There are two kinds of student filmmakers I completely hate. I don’t see much from the third kind.

Well, the first kind is pretty common. It’s the kind you see in every mass communication institute. The kind that thinks that the best (and the only) way to learn how to make movies is by watching them. More often than not, their film is nothing more than a poorly shot public service advertisement, the  synopsis contains the whole movie. And yeah, most films have bad acting. Really Really bad acting.

The second kind is rarer. It feeds on world cinema. Which is great. But but, the films made by these people suck even harder. The acting ain’t really great. It’s shot in black and white and yeah, it’s filled with undecipherable metaphors. It’s decipherable if you try– but then our version may not match theirs.  Which they say, is a good thing because they want their work to be interpreted in different ways. Now, ain’t that one fucking load of uninformed talk.

You see, interpretation is a funny thing. I can interpret lyrics like, ‘Pappu can’t dance saala’ and write a 350 page treatise on it. And, give my explanation as to why it is art.

Metaphors, are not really a bad thing. Especially in films which attempt to be more like poetry than a story. But but but, one rule of using metaphors should be that if the audience doesn’t get it– or is unwilling to make his own interpretation– he should still be able to enjoy the movie. I am not a great fan of films like No Smoking, and Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind but whenever these films have used metaphors– it’s been done in such a way– that an interpretation is planted in the viewer’s mind. One should try not to invent metaphors and integrate them in the film. These things come naturally, in case the film demands it. Don’t place a tulsi plant in the film just because it is meant to signify something. Layers of cream added to a terrible cake doesn’t make the cake taste good.