Idea 1: There is a scarcity for screenplay writers and good stories in Malayalam. Some of our screen writers fee is more than what the Director would charge. So there is a school of thought which promotes this idea of making movies without screenplay.
Idea 2: Some Indian advertisements are very stylish, but they are mostly 30 seconds. What if we made a 2.5 hours movie stringing together a bunch of advertisment like scenes.
Sagar Alias Jacky Reloaded is part of such experiments .
At times you get the feeling that Swamy has remade his K.Madhu directed Irupatham Nootandu, which was a far better entertainer. In fact, this film is the perfect example of the new style of film making being followed by young directors in south fed on Hollywood and Bollywood DVD’s. First decide and design action sequences, exotic locations, costumes and then write the story around that.
It’s an opportunity lost, as Mohanlal the most flexible actor in Indian cinema is asked to look wooden and walk throughout wearing designer coats and leather jackets, which after a point of time becomes predictable or plain boring and agonizingly snail-paced. Jagathy Sreekumar is wasted while Jyothirmayee’s item dance fails to sizzle.
NowRunning.com comments that it’s Much Ado about Nothing:
If I had the liberty to re-name a film that’s already been released, I’d rename this one as ‘Much Ado about Nothing’. But the great English bard, who created a wonderful play with that title, would probably groan in his grave if I did so. Disappointing! That’s all I can say about Amal Neerad’s second directorial outing, the much hyped ‘Sagar Alias Jacky Reloaded’. In fact it was one of the most awaited commercial films in Malayalam in the past few months. And all the waiting has now come to naught.
If it was not for the hype and the hoopla surrounding the film, it would probably have passed off as an OK kind of film. But because of the advertising overkill, expectations ran high, and unless it was spectacularly brilliant, it was doomed to disappoint. And disappoint, it does. Given the build-up that the film was given, being lenient in criticizing ‘Sagar Alias Jacky Reloaded’ wouldn’t be fair.
Finally, IndiaGlitz’s review takes the cake : He says Malayalis should not care much about story, screenplay and other frivolous things any more.
The movie must be definitely promoted for the quality of making, rather than for its thematic content.
Related posts:
March 28, 2009 at 8:25 am
Well, i guess, malayala cinema is going downhill from here; or maybe its going to go off a cliff after this. Sagar alias Jacky has proved that glitz and excessive advertisement could produce a megahit.
I think I am going to watch Irupatham Nootandu after watching this movie. It had believable characters, presented in a believable fashion. Mohanlal was Sagar in Irupatham Nootandu. But in Sagar elias Jacky reloaded, he plays God instead.
March 28, 2009 at 10:28 pm
I thought we had a sensible director in Amal Neerad when i saw Big B.Of course it wasn’t a movie without gimmicks.But it was a film which proved that Malayalam Action films can be different.Oh but his second movie he proves me wrong.
Watched Sagar Alias Jackie reloaded yesterday at Ernakulam Kavitha Theater.The rush at the Theater was a something rare these days.We could get three first class tickets in black at rs 125/ticket (balcony rate was rs 200/ticket).Once the movie started itself i realized i had done a good thing by not going for Balcony tickets and thus saving rs 75 /ticket.The film has nothing.Yes absolutely nothing no story, no absorbing characters nothing.I wonder how quickly Amal Neerad had fallen to the league of his mentor RGV (who of course made brilliant films in the early part of his career like Satya,Rangeela,Company,Bhoot etc) who thinks that good film means wide camera angle,shaded colors,pale close ups and no story.
The film has style;and style in plenty.But not a single good,or strong character.Ganesh,Manoj K Jayan,Suman(Shivaji Fame),Sherveer Vakil(Big B villian),Rahul Bose all are wasted by weak characterization.All have been gathered around to glorify Mohanlal.Jagathi Sreekumar’s comic scenes are really unbearable.And Mohanlal who does his role well but has nothing much to do except to walk around ,shoot people,show his style.I wonder when will out directors realize the immense potential the man has.Shobhana has enough screen space and does well.All other female characters including Bhavana have nothing much to do.An item dance by Jyotrmayi is shot well.
All in all the movie is a Big disappointment!Mohanlal’s one liners are good but that’s it.I don’t think even the die hard Mohanlal fans will be able to leave the theaters satisfied especially after the films hollow climax.Stay away from the movie as far as u can.
March 29, 2009 at 5:32 am
I feel Amal Neerad is the Shaji Kailas of a newer generation. Another career that took off because of one single reason – Austrian August Musger invented ‘slow motion’.
March 31, 2009 at 10:17 am
@Sparx9
Plss…..We cannot compare Amal and Shaji…..Shaji kilas is a man who made newer innovations and better films….Amal ofcourse has style..but that does not match with that of shaji.I have heard that Sagar Alias jacky..was titled Ee Irupothannam Nootandu before and was to be dir by shaji.It culd have been a lot better.But if the story and screenplay is the same..it might have been a like its now
..No offence 
March 31, 2009 at 10:24 am
The coolest thing abt this movie is its first promo.Something differnent…but that scene was boring in the movie!!..All thanx to the promo maker..@@
March 31, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I think its quite unfair to blame Amal for the debacle that Sagar Alias Jackie is. And absoultely unjust to brand him the next Shaji Kailas. This is just his second film, for God’s sake. And given the kind of script that he had in his hands, if he still manages to have us gape open mouthed at the screen for an odd couple of hours, I guess it should speak a bit for his capabilities.
If I were you, I would wait for a few films more, before giving up on him. Somehow I feel the man has it in him, and is here to stay.
March 31, 2009 at 8:55 pm
sparx – indeed. amal neerad is the Shaji K of the new generation, plus the style. However Shaji had a few good movies like Thalasthanam, Commissioner, Aaaram Thampuran etc before he went downhill.
Amal has just started his direction career and in both his movies, the script and story go for a toss. Its just the same slow mo’s, fort kochi, rain water pelting and umbrellas, top view shots etc.
the common phrase in all reviews for SAJ is “all style no substance”
SAJ has company in Hariharnagr 2 which seems to have the same old comedy scenes reshot from Part 1 and the heros 18 years older!!
and can somebody tell me the meaning of ‘reloaded’ in this context? I could understand Matrix reloaded. But SAJ reloaded?!!!!
April 1, 2009 at 7:44 pm
“and the heroes 18 years older!!”
I don’t think there is a rule
which states protagonists have to be
in their 20s or 30s.
btw 2HHN seems to be getting some good reviews…
It seems like, as VN of nowrunning puts it,
“Lal has us eating out of his hands and has
the ultimate last laugh.”
April 2, 2009 at 2:56 am
okey……. lets start with 20th century… erupathaam nootand………
yea i accept that the story is not as strong as that. But still it was
action packed.
I am not aperson who hates mammooty . but on the contrary i shud say im a
fan of mohanlal. That doesnt mean that i will allways give a good comment
on all his films.
Comparing with BigB, even though we cant compare with it….. SAJ was
better. I liked Big B but the problem in that was there was noo catchy
dialoges in it. But in SAJ dialoges wer awsome.
Now i saw some1 writing abt mohanlal… that he is to fat in this….. yea
its true but still did u c him giv all the stunts with it…….
flexibility…. his masterpiece…… i tell u know 1 in malayalam film
industry is flexible like this man……
Now if there is no story…. does dat mean a film is flop….. it was
entertaining……. except for certain scenes like with the sniper gun
and the hospital part with bhavana…….
but its a WORTH WATCHING FILM ………
Good Cinematography
Good Acting
Good Dialoges
Good Music
Good BAckground Score
u Dont need to be a fan to agree ones acting skills.
Go watch it…… be an Optimist….. u will like it…..
if u gonna watch it with a negative mentality…… u will find a lotta
mistakes…(in Story/Direction ofcourse)
April 3, 2009 at 5:50 am
Before making those movies on political themes with Suresh Gopi, Shaji Kailas had made many comedy movies of very low quality. Neelakkurukkan is one I remember.
April 5, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I think Ujwal might have a point. Mohanlal is a great actor, and his performance was not to blame for the quality of movie.
However, I think Sagar alias Jacky and a lot of other movies throughout movie of similar style, such as Billa in Tamil and Telugu and various Bollywood movies, point to a different, more deeper problem.
I think Indian cinema, as well as Indian music, as a whole, is going towards the dangerous trend of blindly aping Hollywood styles. Many of the bollywood movies of today for example, seem to have no relation to the culture of the average India. South Indian cinema seems to be a little more reserved in this tendency, although it is sadly catching on.
One of the problems, i think, is the audience’s acceptance of “pure entertainment” movies, which might have a wafer thin story or direction, but is filled with dialogues, item songs, dances, etc. Direction and story, I think represents 75 percent of the movie, or more.
April 6, 2009 at 1:17 am
Ujwal,I am ur fan
April 11, 2009 at 10:47 am
Both Mohan lal and Mammotty have taken Malayalam fil to a new level. defenitely with the help of some class directors and script writers. Now both of them taking malayalam film for a ride. they have to understand what they are good at. i can never understand people rate movies for only some crack dialouges. some sensibility in selecting heroines…..no wonder dubbed movie from neighbour states are grabing money……i really pity for the youth who will have to pick up the old CD to undersatnd and enjoy malayalam movies……..
April 11, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Being only 20 years old, I missed most of Malayala cinema’s golden ages..So, today, most of the Malayalam movies that I watch are old ones…The movies that are released today, are so few in number, and most of them are so poor in content, that i dont see many new movies at all.. Sadly, it seems like Malayalam cinema is a dying industry..
The 28 movies released in 2008 compared to the 123 movies released in 1986, makes the future of malayala cinema look dim. And of these 28, only a handful actually become hits, or even average earners. So, all quality concerns aside, Malayalam cinema is in a very bad shape.
I agree; a movie shouldn’t be appreciated for its dialogues. Mohanlal and Mammootty arent superstars because of their dialogues. It is the powerful characters that they played in the past that has earned them the fan following they have today..The “dialogue movies” that began to come up during the mid-late 90s are the ones that gave them the “invincible superstar” status. But without the powerful character roles that mammootty and mohanlal acted to perfection in the past, they would have never become superstars in the first place..Dont get me wrong..I think they are one of the best actors in the country if not the world.
April 11, 2009 at 11:02 pm
“followed by young directors in south fed on Hollywood and Bollywood DVD’s.”
I haven’t seen SAJ, but have seen Amal Neerad’s BigB.
So I understand the type of slowmo he puts in…
When it comes to Hollywood, taking slowmo of the hero or heroine or any other main characters was never a main thing in any popular mainstream films…As far as I can remember…Because being in America, I know the audiences here would probably laugh at it. Take the most commercially successful film of 08- The Dark Knight by Chris Nolan. I don’t remember seeing any slowmo of Batman.
This influence of Amal’s slowmo might actually come from the East (Hong Kong) itself…mainly I’m referring to John Woo’s work.
Of course Woo has taken that style over to his films that he made when he came over to Hollywood…
Even though Woo’s Mission Impossible II made a lot of money (due to probably of Tom Cruise’s star power) the American audiences laugh at all of those silly slowmo employed in the film when its on TV.
This slowmo technique employed by Woo was influenced by the wuxia genre films of Hong Kong and China.
I mean just look at Singleton’s Four Brothers, the inspiration behind Amal’s BigB. One of the main differences between the films is the use of the slowmo…
April 12, 2009 at 6:27 am
“Direction and story, I think represents 75 percent of the movie, or more.”
What are you talking about here sir?
The film director puts on his/her vision on that rectangular frame.
As an author rights with the pen, the filmmaker writes his vision, as visual images, with the camera.
April 12, 2009 at 6:45 pm
In theory, the filmmaker should be portraying the story in accordance with his vision.
But, in practice this does not often happen, whether in Malayalam or Tamil or Hindi or Hollywood. His vision is constantly being compromised by the pressures of making the movie profitable for the producer, and to do that, he must cater to the tastes of what he thinks the audience will readily pay to see.
And as a result, we see item dances, song sequences that seem to come out of nowhere, etc. So, in my opinion, a movie is rarely a full representation of what the filmmaker wanted it to be like.
A film should be a visual representation of the filmmaker’s vision, but it is not always possible to do that. So, direction and story, or the filmmaker’s vision as you very nicely put it, should make up the bulk of the film’s content. The other fraction of the movie is extra, things that the filmmaker might add as a compromise with other pressures and expectations that are put on him by the producer, audience, etc.
April 14, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Amar neerad is a good cinematographer. Accepted. But he is not a good director. And one cannot accept films with the warmth of life from him. He himself has admitted if he shoots a village film in ottappalam it would be a fake. The films he rave about is “Billa”. He falls to that genre of movies. And he is open to admit it. His films will contain characters walking with frozen faces clad in designer dress. It is another style of movie making. He is influenced by the western gangster movies and he comes from the Ram gopal varma school. If there are takers for such films he would succeed. But Big B and SAJ proves the audience do not accept them. So either make a fake movie or concentrate on camera.
April 15, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I think that malayalam directors should go back to making low budget movies with strong scripts..That way, they wont lose as much if it is a flop and will manage to make a profit..
The Jagadeesh – Siddique starrers of the 90s were made on a shoestring budget..Yet, many of them were much more watchable than the crap cinema made today, with all of its glitzy sets, item numbers, etc..
Kallan Kappalil Thanne, Kunnukkitta Kozhi, were very low budget films..They didnt have superstars or elaborate songs..They werent the greatest films, but they were still enjoyable. Id rather see a simple Jagadeesh in one of those movies than a wooden faced mohanlal walking around in designer suits in Sagar Alias Jacky.
On a more practical note, I think Malayalam directors cant hope to make such glitzy films, because their available audience is much more limited than Telugu or Tamil, whose movies do well in other states.
April 16, 2009 at 8:20 am
“He is influenced by the western gangster movies”
I have to disagree as I stated in my previous post…I don’t see much influence from “good” western gangster films.
April 16, 2009 at 8:28 am
“But, in practice this does not often happen, whether in Malayalam or Tamil or Hindi or Hollywood. His vision is constantly being compromised by the pressures of making the movie profitable for the producer, and to do that, he must cater to the tastes of what he thinks the audience will readily pay to see.”
Yes, I have to agree, that is usually what happens.
The only one who comes close, atleast some one I could think of,
is Mani Ratnam.
April 16, 2009 at 1:38 pm
“But, in practice this does not often happen, whether in Malayalam or Tamil or Hindi or Hollywood. His vision is constantly being compromised by the pressures of making the movie profitable for the producer, and to do that, he must cater to the tastes of what he thinks the audience will readily pay to see.”
I just saw “Hollywood” in your post right now. I thought you were mentioning only Indian cinema. But now that you mention HW, I would say that a filmmaker in Hollywood has much much more of a chance of making his/her vision. Its not just a theory there but it happens, its practical. Filmmakers such PT Anderson, Clint Eastwood, David Lynch, Alfonso Cuaron, Marty Scorsese, Coen Brothers, Paul Greengrass, David Fincher, Chris Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, and others are examples of this. They bring in their vision, they don’t compromise as much as Indian filmmakers.
That’s one of the reason’s why HW filmmakers from the past such as John Ford, Howard Hawks, Billy Wilder, David Lean, or Alfred Hitchcock are revered as master filmmakers because even though they were making “commercial” films, they didn’t compromise on stuff…they made their vision. All of their films had a piece of them. That’s what makes those guys “artists”.
April 16, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“So, in my opinion, a movie is rarely a full representation of what the filmmaker wanted it to be like.
A film should be a visual representation of the filmmaker’s vision, but it is not always possible to do that. ”
That is more of a yes or no thing. It depends on the filmmaker and the producer, which industry he/she is in…etc.
But when it comes to Indian cinema, your opinion is very true.
April 16, 2009 at 6:12 pm
“I have to disagree as I stated in my previous post…I don’t see much influence from ‘good’ western gangster films.”
If there is a guy’s work from HW that resembles Amal Neerad’s work
that would be Tony Scott. With the whole style over substance movies.
yep, definitely him…
Though Tony Scott’s ‘True Romance’ was pretty good…probably due to
Q. Tarantino’s screenplay.
April 17, 2009 at 6:36 am
Yes, that is very true. Compromise occurs most often in Indian cinema, to a point when it seems as if the whole movie becomes a compromise; style and glitz take over acting and story..But, in Malayalam, filmmakers such as Padmarajan and Bharathan rarely made such compromises. For example, Padmarajan’s Oridathu Phayalvan and Kariyila Kattu Pole did not have a single song sequence..
However, Hollywood has its own compromises, although it is very true that it is much less when compared to Indian cinema..Also it is true that a filmmaker in Hollywood has a much better chance of fulfilling his vision..However, I think excessive graphic violence, or out of place love scenes, for example, are examples of compromises made by Hollywood directors.
April 17, 2009 at 1:43 pm
“However, I think excessive graphic violence, or out of place love scenes, for example, are examples of compromises made by Hollywood directors.”
Sure I suppose some directors do that.
But for commercial success in HW, its best to downplay
both of the violence and sex. Most of the highest grossing films
have a PG-13 at the max.
But I understand who you are mainly talking about…
people like Rob Cohen and Dominic Sena
April 17, 2009 at 7:47 pm
You are right..I am less familiar with particular directors in Hollywood, but it is definitely true that compromise in Hollywood is not nearly as widespread as in India.
April 17, 2009 at 7:57 pm
On a different note, it is kind of interesting to see the different ways directors have adjusted films for commercial success..
In the early 80s, from what I have seen, there was a trend to overdramatize hospital scenes at the climax..
Two minutes before the movie ends, the patient would recover, and we would think everything would be fine…But then, seconds before the movie ends, he or she would find out some traumatic news, or something happens..and then suddenly, the patient dies, and the movie ends. Shalini Ente Koottukari, Onnanu Nammal were examples.
There was also a trend for tragic twists in the plot, when the lover would die suddenly in a motorcycle accident, usually right after or before a wedding.
In the seventies, there was a trend for parallel, comedy stories, in which a comic story goes on at the same time as the main story..For example, there would be a story with Adoor Bhasi and crew..And then there would be a parallel, more serious story with Nazir and Sheela or Jayabharathi.
Its really interesting to see the different ways in which filmmakers have adjusted movies in the past to make them commercially successful.
April 17, 2009 at 10:08 pm
the whole song and dance routine is a compromise that has been there in
Indian cinema for a while…
April 18, 2009 at 11:30 am
This is the 3rd place i am posting this…so that people are spared of their time and effort to watch this
I just came back after watching this film. The ticket money that i just wasted as well as the torure that Sagar Alias subjected me to, does not worry me. What pains me is the 4 hours i lost on a weekend…give me my time back Amal Neerad !
What a brain dead film…i think Mohan Lal just doesn’t understand that his time is OVER. I have been observing his downfall for the last 8 years. He just stands in front of the camera. There isnt the slightest emoting that he even cares to do. Man…what a shadow he is now of his Yesteryear. Kireedom, Dasaratham, Chithram, Baratham, Nadodikkattu, Uyirangalil, Nammakku Paarkkan…so many endearing films. When your time becomes bad…it shows.
April 18, 2009 at 9:51 pm
To Vakkachan,
Sir i am just another guy who lost his time and money watching this good for nothing movie.I have mentioned the same in my comments above.But is Mohanlal the only person responsible for this;i don’t think so.I cannot agree that his time is over.He is an actor as good as ever.In the context of the film yes you are right.He just stands in front of the camera;but if that is what the director asks him to do and the script demands then what else can he do.I am not a Mohanlal fan;but we all know what the man is capable of.He is just not getting the right scripts and the directors are just wasting this actor.
April 20, 2009 at 10:50 am
To Visakh,
I see the point you are trying to make …but i really don’t know. I somehow feel he doesn’t try and emote. I saw Akashagopurangal..this could have been a good film but even Lal didnt do anything special from his end to make the film special. Whereas, in the 80s, he used to make every film watchable…but after 2000 even good directors like Fazil, Thambi Kannamthanam, Priyadershan, K Madhu couldnt help him
I was a real big Lal Fan , by the way
April 21, 2009 at 5:36 am
Mohanlal has lost a lot of charm, definitely…If you take a look at mimicry shows today, they differentiate between the “Pazhaya Mohanlal” and the “Puthiya Mohanlal”, so its clear that he has changed too much..You dont see them doing that for Mammootty or Jayaram or Dileep, for example..In some movies he seems to be good, but in others he seems somewhat wooden..But he is still better than most, if not all of the newcomers today, including Prithviraj. I cant imagine Prithviraj doing a Thanmathra as Mohanlal did, for example.
April 21, 2009 at 4:30 pm
“but after 2000″
yea…the Mohanlal post 2000 is quite weaker compared to his older self…
maybe its a age thing??
April 21, 2009 at 5:44 pm
@Visakh
Perhaps Lal isnt the ‘only’ guy who’s responsible for this colossal debacle, but he’s among the front runners. And as much as I agree with what Vakkachan has said, I find something more alarming about Lal’s script sense that seems like it has been washed down the drain.
I was just wondering how SN Swami would have convinced Lal to agree to do SAJ, if ever there was a story session.
It must have gone somewhere along these lines – Lal, you have got about five planes and a dozen cars in this film. You need to sport designer suits and walk about here and there. Stop worrying about who you are going to shoot. We will place those thugs all over, and you would just need to go bang, bang. You could fly back to wherever you came from, when we tell you so.
Imagine Lal nodding a YES to what we just heard.
Don’t you think there should be something seriously wrong?
Something dead serious?
April 22, 2009 at 7:19 pm
SN Swami has written a bunch of quality scripts in the past; Oru CBI Diary Kurippu, Moonam Mura, Irupatham Nootandu…He is capable of doing much better…I dont see why he came up with such trash as SAJ
April 22, 2009 at 11:17 pm
@vinu
dude even Mohanlal has to pick 3 movies a year…..or people will say he is not getting any movies……….may be SAJ is the best he got!!!
April 24, 2009 at 6:48 am
I think SAJ is a nice entertainer. yes, Amal could have avoided those scenes with Bhavana. if they really wanted to show some romance in the movie, they could have done that with Sumit or Bala. its not that they didn;t have any young stars in the movie.
but as a whole, what is wrong with SAJ’s story? it is the same old formula, right. the don, who is a savior to many beats up all the villains. what else can a story like this have?
a sequel connecting irupatham noottandu cannot be done. the villain in that movie died. so it has to be a whole new story.
besides the same old story, what else did the movie lack? well picturised, excellent BGM (another USP of an action film), good acting by Mohanlal, Sampath, Suman and Shobhana.
it is a pure action film. after 20 years the Don is more powerful, and he gains more people against him.
considering the slow motion part, yes Amal could have cut down a bit on that. one more film on these lines can pave way for his downfall.
but guys seriously, being a Mohanlal fan look at his, Innathe chinthavishayam or Red Chillies.. all these were above average winners and we still reject SAJ. isn;t that pathetic
April 24, 2009 at 6:57 am
in 2000s, tell me which were the wonder movies?
last year we had a Thirakadha and Thalapavu… or we had an awesome Arabikadha, Classmates, Meesa Madhavan.. and then there is Rajamanikyam (a superb commercial flick), Kaazhcha, Anandabhadram, Manasinakkare…
what is wrong with Mohanlal’s Narasimham, Ravanaprabhu, Balettan (average), Udayananu Tharam (a trend setter at that time), Naran, Kirthi Chakra, Rasathandram, Thanmathra, Hello, Paradesi, Madambi (average), SAJ (average) and even he shined in twenty 20.
dont say he was not his self in these movies.
and dont compare about yesteryears comedy movies. we audience demanded slapstick and senseless comedies these days seeing all those mimicry movies. so we ourselves are to blame.
we made the ultra camera crap Four the People a big hit, n then y make a big deal about SAJ?
April 24, 2009 at 2:53 pm
The problem, lies within the entire field of new Malayalam action movies. The same old cliched stories about a superhuman against a bunch of heartless villains. For example, Can you tell the difference between separate Suresh Gopi movies anymore? IG, Tiger, Bharathchandran IPS, etc. SAJ is crap in my opinion, because it follows the same formula. It is definitely not entirely the fault of the SAJ crew. You would never see Mohanlal or Suresh Gopi be shot down in the climax like in Rajavinte Makan today. But the fault for that lies with the filmmakers, not the audience. They feel that it is too risky to do that. Keep in mind, that a producer investing in a Malayalam movie only has an 8 percent chance of making profits.
But, you are right..blaming SAJ and its cast and directors alone is biased. In my opinion, Red Chillies was just as bad.
I dont think the audience demands movies like SAJ and senseless comedies. Rather, I think the problem lies with the entire way that movies are made in Malayalam. Filmmakers pick a movie star, and only after they create a story…Its really hard to make creative and real stuff in this environment. In the past, this was less common and it was less risky to wait for the script first.
April 24, 2009 at 2:55 pm
“Filmmakers pick a movie star and only after they create a story”
I meant “Filmmakers pick a movie star and only after this, do they try to create a story”
Might be unclear from what i originally wrote
April 25, 2009 at 9:59 am
To Vakkachan again,
Sorry i am not starting a debate.Just to point out few things. “good directors like Fazil, Thambi Kannamthanam, Priyadarshan, K Madhu”.Of course these are good directors who have given us good films in the past.Just a look at the their films with Mohanlal.Fazil’s Vismayathumbathu,K Madhu’s Chaturangam,Thambi Kannamthanam’s Onnaman.Agreed that Mohanlal’s characters in these films were poor;but the films itself were utter blunders.The stories were half-baked and scripts awry(especially Vismayathumbathu and Onnaman).I have seen Akashagopuram first CD (Wasn’t able to bear it any longer).The film is horrible but was mainly in the scripting(it looked as if i was watching a play translated to Malayalam).Of course Mohanlal was cold as wood but there again i blame it on the director and the script.If the script and direction is poor even ‘Al pacino’ cannot act well.
I agree that his script sense has gone astray.Also don’t you think that directors are just type casting him and not making use of him.It is also true that he is not getting the characters that match well with his age.The down to earth characters that he got in the mid 80′s to mid 90′s are not in the offer anymore.All these can be factors right?
April 25, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“Can you tell the difference between separate Suresh Gopi movies anymore?”
I think Manu has got a point there…
the audience definitely has an input here…
I mean if the audience hated all those Suresh Gopi cop/dialogue films then they would all flop and no producer would take the chance to make ‘em.
But they still do, meaning the audience still likes these sort of films…
at the end if one looks at it, the mainstream films of every place represents the tastes of the audience…
Now I’m not saying that is always the case, some films have been rejected by the audience….but the audience has some influence in this as well.
August 6, 2009 at 1:46 am
i read the previous posts.one point that emerges is there are at least two kinds of directors.the one kind refers to those who can script and direct by themselves and the other who executes a script written by a like minded scenarist.i feel this to be true the world over.it is a question of whether form is more important than content or vice-versa.it also happens that the content fuses into a great form by itself.if we go by the reasoning that conent decides the form,in cinema at least the milestones have seemingly one thing in common more often than not.the chemistry between swamy and amal could have been more productive if they got to know each other more closely as artists.both are talented as all know.if the movie was crafted after more deliberations the film could have been loftier.let us not deride any.haste is the culprit. g.balachandran
August 8, 2009 at 4:59 pm
The main difference between a director who makes others scripts and a director who writes scripts by themselves is that, at least from my point of view, the director who scripts is doing the duty of the director since he wants his vision on the screen. He doesn’t want another director to mess around with his story and dialogues etc. That is why they turn from just screenwriting to directing as well. The weakness these guys have is that they aren’t too visual minded. They are better at writing than doing a director’s job. Of course there are exceptions, and the best example will probably be Billy Wilder who was a great filmmaker and a screenwriter.
The guys who direct scripts written by others are much more visual minded. These guys are true filmmakers as they took up this job since they were interested in making movies. Of course their weakness is if the script is weak they can’t be able to make a better film. Of course there are exceptions to this rule as I think the best example is John Ford.
Any way Akira Kurosawa’s motto or shall I say advice was for any aspiring filmmaker to work on writing scripts as well.
August 8, 2009 at 5:07 pm
An interesting example happened during the pre-production period of the film Good Will Hunting. The screenplay was written by actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck who won an Oscar for it.
Now they were looking for a director to make the film. They first turned to director Kevin Smith. Smith was the type of director who made scripts written by himself. Now when it came to this film he didn’t take the job of the director because he stated they needed to find a “good director”, he wasn’t much of a visual director, as he only made films of scripts he wrote.
Pingback: Casanova dropped | varnachitram