Ghajini: A Classic Bad Movie! review

this film is horrible. what is amusing is that Aamir is a business tycoon and noone has ever seen him. But when he comes to the party, everybody seems to recognize him.

The director Murugadoss made an interesting comment on the 'plagiarism' angle. He stated the only things he copied from Memento were short term memory loss, polaroid photographs with captions and body tattoos; the rest is original. As you have so emphatically mentioned in your review (which I accept without any grievances whatsoever), the director couldn't have been more correct.

Where Memento was a brilliant and truly unforgettable work of cinematic bravado, Ghajini is a crass in-your-face kind of thriller. The comic book feel, I'm sure, wasn't the director's intent. And Amir Khan can be pardoned for telling now and again that he didn't understand Memento at all. Anyone who can act in an inane movie like this, is expected to be beneath an intelligent film like Memento.

If I were Christopher Nolan, I would have been drowning my shocked disbelief in a watering hole right now.

Its high time that we consider Memento-Ghajini issue passe if not for any other technical/logical reasons.Guys,isnt it possible to let cinema be in whatever form it is?If French New Wave is a case of acquired taste then why cannot Ghajini have the same fate.I believe Ghajini belongs to a school of film-making which can be appreciated wihout being prejudiced...its not a matter a taste which pulls a movie down..but its more to do with the level of expectation from its viewers..hence the reason why we get such varied responses.

I think Asin deserved a mention in your write up.Any particular reason to leaving her out?

Sourav, I know what you mean. If Indian masala is not a movement in a manner French new wave is, since there hasn't much theorization happened around it, but it certainly is a form of cinema, that exists at the level of both intent and structure.

Aniruddha's disapproval of the film could also be disapproval of the "Indian masala", perhaps he expects cinema to stimulate him intellectually apart from making him laugh. Or perhaps he has lost the ability to enjoy things which fail to challenge his intelligence.

In a manner of speaking, Ghajini's failure could be rooted in either of two things----filmmakers inability to stimulate Aniruddha sensibly or Aniruddha's lost ability to get stimulated!

So, we can comfortably conclude that the A. R. Murugadoss, Aamir Khan and compnay and Aniruddha and likes of him are to be blamed equally :cool:

@Bikas: Why should the writer of the post expect intelligence in an " Indian masala'"movie..it will surely not stimulate him intellectually.

"Or perhaps he has lost the ability to enjoy things which fail to challenge his intelligence."
Yes this could be a reason.

"So, we can comfortably conclude that the A. R. Murugadoss, Aamir Khan and compnay and Aniruddha and likes of him are to be blamed equally"

Totally agree. :smile:

I hope you mentioned Ghajini's failure with respect to Aniruddha..because I feel with the first day already over..I think it will be a commercial success without an iota of doubt.

@Sourav: probably the author is used to seek intelligence, hence he looks for it everywhere, including the least expected places such as "Indian masala movies".

Second probability could be that he was misled by the publicity.

Third could be, he associates either A. R. Murugudoss :wink: or Jiah Khan :wink: or Aamir Khan or any other key member of the cast-crew with "intelligence"

Fourth, could be he isn't aware of the intricacies of "Indian Masala" movies and he generally associates movies with intelligence.

Your views / comments / notes on Ghajini's failure leads to another pertinent issue of success and failure of a cinematic product. Is it box office collection or Anniruddha's approval / disapproval? Or it is Nikhat Kazmi's 3 1/2 stars that dictate a film's success or failure? The issue is demanding and I feel too humble to comment on it.

Aniruddha could have been the best commentator on his intelligence, and its role (or denial of it) in the Indian film industry :lol:

O Author, Where Art Thou?

Aamir's worst performance....I guess that is reason enuff to watch this film!!!!

The Times of India giving Ghajini 3.5 stars just goes to prove that film "criticism" in India is directly linked with star value. Even SRKs OSO (another cinematic torture) got 4 stars! As did the unberable Kabhi Alvia Na Kehna. People like Nikhat Kazmi have made film criticism a joke.
But it also makes me think whether film criticism should be a profession at all. It does not require any skill, just a command over the language, (and in India PR skills with the big stars), otherwise its just an expression of opinion. Is it not much more difficult writing up a political column or a market report than penning thoughts on a film? Maybe we take "critics" too seriously..maybe its time to stop giving them so much power. (in India at least)

In response to Sourav all I can say is that I am not a humourless intellectual and I like masala films as much as anyone else. I even liked many of Aamir Khans earlier mainstream movies, be it QSQT, Ghulam or Sarfarosh. All we ask is that it has to be done well and at least follow a semblance of logic. Is that too much to expect for a lay audience like me? This film has no logic, things happen randomly according to the convenience of the director. Its preposterous. And yeah, I admit Aamir Khans aggresive marketing raised expectations. The clever marketing is enough to ensure its success.

@Aniruddha:I was blessed in a way to know that "Ghajini" was an out and out south remake.We all knew that.Infact when I saw Surya's Ghajini I was let down during the rolling of credits.It was similar to Fincher's Fight Club's opening credit rolls...I went a bit further and saw how Surya acted..and was amused by his acting when he loses his memory.

So when I went for Aamir's Ghajini,I negative expectation really.The parts which I liked was Aamir-Asin angle and the fight sequeneces.I do have a soft corner for south action sequences..they may be over the top but were executed nicely.

Aniruddha..Why would you look for logic in Ghajini first of all...let it do the trick if it can manage too..I went in tellling myself that I am going to keeo aside all my prejudices and critical habits aside just watch the movie..it helped..trust me..it felt like the 80s..the home video era..and I watching those vengeful dramas..a welcome change or a redux of sorts.

@Bikas: I liked your previous comment..but you seem to have no extreme opninion about the movie yourself..movie like Ghajini can evoke extreme emotions. :smile:

Was reading this entire multi-logue (if there is any such word...) since yesterday... and considering where it has come today, would like to respond to Aniruddha's paragraph right above this...

You talk of logic, but what if for Murugudoss and his ilk, forgetting to include logic in the whole scheme of things is not against the basic tenet of making a successful (read HIT) masala movie? Granted the movie lacks logic, but if people still buys tickets in bulk to watch it, it still remains successful - in a certain limited way, but successful nonetheless.

Inclusion of apparent logic is not something a lot of director's take very seriously. I'm sure you would have seen Ritwik Ghatak's Jukti-Takko-Gappo - that movie, to any average viewer (irrespective of whether he found the absence of logic in Ghajini revolting or not) would appear confusing and bereft of logic.

I guess this all brings us back to the comment Bikas made - the success and failure not of cinema, but a "cinematic product."

Sourav.& Deep- point conceded, not just ghatak but many great filmmakers had a healthy disregard for conventional logic and made some mindblowing films as a result. Think Fellini's 81/2 which was really a collection of surreal Freudian images. Even La Dolve Vita had many wonderful surreal moments.
And practically every major work of Bunueal right up to his last film totally drops reason and rationality to captivating effect.
But those films were far from being mindless or silly. They were so intelligent in their (de)construction that they invite multiple viewings.
No such luck with a badly made movie like Ghajini however, which clearly had little thought behind it and was cynically made with every possible genre element in it to dilute risk and appeal to the maximum possible audience. Really, even while speaking about lack of logic we cannot fall into the trap of comparing apples with oranges by saying great filmmakers also expected a "leap of logic" from their viewers. Ghajini is just a badly made masala film. The problem is not that its a masala movie but that its not a very good masala movie.
Still, I guess Ghajini can be considered timepass in a airy, mindless way. Now if only Aamir would drop all his "arty" pretensions!

@Sourav: In order to prepare myself for Hindi ghajini, I had watched the original Tamil one, probably that's why I'm able to keep my "extreme" emotions at bay.

Secondly, I'm trying to channelize my extreme emotions through reasoning backed by observations. Read my two articles on the film. Normally, I don't write about a film twice, in close succession, this very well could be taken as my extreme reaction:

http://dearcinema.com/ghajinis-worldview-is-primitive-pre-modern/

http://dearcinema.com/ghajini-pits/

@Deep: yes, "cinematic product" better describes such heavily promoted films. And all I can say-any comparison to an Authorial work like Ghatak's film you mention is purely incidental.

@Aniruddha: seems, Murugoss is the emerging Auteur from India :shock:

Anirudhha's review, while being all correct, has failed in one aspect. It fails to see the movie as most of the audience did. Allow me to say why the audience would not think the same way you did, which is perhaps what I would as well, if I fell in the same trap - that of reviewing Bollywood flicks with the same yardstick as Hollywood classics like Memento.

This movie has powerful acting from Aamir, who as Sanjay Singhania, has been able to strike a chord both as the nice young corporate high flier, and as the violent guy obsessed with revenge. Revenge for the brutal killing of his girlfiend whom he loved perhaps more than anything else, and who loved him for what he was, without ever knowing he was the owner of a big telecom firm. She never knew, and yet she loved. That strikes an instant chord.

So with both characters, we see love happening naturally. Women dream of husbands like the suave Aamir in the first half, who loves irrespective of social status. They would surely dream of such a love themselves. As for men, most people would love to have a girlfiend like Kalpana - simple, cheerful and full of life. Asin has put in a good acting performance. When the goons come to get her in her house, her expressions seem quite natural.

Sanjay kills innocents before he gets to the real villian. But does the audience find fault? No. They support him, they back him. That is where the acting works to override all inconsistencies. Its not as if the audience does not notice it. They choose not to, so immersed they get in the movie. They are one with Aamir.

The song, Kaise Tum, leaves haunting images. It is the last time that Sanjay sees Kalpana before she is stabbed (which happens the next time they are together). That parting where she gives him over a lakh rupees after selling her coveted Ambassador, is a powerful scene. The way she is killed and Aamir is left as a half dead with the gash on his head, seems all very real. Can a local goon not do this in real life? Can a man not lose everything suddenly just because his girlfriend took on a powerful ganglord? I think they can. And the audience would relate to this situation. Which is where they would not care about the inconsistencies.

This movie is a loose copy of Memento, and has nothing else to do with it. A movie like Memento won't work here, as to appreciate that kind of storytelling, that kind of mindblowing presentation, one has to have a certain shall we say, experience of watching different stuff. Our audiences are mostly fed on Bollywood and the regional cinema. They are not like Aniruddha or like me, who have seen world cinema closely. And hence they do not think the way we do.

Which is where Aniruddha has to do a re-think. Whom is this review for? Is this for that elite and very small percentage of people who have seen what the world cinema has to show? Or is it for the common guys, the students, the bank employees, the clerks and the peons, the small business owner, and so on, who have never ventured beyond Bollywood, and who are the audience who make or break a movie? I guess such movies need two reviews :) One in which you write as a true blue reviewer and bring out the movie based on facts that u see. And one in which you think like the common junta audience.

@Anirvan - I'll answer to you question you. There can be one and only one review of a movie, or for that matter, any work of art - and that surely and undoubtedly has to be on the movie's artistic merit. Just because the movies boasts of the so-called A-list stars, huge budget and such stuff, that doesn't give the so-called lovers of "masala movies" the right to alleviate to a pedestal where it doesn't belong. Yes, Ghajini is an unabashedly "masala" movie (a terrific diversionary term, quite akin to perhaps Pakistan's war rhetorics to sidestep the issue at hand), but surely that doesn't make it a good movie. I agree Ghajini is a "timepass" movie because I had a good laugh at nearly every frame of the movie, even at the ridiculous Amir-Asin romantic angle which I found cliched at best and inane at worst; but being an admirer of good cinema I was honest to accept the fact that this is a truly terrible movie.

What Ghajini essentially is, is a B-movie albeit A-list actors. Instead of watching Memento, he should have had his sight on Grindhouse. But then, that Murugadoss fellow ain't no Tarantino either.

@Saurav - I'm at a loss of words to hear you calling the Ghajini-Memento argument a passe. What you've failed to realize is that the issue at hand isn't just about Ghajini per se. In attempting to defend the movie you have unfortunately lost sight of the bigger picture. The issue is, to put it bluntly, "plagiarism". In the arts or the sciences, I hope you realize that plagiarism is perhaps as despicable a crime as anything you can think of. I agree there is a thin line between plagiarism and being influenced. But anyone with a semblance of intelligence would manage to appreciate the difference. Plagiarism is copying something without giving the owner of the idea his/her dues, and Bollywood, as we all know, is a place notorious for its serial plagiarist trend. You see a good movie, and all you need to do is do a copy-paste job of the original idea, add a stupid romantic angle, some ludicrous comedy, a horde of unnecessary song-and-dance sequences at foreign locales, and voila, you have your "package". What I fail to understand is, if the producer has enough moolah to organize lengthy shoots at foreign locale, spend crores in hiring some of the most marketable names in Bollywood, and spend such whopping sums on advertising, can't they also pay for the rights instead of just blatantly stealing them? Don't they feel the obligation of doing the right thing for once?

Indeed, as someone aptly said, its better to watch an ordinary work of a great director than the best work of a shitty director. Aniruddha, I'm sure you've realized by now, which I do time and again, like after hearing a Farah Khan announcing that OSO is Oscar-worthy material, that some issue are beneath the scope of 'logical' arguments. After all if someone says he liked a Ghajini or an OSO or a Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gam, that's understandable and perhaps even appreciated for his honestry; but if he starts saying that these movies deserve to be placed on a high pedestal, all one can do is shake one's head in disbelief and move on since that person hasn't really any idea what a good work of art really is.

@Shubhajit: you hit the bull's eye here "some issue are beneath the scope of ‘logical’ arguments". The entire "ghajini" debate is based and the praises for it seems to be based on the premise that cinema as a medium was born on December 25th.

No doubt, people can very well enjoy a Ghajini but that alone doesn't make it a great film. I'm sure had Aamir not been in the film, its fate would have been entirely different.

@Anirvan, the idea of two yardsticks and two reviews doesn't appeal to me. Aniruddha shouldn't write a review keeping in mind what sort of people are going to read it, instead, he should only do what he has been just doing. A review is what a reviewer thinks of a film, not an anticipation of how audience will react to a film.

Nevertheless, the idea of double role of reviewers is as interesting as watching Sanjay Singhania the chairman of airvoice and the commoner, who is ready to pose for a "chaddi" commercial in "Ghajini".

@shubhajit...by passe i mean that i has been done to death already...we need to take a break from that.

@Anirvan Ghosh: You beautifully explained the manner in which the movie like Ghajini should be watched..dissecting the scenes..but if you are an elitist or the small percentage of people exposed to world cinema..then thats a different story altogether..you should not be talking about Ghajini at all..we cant expect Ghajini to be avant garde cinema...i mean what else did you expect from Ghajini?Dont tell me you watched Ghajini(I assume you watched Ghajini) for something else other than the apparent outcome.

And we are back to square one again with the eternal question WHAT IS A REVIEW ?

Anirban.

This is a good review and all I can say is that it was a total disappointment and more soc comsidering that it was from Aamr Khan, who is known to be a perfectionist, who made a directorial debut with "TZP" and went on to launch his nephew in "Jaane Tu Yah Jaane Na," which did very well. But with this one, he has failed - to me atleast he has.

Sorry I meant Anirudha.

Hi Anirudha.

I have put up a talking point on this under "Bollywood" in the forum section.

'boring romance' :shock: what?? did u even watch the movie??? no offense :wink:

all i can say is this is how u guys seem to get comments right?? u take a 'Not so bad movie" and thrash it like its perhaps the worst movie ever made and create some intense discussion on your site :mrgreen: . This in essentially achieves two things..
1) By criticizing so much even those who don't want to leave a comment would leave one :smile:
2) You will prove once again that u belong to the so called genius reviewer section :mrgreen:

and if u guys can not see the original cute love story in the film and when the whole audience cheers every time aamir fights and wants vengeance..u sure want to prove a point..good!

see "we all like fairy tales not because it says dragons exist but because they say dragons can be beaten.".
..as i see it u saw logic n reasoning behind every scene that u actually forgot to enjoy the movie which countless ordinary people like me did.. I'm not asking you to leave ur brains behind for every movie but you can atleast review each movie instead of trying to prove a point..and we all thought Rajeev masand was mean..of wait a minute he even gave 3 stars...yup u proved a point :mrgreen:

I totally disagree with Anirudha's review ...ok I agree that its not a brilliant movie but was very entertaining. Am not a fan of any khan's but Iiked the movie as its different from usual bollywood movie. People watch movies not to find any logic in it but to get relax for 2-3 hours. If Ghajini is a crap so is all Dhoom's !!

I don't know if u agree with me or not it was better crap movies like welcome, sing is king, rnbdj etc which is not technically very strong. If some one tries some thing different encourage it support it...

HI Aniruddha,

I totally agree to your points. its a horrible, comical, illogical flick that just failed to strike a chord. Amir's agressive marketing and promotion aroused curiosity and expectation. But then, we all know how the film deals with the main issue ( Anterograde Amnesia).

The technical aspects of the film excells. The Cinematography by Ravi KC and Sound Design by Amrit Pritam could be termed as the only saving grace of this flick.

Hope to see Amir in more believable roles in Dhobi Ghat and 3 Idiots !!

The difference between what I write now, and what I wrote two days back, is the fact that I have watched the movie in question in between; and also read all that the motley crowd of cine-goers/commentators have had to write about it above.

And believe me there is a deafening similarity in the reactions of most people who've taken the time to comment on this site (outside of, how do I put it, the regular writers/commentators in this portal) with the people who turned up to see the movie last night in a Mumbai theatre; they had nothing to do with whether Ghajini was good cinema or bad cinema; they did not care about the inconsistency in a Hariyanvi accented villain who dressed like South Indian villain from the nineties or the over the top theatrics of a predominantly South-Indian cast; or the million other inconsistencies in the plot/script/storyline of the movie. Instead their faces glowed every time Aamir Khan beat a goon to pulp; they whistled every time he romanced Asin round a tree.

My point is just this. A vast majority of the people turning up to see the movie are finding it worth their money. That also doesn't take away from the fact that this is bad cinema. Being a Masala Film is no sin, but being a badly made film, Masala or otherwise, is. But how does one run the movie down when it clearly seems to strike a chord with a majority of the audience? I do not expect Aniruddha or anyone else to lower their standards keeping in mind the target audience of a movie - the piece then, would not be a review but a commentary on the trade prospects of the movie.

But I'm afraid, after this reaction from a majority of the viewing public, one could not also expect a Murugudoss to change anything about his school of movie making.

One's personal liking or disliking any work of art has no relation to the artistic credibility of a work. Just because a Ghajini or an Om Shanti Om "strikes a chord" with viewers doesn't make them good movies. Similarly, if those same millions do not like a Pather Panchali or a Taxi Driver, do not make them a bad movie. Please understand that populist sentiment and artistic worth are two separate things altogether.

A reviewer's job is to critically evaluate a movie, not praise it just because its a box office sensation. Had that been the case, the yardstick to measure the Godards, the Kurosawas, the Satyajit Rays and the John Fords of the world would have been how much money their movies have brought in; and that would be the death of art.

On the same principle, just because a John Grisham sells far more than a James Joyce, or a Karan Johar movie becomes a bigger hit than a Budhhadeb Dasgupta movie, do not in any way mean any damn thing. It just shows our limitations as readers or viewers. If tomorrow 90% people call earth flat, the fact would still be it is spherical.

I agree with what Deep and Subhajit has to add. Especially because there is a difference between viewers/readers response and art/cinema criticism. The former views the medium with a generalized vocab regarding the mediums existence and hence simply watches instead of seeing. And most of the time can't provide an evidence, constructive criticism to there liking or disliking of a film.

So there is a difference between viewer’s response and criticism.

What a film review should denote, here is something Harry Tuttle, a French critic has to say:-

As far as film criticism is concerned, the ontological values to be evoked in a review should refer to what makes a movie become real cinema, what turns a literary plot into a visual story, what turns a Broadway stage musical into cinema about dancing.

Standards are arbitrary. But once established they become standards, conventions, the yardsticks of measurement. Earth is spherical by such a standard (that 'objectively' differentiates a flat plane from a sphere -- more objectively put, the the equations for these two different types of surfaces are completely different; and you can present the two generic equations to anybody for appraisal.) But, how do you arrive at such a standard for a movie? The standards of beauty (or the search for it) is the basis of any aesthetics. But, no aesthetics is universal. So, ascribing an ontological value to some cultural product is meaningless. Isn't it? Cult is just what it is -- counter culture. And culture is always consensus -- so ontological value is always shifting between and inside subculture groups.

Anyway... the first thing about cinema (what I at least understood having been a student of cinema studies and filmmaking, and now a cinematographer) is this is a pop(ular)art form. It is meant to entertain people. Entertainment may mean completely different things to different (sections of ) people. Going for a long drive on the bike on a chilly winter day, in the breeze, may be the most perfect entertainment for me (at a certain age, phase, marital status, financial status etc). For you, reading the latest New York Times best seller novel while sipping your favourite whiskey with an Yahel trance in the background may be the perfect. So, there are cinemas -- different standards, different languages, different subcultures. And film studies always try to see how different subcultures get entertained by different films. And a David Dhawan film can at times be championed over a Ray movie for achieving some things for the particular subculture group(which the Ray movie could not be achieve).

I personally believe there is no good or bad art, nor is there any true or false art. It is all a matter of consensus. A subculture group is entertained by a certain film means only one thing -- the film has achieved what it was supposed to do. It is and will be the best film for that subculture group.

Quite true anirban, the judgment for an equation through an induction or deduction could always be laid out. So a mathematician could prove his argument right or wrong on the set of the principles laid out that can be send for an appraisal, and hence deemed- objective. Because a disagreement was solved, that of subjective pov that plagues any form of aesthetic judgment.

However, when it does come to a matter of taste, there are bound to be disagreement, and secondly in a matter of taste there are no right or wrong. But that does not define that there is no objectivity or a standard to see a movie. Because every film has its share of history, tradition, culture in short a genesis. A set of tools, parameters and attributes that are intrinsic to the medium exist in order of us to ' see' a film.

So at least for me, in a matter of taste, one cannot offer a inductive or deductive reasons to prove his point, but yes, on the other hand can provide evidences in manner that represent the ontological values of the medium per se. In case of camera- reality and in case of cinema- mise-en-scene.

That in the end could later define an outcome or an outlook for a film for a review or the basis on which I personally see a film.

Quite true anirban, the judgment for an equation through an induction or deduction could always be laid out. So a mathematician could prove his argument right or wrong on the set of the principles laid out that can be send for an appraisal, and hence deemed- objective. Because a disagreement was solved, that of subjective pov that plagues any form of aesthetic judgment.

However, when it does come to a matter of taste, there are bound to be disagreement, and secondly in a matter of taste there are no right or wrong. But that does not define that there is no objectivity or a standard to see a movie. Because every film has its share of history, tradition, culture in short a genesis. A set of tools, parameters and attributes that are intrinsic to the medium exist in order of us to ' see' a film.

So at least for me, in a matter of taste, one cannot offer a inductive or deductive reasons to prove his point, but yes, on the other hand can provide evidences in manner that represent the ontological values of the medium per se. In case of camera- recording of reality and in case of cinema- mise-en-scene.

That in the end could later define an outcome or an outlook for a film for a review or the basis on which I personally see a film for their merits that could call it artistic or a sheer work of trash.

Quite true anirban, the judgment for an equation through an induction or deduction could always be laid out. So a mathematician could prove his argument right or wrong on the set of the principles laid out that can be send for an appraisal, and hence deemed- objective. Because a disagreement was solved, that of subjective pov that plagues any form of aesthetic judgment.

However, when it does come to a matter of taste, there are bound to be disagreement, and secondly in a matter of taste there are no right or wrong. But that does not define that there is no objectivity or a standard to see a movie. Because every film has its share of history, tradition, culture in short a genesis. A set of tools, parameters and attributes that are intrinsic to the medium exist in order of us to ' see' a film.

So at least for me, in a matter of taste, one cannot offer a inductive or deductive reasons to prove his point, but yes, on the other hand can provide evidences in manner that represent the ontological values of the medium per se. In case of camera- recording of reality and in case of cinema- mise-en-scene. And how any film comes to realizing the truth of the camera and weaving an expression that is cinematic through the mise-en-scene.

That in the end could later define an outcome or an outlook for a film for a review or the basis on which I personally see a film for their merits that could call it artistic or a sheer work of trash.

So I don't think ascribing an ontological value to some cultural product meaningless at all.

First of all, sorry for posting three comment… my mistake (please ignore the first two) don’t know about the popular element Anirban, form whatever little I Know about the medium as an eternal student of the medium- as a cinephile.

This is something that was never the case or never laid out facts about the medium.
Lumiere brothers never set out to establish an entertainment industry, DW Griffith first film ‘The BIRTH OF NATION’ if you seen has a ‘Title Card’ explaining its views on art and merit, Dada Saheb Phalke inspired by a film wanted to recreate a magic of our epics using a tableau that could lets say resemble a Raja Ravi Verma painting to offer a glimpse more than what literature or something could do so. But sadly in all three cases it backfired

1) Lumiere though viewed cinema as a popular tool could not help shake of his pessimism about its reach and power he once remarked “ Cinema is an invention with no future” also seen in Godard’s contempt
2) Dada Saheb Phalke who cold be called the first unofficial cinephile of our country instead of popularizing cinematic mise-en-scene, laid the foundation of the epic form and our Bollywood industry. The love of former in narrative and the mise-en-scene of his earlier films is something that we still can’t shake off. And he died penniless.
3) D.W. Griffith, invented the first set of classic construction, but it become the base for Hollywood to still give us entertainment in his name, and he died penniless.

So…personally, I could be wrong, one could not say that “Cinema was just meant to entertain”. So at least the fore founders of our medium never lay out that the sole purpose of cinema is to entertain. It’s a popular form of art without a doubt. Yet, to call the sole purpose to entertain people is to take away any form of mystery that medium still has.

A reading of David Dhawan film (text) can be championed for maybe achieving something more than a Ray film (text), but definitely not the factor of cinema. Because the tools (camera) with he creates his mise-en-scene and the final product is definitely much less inferior to the worst works of Ray. It may offer more cultural readings for people as text but on the final expression of cinematic- nothing.

So yeah entertainment maybe a different thing from people to people but it definitely does not lay the fact that a film is just made for a certain subculture group. Just because one is not trained to “see” a film or rather does not give his 100 percent while watching a film I’m sure things he/she won’t be able to see things at all.

Its interesting to see how a trash B grade entertainer like Ghajini inspired such detailed, intellectual reactions from all sides, both for and against. Ironic... but there it is. That proves that Ghajini irrespective of its quality would have had something in it to evoke ( as a couple of my friends here put it) "extreme reactions". Look, all I can say is that neither director Murgadoss nor Aamir Khan are idiots. The film like many other Bollywood blockbusters is a carefully calculated product constructed to appeal to the widest possible audience. Absolutely nothing wrong in that. We "self proclaimed" reviewers do not stand above the common audience and pass judgments on them. But what irritated me and many others here is the sheer carelessness in filmmaking evident in countless scenes. Nothing, absolutely nothing here had any semblance of consistency. Look at the villian Ghajini. He is all evil and despicable, yet hes not even a character. Who is he? Where does he stay? Why should he, the head of a big pharma firm hang around in slums? Why does he pronounce the words "short term memory loss" as if hes hearing the term for the first time?? The whole film was cynically made this careless way because the filmmakers knew they could get away by making such rubbish. Also Aamir Khans "arty" pretensions are highly annoying. Why cant he just admit that its a simple mainstream masala movie designed only to entertain? Now I don't write film reviews for a living but I am a honest to god film buff. And what appalls me the most is how most of our mainstream critics are suffering from a herd mentality. Just because its Aamir Khan and inspired (however dubiously) from Memento it has to be good! Praise follows praise and Ghajini becomes an acclaimed film. I understand that these film critics need to interview stars for a living but what pathetic bootlicking! Anyway, to each his own..

ghajini was crap. bu aamirs acting was great,amazing..... but the movie is crap, predictable story and lots of voilence.not for kids or pregnant woman.

@ Aniruddha

"But it also makes me think whether film criticism should be a profession at all. It does not require any skill, just a command over the language, (and in India PR skills with the big stars), otherwise its just an expression of opinion. Is it not much more difficult writing up a political column or a market report than penning thoughts on a film? Maybe we take “critics” too seriously..maybe its time to stop giving them so much power. (in India at least)"??!!!

Why would you want to read 'reviews' in TOI and then complain about reviewing itself?!! Most mainstream media houses do not encourage intellectual engagement (or even, association) with the world of Bollywood. And majority of the populace is blindfolded to that view. The media, Bollywood and the political mechanisms are very comfortable with the state of affairs as they are. The facade of easy-going well-being that the market has tried to germinate into the populace has also succeded quite well, which is essential for Bollywod to survive. Why strive behind artistic creation when the majority of the audience is satisfied with the air-conditioning and caramel popcorn? TOI is just another vehicle to inject this state of coma. If you are serious about studying films, I'd suggest looking for material elsewhere. And please, do not make statements like the one quoted above. The language of films didn't come into being through experimentation only, it took a hell a lot of theorising by devoted cinephiles (reviewers) to provide us with a structure for studying and appreciating films. Take a look at the history of any major film movement and you will understand why critics are needed. Kindly do not make the mistake of staying under the cliched assumption of critics as a distinct (and unnecessary) race from cinephiles!

I would say that criticism is even autonomous in the sense that a bad film can produce a great review. Criticism is a form of literature. Just because it comes after the film does not mean that criticism should be subservient to it. George Orwell has written a brilliant essay on James Hadley Chase (on Miss Blandish), which does not mean that Chase's writing is more important than Orwell's. Criticism can use the film as a pretext to reflect on something larger. Good criticism is not simply good language but also sound argument. Sound argument is not easy to produce and reflecting on large issues on the basis of a film is a difficult and valuable exercise. A good critic does not 'criticize' but produces a 'critique'.

Johnson- As much as I would like to, I cannot escape reading reviews from TOI or its ilk. You open the Saturday times and there is a review. You log on to Rediff and there is another person giving his/her two pennyworth on some release. You switch on the TV and you have some anchor who almost certainly knows less about world cinema than even you and me trying to appear intelligent on the week's latest release.
The tragedy is film criticism in India has been hijacked by these mainstream critics who dont even have complete knowledge to back up their assumptions.

The true reviewer who produces an intelligent critique is articulate, well informed and scholarly, but he is sidelined and overshadowed by these attention seeking scribes/anchors. I am not belitteling the profession of film criticism as a whole but was only expressing my impatience with the section who pander to these big stars by calling them to their studios and newsrooms a week before a big release and then give high ratings to a film as they cannot anatagonize the star now.
What we really need are the academic critics to come out in the limelight more often, as they have no vested interest except a true love for and interest in the art of cinema.
The situation in the West is very different as most major critics there operate independent from the influence of the studios and stars. We can get there, if the monopoly on TOI and its counterparts can be broken.

so u are the true reviewer who has seen it all ?? :mrgreen:

when will people realize that art or rather even films are subjective to ones own tastes and perceptions..and no one can claim to say that this is how films have to be...and for all Ur genius claims I still cant stand the 1 star u gave ...sure man u proved a point...and we all agree u are the ace reviewer who has seen it all..and i wish u direct a film and succeed in holding the audience for the entire duration..if u failed I'm sure you'd say
" they are all too dumb to understand good cinema"

and like someone above said...its perhaps the best way to get comments " Thrash a not so bad movie like its perhaps the worst movie ever made" and guess wat u did succeed...this is the 38th comment! well done!

@Kamskans

Exactly this is what the New Wave filmmakers did in France, the children of Cahiers and their friends. They started as reviewers, stepped up as critics (though I don't think they saw critiquing any more upclass than reviewing), and then got bombarded by the filmmakers, stars and their stooges. Truffaut was even banned from attending the festival in Cannes, in 1958, for his attacks on events he considered 'bloated, commercial and stultified', as a critic. Next year, at the same festival, Truffaut's debut feature won him the best director's award. His friends did not lag behind.

They were bullied as critics. So, they made it a point to show the world what filmmaking was. Of course, there are multiple ways of making movies. A fascist stance is never appreciated. But, talking about cinema needs a training, a training in seeing. And critics have proved many times that they could make movies -- even blockbusters; they even made one of the most popular filmmaking movement -- the French New Wave. Satyajit Ray started as a critic, while B R Chopra started as film reviewer. They have proved. Lots many critics have proved. How many times more, must we prove our points by making films ourselves?

Ghajini is a superhit. We are trying to understand the culture, the audience's mindset, that made it such a superhit. One of the reasons for the existence of a site like DearCinema is that only -- to understand the film-viewing culture. Without discussion that cannot happen. In Ghajini, there are major deviations from a mainstream/masala ways of filmmaking. There are lack of finesse that a masala film must take care of. And the film is built on the major USP of Aamir Khan's stardom. Stardom -- something that most filmmakers and film scholars thought, could not kick a film anymore to the blockbuster chart (in spite of OSO's success in 2007.) But, they theory of a dead stardom is probably proved wrong again.

Ghajini is a spectacle, and needs a study as regards its viewership.

@Kamskans

I am guessing you haven't read the comment guidelines, kindly take a look at them before posting. Personal attacks are not allowed. They simply show that you do not have an argument to make and are simply venting.

Coming to your lamentation, say you make a literate villager in India to read Kafka. Chances are he'll probably toss it up after a glance. Yes, every form of art is sujected to one's taste and perceptions, but, that DOESN'T prove or negate its worth. Nobody is providing formulas to make a film, (except in some mainstream ventures). Every film is unique. But, its worth can only be judged through the parameters created by years of practice and its rank within its genre/canon. And kindly spare us the cliched nonsense of "critic as creator"! A critic is every bit an original creator as the artist him/herself.

In an article written in 1965 Ray says "In my view, a critic performs a useful purpose only when he is able to build a bridge between the director and the audience".

In the case of "Ghajini" things seem little different. Here, the bridge seems to be missing between the director (if the film belongs to him) and the critic and audience have to step in to restore (or build) a bride.

Isn't is more or less the case with mainstream Hindi film industry (could be the similar with Telugu or Tamil as well). Aren't we used to differentiating critical success from commercial success? The films which win critical acclaims such as national awards, or awards at festivals often fail to secure a release, while special categories like "best wholesome entertainer" had to be created to accommodate commercial cinema.

Mainstream media's endorsement of "ghajini" (and films like this) could be much more than simple "return of favour" to stars. Since mass media such as TOI or a CNN IBN cater to the same audience as Bollywood does, it's but natural that their critics align their sensibilities with that of masses, and conform to popular opinion.

It's after all a fact that "Ghajini" has caught popular imagination. Masses as well as popular critics admire it.

Nothing stops a flawed and regressive film, to making moolah at box office. I don't think it's a fair expectation on the part of us to expect a critic/reviewer to cross check his comments/opinion with box office collections of the film in question.

Not necessarily only a bad film does well at ticket counter. But when a film wins over critics and masses alike, it makes a great film.

Not being a TOI or CNN IBN or rediff, gives us complete freedom to take an alternative stand.

oh sorry about that :oops:

Shame !! Shame!! Shame!!
Its a disgrace on every front. Muragadoss doesnt have consciousness or soul. I dont know any organization to whom I can report. I have contacted Christopher Nolan. I dont know any legal framework present in India that has enforcement who will punish this sort of plagiarism. Justice folks !!

Ghajini provokes extreme reactions for a simple reason - it's apparent ordinariness as a movie coupled with it's awesome, almost legendary mega-success at a commercial level! From Hum Aapke Hain Kaun to Om Shanti Om, every movie which the masses have loved and rewarded with blockbuster status, have similarly horrified dozens of critics who mourned (what they saw as) the death of Indian cinema.

What makes such reactions irrelevant is the fact (call it a sad fact if you will) that the large majority of the Indian audience do not search for logic or rationality or even artistic merit in a movie. Whenever a movie manages to connect to their heart, appeal to their strongest emotions in whatever form - love or hate - they are ready to worship it. Ghajini, somehow, has managed to evoke both love and hate in a single movie, it has made the junta laugh and cry - and the result is not only megabucks but also widespread love and appreciation. As long as this quality of the Indian public remains, such movies will continue to be happily made and even more happily watched, cocking a snook at all the shocked doomsayers.

I will say nothing on the merits or demerits of the movie since I feel that the movie succeeded with whatever intention it had and my admiring or demeaning it is of no value. I would however like to make one point VERY STRONGLY to Aniruddha, who keeps complaining about Aamir's 'arty pretensions'. Aniruddha, you write:

'Also Aamir Khans “arty” pretensions are highly annoying. Why cant he just admit that its a simple mainstream masala movie designed only to entertain?'

I request you to please read/listen to ANY of the dozens of interviews Aamir has given before the release of Ghajini. He has again and again, repeatedly, to the point of exhaustion, said that GHAJINI IS A COMPLETE MAINSTREAM COMMERCIAL MASALA MOVIE MADE ONLY FOR ENTERTAINMENT. He has clearly stated that he has done it ONLY BECAUSE HE WANTS TO DO ALL KINDS OF MOVIES AND ALL KINDS OF ROLES, AND NOT JUST CATER TO A PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE AUDIENCE. He has also said DON'T EXPECT ANY LOGIC FROM GHAJINI, IT IS NOT THE KIND OF MOVIE I AM USUALLY A PART OF.

I respect your personal views on the movie, but please do not run down a person or his 'attitude' without even trying to know what his attitude is.

:evil: :evil: :evil: All those who are badmouthing Ghajini are undoubtedly either SRK or Akshay fans. If logic is what u look in films then oh pleazzzz go back to your homes and open your sociology or maths textbooks. Its very natural for losers to condemn hardworking winners like Aamir machaan. The only similarities b/w Memento & Ghajini is the "short-term memory loss" and Miss Anuradha, don't you watch news channels???????? Aamir said before hand in his media interactions not to expect an OSCAR like film, IT WAS MEANT PURELY FOR ENTERTAINMENT. But yes Surya's body language as a person badly in search of revenge for his love and a victim of short term memory loss is better than that of Aamir but he has Aamir has done his job equally as good

There you go. I admire the genius of the person who first used the term 'masala movie' - it can be used to justify anything, even illogic/non-art/nonsense!

I did not use the term 'masala movie' to justify anything. I only replied to Aniruddha's comment in which he stated that he is annoyed with Aamir Khan because he allegedly has 'arty pretensions'.

Aniruddha said: 'Why cant he just admit that its a simple mainstream masala movie designed only to entertain?’

I pointed out that Aamir Khan has admitted exactly this fact, not once but dozens of times in his interviews, and requested him to check what Aamir has said before criticizing him.

Ohh God!! seems that this movie have been very widely n deeply talked about after all these comments which saw above..but i really dont confrom to ur stance aniruddha on this movie..Once if u stop comparing it with momento and just take it as another indian masala movie then all ur allegations will come to an end...wheather u believe it or not but still majority in india prefers watching these kinds of masala movies which will b an complete entertaining package for them n which will not reqiure them to use their grey materials even for once...Over all it is a good blend of drama,action and romance and a good time pass of 2 n half hours....

Hi Natasha..even I enjoy watchin masala movies with a popcorn n pepsi in hand..but perhaps my expectations were raised after Aamir's Taare Zameen Par which was a delightful n sensitive movie. Following up with such a mindless movie was not something I had expected, I felt that the premise could have been utilised better. Still a hit is a hit and Ghajini is definitely a big success..am curious to see what Aamir will come up with next...