My blog has moved!

You will be automatically redirected to the new address. If that does not occur, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

She said what?

Konkana Sen Sharma, known for her brilliant acting skills and the incredible niche she has formed in serious and off-beat cinema, recently said at an event that "cinema isn't meant for preaching," and that is was "a form of expression, an art form."

What's interesting about this is, many mainstream actors who refuse to do "art" cinema believe it is made for preaching to an audience. It was reported that Farah Khan repeatedly said she didn't want to make anything "artsy," while Preity Zinta (who is now doing an art film) said in Filmfare in September that at one point in her career, she did not want to be a part of that cinema which preaches.

Now, I find this really silly. If a film has no songs, or if a film is out of the mainstream, why must people think it has to have some sort of message, or that it's preaching to an audience? Director Nagesh Kukunoor, who's films are also known to be off-beat, says that he does not believe films should have messages.

His film "Dor" did focus on the difficulties women face when they are widows, but his story also focused on an incredible relationship two women, who were completely the opposite, were able to form. Yes, it's great if some people in society understand how wrong they are in treating widows in a demeaning manner after watching the film, like when Karan Johar realized how silly is was to name all his films with the letter "K" after watching Lage Raho Munnabhai, but that wasn't a message of the film-- it was merely a story that Kukunoor wanted to portray.

But, if commercial filmmakers and actors believe that making good films is preaching, then they should try it. I would rather be "preached" than to watch a Farah Khan film, any day.