2007-01-20

The relevance of past

We are going to spend the rest of our lives in the future, someone said.

But, there is a tendency to spend too much time talking about past - what we did, how we did, et al. Some people go to the extreme - anything that is from past is good; or better than what is from the present.

For instance, DON movie. I cannot understand how the old DON can be better than the new DON. The larger than life statement of the movie is - DON ko pakadna mushkil hi nahin, na mumkin hain (it is not just difficult to catch DON but impossible to do so). And in the old DON, the DON dies in the next scene. If it is impossible to catch him, did the story writer or the director mean that, while it is impossible to catch him it is pretty easy to kill him. And to add insult to injury, the rustic Amitabh gets into the DON's role and mananges it with easy and facility.

In the new DON, Farhan Akhthar proves that it is indeed impossible to catch DON. The simpleton SRK gets killed even before he gets into the DON's role. The DON is so because he is indeed a DON and it is impossible to copy him. Also, if you watched the old DON, you will see that Amitabh has almost a stoic expression on his face while Helen keeps on gyrating. In the new DON, SRK almost shows that he intends to bed Kareena as soon as she stops those gyrations, while surely enjoying the prelude to what is going to come. A DON is expected to do that and SRK was at his best. People who blame SRK and the new DON are, I guess, hooked on to the past and tend to believe that all that is past is good.

The principal purpose of past should be to analyze it and correct the mistakes committed and improve upon. Which Farhan did pretty well.

7 comments:

direkishore said...

You may have a point when you say some people go to the extreme when they say anything from the past is good, but your example is definitely poor.

Even if I agree that the new DON has a better plot and ending and that it fits well with the theme of the movie, that wouldn't necessarily make it a better movie, Would it ? A movie is rated by many aspects. I would rate AB's acting skills in the older DON to be anyday better than SRK so was helen's acting, not to forget Iftikhar when you compare to their counterparts in the new DON. Same with the music, Udit utterly failed to improve or even match Kishore's performance.

Yes, past may not be relavent but not certainly when I have a choice between watching two movies! and I definitely don't believe that everything about the past is good!!

itheabsolute said...

direkishore

each one is entitled to his / her opinion.

thanks for yur comments.


cheers

Kapil said...

i do agree that comparing the too is highly unfair...n the newer one does with with greater panache...however I dnt think tht SRK was the best choice.He lacks the physical presence to pull off such a character. Agreed most of the real life Don's are physically inconspicuous, however they don't pull off jumps from airplanes or enter a rival's den alone...Even though he has worked hard SRK can't look intimidating and manages to look like a pesky bug waiting to get squashed ..Akshay Kumar would have made a better Don

Anonymous said...

Well for starters this one is really way off from your usual posts.

While I liked the new DON for the same reasons you mentioned before. It was all about forgetting the past and enjoying things from an new angle. Never thought about it so deeply, so it was kinda funny to read your post.

No harm intended :) I had left a comment earlier too and enjoy ur posts thoroughly.

Regards,
Nitin

itheabsolute said...

kapil

there can be always ifs and if onlys in life....thanx for ur comments. hope u r enjoying ur job thoroughly

cheers

itheabsolute said...

Hi Nitin

Good to see your comments.

I was irritated with the unusual bashing which SRK / Don received for no good reason.....

and also, it is always good to write about something new

cheers

noone said...

SRK and his acting skills give some credibility to the movie, which otherwise is a bad film............arjun rampal nd his character should have been done without..........boman irani's performance was appalling...and so was om puri's........in spite of having such good actors farhan could not get much out of them.........the script was definitely poor..........The movie was flippant at it's best............it was supposed to be a serious film..........and ot in the least bit thrilling............

2007-01-20

The relevance of past

We are going to spend the rest of our lives in the future, someone said.

But, there is a tendency to spend too much time talking about past - what we did, how we did, et al. Some people go to the extreme - anything that is from past is good; or better than what is from the present.

For instance, DON movie. I cannot understand how the old DON can be better than the new DON. The larger than life statement of the movie is - DON ko pakadna mushkil hi nahin, na mumkin hain (it is not just difficult to catch DON but impossible to do so). And in the old DON, the DON dies in the next scene. If it is impossible to catch him, did the story writer or the director mean that, while it is impossible to catch him it is pretty easy to kill him. And to add insult to injury, the rustic Amitabh gets into the DON's role and mananges it with easy and facility.

In the new DON, Farhan Akhthar proves that it is indeed impossible to catch DON. The simpleton SRK gets killed even before he gets into the DON's role. The DON is so because he is indeed a DON and it is impossible to copy him. Also, if you watched the old DON, you will see that Amitabh has almost a stoic expression on his face while Helen keeps on gyrating. In the new DON, SRK almost shows that he intends to bed Kareena as soon as she stops those gyrations, while surely enjoying the prelude to what is going to come. A DON is expected to do that and SRK was at his best. People who blame SRK and the new DON are, I guess, hooked on to the past and tend to believe that all that is past is good.

The principal purpose of past should be to analyze it and correct the mistakes committed and improve upon. Which Farhan did pretty well.

7 comments:

direkishore said...

You may have a point when you say some people go to the extreme when they say anything from the past is good, but your example is definitely poor.

Even if I agree that the new DON has a better plot and ending and that it fits well with the theme of the movie, that wouldn't necessarily make it a better movie, Would it ? A movie is rated by many aspects. I would rate AB's acting skills in the older DON to be anyday better than SRK so was helen's acting, not to forget Iftikhar when you compare to their counterparts in the new DON. Same with the music, Udit utterly failed to improve or even match Kishore's performance.

Yes, past may not be relavent but not certainly when I have a choice between watching two movies! and I definitely don't believe that everything about the past is good!!

itheabsolute said...

direkishore

each one is entitled to his / her opinion.

thanks for yur comments.


cheers

Kapil said...

i do agree that comparing the too is highly unfair...n the newer one does with with greater panache...however I dnt think tht SRK was the best choice.He lacks the physical presence to pull off such a character. Agreed most of the real life Don's are physically inconspicuous, however they don't pull off jumps from airplanes or enter a rival's den alone...Even though he has worked hard SRK can't look intimidating and manages to look like a pesky bug waiting to get squashed ..Akshay Kumar would have made a better Don

Anonymous said...

Well for starters this one is really way off from your usual posts.

While I liked the new DON for the same reasons you mentioned before. It was all about forgetting the past and enjoying things from an new angle. Never thought about it so deeply, so it was kinda funny to read your post.

No harm intended :) I had left a comment earlier too and enjoy ur posts thoroughly.

Regards,
Nitin

itheabsolute said...

kapil

there can be always ifs and if onlys in life....thanx for ur comments. hope u r enjoying ur job thoroughly

cheers

itheabsolute said...

Hi Nitin

Good to see your comments.

I was irritated with the unusual bashing which SRK / Don received for no good reason.....

and also, it is always good to write about something new

cheers

noone said...

SRK and his acting skills give some credibility to the movie, which otherwise is a bad film............arjun rampal nd his character should have been done without..........boman irani's performance was appalling...and so was om puri's........in spite of having such good actors farhan could not get much out of them.........the script was definitely poor..........The movie was flippant at it's best............it was supposed to be a serious film..........and ot in the least bit thrilling............