Beware Nattu, some people might get agree with this post.

They still think that you are caught in a time-warp. How dare you say anything against TDK? After all, didn’t Nolan prepare a masterpiece that puts small yet overrated film-makers like David Lean and Francis Ford Coppola and Akira Kurosawa and Frederico Fellini and Orson Welles firmly in their place?

Didn’t Heath Ledger put in a performance that would make Clark Gable and Humphrey Bogart and Al Pacino wish they were never born?

Wow, and as Two-Face, Aaron Eckhart perhaps surpassed all those character actors ever.

Nattu, rot in hell

Sorry, some people might get angry with this post

Oh Bitter Kaushik .. Its not the fault of Nolan or DK that Internet is at its prime when their work gets released .

100 years down the line , perhaps Ledger’s role would be as much admired with all the awe as people did over gloria swanson ! If you fail to acknowledge that , you must be having a prejudice against contemporary movies .

Good day to you

p.s citizen kane was the most (edited) movie I ever watched .

P.P.S Touch of Evil wasn’t .

(Lets keep the language family friendly – Abhiram)

Excellent piece Nattu. I’m not a huge fan of the Imdb system, but your analysis of the TDK phenomena was brilliant to say the least

I agree with the general sentiment of your argument, but it should be noted that the IMDb 250 only counts votes from “regular voters.” While they never explicit release the details for what constitutes this group of voters, it can be assumed that they either a) vote often, or b) have voted for a long period of time, or maybe both. If this is the case, they are probably relatively serious film lovers, and my naive assumption would be that they would not sully voting history with a hate vote. But again, since we don’t know who are the regular voters, it’s hard to actually know how much of an actual impact these so-called hate votes have on the rankings.

To support your thesis further, the last two times that The Godfather fell from #1 were after the releases of the first Lord of the Rings film (which hit #1) and Saving Private Ryan (which hit, as far as I know, at least #5).

Superb post,nice analysis on the fallibility of the ranking system.
But do people really so fanatic about movie ratings?
I guess people will choose to watch DK, Godfather and Shawshank irrespective of the ranks..

<>

Doesn’t mean that they don’t have an eligibility criteria. Ever tried to find that out?

A very nice article. Firstly it represents how systems can be ripped apart by users. Secondly it also shows how the mob culture is present in all of us and when we want something done then we don’t just do positive for the thing we like but also do negative for thing which lies in our competition

@Vipul, it’s there closely guarded secret. If you find out, let me know. Could be worth a lot to Hollywood publicists.

@Nattu: Looking forward to the other article…

BTW, could it be that the Godfather always bounces back to number 1 because of a clique of die-hard fans who vote accordingly?

Just a thought.

Haha, Prashanth, I have no prejudice against contemporary movies. I adore Tarantino more than any other filmmaker.

Just that Tarantino uses lesser gimmicks. And I guess Tarantino isn’t golden age yet, right?

And buddy, who has seen 100 years? 100 years from now – critics might as well put this movie as trash and into the dustbin of history.

Good day to you too, Prashanth – cool down, perhaps a Keanu Reeves classic might help you? (watch Johnny Depp if you want class from this generation of actors – or is it too much to ask for? Ok watch Shia Le Bouf then )

Nattu, rest assured, no fan of Godfather would ever hate-vote Shawshank – there is too much appreciation of good movies involved, you know.

And Gunda Rocks, Mithunda Rocks – IT IS THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER.

BTW, P, thanks for admitting that internet age played a big role in pushing TDK to 1 – good you finally admit the fact that I have tried to push for a long time.

The internet age also helped push the Godfather back up as well, didn’t it?

There is a slight difference in being No1, and then dropping down to 7, and dropping down to 2, to come back to 1.

I think it is a bit difficult to understand on your part, obsesses as you are with “cinematic junk food” – Godfather was produced way before the internet age was around, and it made its way up to number 1 (currently number 2) – the core group of fanatic Godfather lovers thus span generations. On the other hand, TDK “debuted” at number 1, because of a sudden rush of adrenalin, that we saw from the core group of supporters it had. Because it had the advantage that its target audience were mostly internet-savvy people, which was not the case with Godfather.

And btw, comparing the two movies – I won’t even go into that domain, because junk food cannot be compared with staple diet.

Anyway, TDK has been shown its right place at 7 (I doubt it can even retain that place – because in the future, some even “connoisseurs may vote a chick-flick to number 1 – the way the audiences are going, I think Philip K Dick would be jumping up and down in his grave)

BTW, before you start to cry foul at me getting personal, and before you get more confused – the whole point was -”internet was one of the MAJOR reasons why TDK was number 1″ ( if released in the 50s, I doubt it would be even close)- because it gave the net-savvy crowds what they wanted – Technical Voodoo which ended up covering a lot of flaws, whereas in case of movies like those at number 1 and 2 currently, internet played only a miniscule part, if at all.

Its nothing but what Maximus said – “give the crowds what they want”. Tarantino and Soderbergh as directors are not as commercially successful as they belong to the classical school of cinema-making. Can’t help it, thats what the current trend is, just like Test Cricket is losing out to T20

The only Diversion from this trend (technical voodoo scoring over acting and directions skills) has been the Harry Potter genre of movies, but then they have a group of extremely-dedicated fans

However, to TDK’s credit, it had some decent acting to complement the technical voodoo, that’s what differentiates it from run-of-the-mill adrenaline gushing movies like the “war-of-the worlds” or “transformers

@Saha: The biggest flaw in your entire reasoning is quite simple: you are confusing the content with the medium.

Your definition of what constitutes good cinema (or staple diet) is fundamentally flawed, because you are favouring a certain kind of movies, and rejecting every thing else as “junk food”. Cinema is a medium of expression, and its content is not just limited to drama and thrillers. Through the medium, a director tries to communicate his vision of something to the audience, and everything from special effects to actors are just props in the effort.

Now, I’m not taking anything away from good actors. Actors can often make or break the movie, however, they are not the only criteria. Tight storytelling and innovative presentation plays just as important a part. Even awesome actors like Pacino can’t save a stinker like “88 minutes” (which was a run of the mill thriller) just on the basis of their acting skills. What the audience is looking for is enjoyment, and if good actors can’t give that, then the audience will choose other fare.

Also, the term classical school of cinema is quite interesting, because it usually refers to film makers who dared to be different from the mainstream thought in their time (Wells, Chaplin, Lang and Kurosawa for example). Also, commercial success means nothing. Its possible to be commercially successful just by having a wider distribution, and that is awesome market analysis and strategy at work, not critical opinion. Many horrible movies have been commercial successes (the latest example being Trashformers 2)and critical failures, and for most of these movies, the collections dropped in the second week (Cloverfield was the best example in recent past). Tarantino and Soderbergh are successful because they know how to tell a good story, and they use every single trick in their arsenal to do so (including “gizmos”). Spielberg is successful because he understands this well, and so did Kurosawa, Asif, Hitchcock, Otomo, Kubrick, Ray, Sippy and the Wachowskies.

The problem is that so caught up you are in your own definition of what constitutes good cinema, that you don’t even allow an opposing view. I think Godfather is a great movie, and I think The Dark Knight is an even better movie. That is because of my own perception and tastes. I have friends who thought The Dark Knight was a great movie and that The Godfather was even a better movie, and thats because of their own perception. The difference here is that in their case, they are not dismissive of The Dark Knight (or any such “gizmo” heavy movie) because they are looking for something different from you in a movie, and their tastes and mine do not match at times, but at no point do we consider each others tastes “junk”. People like certain things, thats what makes us individuals. You have a certain point of view about what constitutes good cinema and I have my own. The difference is that I don’t say that mine is the only correct version, and that all the movies that don’t subscribe to what I like are trash. You are mistaken when you say that by saying that I like films like TDK, I would have a low opinion of films like The Godfather of Apocalypse Now, and I’d prefer horrible movies like Trashformers 2 just because I like “gizmos” and action and sci-fi. That is the greatest problem with your argument.

Also, your argument about the timelessness of Godfather is a little flawed. Granted that it is a timeless epic, but with the conditions that were outlined in the article, the only way for TDK to go down was because of “hate-voting” by Godfather fans, or by the people of Imdb employing “corrective measures”. With the lack of evidence on both, I’m inclined to agree with the first choice, as many people (including students of IIMC) didn’t like the gains of TDK (which incidentally, didn’t debut at 1) and then decided to push it down. Note that this argument takes nothing away from the quality of the other movies, Godfather and Shawshank are awesome movies, and it is a testimony to their awesomeness that they have such a cult following even in this day and age. It just states that for Godfather to consistently jump back to number one again and again implies that there is something rather interesting going on behind the scenes.

And who is to say how TDK would have performed had it been released 50 years ago? TDK employs the cutting edge in film-making techniques and thought, much like Citizen Kane did back in 1940s, or Metropolis even before that, and I hear that those movies are still critical favourites.

And yes, you do tend to get personal at times, and that is highly irritating, insulting, trivializes the discussion and is not expected of a top writer and team member of Strat.in, because that sets a bad precedent for the other readers and writers.

“With the lack of evidence on both, I’m inclined to agree with the first choice, as many people (including students of IIMC) didn’t like the gains of TDK (which incidentally, didn’t debut at 1) and then decided to push it down” – interesting conspiracy theory.

“Tight storytelling and innovative presentation plays just as important a part” – I missed this point in my argument – I wholeheartedly agree to it.

Moving away from this argument, I just remember what Akshay Kumar told post the criticism over KI – “every producer / director thinks he is making a Mughal-e-Azam while he is making his film”.

@Nattu: Is there anyway we can get some sort of data about number of votes etc? That’ll give us a better idea.

BTW, coming to opinions – Sajid Nadiadwala must have felt that he was making “Mughal-E-Azam” when he made “Kambakht Ishq”.

As far as junk food is concerned – Well, a Big Mac fan can scream at the top of his voice – “Food is a means to fulfill your stomach,you can do that by having cereals or potato chips. I think potato chips are an even better thing that cereals, but you doctor, you are so caught in your own arguments that cereals are better, that you tend to forget that potato chips can also fill a stomach. To you, potato chips are junk food, to me, they are staple diet. Perceptions differ. Why are you dismissive of Potato chips, which are “fat heavy”? ”

As far as “behind the scenes” stuff by IMDB to keep Godfather at no1 and Shawshank at number 2 and Good bad Ugly at number 4 are concerned, that is the most laughable and pathetic argument I ever heard. (but we all love Conspiracy Theories, dont we?)

While you speak of heavy technology in Citizen Kane, one point you are missing again and again that -it was not technology, rather a new idea of continuity in scenes that made it a wonderful film in that era. Read any old journal and you would realize this.

BTW, I think Korvus that you are confusing camerawork with technology when you speak of directors like Singer and Tarantino. I will explain the difference – in Benhur (1966 version) – the chariot scene was good camerawork, not technology or special effects. While in “ten Commandments” the splitting of the sea was technology.

Technology as such is great, and they make the presentation more spicier. But they are just like the dressing on the salad.Read the blogs of any movie critic and you will repeatedly find that it is (a) Acting (b) story (c) camerawork and visuals (d) improvisation that is the soul. When technology starts to overshadow everything, that’s when the problem starts. It is like fire, a very good servant, but a very bad master.

As far as classical school of movie-making is concerned, there was no fixed dictionary definition anywhere, The very directors you have mentioned, with the four “souls of cinema” I mentioned, brought about a classical school of cinema.

As far as getting personal is concerned, that again is an opinion. I believe that I have tried to shake out any apathy that exists to those who suffer – e.g. – there were complaints about the Hitler post comment, however, it was necessary somewhat to shake out the indifference towards the victims of the system, bring about some sympathy to those poor suffering souls, who I believe would have “a different opinion” to you, because they have suffered. Again, there you were caught up in your own argument, and labeled any thing to the contrary as trash, so you see, you have done the same thing you have accused me of.

Btw, if overall presentation is king, why are the James Bond movies not taken as serious cinema? Even by the crowds? Because they are pure entertainment, and just that. So are movies like Iron Man and even Spiderman. Yes, Tobey McGuire did an excellent job in Spiderman, but then, he had the backing of technology to cover his faults, as compared to his roles in say, Seabiscuit. Why aren’t Arnie, Stallone,Bruce Willis, Christian Bale, Val Kilmer and Antonio Banderas put in a league nowhere close to Russell Crowe, Denzel Washington and Johnny Depp?

Any why don’t we have a poll right here in strat,in about which movie they would want to watch – “Reservoir Dogs” or “Independence Day”?

It is because of this exact reason that Theatre is such a revered form of entertainment, because it is only acting, presentation and story that matters. That is why all the greats of Hollywood and even here in Bollywood, rush off to do theatre at any opportunity they get. Dustin Hoffman as Shylock in the play “Merchant of Venice is very very respected even after 20 years of the play.

Still with the same arguments I see. Firstly, lets not start comparing different art forms and mediums, because each one of them has their own strengths and weaknesses which need to be explored fully by any piece. Theater has its strengths and so does cinema, so does prose, so does poetry and so does the graphic novel. The comic book is a superior medium to the theater and the cinematic medium in many many ways, and loses out in some other ways. And btw: an equal, if not greater number of Theater actors would eagerly snap up a chance to act in a movie, so that argument means basically nothing.

And another thing, just by comparing actors, yo aren’t proving anything. An actor is just a prop used by the director to explain his vision, nothing more and nothing less. Specific actors are chosen for specific roles because of their particular characteristics, and can you really imagine Depp playing the T-800 (but I’m guess you didn’t see that movie, did you, too many Gizmos and all). Your problem is that you have such a one sided and luddite view of the whole medium, that you insist on denouncing any and every new technological breakthrough that makes cinema more interesting and appealing to the masses, and you seem to rather an elitist approach to movie making. You know Kaushik, we could do this all day, but then, at the end of the day, your views count for nothing, but not because you are an elitist. Your views count for nothing because you don’t allow any other point of view in your narrow minded litany.

And how about the following poll: Reservoir Dogs vs The Matrix? An awesome drama vs one of the best Tech-Noir Cyberpunk epics of all times?

And exactly what is wrong with having entertaining movies, I don’t exactly remember a law that said that any art form shouldn’t be entertaining, just cerebral? Thats kinda stupid way of looking at things.

And as for your rant, you are free to continue as long as you want, I don’t want to waste any more of my time on this meaningless discussion, since your view is a very contorted and elitist and lets face it, myopic view of the entire medium, and besides, it doesn’t matter anyways. Sci-fi epics and comic book movies will still be made along with cerebral fare, and I’d rather go out and watch them than split hairs with someone with a stunted view of art and entertainment.

Oh, and the Matrix vs Reservoir Dogs, I bet that turns out to be a very close run thing.

“Still with the same arguments I see” – I would shift, but only if you could come up with some convincing arguments.

Prop- anyone with a decent knowledge of performing arts would know what a Prop is, and why an actor can never be a prop.

Yes, entertainment need not be cerebral, thats why people waych Rakhi ka Swayamvar more than BBC – and I feel that you fall in that category of people who would watch RKS and feel good about it. So really, your views, are trash , and any “broad-minded” person would tell you this too(though some people might still be happy with it)

Matrix vs Reservoir Dogs :
(a) Voting is by gizmo-freaks – Matrix wins
(b) Voting is by followers of Good Cinema – Reservoir dogs win hands down

I would shift, but only if you could come up with some convincing arguments.

Well, its hard to argue with a closed room, isn’t it? And of course my arguments would seem unconvincing to you, as your arguments seem stupid and elitist to me.

Prop- anyone with a decent knowledge of performing arts would know what a Prop is, and why an actor can never be a prop.

Not true. An actor is an instrument in the director’s telling of the story, and you are talking to someone who has done theater and arts.

and I feel that you fall in that category of people who would watch RKS and feel good about it.

Thats your problem, you generalize too much, and anyone who doesn’t agree with you is instantly labeled as someone who loves trash. Do you even know if I watch that serial, or are you just mouthing off to show yourself as high and mighty and superior?

Matrix vs Reservoir Dogs :
(a) Voting is by gizmo-freaks – Matrix wins
(b) Voting is by followers of Good Cinema – Reservoir dogs win hands down

And thus, any movie which has any semblance of Sci-fi is labeled a “Gizmo” movie. And “broad minded” doesn’t exactly mean elitist snob.

Someone who has done theater and arts? – And still doesn’t know that a prop in a theater means an inanimate object, which actors themselves use to do bring about different effects?

Nattu, I can discuss this offline with you, and you will realize that my take on good cinema, is, well good cinema itself, irrespective of when it was released.

Here is the definition of a prop (I generally do not refer to Wiki, but……)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatrical_property

A theatrical property, commonly referred to as a prop, is any object held or used on stage by an actor for use in furthering the plot or story line of a theatrical production. Smaller props are referred to as “hand props”. Larger props may also be set decoration, such as a chair or table. The difference between a set decoration and a prop is use. If the item is not touched by a performer for any reason it is simply a set decoration. If it is touched by the actor in accordance to script requirements or as deemed by the director, it is a prop.

~And I did not want to say it here, but I have acted in a play directed by Swatilekha Sengupta herself, not to forget the 60 odd other plays and live theater that I have done

But may be the Wiki is wrong, since some people here are “No-mean-trivia masters”, they might know better

Sorry, I apologize

I apologize again

But “stupid”, “elitist”, “idiotic”, “irresponsible”, “trash”, “snob” – well, they are also not very pleasant comments either. And I did not use them first (in case you haven’t noticed, intentionally or otherwise – whatever). And these are also not full of respect to the other person who don’t share opinions.

But, then – well, this is not the first time that I am apologizing for some comment, and something similar has not been found from the other side.

If you fail to notice this, well…… you are not exactly being unbiased