Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

#Empuraan After Chhava #Godhra reference riles up #RSS #Mohanlal expresses ‘regret’ for political, social themes in L2; confirms cuts to film Cinema a convenient target? Go #BeyondTheHeadline with Sneha Koshy

7 Comments

Praveen tom varghese's profile picture
Praveen tom varghese1 year ago

@SnehaMKoshy Who are you to cut off someone's creative expression?Don't you understand me? I am the producer and actor of this film.I don't have an opinion among all people, but I have an opinion from some groups that sustains me.I'll cut it up for them. @PrithviOfficial

jithin Kuriackose's profile picture
jithin Kuriackose1 year ago

@SnehaMKoshy Y truth need a cover

World Transformation Movement's profile picture
World Transformation Movement3 years ago

WATCH: “The most important interview of all time, it solves the human condition, ends the turmoil & suffering in the world & finally makes sense of our lives” – Professor Harry Prosen, Former President of the Canadian Psychiatric Association.

Bollywood TampaBay's profile picture
Bollywood TampaBay1 year ago

@SnehaMKoshy Then stop playing the movie

NL's profile picture
NL1 year ago

@SnehaMKoshy What is your stand on giving a clean chit to perpetrators who intentionally ‘barbecued’ innocent hindus who were returning from pilgrimage to Ayodhya by locking them inside and pouring petrol into their compartments. And what abt giving a communal angle to the riots that ensued?

Yedu's profile picture
Yedu1 year ago

@SnehaMKoshy Koshy chechi, trying your best to be Kosher to Jihadis.. won't help!

Ponn Dk's profile picture
Ponn Dk1 year ago

@SnehaMKoshy The mass murders & rapes that happened during the 2002 riots in Gujarat has not been contested even by a single right wing / BJP / RSS commentator. Their ONLY grievance is that the train attack was NOT depicted, which in THEIR MIND is full justification for the riots. Enough ?

Related Videos

The Circle (2000, Panahi)/ Iran "Political movies have limited time. After that time, it doesn’t say anything anymore. But if the whole thing is said in an artistic way, then it doesn’t have an expiration date." --- Jafar Panahi Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: The subject matter of 'The Circle' (2000) is controversial. You mentioned that the film is still banned in Iran. In fact, when I was watching the film, I realized that through the characters, there’s a lot of fear about the system, the establishment, the police. The women can’t smoke; they have to wear the chador; they seem to want to hide every time. This is all very clear from watching the film. Did you deliberately want to make a statement about the political situation in Iran? Panahi: I have to tell you again that I’m not a political person. I don’t like political movies. But I take every opportunity to comment on the social issues. I talk about the current issues. To me it’s not important what is the reason for what has happened. Whether it’s political reasons or geographical reasons: these are not important—but the condition, the social issues. It is important to me to talk about the plight of humanity at that time. I don’t want to give a political view, or start a political war. I think that the artist should rise above this. Political movies have limited time. After that time, it doesn’t say anything anymore. But if the whole thing is said in an artistic way, then it doesn’t have an expiration date. So it doesn’t really serve a political purpose. Then it can be everlasting, for always, and it could be for anywhere. But I know that politically, with the film authorities, with any kind of film that has some political background in it, they would take issue with it. And for this reason, that is what the problem is. Interviewer: Still, your film makes a very strong statement about the problems that women face in Iran. Panahi: Yes, I agree with that. Interviewer: So that is humanitarian, of course, but it’s also political. Panahi: Yes, I agree with that. It has the elements. It all depends on how you look at it. If a person has only political views, then he will only see the political. But if you are a poet or an artist, then you see other things as well in the movie. If you are a socialist, you see political or economic or whatever different points of view. You mustn’t look at a film with only one point of view. If you want to see 'The Circle' (2000) as political, then it is one of the most political movies in Iran. By political, I mean partisan politics. But even the police, I didn’t want to show them as bad. In the first instance, you are afraid of the police. Because you are looking at them from the point of view of someone who is now in prison. And normally you see him in a long shot, but when they come nearer and you see them in a medium shot, you can see their human faces. Then it comes down to, “Do you need any help?” But he goes back again and becomes frightening. If I were being political, then I would always show the police as dangerous or bad persons." (Jafar Panahi's interview with Stephen Teo, Senses of Cinema, 2001)

DepressedBergman

43,871 views • 7 months ago

"There are no entertaining moments in 'Mirror' (1975). In fact I am categorically against entertainment in cinema: it is as degrading for the author as it is for the audience." --- Andrei Tarkovsky Full Excerpt: "'Mirror' (1975) is an autobiographical film. The things that happen are real things that happened to people close to me. That is true of all the episodes in the film. But why do people complain that they cannot understand it? The facts are so simple, they can be taken by every one as similar to the experience of their own lives. But here we come up against something that is peculiar to cinema: the further a viewer is from the content of a film, the closer he is; what people are looking for in cinema is a continuation of their lives, not a repetition. There are no entertaining moments in the film. In fact I am categorically against entertainment in cinema: it is as degrading for the author as it is for the audience. The purpose of 'Mirror', its inspiration, is that of a homily: look, learn, use the life shown here as an example. There are so many films now, and they are all so different, that very soon it will be impossible to plan for distribution to cinemas. That will be the beginning of a new phase in the development of film, which is after all the youngest art form, it is only about seventy years old. Films will start to be handed out as cassettes, people will take them home, every viewer will find himself face to face with the film he particularly likes. And what of cinema, the mass medium, you may ask ? Mass is not a criterion of quality. The same could be said about the number of people involved in the making of a film. Numbers are not the point. A small team working together is preferable to a large collective. Another question: What is going to happen to Mirror? We don't know yet. For the moment the film is only being shown in three cinemas, and they started with two. They are trying it out first, because the organs responsible for distribution are afraid it might be a failure. When they heard that people sat on and wouldn't leave, one of the highly placed distribution officials observed that normal people leave the cinema." [A talk by Tarkovsky in the Building Institute, 1975 about his film 'Mirror' (1975)]

DepressedBergman

206,025 views • 7 months ago