The Top 10 Films of Bollywood: 2008 story

Hi!Seems like this thread still has some way to go.So a few observations based on films I have watched recently......as I mentioned earlier, once upon a time ,long long ago, I used to love watching Hollywood films.Then I discovered Nouvelle Vague and Neo Realism.Now I am coming around to the belief that the greatest cinematic adventures happened between 1920-1950.The post war period coinciding with the rise of Hollywood/Radio/Newspapers/Television has gradually led to a dumbing down of all the arts...What is truth? asked Jesting Pilate and would not stay for an answer.I believe we were closer to the truth in the cinema/fiction/poetry/drama of the Pre WW2 years.The Great American Dream has given birth to a 'virtual reality' which has replaced the rich imagination of Eisenstein//Dreyer/Renoir/Kafka/Proust/Joyce/Picasso/Matisse with the gimmickry of the film makers/writers/painters/pop stars/rock stars//tv(ugh)artists who have drowned all the arts in an ocean of mediocrity....
SOME BOOKS FILMS AND MUSIC FROM THE 'GOLDEN YEARS'
BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN/ALEXANDER NEVSKY/IVAN THE TERRIBLE--EISENSTEIN
PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC/VAMPYR/DAY OF WRATH--CARL DREYER
METROPOLIS/M-FRITZ LANG
BOUDU SAVED FROM DROWNING/GRAND ILLUSION/RULES OF THE GAME -RENOIR
MISS OYU/LIFE OF OHARU-KENJI MIZOGUCHI
MUSIC!
BILLIE HOLIDAY/LOUIS ARMSTRONG/CHARLIE PARKER/DIZZY GILLESPIE/CHARLES MINGUS/ERIC DOLPHY/THELONIOUS MONK/DUKE ELLINGTON/MILES DAVIS/SONNY ROLLINS/JOHN COLTRANE
BOOKS!
PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN-JAMES JOYCE
THE TRAIL -FRANZ KAFKA
FICCIONES-JORGE LUIS BORGES
LOLITA-VLADMIR NABOKOV
LIGHT IN AUGUST-WILLIAM FAULKNER
THE MAN WITHOUT QUALITIES-ROBERT MUSIL(PERHAPS THE GREATEST WORK OF ART OF THE 20TH CENTURY)
CIAO!

Just wanted to tell you all know how much I appreciate your postings guys.
Found you though google!

Nice thread! Revoked to life after al log time thanks to Ajay. I feel if a film (or any piece of art or whatever) becomes too personal (like Tarkovsky's) it starts denying the basic aspects of communication. It of course works as the source material for the auteur's psyche. But, such films are shown and seen with a kind of religious halo attached -- the kind of halo the pop art tries to erase. I am against any such religion. Maybe that's why I stand to prefer pop-art, even Hollywood sometimes, to Takvosky. Especially when I feel cinema is just another tool for mass-communication.

Who says cinema is an art? Bazin emphatically showed cinemas as impure things. But, again, who says Bazin had the last word? Nobody is god. Can someone really be without any religion? Really?

after a long time I hv come accross a website like this. Yes this debate is interesting and is necessary in todays perspective. I agree with Ajay, but as we all know One man's meat is another's poison. The joy which we get by enjoying a Ray or A.kurosawa film may not be the same for another person according to whom Ghajini may be the best film ever seen. We shouldnot force him to accept that what we see is best. But quality is one thing which will stand the test of time

Hi Srikant,
I did not include mirror. Was referring to Stalker, Nostalgia and Sacrifice. I do not deny for a moment that Nostalgia is an experience which few should miss. But like Sacrifice, even the highly erudite viewer would have difficulty grasping the movie. Its admirable that Tarkovsky was exploring the limits of spirituality through cinema (especially in Sacrifice) but he did that in a opaque and mystifying way. Despite Nostalgia's very slow pace I found it difficult to keep up with the master and was left scratching my head.
Of course Andrei Reublev and Solaris were accesible masterpieces and in their respective genres (historical and sci fi) unmatched in their perfection even today. Mirror was also a stunning film and unlike his final films made perfect sense upon retrospect. But will definitely take your advice and watch Nostalgia a second time.

From Singh is Kinng to Nostalghia. Do you guys believe that discussions/reviews/festivals can generate curiosity in a new generation of filmgoers to take the first few steps on this journey? I believe it is possible and worthwhile......

Aniruddha,

I'm not sure if you include Mirror when you say "his last 3 works" (hopefully not) but I felt Nostalghia was everything Tarkovsky stood for. Yes, I felt Sacrifice was a verbose exercise from a man who sort of knew that this was his last film. And I don't think Nostalghia (like all other Tarkovsky films) is meant to be "understood". Yes from Killers to Rublev (and Solaris to an extent) were meant to engage the intellect but after Mirror, all the films are an experiential journey. Like the mesmerizing candle sequence - no logic behind it, all internal motivations alone. The audience completes the film rather than following it.

I'm sure you know all that and since you love Tarkovsky, I feel that you'll adore Nostalghia on a second viewing. And whoa... the page starts with Singh is King and has come to Tarkovsky... Great thing

Thanks for clarifying. Yes you rightly mentioned that it is not always possible to express oneself accurately in the comments section. I would suggest that you write an article on any film(s) of your choice and in that way contribute more actively to the site.
Read your thoughts with interest. I suppose you are saying that many great Hollywood films wallow in the same violenvce they so strongly condemn. That is true perhaps. Hollywood is a dream factory and has to have a minimum entertainment value to justify the budget. What I like about "popular" auteurs like Scorcese and Altman (and Tarantino) is how effortlessly they combine art and pulp, its like walking a tightrope. It cant be easy. Coen Brothers may be obsessed with violence but their roots lay in the ultra low budget thriller Blood Simple which was just good cinema.

Of course masters like Bergman and Tarkovsky are universally admired and referenced by one and all, I love their works, but sometimes even these great directors have been guilty of over indulgence. Tarkovsky's Nostalgia was such a film. It had haunting moments but was also a test of patience, especially in its baffling finale. Yes the audience has to rise to the director's intellect , but no director can afford to sit in his ivory tower lost in a vision which few (if anyone) understands. I am not questioning Tarkovsky's genius. I just think he had little regard or respect for the viewer in his last 3 works. And that is not done.

Hey guys! Sorry! It was not my intention to sound condescending.But if I came across like that ,then I would like to appologise.I hope you accept it, so that we can carry on with the debate.I also agree that 'cliched direction and acting ' is too general a statement, but the nature of the comments section is such that one tends to be brief .Especially if one is surfing multiple tabs,the temptation to submit and move on is always there....
Anirudh,I do not criticise a film becuse it seems fashionable.What would be the point of that? Maybe, instead of good and bad I should have used the terms popular and auteur.The intention
of a film maker making a popular movie is to please the maximum number of people.The presence of stars,expensive sets,huge budgets,makes it essential that the tastes of the target
audience have to be kept in mind.Since the masses are only comfortable with stuff they can easily understand and connect with,the script writer,director and actors have little room for
experimenting with complex or pathbreaking material .The end result is safe and simplistic cinema.I do not deny that a great deal of work and talent goes into the better popular cinema.I mentioned Sholay or The Godfather because they are better examples of this kind of ciinema.On the other hand the cinema of Bergman,Bunuel or Ray works differently.Every artist desires an audience.But here safety and the taste of the audience is not an overriding factor.Someone,probably Bergman said" it is not the duty of an artist to pull himself down to the level of the audience,the audience has to pull itself up to the level of the artist".For me this is the essential difference between popular and auteur cinema.The cinema of Scorcese,Coppola,Altman,the Coen brothers may be technically impressive,but it does not break new ground.It panders to the masses. It suffers from the Hollywood's bad habit of glamourising violence ,even when the overt message of their films is non-violent.
As a teenager ,Taxi Driver,Godfather 1&2 and China Town were my favorite films.Robert De Niro was God! "you talkin' to me ?" I must have mumbled these lines to myself hundreds of times in front of a mirror.I grew up watcing Hollywood films.I pased through the usual phases of idolising Clint eastwood,Richard Burton,Steve Mcqueen,Jack nicholson,Dustin Hoffman, Audrey Hepburn,Meryl Streep etc. Just as Taxi Driver was my most memorable chilhood film,a chance viewing of Pathar Panchali and Roshomon in a festival was the door leading to my love for cinema as an adult.Very soon I completely lost interest in films made in Hollywood or Bombay.Flms like 400 Blows,Breatless,Dairy of a Country Preist and Jalsagar had me in a thrall.Chabi Biswas in Jalsagar!Caude Laydu in Dairy of a Country Preist!The timeless charm of Marcello and La Dolce Vita!
Its not that I dont like modern cinema.Kiarostami,Majidhi,Won kar wai ,Kasturica,Szabo,Innaritu are wonderful filmmakers.I love the magnificence of Zhang Yimou,although his plots are distinctly hollywood in nature! I am especially fond of East European cinema.Some how their films always hit a chord.My favorite cinema are the 6 films of Andrei Tarkovsky.I wish I could enter into their ethereal beauty and touch perfection for a moment.....
PS. As a college student I went with a group of friends to watch Apocalypse Now with enormous expectations.We were all high on beer and big fans of the Doors.I remember somebody from
the audience,obviously high,dancing on the thin rails of the upper balcony while all the ladies gasped at the fool hardiness of it all.Those were the days! But after the initial high of the music,the explosions and the sexily shot Vietnamese terrairn I found myself bored with the proceedings.The story meandered like the river.Martin sheen looked lost.Robert Duvall was way over the top and Brando frankly was not interested in the proceedings.I was surprised that a film which was hyped and reviewed as an anti- war film seemed to glamorise that war so much.The" horror "for me was that it completely covered up the horrors of
war and turned the episodes into glamorous set peices of violence."I love the smell of napalm in the morning".Only Hollywood could have thought up a line like that...
Finally.. finally... Dearcinema is the first good cinema portal I have come across in india.Keep up the good work!

Sorry! I meant, @ Ajay, in my previous post :grin:

@ Pratik

That is true. The days of the classics are over. But, I am eager to know why you see Apocalypse Now as a mediocre movie (btw, the word 'movie' -- doesn't it carry a pulpish smell itself, as opposed to the more classical sounding 'film'?) It will be really nice if you post an article critiquing Apocalypse Now as a mediocre work of art.

Let us not go against established works and trends just because it seems stylish to do so. When a creative work such as a movie, book or album becomes a huge hit there has to be some merit in it which we may have missed. We are all prisoners of our own subjectivity, lets not generalize.

Hi Ajay
"Godfather,Apocalypse Now, Sholay, DDLJ are bad films because they have cliched direction/acting and made up story lines. Pathar Panchali and Roshomon are great because their directors were not trying to make a “hit” film.They had a different vision ."
Very problematic statement. So are you saying whenever a director tries to make a "hit" film the movie becomes bad? A condescending, over-judgemental stance. At least back up with some detail when you make loose and careless statements like direction/story lines were cliched!
What is a cliche? Wasn't the plot of Slumdog Millionaire a total Cliche. Wasn't the direction and presentation extraordinary.? Will you still call the film made up just because its a hit?

The word 'classic' originally referred to the Greek poets Pindar and Sappho,the playwrights Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides and philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It is also used for the late 18th century composers like Mozart, Beethoven and Haydn.It is a measure of our times that now we loosely use 'classic' to describe works of pulp fiction, pop music and box office hits......

Ajay! I don't think that the late Marlon Brando was "reduced" in "The Godfather," which was based on the novel by the late Mario Puzo, which deals with the way in which the Italian Mafia gangs work. Just recently, when I was in the USA, one of the channels had a "classic" season on and one of them was "The Godfather" and it was announced that the "impressive cast led by Marlon Brando." And today, his role in this movie is considered to be the most memorable, more so, the way in which he spoke his dialogues and some have even tried to copy it but have failed. Remember the movie "Agneepath" with Amitabh - that is a good example by way in which people have tried to copy the way that Marlond Brando spoke in the movie. This received an Oscar for the Best movie when it was released in the 1970''s.

Regarding the use of the "F" words by De Niro and Al Pacino, i think that all it does is that it makes their characters look a bit more stronger and that it adds to the dramatic nature of the movies that they work in - other than that nothing much.

One particular actor that needs to be mentioned here, I think is the late Lawrence Olivier

Marcello Mastroianni and Max Von Sydow were great actors AND stars because Europe in 1950 -1970's had a cinema culture and an audience for good cinema.The cinema of Bunuel/ Bergman/ Fellini/ Bresson/ Antonioni was not a marginalized cinema running to empty theaters.There was an enthusiastic audience for it..When have our best filmmakers-- Ray, Adoor, Benegal etc. had that kind of support from audiences and producers? Naseeruddin Shah is the best actor we have ever had. Why has he never been offered a SINGLE role which could compare to the roles which Depardieu ,Mastroianni and Isabelle Hupert did at their peak? Where are our Wajda's, Pagnol's ,Truffaut's and Chabrol's? I do not believe in the distinction between world /art house/parallel cinema and other kinds of cinema .There are only good and bad films.Godfather,Apocalypse Now, Sholay, DDLJ are bad films because they have cliched direction/acting and made up story lines. Pathar Panchali and Roshomon are great because their directors were not trying to make a "hit" film.They had a different vision .
(Watch 'On The Waterfront ' to see how good Brando was! And then watch the melodramatic and theatrical STAR he has been reduced to in The Godfather)
PS.. Why do Robert De Niro and Al Pacino use the F word so often in their violent films? Is that supposed to be great acting?

'
'

OK. They are outside Bollywood/Hollywood. But, stardom is not limited to these two major industries (and Japanese industry was one of the biggest, in the world. It still is...)

(1) Toshirō Mifune was one of the biggest stars in the world, and maybe the top hero of the home industry in his heydays.

(2) Soumitra Chatterjee and Chhavi Biswas were biggest stars in Bengali cinema of their times.

(3) Marcello Mastroianni was a matinee idol in all senses of the term. He was a superstar of the romance language cinemas.

(4) Both Anna Karina and Jean-Paul Belmondo were stars in their times. Belmondo was one of France's biggest box-office stars in its cinema history.

(5) Max Von Sydow was a big Swedish star, but he chose to move between countries and industries.

The list can be longer, and can go on and on. Of course neo-realist filmmakers did not use any stars in their 'neo-realist' films. But that was precisely in their agenda.

I personally feel cinema needs stars, and one kind of stardom might fade away (the kind we know), but another sort will come. They are the agents through which a plot unfolds, characters appear on the silver screen, and spectators identify (see themselves as if in a mirror.)

Impressive list Ajay and i agree with all of them but I hardly find a reason to berate the stars. They may have indulged more in popular cinema but that does not make them any deficient as actors. And the films you mention earlier would fall into the 'Great' category for me.

Stars are mediocre actors.Thats' why they become stars.Most people consider loud mannerisms ,wild facial gestures and studied dialogue delivery as acting.Stars are a fad.They endure for a couple of decades .Until a new generation comes along and ditches them all for some new wannabe.
Amitabh,Shahrukh,Aamir,Hrithik,De Niro,Hoffman,Pacino are successful stars .They are not great actors. Films made in Hollywood and Bollywood stick to a formula .Actors,directors, script writers are NOT ALLOWED to be inventive or original.Films like Mugale-e Azam,Sholay,QSQT,DDLJ, work well enough within the formula,but they are not "great" films.Films like Taxi Driver,Raging Bull,Godfather,No country for old men,There will be blood garner glowing reviews and awards.They have economics and the media on their side. But are they great films?
Before annointing your personal Bollywood/Hollywood favorite as an all time great ,here is a list of some films one should watch.........
Roshomon/ Seven Samurai/ Ran/ Throne of blood AKIRA KUROSAWA
Apu Trilogy/ Jalsaghar/Charulata SATYAJIT RAY
La Dolce Vita/ Amarcord/ 81/2 FEDERICO FELLINI
L'avventura/ L'notte/ L'eclipse MICHELANGELO ANTONIONI
400 blows/ jules et jim FRANCOIS TRUFFAUT
Breathless/ Alphaville JEAN LUC GODARD
Night and fog/ Hiroshima Mon Amour ALAIN RESNAIS
Rules of the game JEAN RENOIR
Bicycle Thieves/ Shoeshine VITTORIO DE SICA
Wild Strawberries/ Cries and Whispers/ Seventh Seal/ Through a Glass Darkly INGMAR BERGMAN
Andrei Rublev/ Nostalghia/ Sacrifice ANDREI TARKOVSKY
Metropolis FRITZ LANG
Battleship Potemkin SERGEI EISENSTEIN
And dozens of films from...... Hungary,Poland,Italy,France,Germany,Spain,China,Japan,iran,Argentina,Brazil,Mexico,Russia.........
The list of memorable cinema is long and magnificent .It stretches back to the 1920's.Many,possibly a majority, of films are in black and white.Colour ,rather than being a saviour may have brought cinema down a few notches.Alas i cannot find a single film from Bollywood/Hollywood which would make the cut.....

Remnants of a dying stardom. It is a religion -- star-worship. And it reminds me of the very cliche Freudian aphorism that any religion is the expressed form of mass hysteria. No further comment needed...

There could be different filmmakers and their respective followers or rather worshippers as well. They have their own perspective of filmmaking and the may be the commerce related to it. But then, even if we have different mindsets of the filmmakers and their various films, the notion of good and bad cinema does not change. Neither changes the language of cinema. Here we witness some viewers worship the stars to the extent that that can term Amir's snarling act ( in Ghajini ) as the Oscar winning performance.

Thanks Bikas, Anirban for reassuring the fact that a proper review is way apart from a flattering Trade report.

Manju: Thanks for the concern but I am happy to report that I am not sick but in the pink of health.

Shubhajit: The term Bollywood has been used loosely, as indicated by the inclusion of Khuda Kay Liye, but its tight enough to exclude cent per cent regional cinema out of this list.

This has been said before, I'll say it again - Box Office ratings do not, should not and will not determine whether a film is good or bad. Some of the most brilliant films like Silsila and Lamhe did not do too well at the BO. Quality lies in the eye of the popcorn holder.

Manju, I would agree with Bikas here.

However, I have some news for Faheen about "Ghajini" and that is that in many parts of the world now, a lot of the people are now indicating by word to mouth that this film is not so good as previously thought. I have heard this from many of my friends as well as those who are not my friends or family members. Most are now prefering "Rab Na Bana Di..." Yes! "Ghajini" may have done well but now it seems like its not able to maintain its hold in many parts of the world.

Idiotic ratings... Ghajini is byfar the biggest hit of all times and Aamir is God of acting...

People from this generation do not want to know about the craft. They do not have the attention span (or the leisure for it... yes art is a luxury) to introspect even on their own lives. Introspection is seen (by guys n gals from this generation) as sickness, sadness -- a disease. Of course a Kieslowski can still entertain. But, how many are Kieslowskis? A Buddhadeb Dasgupta or an Adoor probably has nothing to give to this generation. This is not a matter of pride. No God dictates culture. But, in an age of democracy, the public does. A public gave rise to Vaudeville (that gave birth to Chaplin, Keaton and Marx Brothers); and a public voted for Walt Disney. Some people make movies for other filmmakers. Their number can and should never increase to something you can't count in a hand.

Seeing is a matter of practice... there are different ways of seeing. There must be strong reasons for people to learn new ways of ... Well, they always kept seeing. why should they learn? Why should they think that there is something to learn at all?

@Manju: I guess you're mistaking this piece for a trade report. No, it isn't.

@Anirban: That's not actually a comment but a pingback, somebody has quoted elsewhere from this post. That's why it appear like that.

Last Lear wasn't a Bollywood movie though it had A-list stars of the Bombay film industry. It is very much a Calcuttan movie. Along with the much-hyped Chokher Bali, it is perhaps one of Rituparno Ghosh's lesser works, especially in comparison to the brilliance he achieved in some of his other films. Further, in disagreement to your statement,I felt Raincoat was a far more accomplished work of his his. The subtle observations and character sketches made the movie far more 'real' than this.

Boss

Everyone has their own opinion and in my opinion the writer is SICK, what is the point of giving his top ten. As far as yr goes Ghajini is the biggest hit ( may be of all times) that mean word of mouth is good and ppl are liking it. Rab Ne is also doing very well.

Movies are made to entertain ppl. We go to movie to have fun and if movie can give social reason in entertaining way like Taare Zameen Par has given its even better,

I request the writer to involve his time in something more meaning ful things ...

What does the above comment mean?

[...] Source   [...]