If the point of a review is to critically analyze someone else’s work and to possibly inform/educate or psyche the viewer why to or why not to watch a particular film, I think it’s only fair that the filmmaker too should give his reaction to what the reviewer commented upon.
The fact that the film releases and a group of critics out there with their only qualification being that they are employed by some newspaper or a TV channel say whatever they want to about the film without the Director getting a chance to give his point of view to, thankfully has come to end with the technology available now that enables one to reach the concerned audience directly.
A film is a statement of an individual. It’s fair enough that there will be people out there who agree or disagree or not interested or fascinated depending upon that particular individual’s sensibility, intelligence, background, etc. But why should one individual try to influence them just because they are tagged as critics. What is their qualification? Is it their quality of bitchiness or expertise in rhyming or knowledge of cinema?
Khalid Mohammed has made such horrendous films like Fiza, Tehzeeb, Silsilay etc. If he or anybody thinks otherwise, the whole industry knows how many actors and investors are queuing up in front of his house fighting each other to get his films made. Even I made big flops and precisely because of that I don’t become judgmental on someone else’s work. But what amazes me is that Khalid without an iota of guilt sits in judgment on other’s films week after week. I would really like him to look at his own films before he starts reviewing anyone else’s film.
Madam Deepa Gahlot has been going around with scripts to be made as films for years and most Producers get turned off in the first 10 minutes when she starts narrating and that’s the reason they never got made. To my knowledge maybe a film or two would have been made with her story is the last 15 years or so and both must have been super flops since no one has ever heard of them (in case anybody remembers or knows please let me know). She too is a resident expert of how films should be made. Incidentally she gave a very bad review to SATYA.
Raja something of rediff.com is an aspiring director who literally hounds film Producers who refuse to touch him. These are just a few examples of the kind of critics we have. Others I will come to later on. The critics have a tendency to be bitchy to ridicule, to make sweeping statement to camouflage their ignorance of cinema with profound sounding lines and the reader for want of an opposing view might get taken in. So as long as the critic or anyone else has a right to review I think I have a right to review the reviews. So read on my review of reviews of SARKAR RAJ in my blog.
I exactly know what the reactions of the critics are going to be. They will write as nasty and as bitchy articles as possible in their capacity and influence whatever they might have with the management of their concerned outfits. But I will answer them too in my blog. You readers have a ring-side seat and watch.
Khalid Mohammed’s comments on his SARKAR RAJ review:
1. When someone talks out loud before a portrait of the dead, you know you are in trouble.
Ans: Why? Incidentally are you aware that the majority likes the last 15 minutes and most especially because of that scene.
2. A hired assassin wears woolen gloves.
Ans: Why can’t he?
3. Abhishek mistakes inflexibility, a dour gaze and dark business suit for intensity.
Ans: Can you please name 3 intense performances in Hindi cinema in the last 3 years of who you think was better than Abhishek?
4. Aishwarya for a tough Rebecca Mark sheds too many crocodile tears.
Ans: Who told you that she is playing Rebecca Mark? And in which scene did she shed crocodile tears?
5. Varma goes to the underworld as always.
Ans: Where is the underworld in the film?
6. Extolling such a Plants benefits is naive and irresponsible.
Ans: How?
7. Victor Banerjee could do with more expensive suits.
Ans: Since when have you become a costume designer?
8. A beardo from Gujarat sings, ‘gapuchi gapuchi gam gam’.
Ans: Gujarati’s don’t sing or what?
9. A prayer ceremony in the memory of Brando is suggested.
Ans: If that is a comment on Amitji’s acting prowess I would dare you to get just one more person from the millions who loved both the Sarkar’s to second you on this. Not that you will listen but since you are so free with your advices, let me also advice you not to fire off guns from on the shoulders of Hindustan Times review column to settle your personal scores.
Deepa Gahlot’s comments:
1. One would like to see RGV grow out of his boyish preoccupation with power and violence.
Ans: Since when are power and violence a boy’s domain?
2. Only a juvenile person will admire a man who has no moral compass.
Ans: Nobody asked anybody to admire anyone. The film tells the story of one such man and in the same film there are others who don’t believe in him.
3. RGV didn’t bother to take an informed stand.
Ans: What is the informed stand?
4. Slimy flunky Hassan Qazi.
Ans: He was meant to be slimy.
5. He just lets Shankar to be right and turns him into a visionary.
Ans: Same answer as to question no.2.
6. A singing Industrialist abruptly shifts the plant to Gujarat as if these multi-billion projects are a game of monopoly.
Ans: He doesn’t shift but he wants to shift and not with his singing either, and trust me Madam, all things in life are a game of monopoly. It’s only the scales which differ.
7. Varma badly needs to reinvent himself.
Ans: I would be thankful if you can impart your knowledge of how to do it to both me and the other readers of this
Gaurav Malini – indiatimes movies:
1. While adhering to the original he also sets up repetitiveness in the screenplay, shot execution, the villains’ quartet etc.
Ans: That’s the point. The intention was to follow the tradition of what Sarkar was about.
Rajeev Masand:
1. Excessive talk seldom makes for exciting viewing.
Ans: Which talk was excessive? Can you quote any line or lines which you didn’t think were necessary?
2. Sarkar Raj doesn’t have a premise as engaging as the first part.
Ans: I would very much like you to write down the premise of the first one and also the second one for readers to compare.
3. Aishwarya is restrained and stays within character for most part.
Ans: Where in other parts did she jump around?
www.telegraphindia.com:
1. Anita is hardly repelled by Shankar’s confession of his brother’s murder.
Ans: If you noticed the scene starts half way of Shankar finishing the story which means that he has narrated the entire story of Sarkar. So if the audience of Sarkar –Part 1 were not repelled why should she be?
2. He reduces the Deputy CM into a caricature.
Ans: If you have never seen a caricaturish politician you must be living on Mars.
3. Varma gives short shift to the language of cinema and the visual plot.
Ans: I would very much like to be educated by you about these two terms.
Subhash K Jha:
1. Sarkar is about the lacerated life of a Thackeray like family with the concept of spatial harmony acquiring a surrealistic meaninglessness because of the disembodied camera movements.
Ans: Does it mean that if the camera movement were embodied (whatever that means??!) it will become meaningful reality?
2. In Sarkar he observed, studied and pondered.
Ans: What did I observe, study and ponder?
3. He drags the uneasy relationship between Subhas Nagre and his kicking, screaming and wailing son into an arena of heightened scenes no exacerbated emotions.
Ans: I am impressed with your English. I would be more impressed if I understood what it means.
4. Character’s bark orders and scream grievances.
Ans: Can you explain any scene and situation where they are not supposed to do and also that what they should have done instead?
5. The camera stops only long enough to capture the 3 protagonists in tight evocative close-ups rationalizing the presence of Bollywood’s first familys startling transformation into Varma’s ‘thirst’ family.
Ans: I announce a reward if anyone can tell me what the meaning of this is. Yes, I am not as educated as Mr.Jha is and neither do I have the time to sit with a Thesaurus book or go online to find words as complex as possible to sound as intelligent as possible.
Mr.Jha it will help you greatly if you yourself in your head think of the meaning of what you are writing. Just picking up words from the Thesaurus book or on the internet will not make sense unless how you use them makes sense.
6. The films frames scream for attention.
Ans: Yes, that is the intention. So what’s your problem.
7. The women are either on silent mode or bumped off quickly.
Ans: Should they blabber? Who should have been bumped off instead?
8. Sarkar and its sequels are essentially emotional father son stories.
Ans: Oh really? We didn’t realize that.
10. The emotions when they come in Sarkar Raj converge entirely on Aishwarya’s divine face as she becomes towards the end the recipient and beacon for all the pent up resentment, anger, anguish and misery that the Nagre family has encountered.
Ans: I give up and I hate the Thesaurus for giving multiple options to Jha for word usage and I hate it even more for not teaching him how to use it in a meaningful and understandable way.
12. In two hours of play time there is not one humorous moment.
Ans: Did the promos indicate that? Why don’t you watch the rerun of the umpteen comedies which are out there if that’s what you want.
13. What sort of mind would script such abject tragedy for a man who lost his first son in Sarkar and now his only surviving son.
Ans: That’s the whole point of the film’s theme, my friend.
14. Prabhavalkar is a bizarre representation of Gandhism in these troubled times when fathers kill daughters and ministers go to prison.
Ans: Whatever that means.
15. Amit Roy’s cinematography and Sunil Nigvekar’s art are a raga pf rusty browns.
Ans: You want it to be blue or what?
Incidentally Mr.Jha has given 2½ Stars to TASHAN and 2 Stars to Sarkar Raj.
Raja Sen – Rediff.com:
1. A well-lit and overdone follow-up to an over-rated original.
Ans: Over-rated by whom? By the people who loved it?
2. Sickeningly yellow beams of light filter in.
Ans: Just now you said well-lit.
3. Whole film seems like a desperate series of finely composed frames.
Ans: Desperate and finely???
4. Characters don’t talk but deliver dialogues.
Ans: Dialogue is not talking?
5. Literally there’s just a line or two of quirky humour relief.
Ans: You expected to see a comedy?
6. This is a massala bang bang mafia movie.
Ans: Where is the mafia in it?
7. Its attempt is to stay on a constant high.
Ans: Yes. What is wrong with that?
8. Sarkar turns school masterly as he tutors Ash in the art of war?
Ans: Where? What? How?
Posted in www.meetyou.com:
1. Twists in the climax should be accepted just because Sarkar says so.
Ans: Yes that is because he knows better than you.
2. A part from Sarkar I would like to see other characters motivations.
Ans: Remember that a film can have only a limited time and also it’s a story from Sarkar’s point of view.
3. Central Character is not consistent.
Ans: Where did he stray?
4. Abhishek’s quiet demeanor goes with sudden bursts of anger.
Ans: Without reason where?
5. It’s amazing how deglamorized Aishwarya looks?
Ans: Does that mean good or bad?
Johnson Thomas – DNA:
1. Consists mainly of sparse frames, diffused lighting and unending close-ups.
Ans: Would like you to understand first what diffused lighting means and also please tell which close-ups you think were not necessary?
2. All characters have deep seated roots in darkness.
Ans: It is meant to be a dark film.
The fact that the film releases and a group of critics out there with their only qualification being that they are employed by some newspaper or a TV channel say whatever they want to about the film without the Director getting a chance to give his point of view to, thankfully has come to end with the technology available now that enables one to reach the concerned audience directly.
A film is a statement of an individual. It’s fair enough that there will be people out there who agree or disagree or not interested or fascinated depending upon that particular individual’s sensibility, intelligence, background, etc. But why should one individual try to influence them just because they are tagged as critics. What is their qualification? Is it their quality of bitchiness or expertise in rhyming or knowledge of cinema?
Khalid Mohammed has made such horrendous films like Fiza, Tehzeeb, Silsilay etc. If he or anybody thinks otherwise, the whole industry knows how many actors and investors are queuing up in front of his house fighting each other to get his films made. Even I made big flops and precisely because of that I don’t become judgmental on someone else’s work. But what amazes me is that Khalid without an iota of guilt sits in judgment on other’s films week after week. I would really like him to look at his own films before he starts reviewing anyone else’s film.
Madam Deepa Gahlot has been going around with scripts to be made as films for years and most Producers get turned off in the first 10 minutes when she starts narrating and that’s the reason they never got made. To my knowledge maybe a film or two would have been made with her story is the last 15 years or so and both must have been super flops since no one has ever heard of them (in case anybody remembers or knows please let me know). She too is a resident expert of how films should be made. Incidentally she gave a very bad review to SATYA.
Raja something of rediff.com is an aspiring director who literally hounds film Producers who refuse to touch him. These are just a few examples of the kind of critics we have. Others I will come to later on. The critics have a tendency to be bitchy to ridicule, to make sweeping statement to camouflage their ignorance of cinema with profound sounding lines and the reader for want of an opposing view might get taken in. So as long as the critic or anyone else has a right to review I think I have a right to review the reviews. So read on my review of reviews of SARKAR RAJ in my blog.
I exactly know what the reactions of the critics are going to be. They will write as nasty and as bitchy articles as possible in their capacity and influence whatever they might have with the management of their concerned outfits. But I will answer them too in my blog. You readers have a ring-side seat and watch.
Khalid Mohammed’s comments on his SARKAR RAJ review:
1. When someone talks out loud before a portrait of the dead, you know you are in trouble.
Ans: Why? Incidentally are you aware that the majority likes the last 15 minutes and most especially because of that scene.
2. A hired assassin wears woolen gloves.
Ans: Why can’t he?
3. Abhishek mistakes inflexibility, a dour gaze and dark business suit for intensity.
Ans: Can you please name 3 intense performances in Hindi cinema in the last 3 years of who you think was better than Abhishek?
4. Aishwarya for a tough Rebecca Mark sheds too many crocodile tears.
Ans: Who told you that she is playing Rebecca Mark? And in which scene did she shed crocodile tears?
5. Varma goes to the underworld as always.
Ans: Where is the underworld in the film?
6. Extolling such a Plants benefits is naive and irresponsible.
Ans: How?
7. Victor Banerjee could do with more expensive suits.
Ans: Since when have you become a costume designer?
8. A beardo from Gujarat sings, ‘gapuchi gapuchi gam gam’.
Ans: Gujarati’s don’t sing or what?
9. A prayer ceremony in the memory of Brando is suggested.
Ans: If that is a comment on Amitji’s acting prowess I would dare you to get just one more person from the millions who loved both the Sarkar’s to second you on this. Not that you will listen but since you are so free with your advices, let me also advice you not to fire off guns from on the shoulders of Hindustan Times review column to settle your personal scores.
Deepa Gahlot’s comments:
1. One would like to see RGV grow out of his boyish preoccupation with power and violence.
Ans: Since when are power and violence a boy’s domain?
2. Only a juvenile person will admire a man who has no moral compass.
Ans: Nobody asked anybody to admire anyone. The film tells the story of one such man and in the same film there are others who don’t believe in him.
3. RGV didn’t bother to take an informed stand.
Ans: What is the informed stand?
4. Slimy flunky Hassan Qazi.
Ans: He was meant to be slimy.
5. He just lets Shankar to be right and turns him into a visionary.
Ans: Same answer as to question no.2.
6. A singing Industrialist abruptly shifts the plant to Gujarat as if these multi-billion projects are a game of monopoly.
Ans: He doesn’t shift but he wants to shift and not with his singing either, and trust me Madam, all things in life are a game of monopoly. It’s only the scales which differ.
7. Varma badly needs to reinvent himself.
Ans: I would be thankful if you can impart your knowledge of how to do it to both me and the other readers of this
Gaurav Malini – indiatimes movies:
1. While adhering to the original he also sets up repetitiveness in the screenplay, shot execution, the villains’ quartet etc.
Ans: That’s the point. The intention was to follow the tradition of what Sarkar was about.
Rajeev Masand:
1. Excessive talk seldom makes for exciting viewing.
Ans: Which talk was excessive? Can you quote any line or lines which you didn’t think were necessary?
2. Sarkar Raj doesn’t have a premise as engaging as the first part.
Ans: I would very much like you to write down the premise of the first one and also the second one for readers to compare.
3. Aishwarya is restrained and stays within character for most part.
Ans: Where in other parts did she jump around?
www.telegraphindia.com:
1. Anita is hardly repelled by Shankar’s confession of his brother’s murder.
Ans: If you noticed the scene starts half way of Shankar finishing the story which means that he has narrated the entire story of Sarkar. So if the audience of Sarkar –Part 1 were not repelled why should she be?
2. He reduces the Deputy CM into a caricature.
Ans: If you have never seen a caricaturish politician you must be living on Mars.
3. Varma gives short shift to the language of cinema and the visual plot.
Ans: I would very much like to be educated by you about these two terms.
Subhash K Jha:
1. Sarkar is about the lacerated life of a Thackeray like family with the concept of spatial harmony acquiring a surrealistic meaninglessness because of the disembodied camera movements.
Ans: Does it mean that if the camera movement were embodied (whatever that means??!) it will become meaningful reality?
2. In Sarkar he observed, studied and pondered.
Ans: What did I observe, study and ponder?
3. He drags the uneasy relationship between Subhas Nagre and his kicking, screaming and wailing son into an arena of heightened scenes no exacerbated emotions.
Ans: I am impressed with your English. I would be more impressed if I understood what it means.
4. Character’s bark orders and scream grievances.
Ans: Can you explain any scene and situation where they are not supposed to do and also that what they should have done instead?
5. The camera stops only long enough to capture the 3 protagonists in tight evocative close-ups rationalizing the presence of Bollywood’s first familys startling transformation into Varma’s ‘thirst’ family.
Ans: I announce a reward if anyone can tell me what the meaning of this is. Yes, I am not as educated as Mr.Jha is and neither do I have the time to sit with a Thesaurus book or go online to find words as complex as possible to sound as intelligent as possible.
Mr.Jha it will help you greatly if you yourself in your head think of the meaning of what you are writing. Just picking up words from the Thesaurus book or on the internet will not make sense unless how you use them makes sense.
6. The films frames scream for attention.
Ans: Yes, that is the intention. So what’s your problem.
7. The women are either on silent mode or bumped off quickly.
Ans: Should they blabber? Who should have been bumped off instead?
8. Sarkar and its sequels are essentially emotional father son stories.
Ans: Oh really? We didn’t realize that.
10. The emotions when they come in Sarkar Raj converge entirely on Aishwarya’s divine face as she becomes towards the end the recipient and beacon for all the pent up resentment, anger, anguish and misery that the Nagre family has encountered.
Ans: I give up and I hate the Thesaurus for giving multiple options to Jha for word usage and I hate it even more for not teaching him how to use it in a meaningful and understandable way.
12. In two hours of play time there is not one humorous moment.
Ans: Did the promos indicate that? Why don’t you watch the rerun of the umpteen comedies which are out there if that’s what you want.
13. What sort of mind would script such abject tragedy for a man who lost his first son in Sarkar and now his only surviving son.
Ans: That’s the whole point of the film’s theme, my friend.
14. Prabhavalkar is a bizarre representation of Gandhism in these troubled times when fathers kill daughters and ministers go to prison.
Ans: Whatever that means.
15. Amit Roy’s cinematography and Sunil Nigvekar’s art are a raga pf rusty browns.
Ans: You want it to be blue or what?
Incidentally Mr.Jha has given 2½ Stars to TASHAN and 2 Stars to Sarkar Raj.
Raja Sen – Rediff.com:
1. A well-lit and overdone follow-up to an over-rated original.
Ans: Over-rated by whom? By the people who loved it?
2. Sickeningly yellow beams of light filter in.
Ans: Just now you said well-lit.
3. Whole film seems like a desperate series of finely composed frames.
Ans: Desperate and finely???
4. Characters don’t talk but deliver dialogues.
Ans: Dialogue is not talking?
5. Literally there’s just a line or two of quirky humour relief.
Ans: You expected to see a comedy?
6. This is a massala bang bang mafia movie.
Ans: Where is the mafia in it?
7. Its attempt is to stay on a constant high.
Ans: Yes. What is wrong with that?
8. Sarkar turns school masterly as he tutors Ash in the art of war?
Ans: Where? What? How?
Posted in www.meetyou.com:
1. Twists in the climax should be accepted just because Sarkar says so.
Ans: Yes that is because he knows better than you.
2. A part from Sarkar I would like to see other characters motivations.
Ans: Remember that a film can have only a limited time and also it’s a story from Sarkar’s point of view.
3. Central Character is not consistent.
Ans: Where did he stray?
4. Abhishek’s quiet demeanor goes with sudden bursts of anger.
Ans: Without reason where?
5. It’s amazing how deglamorized Aishwarya looks?
Ans: Does that mean good or bad?
Johnson Thomas – DNA:
1. Consists mainly of sparse frames, diffused lighting and unending close-ups.
Ans: Would like you to understand first what diffused lighting means and also please tell which close-ups you think were not necessary?
2. All characters have deep seated roots in darkness.
Ans: It is meant to be a dark film.