Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[dhruvdeepak]

http://in.rediff.com/movies/2005/apr/15hazaaron.htm
http://imdb.com/title/tt0411469/

The rush of youth defies description. It has to be experienced. But the outcome of its impulse and conviction of its ideology is what defines every individual's coming of age.

Sudhir Mishra's Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi reflects the intensity and fate of three young characters, who start out on the same platform but board different trains and reach a destination of their own making.

It could be the story of three ordinary, or not so ordinary, people, depending on the given circumstances, if the setting of this drama wasn't such a crucial time in history.

The late 1960s and early 1970s were turbulent times -- angst filled and strife scarred. It was the time of Vietnam, of flower power, of the Emergency and the rise of the Naxal movement in India. And a booming population of restless youth was eager to wage war against anything that curbed idealism.

Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi digs into a section of this crazy chapter of history through its three protagonists – Siddharth (Kaykay Menon), Geeta (Chitrangada Singh) and Vikram (Shiny Ahuja).

The three study in a prestigious Delhi college and come from different stratas of society. In the beginning, the three friends are carefree and desultory. But as they get out in the real world, they learn the ropes of survival.

Siddharth dreams of revolution. He becomes part of the Naxal movement in the villages of Bihar. His emotional attachment to Geeta doesn't stop him from his political pursuits.

Post-college, Geeta is married to an IAS officer but she continues to see Siddharth on the sly.

Vikram too has always nursed unconditional love in his heart for Geeta. But that's all there is to his soft side. A small town boy once, Vikram climbs the social ladder by networking in the big league unabashedly.

Geeta ends her marriage and starts living in the village with Siddharth. This is the time in the film when Geeta's character evolves. From a London-bred girl to teaching village women, or having a child out of wedlock or asking favours from Vikram in hours of need to a lot of other gruesome realities, Geeta discovers herself.

The story movies on. The characters mature and move on. They regret. They apologise. They change. Their lives are not the same.

Hazaaron Khwaishen Aisi plays like a novel spanning a decade. While Geeta is a picture of poignancy and inspires awe, Vikram's complexities leave the viewer perturbed. There is a lot to his greyness that is unsaid and yet subtly hinted through mere expressions. He is the most mysterious of them all.

Siddharth is the most real. In the beginning, he appears to be a rebel for effect. Gradually, his seriousness about his cause unveils. Later, his aggravation at the futility of it all unfolds. His weaknesses as the man in a relationship aren't hidden either. Eventually, he changes the course of his journey. The fire of his conviction still smoulders, but the flame is missing.

The actors do complete justice to their brilliantly etched out characters. Kaykay moves you with his intensity. And Shiny is a startling improvement from the lacklustre cop he played in Karam. But Chitrangada Singh, whose face draws inevitable comparisons to Smita Patil, is definitely someone to watch out for. She is a complete natural who zaps the camera with a passionate performance.

The protagonists act like metaphors for the maddening 1970s. The rush of youth is long gone. The restrain of experience has sunk in. The whiff of a bittersweet memory lingers. But that's all it is -- a memory -- a chapter of history that has closed.

Sudhir Mishra's drama is overwhelming, memorable.
---

Anyone else seen this? Just got a hold of it yesterday- it blew me away. The character psychologies of Vikram (Shiney Ahuja) and Geeta (Chitrangada Singh) in particular are extremely well developed. The story is set carefully in the late 60s and 70s as India deteriorated and the Emergency happened. And the ending- holy cow- the ending is one of the best I've seen in films in a long time. Terrifically ironic- heart-wrenching and leaves you with a smile at the same time.

[colonel]

I don't know if you remeber, but feverpitch was talking about this movie a while back. Glad to know you like it.

[dhruvdeepak]

didnt see that...thnx for pointing it out.

The Qawwali from the movie, Mann Yeh Bavra, is absolutely fantastic.

[colonel]

spot on - fantastic quawwali. definitely in the same league as the old manna de or rafi classics. incidentally, another fairly recent quawwali i liked is "piya haji ali" from fiza.

[Jai]

Fantastic movie. Almost fell in love with Chitrangada Singh. Too bad that her sasural didn't allow her to act in more films. I think she did one more called 'Kal'. My favorite song from the film is 'Baawra mann dekhne chala ek sapna'.

[dhruvdeepak]

saw it a 2nd time over the weekend. damn thing broke my heart.

[cardus]

saw it a 2nd time over the weekend. damn thing broke my heart.

Why, Dhruv?

Lemme explain. I'm interested in how people reacted to the film, because I've seen wildly varying reactions when Feverpitch screened the film for us friends here in Champaign.

[dhruvdeepak]

i dont know what exactly it was about the story.
it certainly wasnt ONLY the ending, which I'm sure you'll agree was skilfully set up and almost unbearable to watch. The warmth of heart of Chitrangadha's character (at the end) or the simple message of Shiney's that basically was reiterated for the n'th time, but this time in a different manner.

Overall the film kept showing Shiney's plight and his helplessness because of his love, so that was the main heart-breaking effect. Something I guess some ppl can relate to always works.

They also kept showing the happenings, the effects of Indira *hi, like the sterilization camps and such, and that was painful to watch as well.

[cardus]

So u mean, what affected you was the human-relationship story. What about the politics? What about the character of KK Menon? What about the way certain historical events were depicted (I'm sure you recognised the likes of Sanjay *hi)? How did you react to those?

Others on this forum are welcome to contribute...

[dhruvdeepak]

I think the depiction of Sanjay *hi was fairly accurate. It is difficult to get by the demonized image of the man what with the heinous occurrences he was responsible for, and they go for this image in the movie.
Depicting the political events were important as a background and fed the story well, in that we saw what the police did to KK and Chitra*ha, and Shiney as well. Similarly, the background story was what sort of planted the seeds in KK's mind for a revolution and the movie illustrated beautifully what exactly it was that inspired him to keep going back to the villages.

The best sequences of the movie, for me, came from the narration of the letters. They were wonderfully written and narrated, and synopsized situations the characters were in brilliantly.

[tombaan]

KK menon is one of the most talented actors in the hindi industry his looks remind me of madan jain another good actor from past. KK even in sarkar in such a small role was very good...i thought better B junior but then family helps....he is in corporate from madhur hopefully will get more recognition

[Dayal Baba]

**spoilers**

KK Menon's was the weakest character of the three. Talked the talk but could not walk the walk. When the going got tough, he resorts to calling up daddy to bail him out and ditched his friend to save his hide. Although he survives the events in Bihar, in actuality his character gets the biggest beating, because he is built up as this heroic idealist revolutionary throughout the movie. In contrast, Shiney, who is built up as a typical self-serving middle-class opportunist throughout the movie, comes through as the taller character. To be fair to KK, it was pretty commendable to actually go into the muck and soil his hands before realizing that the ideas that influenced him were better left in books. In that sense his character was very real. I am sure this is the story of many such 'revolutionaries' who came from priviledged backgrounds.

[feverpitch]

**spoilers**

KK Menon's was the weakest character of the three. Talked the talk but could not walk the walk. When the going got tough, he resorts to calling up daddy to bail him out and ditched his friend to save his hide. Although he survives the events in Bihar, in actuality his character gets the biggest beating, because he is built up as this heroic idealist revolutionary throughout the movie. In contrast, Shiney, who is built up as a typical self-serving middle-class opportunist throughout the movie, comes through as the taller character. To be fair to KK, it was pretty commendable to actually go into the muck and soil his hands before realizing that the ideas that influenced him were better left in books. In that sense his character was very real. I am sure this is the story of many such 'revolutionaries' who came from priviledged backgrounds.

So you mean the film accurately reflected reality?

[Dayal Baba]

**spoilers**

KK Menon's was the weakest character of the three. Talked the talk but could not walk the walk. When the going got tough, he resorts to calling up daddy to bail him out and ditched his friend to save his hide. Although he survives the events in Bihar, in actuality his character gets the biggest beating, because he is built up as this heroic idealist revolutionary throughout the movie. In contrast, Shiney, who is built up as a typical self-serving middle-class opportunist throughout the movie, comes through as the taller character. To be fair to KK, it was pretty commendable to actually go into the muck and soil his hands before realizing that the ideas that influenced him were better left in books. In that sense his character was very real. I am sure this is the story of many such 'revolutionaries' who came from priviledged backgrounds.

So you mean the film accurately reflected reality?

Certainly the characters were nuanced and believeable.

[feverpitch]

Certainly the characters were nuanced and believeable.

I agree that in the dismal world of Bollywood cinema with its appalling lack of maturity, our expectations as spectators are quite low. Even then, is that the only criterion you use to judge whether a narrative reflects reality? Or could it be that the way this narrative was wound up fitted snugly with your world view?

It might even be that narrative closure is the only thing that matters to you. I wouldn't know, but I'm curious.

[Dayal Baba]

Certainly the characters were nuanced and believeable.

I agree that in the dismal world of Bollywood cinema with its appalling lack of maturity, our expectations as spectators are quite low. Even then, is that the only criterion you use to judge whether a narrative reflects reality? Or could it be that the way this narrative was wound up fitted snugly with your world view?

Or it could be that the way the narrative wound up did not fit into your world view?
 
I'd have no problems if KK died a hero's death, the story would have been different, that's all. I just commented on what was shown, and I found it to be believeable. What is so unreal about a heroic revolutionary who chickens out in the end? That can never happen? Or is showing that considered heretical?

And yes there have been many who have been revolutionaries in their student days, but changed their ways later on. So it's not something completely unrealistic, as you make it out to be.

It might even be that narrative closure is the only thing that matters to you. I wouldn't know, but I'm curious.

What has narrative closure got to do with anything?

[feverpitch]

Or it could be that the way the narrative wound up did not fit into your world view?

Actually, I'm happy with whatever I get, since I personally never try to look for reality in a fictionalised world. I start by accepting that a narrative is a fictionalised vision of the author's subjective viewpoint. All I do is, at the aesthetic level, look for the 'reality effect' that a film or story conjures up, and at the critical level, to what purposes they might have been used.

I'd have no problems if KK died a hero's death, the story would have been different, that's all. I just commented on what was shown, and I found it to be believeable. What is so unreal about a heroic revolutionary who chickens out in the end? That can never happen? Or is showing that considered heretical?
And yes there have been many who have been revolutionaries in their student days, but changed their ways later on. So it's not something completely unrealistic, as you make it out to be.

As for 'chickening out of a left revolutionary', especially a Naxalite, I can think of as many examples as of counter examples. Since there is no definitive study on this, I'd not venture so far ahead to claim that this is the inevitable path ALL of them have followed. And I do see, you agree with me on that. However, given that practically all all works of fiction [films and litt.] based on the events surrounding the Naxalite movement, nearly always written by those who had little or no direct involvement with it, seem to use the same trope of the converted revolutionary, I'd tend to think that there might be other concerns behind such a move, most notably the fact that it would be deemed too dangerous by the state apparatus to allow for such an ending --  so it probably would be that much more difficult for such a work to be published or exhibited.

Also, while at the idealistic level, I'd agree with you that a revolutionary of such calling as the character of KK Menon befits a heroic death, I would also say that police torture of that period [as also in places like Chile, Russia, Argentina, and in recent times, Iraq and Israel -- amongst others, have bent the resolve of stronger men] -- and that is something I do not hold against their character!

What has narrative closure got to do with anything?

Well, the very fact that so far from your posts, the only commentary discernable is the one on the closure, in which your reading suggests that all that matters is the fact that Shiney's character ENDED up on the moral high-ground [which covers up for his previous dalliance with the Sanjay *hi and other anti-social types]. Could it possibly be that my surmise [so far] about your reading of the film is on track, that at the level of self-identification, the character of Shiney provides the most convenient model out of an essentially poor set of choices, since even in his case, I'd say there are indeed several redeeming features that do not normally fit into the popular conception of the "typical self-serving middle-class opportunist", which indeed is what seems to have attracted you to his character in the first place. In other words, Shiney's character provides the comfortable escape for the "typical self-serving middle-class opportunist" audience of this film to feel reassured about his/her importance and potency.

[feverpitch]

In fact, I have another thesis on the reason behind so many fictionalised accounts of the Naxalite movement harping on the 'failed' revolutionary. In my opinion, it is a meta comment on the high hopes raised by the movement, and the reality of its eventual failure.

That way, the individualized lives of the fictionalised and real characters serve only one purpose -- carry the collective sigh of despair/relief of the middle classes who engendered these revolutionaries, and who chose to stay on the sidelines.

If such a reading can be agreed upon, what becomes more [or at least equally] important imho are --

a. Not the closure, but the body of the narrative and how it problematizes the issues it tackles within it.
b. The form of the narrative.

[Dayal Baba]

Or it could be that the way the narrative wound up did not fit into your world view?

Actually, I'm happy with whatever I get, since I personally never try to look for reality in a fictionalised world.
[snip]

Yet it bothers you when I say that the characters are believeable, and then you go about complaining how *all* works of fiction on the Naxal movement represent only the partial truth.

You don't sound very 'happy'.

What has narrative closure got to do with anything?

Well, the very fact that so far from your posts, the only commentary discernable is the one on the closure, in which your reading suggests that all that matters is the fact that Shiney's character ENDED up on the moral high-ground [which covers up for his previous dalliance with the Sanjay *hi and other anti-social types]. Could it possibly be that my surmise [so far] about your reading of the film is on track, that at the level of self-identification, the character of Shiney provides the most convenient model out of an essentially poor set of choices, since even in his case, I'd say there are indeed several redeeming features that do not normally fit into the popular conception of the "typical self-serving middle-class opportunist", which indeed is what seems to have attracted you to his character in the first place. In other words, Shiney's character provides the comfortable escape for the "typical self-serving middle-class opportunist" audience of this film to feel reassured about his/her importance and potency.

Yeah, just the way the Naxalite-sympathizing (Naxi?) audience (most of whom are self-serving middle class opportunists themselves) would have felt reassured about their importance and potency had KK been shown not copping out.

Oh, and by the way, I had said that Shiney's was the taller character, not the tallest. But I wouldn't think she would be considered a true revolutionary, even though she suffered  the same police brutality as KK did, since she didn't smear her hands in blood (as Charu Mazumdar put it)?

[feverpitch]

Yet it bothers you when I say that the characters are believeable, and then you go about complaining how *all* works of fiction on the Naxal movement represent only the partial truth.

I said -- all works of fiction are what they are -- fiction. So far as my question about the realism within the film is concerned, that was meant to be a conversation starter! 

You don't sound very 'happy'.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Yeah, just the way the Naxalite-sympathizing (Naxi?) audience

You saw the film. Are you a "Naxi"-sympathizer?

(most of whom are self-serving middle class opportunists themselves) would have felt reassured about their importance and potency had KK been shown not copping out.

Once again, your opinion. Since the phrase "self-serving middle class opportunist" is your coinage/usage, maybe you can next try defining that.

Oh, and by the way, I had said that Shiney's was the taller character, not the tallest. But I wouldn't think she would be considered a true revolutionary, even though she suffered  the same police brutality as KK did, since she didn't smear her hands in blood (as Charu Mazumdar put it)?

Hey, despite the name, Shiney is a 'he'! 

As for the scene of Shiney's character suffering at the hands of the police, did I not say that ... ...

... even in his case, ... there are indeed several redeeming features that do not normally fit into the popular conception of the "typical self-serving middle-class opportunist"...

What I meant was that both KKM and SA provide poor choices as characters you could identify with within the narrative, so far as I've managed to judge your position, but while KKM has no redeeming qualities in your eyes because of your obvious dislike of his act of questioning of the status-quo, SA is at least closer to home... Let me know if I got it right, eh?

Meanwhile, what is your opinion on the depiction of police brutality in the film? What is your general opinion on police brutality?

[Dayal Baba]

You saw the film. Are you a "Naxi"-sympathizer?

You should know by now that I am not one of you

(most of whom are self-serving middle class opportunists themselves) would have felt reassured about their importance and potency had KK been shown not copping out.

Once again, your opinion. Since the phrase "self-serving middle class opportunist" is your coinage/usage, maybe you can next try defining that.

Not knowing the definition of the phrase didn't stop you from liberally using it to on me.

Oh, and by the way, I had said that Shiney's was the taller character, not the tallest. But I wouldn't think she would be considered a true revolutionary, even though she suffered  the same police brutality as KK did, since she didn't smear her hands in blood (as Charu Mazumdar put it)?

Hey, despite the name, Shiney is a 'he'! 

I was actually referring to Geetha (Chitrangada) as the tallest personality in the film. I mistakenly edited out the line where I mentioned that. Yes, Geetha suffered the same brutalities from the police as KK, was possibly raped, and still had the cojones to go back to Bihar and stay there. In my mind she was the true revolutionary. But since she didn't carry a gun and go about mindlessly massacaring people, she does not qualify as a revolutionary, in the eyes of the Naxis.

What I meant was that both KKM and SA provide poor choices as characters you could identify with within the narrative, so far as I've managed to judge your position, but while KKM has no redeeming qualities in your eyes because of your obvious dislike of his act of questioning of the status-quo, SA is at least closer to home... Let me know if I got it right, eh?

If you read my post, I mentioned some of his redeeming qualities. But it comes as no surpirse that in your zest to typecast me in a particular mould, you chose to ignore that. My dislike is hardly about his questioning the status quo - rather it's about the means he took up - baying for people's blood, which would go on to spiral into a mindless bloodbath. And even there, he chickened out and backstabbed the guy who came to save him.

Meanwhile, what is your opinion on the depiction of police brutality in the film? What is your general opinion on police brutality?

It showed that the police themselves are an oppressed, underpaid and frustrated lot who take it out on those lower down the chain.

And despite all it's flaws, a sense of proportion should be maintained of how deep this brutality is. What is your opinion of the 50 millions (possibly more) exterminated like rats in Russian Gulags and under the Chinese communist machinery?

[feverpitch]

You should know by now that I am not one of you

What do you mean by that? I thought u r as much a human being as I certainly am.

Anyway, you saw the film. And you DID claim that the audience for this film is Naxalite-sympathizing! 

Not knowing the definition of the phrase didn't stop you from liberally using it to on me.

I used it the way I understood it. But it seems it did not impress you, since you took umbrage. So is it not natural to try get some clarifications from you?

In my mind she was the true revolutionary. But since she didn't carry a gun and go about mindlessly massacaring people, she does not qualify as a revolutionary, in the eyes of the Naxis.

Agreed with you on Geetha, so far as the story of the film is concerned. As for 'carrying a gun' [which to your mind automatically makes one a mindless killer], what is your opinion about Bagha Jatin, Azad, Bhagat Singh, Surya Sen, Kshudiram, the Hijli, Yugantar, Anusilan Samiti and other militant revolutionaries who decided to use the gun rather than sit on a dharna? You obviously believe that our independence was handed down by our home made Great Man, *hi alone, using his non-violent protests?

For ref.. this is a digression... look at the list of revolutionaries deported to the Cellular Jail, Andamans:

http://www.andamancellularjail.org/

Note that practically all were militants...

If you read my post, I mentioned some of his redeeming qualities. But it comes as no surpirse that in your zest to typecast me in a particular mould, you chose to ignore that.

I did not, but you DID ignore MY post.

My dislike is hardly about his questioning the status quo - rather it's about the means he took up - baying for people's blood, which would go on to spiral into a mindless bloodbath.

So what are your means of fomenting change in society?

And even there, he chickened out and backstabbed the guy who came to save him.

What's your definition of chickening out? Do you consider those hapless Russkies put up on show trials who squealed in front of an audience before being executed as chickens?

It showed that the police themselves are an oppressed, underpaid and frustrated lot who take it out on those lower down the chain.

Whom do the police represent?

Is their frustration an apology for their inhumanism?

And despite all it's flaws, a sense of proportion should be maintained of how deep this brutality is. What is your opinion of the 50 millions (possibly more) exterminated like rats in Russian Gulags and under the Chinese communist machinery?

Who decides what the sense of proportions should be?

As for Gulags, fer. to one of my previous posts where I have mentioned something about Chile, Argentina, Russia and Israel.

Incidentally why is it that you seem to have selective memory wrt police brutalities? Or do the Russkies deserve separate treatment from the Chileans and Palestinians, in your opinion? If so, why?

[Dayal Baba]

Anyway, you saw the film. And you DID claim that the audience for this film is Naxalite-sympathizing! 

Are you deliberately trying to misquote me? I was referring to the section of the viewing public which has Naxalite leanings.

In my mind she was the true revolutionary. But since she didn't carry a gun and go about mindlessly massacaring people, she does not qualify as a revolutionary, in the eyes of the Naxis.

Agreed with you on Geetha, so far as the story of the film is concerned.

In that case I expect you to retract your presumptuous statements about me seeking solace in the character of Shiney because of it being convenient for me. And I'll also expect you to stop your whining about how *all* fictional accounts about the Naxalites show only 'failed' revolutionaries, when this film itself depicts a heroic revolutionary.

Or is what you've written above another 'conversation starter'?

As for 'carrying a gun' [which to your mind automatically makes one a mindless killer],

There you go again making presumptuous remarks about me.

You obviously believe that our independence was handed down by our home made Great Man, *hi alone, using his non-violent protests?

And yet again, another presumptuous statement.

I read the rest of your post. You insist that KKM has no redeeming qualities in my eyes even when I had written right at the beginning that "it was pretty commendable of KKM to actually go into the muck and soil his hands". What else is this, but an attempt to create a strawman and bash it?

Tell me why should I give you an explanation for anything? Since everything is so 'obvious' and 'automatic' to you, why don't you just put some more words in in my mouth, and get it done with?

[feverpitch]

Are you deliberately trying to misquote me? I was referring to the section of the viewing public which has Naxalite leanings.

So WERE you part of the audience OR NOT? In any case, you were either referring to the entire audience for this film being made up of Naxalites; or you need to do a course in English Composition 101. Let me quote you:

"Yeah, just the way the Naxalite-sympathizing (Naxi?) audience (most of whom are self-serving middle class opportunists themselves) would have felt... ..."

Moreover, why do you have this urge to associate the Naxalites with the Nazis? Makes you feel 'clever', is it?

In that case I expect you to retract your presumptuous statements about me seeking solace in the character of Shiney because of it being convenient for me. And I'll also expect you to stop your whining about how *all* fictional accounts about the Naxalites show only 'failed' revolutionaries, when this film itself depicts a heroic revolutionary.
Or is what you've written above another 'conversation starter'?

There is nothing to retract. All my statements are mine, and where applicable, I've added that they are my assumptions. Since they seem to have worked you up quite a bit, can I assume that it has had the desired effect? 

As for heroism, there are many different varieties shown here in the film. I do not have problems in accepting the multiple-dimensions of heroism that have been depicted, with each character showing some [my opinion, once again]. Do you?

As for 'carrying a gun' [which to your mind automatically makes one a mindless killer],

There you go again making presumptuous remarks about me.

Did you write the following :- "But since she didn't carry a gun and go about mindlessly massacaring people" , or not ?

I read the rest of your post. You insist that KKM has no redeeming qualities in my eyes even when I had written right at the beginning that "it was pretty commendable of KKM to actually go into the muck and soil his hands". What else is this, but an attempt to create a strawman and bash it?

Well, since no where did the film show KK's character "realizing that the ideas that influenced him were better left in books"* [unless there is something you noticed that I missed]; I believe my surmise was pretty spot on!

Besides, your semantics about his character give your game away pretty much! Let me quote you again:

"KK Menon's was the weakest character of the three. Talked the talk but could not walk the walk. When the going got tough, he resorts to calling up daddy to bail him out and ditched his friend to save his hide. Although he survives the events in Bihar, in actuality his character gets the biggest beating..."

Tell me why should I give you an explanation for anything?

No one is forcing you. And you haven't [conveniently (?)] answered the more problematic questions I've posed to you either!

Since everything is so 'obvious' and 'automatic' to you, why don't you just put some more words in in my mouth, and get it done with?

Actually, I could say the same for you! Except that, wherever I've put in MY views, I've included caveats about them being exactly as what they are -- my views. Unlike you, who to me at the least, seems to revel in making sweeping statements, an example of which I'll quote below:

KK Menon's was the weakest character of the three. Talked the talk but could not walk the walk. When the going got tough, he resorts to calling up daddy to bail him out and ditched his friend to save his hide. Although he survives the events in Bihar, in actuality his character gets the biggest beating, because he is built up as this heroic idealist revolutionary throughout the movie.

If the film indeed built up KK's character as "this heroic idealist revolutionary", why is it that "Geetha suffered the same brutalities from the police as KK, was possibly raped, and still had the cojones to go back to Bihar and stay there"; thus making her out to be the "true revolutionary"? Who is creating straw men here?

................................................................................................................................

And when you have time, if u feel up to it, do try to answer my real questions instead of diverting to cherry picking and name calling.

................................................................................................................................

*words which you conveniently (?) edited out of your latest response.

[Dayal Baba]

Are you deliberately trying to misquote me? I was referring to the section of the viewing public which has Naxalite leanings.

So WERE you part of the audience OR NOT? In any case, you were either referring to the entire audience for this film being made up of Naxalites; or you need to do a course in English Composition 101. Let me quote you:

Yeah, just the way the Naxalite-sympathizing (Naxi?) audience (most of whom are self-serving middle class opportunists themselves) would have felt... ..."

Good job removing the context. The conversation was:

FP: " In other words, Shiney's character provides the comfortable escape for the "typical self-serving middle-class opportunist" audience of this film to feel reassured about his/her importance and potency."

DB: "Yeah, just the way the Naxalite-sympathizing (Naxi?) audience (most of whom are self-serving middle class opportunists themselves) would have felt... ..."

The clear implication from my sentence was that there were (atleast) two sets of audiences who viewed the movie.
Which is only sensible. How can anyone treat an audience as a monolith? Unless one qualifies the audience being spoken of as an 'intended' or 'target' audience.

In that case I expect you to retract your presumptuous statements about me seeking solace in the character of Shiney because of it being convenient for me. And I'll also expect you to stop your whining about how *all* fictional accounts about the Naxalites show only 'failed' revolutionaries, when this film itself depicts a heroic revolutionary.
Or is what you've written above another 'conversation starter'?

There is nothing to retract. All my statements are mine, and where applicable, I've added that they are my assumptions. Since they seem to have worked you up quite a bit, can I assume that it has had the desired effect? 

Heh, hardly. I had your own well being in mind, given your paranoia over *all* Naxi, I mean Naxalite, fiction being unfair and false.

As for heroism, there are many different varieties shown here in the film. I do not have problems in accepting the multiple-dimensions of heroism that have been depicted, with each character showing some [my opinion, once again]. Do you?

I already did.

As for 'carrying a gun' [which to your mind automatically makes one a mindless killer],

There you go again making presumptuous remarks about me.

Did you write the following :- "But since she didn't carry a gun and go about mindlessly massacaring people" , or not ?

Statement 1: X does not carry a gun and does not mindlessly shoot people.
Statement 2: Y carries a gun.
Statement 3: Y mindlessly shoots poeple.

I'd like to know which School of Logic teaches that Statement 3 follows from {Statement 1 + Statement 2}.

I read the rest of your post. You insist that KKM has no redeeming qualities in my eyes even when I had written right at the beginning that "it was pretty commendable of KKM to actually go into the muck and soil his hands". What else is this, but an attempt to create a strawman and bash it?

Well, since no where did the film show KK's character "realizing that the ideas that influenced him were better left in books"* [unless there is something you noticed that I missed]; I believe my surmise was pretty spot on!

The commendable part was him actually attempting to put theory to practice, regardless of whether the theory turned out to be right or wrong. Even if his theories were indeed shown to be successful, I'd still commend him for following up on his idealism, though I wouldn't agree with his methods.

Besides, your semantics about his character give your game away pretty much! Let me quote you again:

"KK Menon's was the weakest character of the three. Talked the talk but could not walk the walk. When the going got tough, he resorts to calling up daddy to bail him out and ditched his friend to save his hide. Although he survives the events in Bihar, in actuality his character gets the biggest beating..."

I never claimed I was enamored with the character. I started the next line with "To be fair to him..", meaning I did see something which in my eyes atleast was redeeming.

Since everything is so 'obvious' and 'automatic' to you, why don't you just put some more words in in my mouth, and get it done with?

Actually, I could say the same for you! Except that, wherever I've put in MY views, I've included caveats about them being exactly as what they are -- my views.

[feverpitch mode]
You are obviously a turd. (Hey, that is MY view, it is not a personal attack on you).
[/feverpitch mode]

Unlike you, who to me at the least, seems to revel in making sweeping statements, an example of which I'll quote below:

KK Menon's was the weakest character of the three. Talked the talk but could not walk the walk. When the going got tough, he resorts to calling up daddy to bail him out and ditched his friend to save his hide. Although he survives the events in Bihar, in actuality his character gets the biggest beating, because he is built up as this heroic idealist revolutionary throughout the movie.

If the film indeed built up KK's character as "this heroic idealist revolutionary", why is it that "Geetha suffered the same brutalities from the police as KK, was possibly raped, and still had the cojones to go back to Bihar and stay there"; thus making her out to be the "true revolutionary"? Who is creating straw men here?

Eh, what?

And when you have time, if u feel up to it, do try to answer my real questions instead of diverting to cherry picking and name calling.

No way, Chief. I got my education scoffed at based on a few lines written on a movie character. I don't know how many more words will get twisted, how many generations of my ancestry will get abused, if I take on those other baits (since you have already admitted that your objective was to rile me). Sorry boss, but I pass on the offer.

[feverpitch]

Its obviously useless to even expect to have a civilized conversation with the likes of you!

So I chose to ignore your rants from now on!

You can wallow in your own *... eh... turd!

[sgusa]

What a rip roaring ruckus! Good ol' DG never fails to entertain

"Turd" - new addition to our special DG lexicon