைக் கொல்லவருவதும் கதாநாயகன் வில்லனை துரத்திச்சென்று கொல்வதும் எல்லாம் எல்லா படத்திலும் வருவதுதானே சீக்கிரமாக தாவிச்சென்றுவிடலாம் என்று பாலா சொன்னார். எனக்கு அப்படி எளிதாக நம் ஆட்கள் வந்துவிடமாட்டார்கள் என்றுதான் பட்டது. இல்லை இப்போது மிகவும் மாறிவிட்டார்கள் என்றார் பாலா.

The bolded part in specific implies one of two things:
1. Audience awareness of what a 'BAlA' film entails.
2. Audience awareness of the typical constraints of a thamizh film.

This throws another wrench in the works. Every work of art depends on the purveyor to be at a certain level 'preparedness'. For example it seems to me to understand Dostoevsky's impact one would need to be aware of, if not familiar with, Gogol and his depictions of St.Petersburg (Must thank you for that book btw PR. The introduction to the collection provided an excellent 'chronological progression' of Russian Lit.). What does one make of this 'pre-requisite' to art appreciation?

[Jxmwzgpv]

But at the bare minimum, as a rasikan, I feel an anxiety to have covered, at the least, what the artist 'intended' to offer.

But what you "cover" is vastly different (which is an understatement) from what the artist intends. Your whole life plays a part in it, and surely, you're going to see it differently. And one must not associate all this talk as a kind of mumbo-jumbo useful only when viewing obscure films. Hardly. Take the many mainstream films which we find awful or even offensive watching them through various prisms. Do those filmmakers intend to make a film that is, say, pro-casteist or anti-feminist? Are they consciously trying to make it that way? No, it's what we see in them.

Pardon the simplistic logic (but good enough I think); if we can bash up a film for all the bad things we see in it, it's only fair we approve of the good things, no?

[nerkvcbtre]

wikipedia[/url]]Intentional fallacy, in literary criticism, addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance. By characterizing this assumption as a "fallacy," a critic suggests that the author's intention is not important. The term is an important principle of New Criticism and was first used by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley in their essay "The Intentional Fallacy" (1946 rev. 1954): "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art." The phrase "intentional fallacy" is somewhat ambiguous, but it means "a fallacy about intent" and not "a fallacy committed on purpose."

What sayst thou ?

[dexterljohnthefinanceguy]

This is digressive but I will yield to it because it seems potentially enjoyable.

Do those filmmakers intend to make a film that is, say, pro-casteist or anti-feminist? Are they consciously trying to make it that way? No, it's what we see in them.

I think this takes the beholder thing too far. Most of the times it is what it is. adhuvE illainreengaLA.

Take anti-feminism a popular trend - or even fetish - in our films.
Do they intend to make an anti-feminist scene. Sure as hell they do. They don't think it is something to be queasy about. We react because we see it through our prism, granted but that does not take away that the creator "wanted" to have his hero cut a woman down to size. It didn't happen incidentally. Nor does there seem to be alternative ways of reading it.

That's why I believe the mass of the mainstream watch-and-ignore films/book which are as deep (uh oh ! baed word) as pAlAr in summertime can be brushed aside for this discussion.

I'm saying one knows close to nothing about the personal sensibilities of these filmmakers (whether it is Bala or Mani Ratnam) even when one's trying to guess whether or not it's "appropriate" to make such a remark! That is all

Yes we never know for sure. Part of the reason why we devour information about the artist about and beyond his work. Most of the times the outcome is unpleasant. Yet, we (I ?) never learn.
All the time maintaining a schizophrenic adherence that I am not using the artist's 'life' to evaluate his art. Treating with scorn others' attempts to do when I am kind of doing precisely the same.

That we will never know for sure and is always in a position only to make reasonable, clever (?) guesses means we do harbour such a question.

KGB Officer: What do you think about Josef Stalin ?
Civilian: I think what you think Sir
KGB Officer: Then it is my duty to arrest you.

So, to actually make the remark is quite impolite and unfair. But can we banish the question from within us ? Should we just take the art and run and not bother disappointing ourselves ?

Or should adopt a 'real' worldview like a முற்போக்கு எழுத்தாளர்கள் சங்கம் pamphlet, which in a bid to say that artists don't exist in vacuum and must react to the society around them makes atrocious statements like: கலைஞர்களும் மனிதர்கள் தான். அவர்கள் ஒன்றும் வானத்திலிருந்து வந்து குதித்துவிடவில்லை.

[Verger99]

Pardon the simplistic logic (but good enough I think); if we can bash up a film for all the bad things we see in it, it's only fair we approve of the good things, no?

Hmm...
We do approve of the good things. Has Goundamani acted in a single 'good' film ?

I don't think I got this.

[WeestDype]

Originally Posted by equanimus Do those filmmakers intend to make a film that is, say, pro-casteist or anti-feminist? Are they consciously trying to make it that way? No, it's what we see in them.

I think this takes the beholder thing too far. Most of the times it is what it is. adhuvE illainreengaLA.

Take anti-feminism a popular trend - or even fetish - in our films.
Do they intend to make an anti-feminist scene. Sure as hell they do. They don't think it is something to be queasy about. We react because we see it through our prism, granted but that does not take away that the creator "wanted" to have his hero cut a woman down to size. It didn't happen incidentally. Nor does there seem to be alternative ways of reading it. It is what it is, PR, but still I am the one who is seeing it. The artist's consciousness is only incidental. Even with some of most literally constructed anti-feminist films, the maker might not have consciously thought of it to be so. What is literal to me is not literal to the maker. It could just be a reflection of his repressed sexuality. Or just a fetish of sorts. Obviously there's no clear line of difference. (What is consciousness anyway?) That's the equivalence I'm drawing between the unconscious layers in the creative process of bad films and good films.

And I didn't mean only the "literally constructed" anti-whatever films when I say mainstream films. What about the films in which the filmmaker doesn't consciously frame anything of that sort and is actually trying to make a sensitive film and all? There the consciousness is even more conflicting. Cheran's films for example. Are his films consciously chauvinist? (Let's just say I tell him that they are. What would be his reaction?) Probably not. Do I care? Hell, no. Some films just don't cut it for whatever reasons. Why? Is it because the filmmaker wants it to be so? No. Surely, Cheran wants his films to be sensitive? But to the viewer (that is, me), it makes no difference.

[SQiTmhuY]

So, to actually make the remark is quite impolite and unfair. But can we banish the question from within us ? Should we just take the art and run and not bother disappointing ourselves ?

No. Not at all. But one has to be discerning enough when making such assumptions. Otherwise one will perhaps find someone else putting some sense into one's head. Let me take Bala again. Isn't it somewhat idiotic of us to condescend to his sensibilities, frankly? I am not bent on employing the "you never know" argument. Let's "get into the specifics" and try to find out what strikes us as "sophisticated" or "unsophisticated," even though such pointers never add up to give a complete picture, etc. Where does he come off as "unsophisticated?" I am not sure. So I'll skip that. Let me talk about the other side. He is quite well read. It's not like he started reading Jeyakanthan the day before he made 'pithAmagan.' (I can't of course put my finger on when he actually did, but I remember his writing in the AV series that he was a big fan of JK and how thrilled he was when he saw Jeyakanthan come to catch a preview of 'vIdu' when he was working under Balu Mahendra.) He has now adapted parts of Jeyamohan's 'EzhAm ulagam' for his latest film. How many of us have read the novel? Or even heard of it?

[secondmortgages]

I do not know if you would call this intentional fallacy but here is my take on Bala's film. It is one of the interpretations that can be offered. I am not sure if Bala meant this but to me this is what I felt.

Read my views at http://sureshs65music.blogspot.com

[oronozopiy]

The artist's consciousness is only incidental.

(What is consciousness anyway?) That's the equivalence I'm drawing between the unconscious layers in the creative process of bad films and good films

I largely disagree with the claim that his consciousness is incidental.
I agree that sometimes things happen over and above the 'control' the creator claims to possess. But what draws us again to the artists works, what makes us expect his future works, what makes us seek unvisited past treasures all these are largely from what he consciously does. Don't you think so ?

How can I be so sure this how he intended I receive the works ? Well I can never be. In the context of mainstream average films, I can claim with some degree of arrogance, that the intention of the artist is guessable.

The multilayered lost in translation of a bad filmmaker is of lesser interest isn't it. I am not so convinced of the equivalence but I will wriggle out of that because I have already declared I am not gunning for consistency here.

Are his films consciously chauvinist? (Let's just say I tell him that they are. What would be his reaction?) Probably not. Do I care? Hell, no. Some films just don't cut it for whatever reasons. Why? Is it because the filmmaker wants it to be so? No. Surely, Cheran wants his films to be sensitive? But to the viewer (that is, me), it makes no difference.

His noble intention is not argument in itself. We judge the film regardless of that. Now let me tread the thin ice of judgement and go to an
oversimplified question.

Conceded that a filmmaker can (and will) be worse than he intends to be. Similarly he can better (though less likely) be better than he intends to be.

Good/Bad - subjective, beholder's evaluation of course.

But the question is whether I am applauding for the man who created it or a lucky coincidence he was a part of.

I am guessing your question is: "why do you care ?" Right ?
Hmm....kinda my question too. Perhaps credit to the artist implies possibility of such quality work from him to come. (Doesn't work for dead creators visited now).

[Narkeere]

He is quite well read. It's not like he started reading Jeyakanthan the day before he made 'pithAmagan.'

Let me let a cat out of the bag. I had watched Sethu, made a mental note of the name Bala and moved on.I rewatched Sethu after I read an early interview of Bala. I assumed - or rather rightly inferred- someone who claimed to be enamoured by the writings of nAnjil nAdan and at the same time admitted to a youth using the word jaari to refer to girls, was someone worth following.

As if he was the only other guy who seemed to traversed the two seemingly different worlds.But to be fair to myself that was merely a starting point. Of course the films made cases for themselves.

Let's "get into the specifics" and try to find out what strikes us as "sophisticated" or "unsophisticated," even though such pointers never add up to give a complete picture, etc.

Difficult to pinpoint. I will probably argue against every argument I make so I know any attempt at an answer is to set up a dtraw man. Let me put it this way. One of the better ways to judge an artist is to see what is the most irritatingly shallow thing that he has let pass in his film. If someone can create/write something of that sort and dare to affix his name to it then how good can he be.

I know this sort of weakest link, stringent scheme of things will blow up on my face. Perhaps I can give an example that may better explain where I am coming from. Taken by the hot air that blows around about Annadurai's reputedly good prose I picked up a novel of his when in college: Parvathy BA. That one novel was all I have ever read of his and I can vouch for the fact that he couldn't have produced as much as a line of any literary merit even if his life depended on it. Any writer worth his salt couldn't have done something as bad.

My respect for Bala's extremely good works coexists with doubts that spring from ordinary-ness of many of his sequences. And his reputation of meticulousness only adds to it because it means every frame is consicously (oops !) crafted. The reactions of the Kasi pandit family is an example and quality of acting in those scenes. I am NOT nitpicking. That is not my intention here. (That list would be longer ). I am only saying someone who can let that pass is someone who gives atleast a little ground to suspect his 'sophistication' (for want of a better word).

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.

[WenPyclenoWex]

Originally Posted by equanimus The artist's consciousness is only incidental.

(What is consciousness anyway?) That's the equivalence I'm drawing between the unconscious layers in the creative process of bad films and good films

I largely disagree with the claim that his consciousness is incidental.
I agree that sometimes things happen over and above the 'control' the creator claims to possess. But what draws us again to the artists works, what makes us expect his future works, what makes us seek unvisited past treasures all these are largely from what he consciously does. Don't you think so ? I'm not sure if you got what I meant, I am saying that the artist being conscious of something is incidental for the audience. That of course does not automatically mean the merit of the artist's work is itself incidental. Just because the artist is not consciously aware of something, it doesn't make his or her works just arbitrary, surely? As with anyone else, there are inevitably subconscious layers in the artist's mind too, isn't it? (By the way, I should have said "subconscious layers" there, not "unconscious!") It seems to me that you're bordering on drawing a binary distinction between "conscious" and "arbitrary" here, as if to suggest, either the artist has to be consciously aware of what he is doing, or else he is just arbitrarily making something which happens to be a good film.
Of course, it is true (to different degrees) that "all these are largely from what he consciously does." With emphasis on the word 'largely.' It only means that he is only so much consciously aware of what he is doing and might actually not have a very good sense of the magnitude of his work.

How can I be so sure this how he intended I receive the works ? Well I can never be.

Yes, and well, I don't think there's any need to.

In the context of mainstream average films, I can claim with some degree of arrogance, that the intention of the artist is guessable.

Yeah, here, I agree with you. Yes it is easily guessable, but yet we all do see so many other things as well, don't we?

Conceded that a filmmaker can (and will) be worse than he intends to be. Similarly he can better (though less likely) be better than he intends to be.

Good/Bad - subjective, beholder's evaluation of course.

But the question is whether I am applauding for the man who created it or a lucky coincidence he was a part of.

This is where, I think, you're being reductive of the creative process of the Artist. It's not mere lucky coincidence just because he's not consciously aware of all that he has accomplished, the way I see it.

[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.

[idertedype]

That of course does not automatically mean the merit of the artist's work is itself incidental.

Ok. ippo purinch.

Yes, and well, I don't think there's any need to.

This is also a 'binary'. Knowledge of the intention sometimes (often) enhances the experience of the viewer. Never 'ndgreengaLA ?

Surely you would agree acquaintance with alternative perspectives of others sometimes leads better appreciation of the work. This is true when the 'other' is just a somebody hazarding a guess. So it as much, if not even more, true when that somebody happens to be the author himself.

In one frustrating experience for RKNarayan recounts when filming the "Guide" is one about location choice. When he heard they were scouting for locations in North India he had an argument with the Exec Producer who stumped RKN with the response : "besides, how do you know where Malgudi is ?"

It's not mere lucky coincidence just because he's not consciously aware of all that he has accomplished, the way I see it.

Well I was admittedly being a little polemical but I am a little discomfort when there is seems to be a 'risk' that what I enjoy may be an attribute of the creation but perhaps not that of the creator. Why feel uncomfortable at all is a fair question.

To me, it didn't seem to be because of any "commercial compromises" at all. In some ways that is what is worrying. Isn't it. When Kamal is making Dasavatharam we know he is not writing with "all that he has". And when he laughs all the way to the bank that is pretty much its own scary argument. But with NK - Bala is indeed writing with all he has (now, from where do we get such notions !). That is why the chinks are held up for disproportionate scrutiny and doubt.

[UvjqTVVC]

Originally Posted by Prabhu Ram "Wow.
IdhellAm dhaan proof of the pudding-kku appArppattavai"

You explain? My claim 1: Bala probably has no idea how great his films are because he is just good and not conscious of the art/craft aspects.

Answer 1: That is of no concern. All that matters is the film. Pudding matters not the chef (something I clearly agree with in another context)

Answer 2: Snooty of you to doubt Bala when on the other hand.... (Yes,
guilty as charged)


All said and done, when Bala seems to make my claim wobble it makes me glad and this has got nothing to do with his film. So when he makes a statement like "one fails when one tries to prove", I take it as an extremely profound statement about art itself which reveals a certain degree of consciousness about art and craft which thrills me.

The struggle is to keep all this out when judging the work. True. But that does not mean I will just look away and refuse to be impressed by the artist himself. Why not ? I say.

oru maadhiri theLivA kuzhappurEnA ?

[Rememavotscam]

Ok, got what you are saying.
In a way, I always think of how posterity can judge a work - that will be contextless and independent of the author, right? What happens if we judge one of Bharathiyar's particular work on his patriotic songs bereft of the context, as many in the next generation(or even current) sure will?

Heck, even as I prepare to submit this comment, I find compli has already made this point.

[soipguibbom]

Originally Posted by equanimus Yes, and well, I don't think there's any need to.

This is also a 'binary'. Knowledge of the intention sometimes (often) enhances the experience of the viewer. Never 'ndgreengaLA ? No, I had said that specifically in response to the quoted line in your post. There's no need to be sure about how he intended I receive the works. But in general, it's indeed very valuable to know what the artist had in mind even when if he's simply going to say, "well I thought it looked good," or, "please don't bother me."

Surely you would agree acquaintance with alternative perspectives of others sometimes leads better appreciation of the work. This is true when the 'other' is just a somebody hazarding a guess. So it as much, if not even more, true when that somebody happens to be the author himself.

Yes, completely agree.

To me, it didn't seem to be because of any "commercial compromises" at all.

In some ways that is what is worrying. Isn't it. When Kamal is making Dasavatharam we know he is not writing with "all that he has". And when he laughs all the way to the bank that is pretty much its own scary argument. But with NK - Bala is indeed writing with all he has (now, from where do we get such notions !). That is why the chinks are held up for disproportionate scrutiny and doubt. No, actually I gave 'dasAvathAram' as a far better (or should I say worse?) example, in that I just can't come to terms with the sloppy writing for whatever reasons. I can see that Kamal didn't mean to write it with all that he has, but surely, all of it was not about Kamal laughing all the way to the bank? The musings on God, religion and what not, nothing worked for me. I think it failed on all fronts. (I'm able to brush it all aside easily because I didn't expect much out of it to begin with.)

For all my bits of disappointment about the failures of 'nAn kadavuL,' I think it's a stellar film.

[Bxbhtjnr]

I've posted whatever I had typed in as my response back then... so that we can continue from where we left.

[Loovikeillilen]

Is there such a thing as a literary hoax ?