From: bkannan@ha06.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.tamil
Subject: Re: kaaval theivam
Date: 13 Aug 1992 00:17:22 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

A Long response:
---------------

Veeramany.Sthanumurthy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Veeramany Sthanumurthy)
writes:

>[I thank BK for taking the straight and shallow road in
>spite of my cheap shots. :-)]

    I would have liked to drag this along; but considering that
    VS abhors cheap-shooting [actually, he does], this is my last 
    knee-jerk response :-)
    I mean, on this topic :-) 

Caution: The statements made here are very "deep". 

     First things first. None of those questions were directed at you.
     Most references were to the original poster and his article.
     Now that you have replied:

>>        1)  What is wrong with cinema-related discussion???


>Nothing. The only point being that even here nobody seems to question
>the uniform lack of quality of the cinema they seem to be discussing.
>Don't ask me to prove it. Poster after poster has testified to it.
 

         Why does this  remind me of the unconvincing
         poltical line "Speaker after Speaker ......


>There is nothing wrong with discussion *itself*, only the focus of
>it. [Why I didn't contribute is a valid point. But, not relevant,
>IMHO to the discussion itself.]


                The question is not why *you* didn't contribute. You do,
           don't you :-) The question still is why *he* didn't contribute
           other than just asking us "kids" to grow up. If all you are
           going to do is to criticize without coming forward [as opposed
           to coming forward and criticizing], then don't carp that 
           responses to your post are knee-jerk. If you are going to
           regard all cultures not your own and all values that you don't
           cherish with ill-hidden disdain [actually we all do - atleast at
           a subconscious level] then the least you could do is to enlighten
           us poor souls about "culture", "progress" etc. For all you
           know, we might even join your bandwagon. If your intention
           is *just* to deride someone else' "likes", then my cool reply
           would be "You might as well SHUT UP?  WILL YOU?" If you equate
           arranged marriages with slavery without getting into specifics,
           if you scream that "98% of Indian  men are scums" acting from
           your deep-seated prejudices, if you feel that Tamizhs are just
           cine-geeks, lyric-looneys and tradition-trashbags then the response
           you get is what you deserve. Knee-Jerk or whatever else.

                      ["you" is used instead of the formal pronoun
                      "one"]

>>                 2)  What is SO peculiar about Tamizh cinema that it
>>                   it has to be trashed? If there is something 


>Not peculiar. Just relevant to SCT. This type of argumentation is
>quite bogus. (Why not trash black-and-white movies without soundtrack
>being shown in Kyzyl?)


           I think you missed my point. There are two ways in which
           you can view cinema. One -my pop's pet point of view -All
           cinema is Koothaattam and nothing good ever comes out of
           it. I'd end up being a roadside Romeo. No more. Another-
           cinema ain't all bad nor discussion about it cheap. It
           can, if you pick and choose, be entertaining or educative
           or both. BTW,movies are an essential part of the cultural
           mileu of any nation/state/culture. Unfortunately, some
           people here have taken the first view and are beating the
           rest with "Yak Yak,what cinematic nonsense here!"comments.
           These NUTS were sleeping when all else was discussed!

                        [NUTS = Never Used This Space]

                There are good movies, bad movies and then cheap.
           Cheap [IMO] is where you have a lot of dance sequences
           violence and distasteful humor. No message. There are
           a lot of cheap Tamizh movies made. Again, I repeat,
           this is nothing peculiar to Tamizh films. But there are
           a lot of good Tamizh movies, good songs & lyrics too.
           But don't expect a Bernardo Bertolucci to pop up out
           of the Tamizh soil. Not that he can't. Looks like he
           won't. We are a long long way from that.
           Who will watch a Tamizh-Bertolucci film?
           The discussion on this group [on lyrics] focussed on 
           Kannadasan's lyrics which on the balance are quite good.
           If someone can't enjoy that, that is his problem. And if
           you are going to throw muck, be ready to receive some.
           Or else sit tight and have a good laugh or start a 
           intellectually stimulating thread & see if people jump in
           to discuss that. 

           "Escapism" is a prime reason why movie-culture is so popular
           in T.N. [The heroes & heroines are nothing less than Gods
           & Godesses to their fans]. This you/I may not like. But
           there it is. The poor and often  illiterate folks 
           during those 3 hours have a different experience in the
           theater that they thoroughly enjoy. [I am seroius!]
           Something that they won't get, once they step out of the
           talkies. This is what lures them into watching all movies
           [cheap or not is immaterial to them] that are made.
           I hate Ramarajan movies. But if I tell those rural folks
           out there what I think of his movies, I'd probably be 
           stoned alive. What the urban folk enjoy, what the "cultural
           elites" enjoy, is not what the ruralites like. It ain't
           ever going to be popular [art movies]. As for producers/
           directors the primary motivation is money not the ivory
           tower talk of the net.INTELLECTUALS.

           Anyway, if you think "trashing" Tamizh movies and the
           people who watch them ain't bad, & my arguments bogus,
           go ahead.  
          
>>               3)  Cinema by and large mirrors society. Tamizhs are a 
>>                   conservative and traditional people. Not necessarily
>>                   oppressive; though conservatism and tradition may
>>                   trample on "individual" rights. Moreover, one shouldn't 
>>                   overlook the fact that there have been directors who have 
>>                   used bold themes and infused a certain progressiveness
>>                   [KB, Bhaarathiraaja et.al] in most of their movies.


>>               4)  Formulaic movies are made in all languages [not just Tamil
>>                   and Telugu. The formulas themselves may be different].

>[See 2. above]

                 
                2)  seems irrelevant to this statement. There was
                an accusation  that "Tamil and Telugu movies churned
                out are all formulaic"  My response: Sorry! Formulaic
                movies are *also* churned out and Tamil and Telugu *also*
                churn out formulaic movies.


> [5 & 6 are fine: about "possibly" educational value of movies and
>  Universal truths :-)]


                      Hey, I was serious about 5 & 6
 

>>             newsgroup discussion? Rocket-Science? Operas? Fast-food?
>>             Bikinis? I'd like to know.  


>Your tastes are fine. Remember relevance.


          I haven't said "These are my tastes." I was curious if these would 
          qualify as pointers to cultural progress. As I said, these  
          questions were for the original poster. But if you are eager to 
          answer them, then I am fine with that.


>>        To those that expect me to elaborate on "Tamizhs are a tradition- 
>>        loving people", I assumed that people have either lived in T.N 
>>        [long enuff] or know about Tamizhs to understand what I mean. Sorry,
>>        I don't have the time to write stories on *that*. If that leaves one
>>        confused, then so be it. 


>[I have left in the relevant portion from my post - so that you
>can see how your characterization differs from my intent.]

>To repeat: You said "Tamizh cinema is traditional. So are the people."

                    Goto 3) Read it again. 

>I asked you to *elaborate* on this chain - whatever scheme it is a
>part of. As for your implying that only people in TN are Tamils and
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

          Perhaps, that is what you *want it* to imply or what you're 
          needling others to infer: "If people have lived in T.N or know 
          about Tamizhs to understand them" does not imply "Only T.N-people
          are Tamizhs" however long one stares at that statement.
            

>nobody else, well, if that is your position a discussion with you
>(at least about Tamil :-) is quite out of the question.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
       
          So there still *is* a possiblity that we'd cross swords in the
          future :-)  But I wouldn't be sad one way or the other, for
          I wouldn't have to struggle to make my deep statements [at
          least I didn't make flippant remarks] shallow.
          

>paNivudan
>Sthan.


>PPS. My comments are only about the comments the poster has made.
>I don't know the poster from Agastiyar. :-)

             Engappan Kudher kulla illa :-)

  (p){anb[udan}pirappu] :)
      BK