r people not ready for films reflecting reality

[vibhavaidhya]

films reflecting reality is not often seen in the arena, but when movies with some reality based stories do come they are not received well. movies like Mr.&Mrs.IYER, the one with Shabaana azmi and Tabu acting like homo's and many other movies in this genre were not received well
this arises the big question that' are movies meant only for believers of fantasy, does it have a responsibility to the society, should it forge realsm as fantasy and vice versa .,
even though movie making is an entertainment industry, it is being received by a larger audience and thus have the corporate social responsibility. this can be achieved only gradually educating the audience i thin<>
What are ur thoughts on the subject. Pls quote eg's wherever necessary.

 

[kartik]

I assume the logical argument here is that India still is largely rural and while its pretty easy for urban crowd to associate and relate with reality driven movies, a large part of the rural audience still craves for emotional, feel good and inspirational settings.

That's why movies you see movies like Gaddar and Lagaan, Munnabhai, 3 idiots etc make it to big to the box office. Ask a villager if he has seen mr and mrs iyer and he would ask you who they were.

KANK was an attempt to a bolder bollywood by Karan Johar though when profits plummet, the directors have to take a call to commercial success v/s great story.

Its a dilemma in almost all businesses, and is not restricted to just movies. Take the example of India TV which has made suicides, superstitions and myths as "breaking news" and is actually doing pretty well, so much so that the terrorists of Taj Attack in mumbai preferred to call INDIA TV instead of any other channel.

Quality is a long run investment but for short run success a business has to thrive on what market favors.

 

[subbu.nsb]

Of course, people are always ready but the society is restraining them. Films are mainly introduced to provide entertainment and to get rid of stress. So, people would like to imagine or compare themselves with the happy part than the sad part of the movie. After watching the movie, every one would like to imagine him/her self as a hero/heroine(even i did) than a vilan. Based on the film that is reflecting on reality, if u imagine yourself as a hero/vilan, and if u try to do some thing gud also,you will be a vilan in the real time.Because, reality will always be ugly in the real time. So, majority of the viewers would not like to think or act based on that. Even few people would like to act on that, the number will be very minimum. So, whatz the point in being ready r not when u can't do or act up on, even after watching such films???? rather ppl would like to go for a movie which gives them out n out entertainment and fun for 3 hrs.

 

[vibhavaidhya]

I assume the logical argument here is that India still is largely rural and while its pretty easy for urban crowd to associate and relate with reality driven movies, a large part of the rural audience still craves for emotional, feel good and inspirational settings.

That's why movies you see movies like Gaddar and Lagaan, Munnabhai, 3 idiots etc make it to big to the box office. Ask a villager if he has seen mr and mrs iyer and he would ask you who they were.

KANK was an attempt to a bolder bollywood by Karan Johar though when profits plummet, the directors have to take a call to commercial success v/s great story.

Its a dilemma in almost all businesses, and is not restricted to just movies. Take the example of India TV which has made suicides, superstitions and myths as "breaking news" and is actually doing pretty well, so much so that the terrorists of Taj Attack in mumbai preferred to call INDIA TV instead of any other channel.

Quality is a long run investment but for short run success a business has to thrive on what market favors.

Yes. you point may be true as a matter of fact but when you see the % of films targeted at both the rural and urban audience, the % does not even cover the number of movies released in a multiplex over a period of 3 months. This means that urban audiences and the Multiplex based movies are the norms of the day. taking this as the base line and the movies lying above it, we can see people take what they believe is the current hip socio cultural phenomenon like the live in relationships portrayed in films but do not go along with the repercussions and the implications of such phenomenon even when shown in movies, which is the case of 'Kank'. though live in relationship is not the way of life in this country, the younger audiences seem to have taken to it and public Kissing and hugging was never a part of this cultural base line, people seemed to have liked it. so why not the realistic movies which is nothing but portrayal of emotions based on real experiences and reality as a whole. when they have accepted one side of the coin, why not the other as well?