Vishwaroopam- Kamal Threatens to Leave India
 |
| Why so serious? |
 |
| Tina |
Kamal wants to leave. I'm not a fan of Kamals' so I'm not sure that it's a great loss for us as a nation if we have him move. We'd still get the movies here, and it's not like I join him for coffee in the morning after my jog. So what's the big deal?
Has it happened before?
The news article on MSN has compared the threat to MS Hussain's departure and consequent death in England. I think there are more recent examples of this migration/changing of passports business.
 |
| Bridget |
- Gerard Depardieu embraced Russian citizenship in December, as he was unhappy with the tax system in France
- Bridget Bardot pioneered the idea in November, but has restated a few weeks ago that she will also turn Russian over the scheduled euthanization of two elephants held at the French Zoo
- Tina Turner has joined the bandwagon, for no real real reason, except perhaps to just move to the Switzerland
 |
| Gerard: courtesty guardian.uk |
And so will Mr Hassan, threaten to leave the country, to find himself a country that is more secular. Good Luck to him, I'm not sure a nation state of that sort exists.
Why?
09/11/2001: Changed everything, on the calendar. Over night, people who believed in the Islamic fate were subjected to silent 'racism' that with the passing years, like a drum roll, increase in pace and volume.
The crazy terrorist groups caught wind, and planned like the characters of Pinky and The Brain, for world domination. Together paranoia and extreme attention seeking methods have created the conditions today that allow Mr Hassan to pass threats (I'll bet my blog, he's not moving out the country- he's just pouting!)
That's why the movie Vishwaroopam has the tagline: "Not all muslims are terrorists". Thirteen years ago, did someone have to put that up on a movie, like a statutory "Cigarettes are bad for your health"?
The Argument
And have people stopped smoking? No
Are they all aware? Yes
That is why this is silly. People should be allowed to make movies the way they want to . We need to respect artistic freedom, because we all went to watch Schindler's List, Bombay, Kannathil Mithamittal, Inglorious Basterds or Passion of Christ and whole heap of other movies.
> We didn't invent a time machine after (Schindler's List/ Inglorious Basterds), to go back in time and assassinate Hitler after we watched the movie.
> Neither did we book tickets to Sri Lanka and depending on which side we were on, join the LTTE or the government (KM).
> Neither did we go out and kill all the Jews after that passionate (albeit dramatic) depiction of Jesus's betrayal and crucification on Passion of Christ.
The same way half the population didn't stop being Christian after reading the Da Vinci Code or watching the movie. Nor did the Muslims who read Rushdie's Satanic Verses decide to be something else.
I don't understand why the people of the Muslim faith, who are objecting to the depiction of the religion and its practioners, make such a hue and cry to distinguish themselves from the terrorists, only to get offended if a Muslim terrorist is shown in a movie.
The only people who'd run out of the cinema hall, to go and attack the crowd are the ones who've been promised monetary compensation. It's the same ones who'd have robbed you, if they didn't get this assignment anyways.
Conclusion
Censoring/ Blocking any movie is only going to make it more popular. And if it's a Kamal Hassan movie, you're screwed. And now the movie's become this 'religious' battle, with various lucky parties (judge included) getting free screenings.
Kindda makes you think if the only way you'd be able to watch the movie in peace, is to find some thing else wrong with it, and then have Kamal Hassan invite you for a free screening
And it also kindda makes you think, what else is going to be sensitized, and how many more people are going to run around tarnishing the image of a beautiful religion, in the name of belonging to it.
Comments
Think bout it - why would a court be so adamant that the movie will not get released, even when the Center has sided the actor, the censor board has cleared it and hello, even the movie has no references to whatever it is accused of?
The movie was to have a sequel.. now that Kamal is losing bout 30 - 80 Cr, people can buy this movie off him for cheap.. look at who will gain from this and you could figure out the players in this murky game.
Poor Kamal really.. the guy ended up as the loser.
RAJ: Interestingly enough, I heard the same thing today at work when we were talking about this. That it was political..and you have an excellent point. This one's one that I will wait and watch.. And i resonate your thought, poor him. It's unfair really.
AG: Totally agree on the fact that we are becoming over sensitive! And it's such a pity he's being kicked around like a ball. We can all empathize because at one point or another, we've all been a victim to this, and all I can say, is there's a trend and it's a statement if he has to leave this democracy, to have freedom of speech, thought and action.
I agree with you that we should not interfere in artistic issues including movies but at the same time who indulges in this should also ensure that feelings of others are not hurt unless it is a factual depiction of events. You have analyzed the issue well. He is gaining a lot of publicity.
Take care
And great to know there are people in my generation who know Gerard Depardieu.
Photoshop Level: Kapil Sibal.