Vanga calls Masand, Anupama, Suchitra illiterate - Page 10

Created

Last reply

Replies

123

Views

6832

Users

37

Likes

266

Frequent Posters

pathaka thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Visit Streak 365 0 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 5 months ago
#91

Originally posted by: ohophelia

Um, where am I making the decision for others? I was solely speaking for myself and other reviews I have read for this film which I also shared on the BO thread on the forum during the first week of its release. 

Whatever positive attention the movie is garnering cannot be taken away by any critic or the audience who happen to dislike the film though. Negative reviews can coexist with positive reviews. If all those directors and actors have praised his work, then good for Vanga. But must that mean that a negative review shouldn't be entertained just because a Allu Arjun or Rajamouli praised his work? That's bull. The film is a success at the end of the day. Now what reason a section of audience or critics attribute to it is not something he or his crew can control though. Like Gadar 2 was said was BB because it spoke to the RW sentiment and nationalist audience, same with TKF, and many others. But does that mean he'll fight every critic and audience and abuse them? And most of the stuff is not unfounded either. There really are theaters full of guys wanting to see this because they want to stick it to feminists, or watch raunchy scenes. It's not a shocker. 

@Bold - Now that just means he's carrying a vendetta when he's bringing up the reviews from KS. If he were to see Animal reviews alone, I still maintain that the reviews have been about the movie alone. The critics can be phony and you can make out who are their friends with their reviews alone but nobody psychoanalysed him this time. Even Anupama who he challenged and rather gave a rude interview to, praised the movie in her review at few points she liked. She was balanced this time. Although he's taking the criticism of his movie, as a personal criticism of himself. He himself is not objective, he's still out there defending Rannvijay instead of saying it's a flawed character. 

Lolol

Yep exactly …negative and positive reviews can and should co exist 

But same with kabir Singh and this, ppl who disagreed with the film felt the need to tell others that they should also do the same, or else their morality is questionable …

The whole reason why the whole “stick it to the critics and pseudos” narrative started is not because people are in support of mysoginy 

 …people are against being talked down to , being moral policed, as if they were idiots who can’t form their own opinions or need to be taught righteous film viewing …the discourses such as “why does this film exist ? We failed as a society of this film is a hit…ppl liking the film are a threat to society…this film shouldn’t be celebrated” all stem from these “reviews” and subsequent podcasts and roundtables the critics had …. 

 a negative review is one thing, moral policing ppl or looking down on their tastes, is another …particularly when some ppl can even see the merits in the film.. 

Same applies to cherry picked criticism that is gleefully ignored in other reviews of problematic films …

Now that, is truly bull 

Edited by pathaka - 5 months ago
MaebyFunke thumbnail
Anniversary 11 Thumbnail Visit Streak 90 0 Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 5 months ago
#92

Originally posted by: pathaka

Lolol

Yep exactly …negative and positive reviews can and should co exist 

But same with kabir Singh and this, ppl who disagreed with the film felt the need to tell others that they should also do the same, or else their morality is questionable …

The whole reason why the whole “stick it to the critics and pseudos” narrative started is not because people are in support of mysoginy 

 …people are against being talked down to , being moral policed, as if they were idiots who can’t form their own opinions or need to be taught righteous film viewing …the discourses such as “why does this film exist ? We failed as a society of this film is a hit…ppl liking the film are a threat to society…this film shouldn’t be celebrated” all stem from these “reviews” and subsequent podcasts and roundtables the critics had …. 

 a negative review is one thing, moral policing ppl or looking down on their tastes, is another …particularly when some ppl can even see the merits in the film.. 

Same applies to cherry picked criticism that is gleefully ignored in other reviews of problematic films …

Now that, is truly bull 

Man, I have got only one thing to say. Please see how he is defending Rannvijay as a character (on a moralistic whim). He is not ready to accept that Rannvijay is a flawed person, that the character is misogynistic. I even made a topic on that alone. Forget about what people are saying, he is not letting viewers form their opinions of the character. If you say that the critics are steering the narrative one way, then the director of the movie is taking it in a completely opposite direction. I'm sorry but he has lost the plot. 

@Bold - There is also another side to this. Anyone expressing even genuine criticism is receiving choicest of words from men identifying themselves as alpha males. They are trivalising and mocking menstruation, child birth, the effect of sexism on women in real world. It goes both ways. Unfortunately this problem persists. Not saying that there are not informed viewers who are capable of forming their opinions but they are in the minority, and when the director is unabashedly defending a flawed and abusive character instead of just admitting that it's a FICTIONAL character and meant to be taken as such, there is very little hope. 

Maroonporsche thumbnail
Posted: 5 months ago
#93

Originally posted by: Basskarrr

The 10 second clip on twitter paints a much different light than the full video. Writing moralistic essays on essays on 10 sec clips has become such a trend. 

I’m still waiting to be shown that these 3 reviewers are literate smiley36

return_to_hades thumbnail
Anniversary 18 Thumbnail Group Promotion 7 Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 5 months ago
#94

Originally posted by: pathaka

Lolol

Yep exactly …negative and positive reviews can and should co exist 

But same with kabir Singh and this, ppl who disagreed with the film felt the need to tell others that they should also do the same, or else their morality is questionable …

The whole reason why the whole “stick it to the critics and pseudos” narrative started is not because people are in support of mysoginy 

 …people are against being talked down to , being moral policed, as if they were idiots who can’t form their own opinions or need to be taught righteous film viewing …the discourses such as “why does this film exist ? We failed as a society of this film is a hit…ppl liking the film are a threat to society…this film shouldn’t be celebrated” all stem from these “reviews” and subsequent podcasts and roundtables the critics had …. 

 a negative review is one thing, moral policing ppl or looking down on their tastes, is another …particularly when some ppl can even see the merits in the film.. 

Same applies to cherry picked criticism that is gleefully ignored in other reviews of problematic films …

Now that, is truly bull 

There is a fine line between moral policing and expressing one's personal morality. 

For me, both Kabir Singh and Animal offended my moral sensibilities so much that I couldn't understand how anyone who intended to be a 'good person' could enjoy it. The reaction to the content is visceral. Why should I not express myself for fear that someone else takes it as moral policing? 

And why should any Tom, Dick, or Harry on the internet even care if I am morally judging them?  

If people are comfortable with the content they enjoy, then they should continue enjoying that content, critics and opinions be damned. 

If people feel morally judged about the content they enjoy, then they should ask themselves why the opinion of others is preventing them from enjoying content carefree.

If people place value on the opinion of the person who is morally judging them, then they should engage in a conversation to see if their differences can be bridged. 

My completely unqualified armchair psychologist pulled out of my ass perception is that people get riled up over the moral criticisms of movies like Animal is because, deep down, they know the moral criticism is valid and are struggling big time with their cognitive dissonance. 

rckRadhe thumbnail
IPL 2024 Match Winner 0 Thumbnail IPL 2023 Participants 1 Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 5 months ago
#95

One would expect a 'reputable reviewer' to have watched the film first. smiley4

TakingAStand2 thumbnail
Visit Streak 500 0 Thumbnail Visit Streak 365 0 Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 5 months ago
#96

You can hate the movies Vanga makes subjectively and recognize that the trio of Masand, Anupama and Sucharita are very biased, and hypocritical.

The video is cut but the overarching point he was making is that the likes of Anupama and Masand will call him for interviews for views and clicks before the movie and then shit on him as a filmmaker without any technical background in movie making after the movie releases. I think he is insinuating that it feels very user-y… 

idk too much about Vanga, but the trio are known to be shady and are more interested in growing their own social media presence. 


IAmLuvBolly thumbnail
Visit Streak 500 0 Thumbnail Visit Streak 365 0 Thumbnail + 7
Posted: 5 months ago
#97

Originally posted by: TakingAStand2

You can hate the movies Vanga makes subjectively and recognize that the trio of Masand, Anupama and Sucharita are very biased, and hypocritical.

The video is cut but the overarching point he was making is that the likes of Anupama and Masand will call him for interviews for views and clicks before the movie and then shit on him as a filmmaker without any technical background in movie making after the movie releases. I think he is insinuating that it feels very user-y… 

idk too much about Vanga, but the trio are known to be shady and are more interested in growing their own social media presence. 




Anupama and Masand have always been in the business of interviewing stars.  And they have given unfavorable reviews to a movie or its actors after having interviewed the star or makers of it.  Vanga isn’t being singled out here.  He’s just trying to present himself as something extra special or important.  

If one wants to argue that it’s a conflict of interest for Anupama and Masand to do both interviews and reviews then that’s a separate debate.  Incidentally they’re not the only ones either who do reviews and interviews.  

MostlyHarmIess thumbnail
Posted: 5 months ago
#98

Side point but film criticism is itself an art form done for commercial purposes and is open to judgment. People are allowed to criticize reviews and reviewers. 

Basskarrr thumbnail
Visit Streak 30 0 Thumbnail Group Promotion 2 Thumbnail Anniversary 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 5 months ago

The turns this topic has taken. It’s not okay to pass casual psychoanalytical judgments on members.