Kill Mass
The reason for me writing this is well known, I have been really wondering how people can stoop to such a state so as to not comprehend things in a rational and logical way.
I have tried my best to project what I think about various ridiculous idiocies.
Definition of MASS HERO:
1) The first scene of “his” movie should start with an introduction song or a fight.
2) The story is usually tailor made to make his fans happy ( I really don’t know how he satisfies the audience) :D
3) The heroine’s scenes are strategically placed and really move the story forward.
4) The producer cuts production cost by usually reducing the clothes of the movie.
5) The money saved by point no.4 is used in buying aruval…until recently for guns.
6) The movie SHOULD have 6 songs and 4 fights.
7) In between the 6 songs and 4 fights, 5 comedy scenes …. 5 love scenes, one love making scene and of course the main story (If one exists) has be told.
8) Few unwanted dialogues like “20 varusham munnadi enna paatha madhiriyae irruku” dialogues which we have heard over and over again.
9) Hero should come in every other scene.
10) Heroine should strictly get married to the hero at the end.
11) Include any other Illogical, irrational and ridiculously sentimental scenes.
End Product -: The hero successfully has given a quality product which has satisfied his fans.
The above points are just to warm you guys up.
Chapter One:- 1
Theory of relativity
This is one important theory which has made my hair at the back of my stand up, this theory talks about how people “think” some one is a good actor, good director, good musician etc.
An actor ”Y” is called a good actor if he is better than some other actor, say X…why??
The answer is simple, the other actor X has given shit movies and does not know ABCD of acting.
Yes you heard it right.
You are considered good student even if you just pass your assessment, because all other students have failed. This is one great logic used by MASS RASIGARGAL to just reinforce the very point that their hero is a good actor.
Another analogy
Imagine you are a part of a team consisting of 4 salesmen, the target is to sell 100 candles every month, your colleagues are so damn poor and cannot even sell 10 candles a month…now you sell 50 candles. That is 40 more than your colleagues, and voila...you are a good salesman.
Yes…doesn’t matter even if you have sold 50 less than the required target, still you are better than others. So you are good.
Please don’t exactly go by the above example. Its a farce, and proclaiming you as a good salesman will put you in a hot soup.(If at all you are a salesmen)
Many fail to realize (some cannot comprehend, we need to help them) that to be called or considered good you need to be able to validate your claim to be called good. A person who can sell 100 candles also cannot be called as good, because they are expected to sell 100 candles a month, so he is just normal salesman. A person who sells 150 candles is what you call good. He is pretty good salesman who can do wonders when given conducive work situations.
The above example is just to illustrate how people perceive someone as good, bad, excellent etc.
These analogies can be used to any of the “Supposedly “ over rated “Actors”, “Versatile” , “Different” Directors, movies, Musicians etc.
The very point I am trying to make here is, that one cannot be called good if he is merely better than others. He can only be called good , only if he is better than average or holds his own against someone who is already called good.
Chapter Two:-
Subjective opinions:
This is close to what you call ridiculous, rib tickling, comical, satirical, irresistibly funny argument a MASS FAN can have in his defense.
I will try to present a case here.
1) Shakila is a better actor than Meryll streep, Julia Roberts and it is subjective view.
2) My friend (assuming I study in 12th standard) has a better knowledge about aeronautical study than Mr. APJ Abdul Kalam and it is my subjective view.
3) Rajini’s directorial debut Valli was better than Hey Ram, and it is my subjective view.
The above statements are few examples of subjective arguments which I can have with any of you.
Just because those views are subjective to me, it doesn’t mean that I make sense, and it doesn’t mean that my view should be taken as subjective and I should not be mocked.
Any sane person who has seen devil wears prada and Erin Brokovich should by general principle ridicule me, and rightly so.
Now if I make all these claims and say “I don’t care…I like rajini kanth more than Kamal and I don’t care even if a good reason exists”. Then I am sure the very sane person wouldn’t even care to argue with me.
I am of course not justified. I have no reasons to believe so.
Still I make that claim…it’s purely my personal view and of course something without no rational or logical conclusion by me. I am perfectly OK with this, and I am sure the other guy should also be OK with this.
Now what the other guy would not be OK against is that, If I make an argument saying that, I have equally justified views to consider Shakila to be a better actor than Meryll streep or Julia Roberts. I cannot expect the sane person to just leave my subjective view, but to think that I have a poor intelligence quotient related to my ability to comprehend films in a way a film should be perceived.
I may be a shakila fanatic, but if I say that for me she is a better actor than Meryll Streep or Julia Roberts than I must be by all probability be a FOOL. Because even though my view is subjective, it doesn’t make sense at all.
Absolutely No
Yeah, you can ask me “are individuals not credited with their own personal opinions”
Yes, they are…but when you make a statement in public, when the things come outside of your mouth then it’s no more subjective… if things are so subjective then why make it public at all?????
Now, when you and me have diametrically opposite views about a particular topic then how do you expect me to keep quite when you make such a stupefying statement?
Why do you get all touchy when I question your view of how you perceive films, after all you have decided to make your “ Subjective / personal views” public, it deserves the flak it deserves, it deserves the criticism it deserves, especially when you are talking something diametrically opposite to what I believe, just because there are LOT of ignorant people like you, it doesn’t mean that you have a right to be justified in calling every other view as subjective. We can debate and come to a solution, and not just consider views as SUBJECTIVE because, I find the argument extremely extremely escapists and cowardly argument.
Let us take up a very popular argument.
“I like the mass movie X over pithamagan or color trilogy or full metal jacket or any other classic.”
Now this is the most common SUBJECTIVE argument which I often come across.
I like the mass movie X because it gives me satisfaction more than that of pithamagan or any other movie that deserves to be called sensible.
It would simply be because he / she just likes the hero, so he would, by all probability like what ever is being dished out to him.
I usually press for the reason as to why he likes what he sees as good.
He says….song , dance gaana bajaana..and I tell him how pithamagan and other movies have been beautifully conceived and how the actors have literally lived the characters with heart and soul.
Then my friend would be offended…he would say..” Ennaku pudichuruku avlo dhaan”
This is the very point I am trying to make, no fan will be able to justify other than saying, I like X over Y, because I just like Y and I accept Y even though I cannot give a comprehensive answer.
The fact that one argues that I prefer entertainment and you like art is farce.
What is entertainment you are referring to?
Villu is entertainment? And it is subjective?
Aegan is what I call entertainment and it is subjective?
What are movies?
To call Aegan a movie or villu a movie is itself condemnable.
These “attempt” at filming sequences and calling it a feature film is equivalent to abusing the celebrated film makers. Fine, you may not like NK over shivaji, there are so many movies..take for example Kill Bill(Not an art film), even then I know you would prefer shivaji over a movie like kill bill, or say a better commercial movie like speed, or say spider man.
Ask these questions to a hard core Rajini Fan and he would always say, that he would prefer shivaji over any other film that you can possibly mention any day.This is the point I have been trying to convey, unfortunately I was never given a chance to.
The fact that one would like a movie of his favorite star over every other movie (art, entertainment, commercial, crap , shit) should suggest the point I am trying to make here. The very fact is he has tuned his mind to accept anything and everything from his fav star.
This is what I call stupidity transcending all barriers, that’s all I can say.
Chapter Three: -
Hypothesis-Ajith is a Good actor
This is the most simplest one for me to write on, a very interesting one too. :D
Let me not take too much of time giving an intro who Ajith Kumar is, and his films…so I would straight away jump into my reasons for thinking that he is not even good enough to be considered as good.
Some of the claims by his rasigargal.
1) Valee- Deaf and dumb character.
2) Villain
3) Varalaru
4) Kireedom
5) Mugavari
Valee- I am usually corrected when I say, valee’s acting was not realistic…any performance that is not realistic cannot be called as good. True, he did what was expected But to call it good, he needed to be realistic in his portrayal.
The fact that I am so confident saying this because, I have seen and moved with people who suffer from Hearing and speech impediment. The way they laugh and way they cry, way they communicate are completely unique and nothing was projected in the movie.
Any person, who cannot speak or hear, would have been taught sign language, and no where I have seen people understanding what a person who sits outside the cubicle is talking. I mean, it is statistically very very improbable.
Even then I feel a movie whose main protagonist is a person with hearing and speech impediment and none use sign language or very very minimal sign language is laughable.
In all households who have such a person, almost every one would know sign language, this can be seen in day to day life. None of this happens in Vallee.So, by all means, the performance might have been satisfactory, but it cannot be called as good because as an ACTOR he needs to give his own inputs to the actor. Like I have already discussed, something that is satisfying to the context need not be necessarily good.
Varalaru :-
People who learn bharathnatyam and seen bharathnatyam performances can pretty well conclude, it is most unconvincing portrayal of a bharathnatyam dancer.
All his other feminist mannerism were great, but that was out side of the whole character, he needed to convince me that he is indeed a good, as proclaimed in the movie, bharathnatyam dancer.
Villain- The other abnormal character was good enough, al though movie as a whole was crap.
Kireedom- Please compare with the original.
Kandukondein Kandukondein- I don’t understand why people take up this movie to re iterate that Ajith has done a good job, any body could have done what Ajith did. Even after 10 years in cinema, if ajith can’t do such a simple role in KK, wonder what he can do…
Similarly, all other performances are trivial, irrelevant, unimportant or unimpressive.Take any movie, amarkalam-Again a very ordinary movie of a rogue turning into a good man because of love, almost every other actor in TC has done it.
Dheena- Again a very normal movie about rogues again.
I sincerely hope, the first 2 principles namely Theory of relativity and subjectivity are being heavily used to conclude Ajith is a great actor.
He is not…he is pretty ordinary actor with good looks.
A mass actor fan will not open his ears come what may and would always like his fav actors movies over every other movie…whether it is good, boring, bad.
This is what I call being reason less, and being illogical…
I would really Appreciate people, who say, I like him because I want to like him, there is no sane reason to like him.
UDHAV.
The reason for me writing this is well known, I have been really wondering how people can stoop to such a state so as to not comprehend things in a rational and logical way.
I have tried my best to project what I think about various ridiculous idiocies.
Definition of MASS HERO:
1) The first scene of “his” movie should start with an introduction song or a fight.
2) The story is usually tailor made to make his fans happy ( I really don’t know how he satisfies the audience) :D
3) The heroine’s scenes are strategically placed and really move the story forward.
4) The producer cuts production cost by usually reducing the clothes of the movie.
5) The money saved by point no.4 is used in buying aruval…until recently for guns.
6) The movie SHOULD have 6 songs and 4 fights.
7) In between the 6 songs and 4 fights, 5 comedy scenes …. 5 love scenes, one love making scene and of course the main story (If one exists) has be told.
8) Few unwanted dialogues like “20 varusham munnadi enna paatha madhiriyae irruku” dialogues which we have heard over and over again.
9) Hero should come in every other scene.
10) Heroine should strictly get married to the hero at the end.
11) Include any other Illogical, irrational and ridiculously sentimental scenes.
End Product -: The hero successfully has given a quality product which has satisfied his fans.
The above points are just to warm you guys up.
Chapter One:- 1
Theory of relativity
This is one important theory which has made my hair at the back of my stand up, this theory talks about how people “think” some one is a good actor, good director, good musician etc.
An actor ”Y” is called a good actor if he is better than some other actor, say X…why??
The answer is simple, the other actor X has given shit movies and does not know ABCD of acting.
Yes you heard it right.
You are considered good student even if you just pass your assessment, because all other students have failed. This is one great logic used by MASS RASIGARGAL to just reinforce the very point that their hero is a good actor.
Another analogy
Imagine you are a part of a team consisting of 4 salesmen, the target is to sell 100 candles every month, your colleagues are so damn poor and cannot even sell 10 candles a month…now you sell 50 candles. That is 40 more than your colleagues, and voila...you are a good salesman.
Yes…doesn’t matter even if you have sold 50 less than the required target, still you are better than others. So you are good.
Please don’t exactly go by the above example. Its a farce, and proclaiming you as a good salesman will put you in a hot soup.(If at all you are a salesmen)
Many fail to realize (some cannot comprehend, we need to help them) that to be called or considered good you need to be able to validate your claim to be called good. A person who can sell 100 candles also cannot be called as good, because they are expected to sell 100 candles a month, so he is just normal salesman. A person who sells 150 candles is what you call good. He is pretty good salesman who can do wonders when given conducive work situations.
The above example is just to illustrate how people perceive someone as good, bad, excellent etc.
These analogies can be used to any of the “Supposedly “ over rated “Actors”, “Versatile” , “Different” Directors, movies, Musicians etc.
The very point I am trying to make here is, that one cannot be called good if he is merely better than others. He can only be called good , only if he is better than average or holds his own against someone who is already called good.
Chapter Two:-
Subjective opinions:
This is close to what you call ridiculous, rib tickling, comical, satirical, irresistibly funny argument a MASS FAN can have in his defense.
I will try to present a case here.
1) Shakila is a better actor than Meryll streep, Julia Roberts and it is subjective view.
2) My friend (assuming I study in 12th standard) has a better knowledge about aeronautical study than Mr. APJ Abdul Kalam and it is my subjective view.
3) Rajini’s directorial debut Valli was better than Hey Ram, and it is my subjective view.
The above statements are few examples of subjective arguments which I can have with any of you.
Just because those views are subjective to me, it doesn’t mean that I make sense, and it doesn’t mean that my view should be taken as subjective and I should not be mocked.
Any sane person who has seen devil wears prada and Erin Brokovich should by general principle ridicule me, and rightly so.
Now if I make all these claims and say “I don’t care…I like rajini kanth more than Kamal and I don’t care even if a good reason exists”. Then I am sure the very sane person wouldn’t even care to argue with me.
I am of course not justified. I have no reasons to believe so.
Still I make that claim…it’s purely my personal view and of course something without no rational or logical conclusion by me. I am perfectly OK with this, and I am sure the other guy should also be OK with this.
Now what the other guy would not be OK against is that, If I make an argument saying that, I have equally justified views to consider Shakila to be a better actor than Meryll streep or Julia Roberts. I cannot expect the sane person to just leave my subjective view, but to think that I have a poor intelligence quotient related to my ability to comprehend films in a way a film should be perceived.
I may be a shakila fanatic, but if I say that for me she is a better actor than Meryll Streep or Julia Roberts than I must be by all probability be a FOOL. Because even though my view is subjective, it doesn’t make sense at all.
Absolutely No
Yeah, you can ask me “are individuals not credited with their own personal opinions”
Yes, they are…but when you make a statement in public, when the things come outside of your mouth then it’s no more subjective… if things are so subjective then why make it public at all?????
Now, when you and me have diametrically opposite views about a particular topic then how do you expect me to keep quite when you make such a stupefying statement?
Why do you get all touchy when I question your view of how you perceive films, after all you have decided to make your “ Subjective / personal views” public, it deserves the flak it deserves, it deserves the criticism it deserves, especially when you are talking something diametrically opposite to what I believe, just because there are LOT of ignorant people like you, it doesn’t mean that you have a right to be justified in calling every other view as subjective. We can debate and come to a solution, and not just consider views as SUBJECTIVE because, I find the argument extremely extremely escapists and cowardly argument.
Let us take up a very popular argument.
“I like the mass movie X over pithamagan or color trilogy or full metal jacket or any other classic.”
Now this is the most common SUBJECTIVE argument which I often come across.
I like the mass movie X because it gives me satisfaction more than that of pithamagan or any other movie that deserves to be called sensible.
It would simply be because he / she just likes the hero, so he would, by all probability like what ever is being dished out to him.
I usually press for the reason as to why he likes what he sees as good.
He says….song , dance gaana bajaana..and I tell him how pithamagan and other movies have been beautifully conceived and how the actors have literally lived the characters with heart and soul.
Then my friend would be offended…he would say..” Ennaku pudichuruku avlo dhaan”
This is the very point I am trying to make, no fan will be able to justify other than saying, I like X over Y, because I just like Y and I accept Y even though I cannot give a comprehensive answer.
The fact that one argues that I prefer entertainment and you like art is farce.
What is entertainment you are referring to?
Villu is entertainment? And it is subjective?
Aegan is what I call entertainment and it is subjective?
What are movies?
To call Aegan a movie or villu a movie is itself condemnable.
These “attempt” at filming sequences and calling it a feature film is equivalent to abusing the celebrated film makers. Fine, you may not like NK over shivaji, there are so many movies..take for example Kill Bill(Not an art film), even then I know you would prefer shivaji over a movie like kill bill, or say a better commercial movie like speed, or say spider man.
Ask these questions to a hard core Rajini Fan and he would always say, that he would prefer shivaji over any other film that you can possibly mention any day.This is the point I have been trying to convey, unfortunately I was never given a chance to.
The fact that one would like a movie of his favorite star over every other movie (art, entertainment, commercial, crap , shit) should suggest the point I am trying to make here. The very fact is he has tuned his mind to accept anything and everything from his fav star.
This is what I call stupidity transcending all barriers, that’s all I can say.
Chapter Three: -
Hypothesis-Ajith is a Good actor
This is the most simplest one for me to write on, a very interesting one too. :D
Let me not take too much of time giving an intro who Ajith Kumar is, and his films…so I would straight away jump into my reasons for thinking that he is not even good enough to be considered as good.
Some of the claims by his rasigargal.
1) Valee- Deaf and dumb character.
2) Villain
3) Varalaru
4) Kireedom
5) Mugavari
Valee- I am usually corrected when I say, valee’s acting was not realistic…any performance that is not realistic cannot be called as good. True, he did what was expected But to call it good, he needed to be realistic in his portrayal.
The fact that I am so confident saying this because, I have seen and moved with people who suffer from Hearing and speech impediment. The way they laugh and way they cry, way they communicate are completely unique and nothing was projected in the movie.
Any person, who cannot speak or hear, would have been taught sign language, and no where I have seen people understanding what a person who sits outside the cubicle is talking. I mean, it is statistically very very improbable.
Even then I feel a movie whose main protagonist is a person with hearing and speech impediment and none use sign language or very very minimal sign language is laughable.
In all households who have such a person, almost every one would know sign language, this can be seen in day to day life. None of this happens in Vallee.So, by all means, the performance might have been satisfactory, but it cannot be called as good because as an ACTOR he needs to give his own inputs to the actor. Like I have already discussed, something that is satisfying to the context need not be necessarily good.
Varalaru :-
People who learn bharathnatyam and seen bharathnatyam performances can pretty well conclude, it is most unconvincing portrayal of a bharathnatyam dancer.
All his other feminist mannerism were great, but that was out side of the whole character, he needed to convince me that he is indeed a good, as proclaimed in the movie, bharathnatyam dancer.
Villain- The other abnormal character was good enough, al though movie as a whole was crap.
Kireedom- Please compare with the original.
Kandukondein Kandukondein- I don’t understand why people take up this movie to re iterate that Ajith has done a good job, any body could have done what Ajith did. Even after 10 years in cinema, if ajith can’t do such a simple role in KK, wonder what he can do…
Similarly, all other performances are trivial, irrelevant, unimportant or unimpressive.Take any movie, amarkalam-Again a very ordinary movie of a rogue turning into a good man because of love, almost every other actor in TC has done it.
Dheena- Again a very normal movie about rogues again.
I sincerely hope, the first 2 principles namely Theory of relativity and subjectivity are being heavily used to conclude Ajith is a great actor.
He is not…he is pretty ordinary actor with good looks.
A mass actor fan will not open his ears come what may and would always like his fav actors movies over every other movie…whether it is good, boring, bad.
This is what I call being reason less, and being illogical…
I would really Appreciate people, who say, I like him because I want to like him, there is no sane reason to like him.
UDHAV.
12 comments:
Goodness me UDHAV.
Awesome analysis.
Why don't u start this as a thread in tcc?
yu gave 5 reviews with the great visibity as whose fan yu r.....
can yu give a truthfull review of any vijay sir movie
after that we will accept your crap reviews of that 5 movies
better close this blog and help to survive ur vfn network....
dai shankar
ishallreview is as much against vijay as it is against ajith. Both are the worst things to have happened to tamil cinema.
So better shut ur mouth, imrpove ur english and yeah - f off
ha ha ha best post of i shall review...
udhav??!!! yaaru TCC mod udhava'a?
adeyngappa...super machi
sama post pa "naan neeiyum ajith fan nu nenachutu irunthen :P
-kamalfan/Santhosh/kindalgod/komban/tn23sun/moderator..etc.,
santosh - yeah its the same udhav.
Semma postla?
I too love this one for its extensive coverage :)
@nishanth
dei krish king na enna da? :P
u know one thing i hate u more than anyone i hate in orkut at the same time i like u more than any one in orkut :D
u r a freak who continously making me freak out
i shall review alwayz rocks bcoz of u
now t another great dubbakor as well as great writer joins hands with u
-kamalfan/Santhosh/kindalgod/komban/tn23sun/
santosh
Hehe
My dad's name is krishnan - so krish
I am the king of the world - so king
Thank U santhosh!!
:)
@udhav
wht u r doing man? apart frm orkuting and bloging
stud or work???!!
I work as a Training Analyst.
:)
BTW, How come you have not been Active at all in TCC. or are you?
:P :D
dei adhan ban panitengaley :X
appuram enna? question
Post a Comment