Do I miss debating or what!? Still an angry person, clearly. It's been years since we fought over movies, but this is a good reminder of it. Perhaps more should be healthy for us. Read on for an entertaining time.
Its been long since I have blogged, and all of you have my dire apologies for the same. I have been washed along the tides of nothingness and loneliness, and a busy schedule, which is surprisingly empty with respect to nourishment, the mental kind.
Yesterday, my dearest friend, and arch nemesis put up a blog post, which I think, he was targeting to be a mockery of Rajini, a cynical and sarcastic retelling of the veteran’s Enthiran, aka robot. This would be a good place to mention that I am a die hard fan of the actor, the superstar, and the person. And that also does not change the fact that I am a very cynical, sarcastic and critical person, so I would not hesitate to call down my God for a fault if I found any. I do not claim that the movie was his best, nor that it was completely cushioned from bad reviews. However, I did not like what my best friend came up with, which you can check out here.
Now many of you will have read this, and adjudge me to be contradicting myself on what looks like a perfectly straightforward slaughtering of a bad movie. But I request the reader to be patient while I explain the reason behind my wrath at my best friend – not for trashing rajini, but for insulting such high weapons like sarcasm, cynicism, and mockery.
There are people who consider these as negative qualities, but it also a concrete facts that most cynics, and people who used mockery and sarcasm as weapons were respected world around. They still are. They are feared, despised, yes, but no one would ever argue against them, because these people were respected, and their opinions were trusted, as correct. Now why would any sarcastic person be given such trust? because they played, but they played with the truth... honourably. Honour is what defines a critic, what gives him his power. Why else would one believe the reviews of a movie critic? Or listen to a food connoisseur? Because they trust he gives a true judgement, based on true facts.
In my opinion, one should never, NEVER, ever break that trust, by spreading untruth. Lets take the author-in-question's case. he retells the entire story, not just give a review of it, so it doesn't fall under the category of a review. It might be a mockery, but a mockery is supposed to dig out flaws and inconsistencies, not invent them. Now i shall bore you with the facts of where all the author was wrong with the facts *i know i am jobless, but it hurts so much i have to write, and kill you too, the way reading his blog killed me*
*one, WRONG INTERPRETATION OF SCENE: The entire first five minutes display the gradual building of the robot, and it is clearly spanned over a period of 10 years, as mentioned by rajini himself. The walking style of the robot has nothing to do with his style whatsoever. so it is a clear misleading of the public: what you, sir, are implying is that the only way a robot can walk, is if it is like rajini, which is surely not what was intended, or noticed by any of the millions of people who watched the movie, all except you, HAVE to be dumb, don't they??? *sarcasm*
*two, EXAGGERATION in wrong hands: exaggeration is a tool widely used in all spheres of life, but one never bases their judgement on the exaggeration. one makes fun of the real value by exaggerating it, not make the exaggeration in order to make fun of it itself, because of the aforementioned trend, people tend to believe that the exaggeration is the truth. ah the evil in you....
*three, the bohra fiasco: bohra doesn't say or even imply for that matter that it is the coding that he got wrong. he is very confident of the coding in themselves, as seen by the red chip. it is the neural schema which he doesn't get right, which governs the robot and its ears, per se, causing them to hear wrongly: bun in place of gun and so on. I also doubt any scientist would put THOSE kind of codes into a prototype robot.
*four, I cant decide if you are deaf, or you just left out important sentences to give the entire scene a different meaning there, but the robot, nor vasi actually even hints at his own godhood. its a simple question which is cheekily replied:
Interviewer: does god exist?
Chitti: define god.
I: the one who made all of us.
C: I was made by vasi. I believe god could exist.
Vasi: *touched. hug*
(the sentence which has been struck off has been cut off and changed to: Vasi is god.)
*five, rajni is neither producer, nor director, nor script writer. i doubt he would ever have even got a say in the dialogues.... thanks for making him sound like a arrogant villainy. also, in the same sense, he cannot decide to just become the villain.... remember he was the last one to be offered the role after greats like srk, kamal hassan, aamir all leaving the script due to personal commitments*
*six, every scene of the movie is explained very well and it is blasphemous to even hint that there was complete non realism. the car chase, alongside the soundtrack version two.point.o. is explained by him jumping back into his car, all the time to save it from damage, and quite believably so... as for the guns and the shooting... they tried to shoot a robot, and to their credit they did quite a lot of damage to it and so aishwaria is just a pretty doll who no one is aiming at, and she wisely stays out of the way. GENIUS!
I think I will stop now and count the carcasses of readers I have left behind just to vent out my feelings. You died? Someone you know died? good. I do not care.
The point is, the entire sanctity of sarcasm, criticism and cynicism has been destroyed by you. and I hate you for that. You don't like that? Sue me!
No comments:
Post a Comment