The following post is basically extracted from two of my comments on this post. It does not look good to post comments in place of posts but that was something that I wanted to say.

So, here it goes.

Sahni’s lyrics are pedestrian in all recent films from the yashraj camp. And the whole bright feel with unnatural Ranbir kapoor trademark jokes pisses me off big time. Nobody talks properly. Chak De India, is almost like any other hollywood sports film, but since it was the first in India, it was hailed as a masterpiece.

An example of Sahni’s writing..

The cricket vice captain says to her girlfriend, who happens to be a hockey player.

Aisa toh nahi hai ki tum jab wahaan se aaogi, toh log tumhe fool chadaayenge..

And the girl, pissed off by him says,

One thing I must promise you Mr. Vice Captain, aur kuch ho na ho… yeh zaroor hoga.

And then, in the end it happens.. I find such writing adequate of a nice wank. Because of this, now many people who previously did not make such foolishly pompous claims, will do so because they have seen it on the big screen. Bloody breeding of ignorance.

And the second one,

I agree with you, Anuj. The bicycle thief is a perfect example of how the forces of evil should be portrayed.

In fact, what I want to say now is merely an hypothetical representation of Sahni’s method, the attempt is to make people see the fault in his writings more clearly.

Let’s see for a moment here, a typical school setting in our schools.

There is a head boy, an all-rounder, good in sports, academics, etc. etc. Now, there’s a boy who is not good at anything. An underdog as it is called. Now, you make a story, where the underdog through hard work and all beats the head boy at his own game. To make it more convincing, you give the head boy an evil twist. He is making unnecessary fun of the supposed underdog. Everyone who sees the movie is happy because they all hate the head boy and feel sorry for the underdog.

But then, let’s see the errors of syntax here. Error number one, when you make the head boy lose, and you make him lose at football, then basically you are only strengthening the myth that being great at football makes you a better person than someone who is not good at it. And the one who loses, is well a loser. This does not alleviate stress but in fact increase stress amongst the real life underdogs. They are told and reaffirmed that they are indeed underdogs. Then, you give them something in the pretext of hope, and they try to do well in something in which obviously the other guy is better. This is easy to do in sports and that is one reason why athletic people are so socially deified in our schools.

Error number two,

One can say, that this underdog worked hard to beat him, the head boy was killed by his own overconfidence. And things like that. But ultimately, if we see in real life… is it always the head boy who is at fault? Are there not any disadvantages of being a socially deified hero, and advantages of being an alienated guy? Is life a mathematics paper, where if you work hard, you score 100/100 and if you don’t you score 7/100. Are these films not breeding a false sense of competitiveness between two different forces of nature, rather than giving color and expression to these forces and proving that ultimately they are born out as a result of the same wind flowing in different directions?

That is why, some stories are like Coca Cola, easily manufactured and available. Easily consumed also.

But what one is looking for is a taste never before experienced, and never to be experienced in the future. For that taste is rare, and can come out only if the direction of the wind is caught and it’s effects are captured.

I posted this mainly because, I hadn’t posted anything on this blog for a long time and it was important for me to reassure that it still exists!