कोलाज
>> Thursday, April 10, 2008
मॅग्नोलिआच्या सुरुवातीलाच निवेदक आयुष्यात घडणा-या योगायोगावर भाष्य करतो. हे योगायोग, त्याच्या म्हणण्याप्रमाणे स‌तत होतात आणि त्यांच्याकडे दुर्लक्ष करणं योग्य नाही. कारण त्यांचा आपल्या आयुष्याशी संबंध असतो. आपला मुद्दा स्पष्ट करण्यासाठी तो थोडक्यात तीन घटना सांगतो त्यातली एक अशी.
सिडनी बेरींजर या स‌तरा वर्षांच्या मुलाने राहत्या इमारतीच्या गच्चीवरुन उडी टाकून आत्महत्येचा प्रयत्न केला. मात्र खाली पोहोचेपर्यंत या आत्महत्येचं रुपांतर खुनात झालं. कारण मधल्या एका घराच्या खिडकीतून अपघाताने सुटलेली गोळी सिडनीच्या आरपारी गेली. ही गोळी सुटली होती सिडनीच्या आईच्याच हातातल्या बंदूकीतून, सिडनीच्या वडिलांबरोबर भांडताना. आई वडिलांना झाल्या प्रकाराचा धक्का बसला, कारण बंदूक ही कधीच लोड करून ठेवलेली नसे. चौकशीअंती कळलं, की बंदूक स्वतः सिडनेनेच चार दिवसांपूर्वी लोड करून ठेवली होती. तो आईवडिलांच्या रोजच्या भांडणांना आणि धमक्यांना विटला होता आणि त्याच्या मते त्यांच्यातल्या एकाच्या मृत्यूने सोक्षमोक्ष लागला असता. अशा रीतीने स्वतःच्या खुनाच्या कटातला सिडनी हा हस्तक ठरला. गोष्टीतल्या अखेरच्या ट्विस्टप्रमाणे मात्र ही बंदूक ना चालती तर सिडनीची आत्महत्या यशस्वी झाली नसती, कारण दुरुस्ती कॉंट्रैक्टरने खाली बांधलेल्या जाळ्यात तो अलगद अ़डकला असता.
मॅग्नोलिआची प्रस्तावना आपल्याला चित्रपटाच्या स्वरूपाची कल्पना देते, पण तो भावनिकदृष्ट्या किती परिणामकारक ठरेल याची मात्र नाही. ही एक साखळी आहे, एका दिवसात घडणा-या दुस-याला विविध प्रकारे जोडलेल्या घटनांची. यात स‌हभागी असलेल्या व्यक्तिरेखा या कधी एकमेकांच्या नात्यातल्या आहेत, तर कधी त्यांची आय़ुष्य ही स‌मांतर वळणावरून जाणारी आहेत. अर्ल पार्टरिज (जेसन रोबार्डस) हा फुफ्फुसाच्या कर्करोगाने आजारी असलेला टी.व्ही निर्माता आणि त्याचा अनेक वर्ष सुरू असलेला व्हॉट डू किडस् नो या नावाचा गेम शो या घटनांच्या केंद्रस्थानी आहे. अर्ल मृत्यूपंथाला लागलेला आहे आणि आपल्या फिल फार्मा (फिलीप सिमोर हॉपमन) या मेल नर्स‌ला तो अर्धवट ग्लानीत विनंती करतो ती आपल्या जँक नावाच्या मुलाला बोलावून घेण्याची. जॅक आता फ़्रैंक टी जे मॅकी (टॉम क्रूझ) नावाने पुरुषांना मार्गदर्शन करतो. स्त्रियांना आपल्या कह्यात कसं आणावं,
यासंबंधी. अर्लची आताची पत्नी (जुलीयाना मूर) आपल्या नव-याबरोबर केलेल्या बदफैलीने पश्चातापदग्ध झालेली आहे. आणि त्याचा पैसा मिळविण्यापेक्षा मृत्यू बरा असं तिला वाटायला लागलेलं आहे. डॉनी (विलियम एच मेसी) आणि स्टँनली (जरेमी ब्लँकमन) हे दोघे व्हॉट डू कीड्स नो? वरले स्पर्धक आहेत. डॉनी 1960 मधला, तर स्टँनली आताचा. दोघांच्याही मनात पालकांनी दगा दिल्याची भावना आहेच. शोचा संचालक आहे जेमी गेटर (फिलीप बेकर हॉल) ज्याला त्याची मुलगी क्लाडिया (मेलोरा वॉल्टर्स) अंतरली आहे. अमली पदार्थाच्या व्यस‌नाखाली असणा-या क्लॉडियाची नुकतीच ओळख झालेली आहे,ती जिम करींग (जॉन सी रायली
) या पोलिस अधिका-याशी आणि दोघे एकमेकांच्या प्रेमातही पडले आहेत.
ही व्यक्तीरेखांची यादी वाचून कोणालाही वाटेल की या स‌र्वांचं एकत्र कथानक तरी काय होणार आणि या स्वतंत्र कथासूत्रांचे माग तरी आपण कसे ठेवणार, मात्र हे वाटतं तितकं कठीण नाही. एक तर नर्स फिल आणि ऑफिस‌र जिम सोडले तर इतरांचा बराच थेट संबंध आहे आणि त्याशिवाय अनेक सूत्रांची पुनरावृत्ती या सुट्या कथांना जोडताना दिसून येते.मनाचा आणि शरीराचा रोग इथे अर्ल आणि जिमी गेटर दोघांमध्ये दिसतो. दोघांनाही कॅन्सर आहे. आणि आपल्या वर्तनाने त्यांना जवळच्यांना दुखावलं आहे. वर इतरांचा गैरफायदा घेतला आहे. हा रोग फ़्रैंक,क्लाडियासारखा त्यांच्या आप्तांमध्येही डोकं वर काढताना दिसतो आहे. या रोगाबरोबरच पालक आणि मुलांमधला विसंवाद, लग्नबाह्य संबंध, विश्वासघात, काळजीपूर्वक ठरवलेल्या योजनांचा विचका अशा अनेक सूत्रांमधून ही पात्रं एकमेकांची प्रतिबिंब बनतात. मॅग्नोलिआच्या अखेरीला या स‌र्व व्यक्तिरेखांना जोडणारी एक चमत्कारिक घटना आहे. जिचा संबंध थेट बायबलशी (एक्झोडस 8.2) जोडता येईल आणि हा संबंध कळावा म्हणून 82 हा आकडा जागोजागी पेरलेला दिसतो. कधी तो एखाद्या पाटीवर असतो,तर कधी भिंतीवर रंगविलेला कधी आन्स‌रींग मशीनचा नंबर असतो. तर कधी खोलीच्या क्रमांकाचा भाग असतो. व्हॉट डू किडस् नोच्या चित्रीकरणादरम्यान केवळ एका
फ़ैनच्या हातात प्रत्यक्ष एक्झोडस 8.2 असं लिहिलेला फलक दिसतो. तेवढीच या संदर्भाची संपूर्ण नोंद.
दिग्दर्शक पॉल थॉमस अँडरसन यांच्या चित्रपटात अर्थ, संदर्भ, जोडकाम बघायला मिळण्याच्या इतक्या जागा आहेत, की तीन तासांचा हा चित्रपट एकदा बघणं पुरेसं नाही. प्रत्येकदा तो पाहिला की, एखादी नवी गोष्ट जरूर दिसून येते. मात्र स‌र्वव्यापी सूत्र शोधायचं तर ते मात्र एकच आहे आणि उघड आहे. माणूस आपल्या भूतकाळाला विसरला तरी त्याचा भूतकाळ त्याला विसरत नाही. हे मॅग्नोलिआचं प्रमुख सूत्र आहे. आपल्या आयुष्याला दिशा देणारं, त्यांचा मार्ग ठरवणारं हे सूत्र असल्याचं चित्रपट सुचवतो. संपूर्ण चित्रपट हा त्या दिशेने जाणारा एक प्रदीर्घ युक्तिवाद आहे. अगदी पटण्यासारखा.
-गणेश मतकरी
28 comments:
प्रति - गणेश मतकरी (किंवा जे कोणी हे इथे पोस्ट करतंय) -
तुमचं सिनेमांचं selection चांगलं आहे. पण इथे दिलेली माहिती - जशीच्या तशी (अर्थात इंग्रजीत) imdb.com वरही मिळते! तुम्ही इथे देताय ती केवळ स्टोरी - ती ही तुटक. शिवाय पात्रांची नावं आणि कंसात नटांची नाव डोकं लई त्रासवतात (असं करण्याची film critics ना काय हौस असते ते मला कळत नाही - पण तो वेगळाच मुद्दा झाला).
Story व्यतिरिक्त (म्हणजे तुमचं input) लेखात सिनेमाबद्दल अगदीच थोडकं लिहिलंय, आणि जे लिहिलंय ते ही बद्धकोष्ठ समिक्षकी भाषेत! तुम्ही हा सिनेमा खरंच पाहिलात का? आणि पाहिला असेल तर तुम्हाला त्याबद्दल इथे लिहिलंय तेवढंच वाटलं?
एक प्रामाणिक पण नाकर्ता समजला जाणारा पोलिस अधिकारी एका ड्रग ऍडिक्ट मुलीच्या प्रेमात का पडतो, Tom Cruise च्या व्यक्तिरेखेला Alpha male बनावंसं/दाखवावंसं आणि इतरांना तसं बनवावंसं का वाटतं, हे आणि असे प्रश्न तुम्हाला पडलेच नाहीत का?
या सिनेमातल्या या सगळ्या कथा कशा ना कशा प्रकारे एकमेकांशी जोडलेल्या आहेत - पण त्या स्वतंत्रही असु शकल्या असत्या, आणि तरिही त्यांनी तेवढाच विचार करायला लावलं असतं. तरिही त्या एकत्र आणणं म्हणजे तुम्हाला सिनेमाच्या सुरुवातीला दाखवतात तसा ’अशक्य योगायोग’ एवढंच वाटतं?
सिनेमात बेडकांचा पाऊस पडतो - त्याचा सिग्निफिकन्स काय? हा एक अफलातुन प्रकार आहे - unique आहे, हा नक्की काय प्रकार आहे हे तुम्हाला कितपत कळलं?
Dont get me wrong - मला तुमच्या चित्रपट ज्ञानाबाबत शंका घ्यायची नाहिए. पण तुमची परिक्षणं (हे आणि आधीची - Fight Club, Crash, Adaptations) म्हणजे - ही स्टोरी, हे नट, लॉंग शॉट, निवेदन भलतंच आहे - आणि सारांश म्हणजे ’हा सिनेमा पाह्यलाच पाहिजे’!
अरे! पण का?
हे म्हणजे socialist पार्टीजमध्ये ग्लासात Black Label घोळवत ’आक्रोश’च्या intensity बद्दल चर्चा करत - ’हा सिनेमा पाह्यलाच पाहिजे’ असं एकमेकांना सांगण्यासारखं झालं!
तुमची परिक्षणं म्हणजे - ज्वारी बाजरीचे भाव वाचल्यासारखी वाटतात. डोक्यात येणारे विचार म्हणजे - १) महत्वाचे पिक्चर २) पाह्यले पाहिजेत ३) का ते माहित नाही.
Paul Thomas Anderson - या प्राण्याला लेखनासाठी तीन वेगवेगळ्या पिक्चर्ससाठी Oscar nominations आहेत - ही एक मोठी achievement आहे.
त्याच्या picture मध्ये तुम्हाला इथे लिहिलंय ते सोडुन काहीच दिसलं नसेल, त्यानी तुम्हाला विचार करायला लावलं नसेल आणि ते केलेले विचार तुम्ही मांडले नसतील - तर या लेखाला ’परिक्षण’ का म्हणावं असा मला प्रश्न पडतो!
Fight Club - तुम्हाला ’थ्रिलर’ कुठल्या ऍंगलने वाटतो? David Fincher चे Zodiac, Panic Room, Fight Club, The Game आणि Se7en पाह्यलेत. त्याची ’गोष्ट’ सांगण्याची हातोटी विलक्षण आहे! आणि तरिही त्याच्या इथे उल्लेख केलेल्या pictures पेक्षा तुम्हाला Fight Club वेगळा वाटला नाही? I find it hard to believe!
एका माणसाला झोप येत नाही, म्हणुन तो इतरांची दु:खं ऐकण्याच्या कार्यक्रमांना जायला लागतो आणि त्याला झोप यायला लागते - ही सुरुवातच फंडु आहे! अशात त्याच्यासारखीच चोरी करणारं कुणीतरी असल्याची शंका आल्याने आलेली झोप जाते - हे ही!
Ed Nortan आणि ही मुलगी - ’आपण दोघंही लोकांना चुत्ये बनवतोय, पण ईमानदारीसे चोरी करताना आपण एकमेकांच्या अध्यात यायचं नाही’ असं ठरवुन दु:खांचे गट वाटुन घेतात - या एका सीनवर एक लेख होऊ शकेल.
सामान हरवणे, स्फोट होऊन (!) घर अक्षरश: उध्वस्त होणे, Bradd Pitt चं character - आणि Fight Club ची कन्सेप्ट, शिवाय इथेही ती वेगवेगळी दु:खवाली लोकं येणं - हे सगळं गढुळ प्रकरण - याच्या कोसो दूरपर्यंत तुमचं परिक्षण पोचत नाही!
इथे तुम्ही केवळ माहिती देताय - ती ही निरसपणे!
गणेश मतकरी हे नाव ऐकुन आहे, म्हणजे तुम्ही काहीतरी चांगलंच लिहिलेलं असणार, मागे कधितरी तुमचं काहितरी वाचल्याचंही आठवतंय, मग हे असं का?
कि शब्दमर्यादेत किंवा editorial desk वर तुम्हाला फाडलं जातंय?
अभिजित बाटे यांच्यासाठी
मी हा ब्लाँग गेले कित्येक दिवसांपासून पाहते आणि त्यातून मला खूप नवी माहिती मिळते.ती निरस नसून इंटरेस्टींग वाटते.मला वाटत नाही गणेश मतकरी (किंवा जे कोणी हे इथे पोस्ट करतंय)यांची हा सिनेमा पाहाच, असा सूर यातून असेल. उलट आयएमडीबीच्या त्रोटक (आणि निरस) माहितीपेक्षा हे ओघवतं लिखाण 100 पटींनी चांगलं आहे.(आणि बाटे तुमच्या नाटकीय,रटाळ,कंटाऴवाण्या,प्रदीर्घ लिखाणापेक्षाही)
तुमच्या कोत्या वृत्तीचं प्रदर्शन तुम्ही या कमेंटवरून दिल्यासारखं वाटतंय. महत्तवाचं म्हणजे आपल्यापेक्षा कुणी चांगलं लिहितंय ही कल्पनाच तुम्हाला स‌हन होत नसावी. त्यातून ही तुमची पोटदुखी इतक्या मोठ्या कमेंटवरुन दिसून येते.
अर्थातच मोठया चालाखीने शेवटचा परिच्छेद लिहिला आहेत. तेव्हा गणेश मतकरी (किंवा जे कोणी हे इथे पोस्ट करतंय)त्यांनी या बाटेंना दुर्लक्ष करावं.यातील नव्या पोस्टची मी वाट पाहत असते.
बाटे वाईट वाटून घेऊ नका, आपण स‌गळ्याच बाबतीत फार नाँलेज असलेलो आहोत असं तुम्हाला वाटत असेल तर पुन्हा एकदा स्वतःला तपासा. आपलाच ब्लाँग आणि लिखाण (आणि कदाचित आपणच) ग्रेट स‌मजताय. हे वाईट आहे.
Paul Thomas Anderson - या प्राण्याला लेखनासाठी तीन वेगवेगळ्या पिक्चर्ससाठी Oscar nominations आहेत - ही एक मोठी achievement आहे.
tya achivmentsathi bate kharach tumi imdbch vacha. dont come hear again.apli layki nastana chngla pahuch naka.
bate hi typical marathi pravrutti ahe dusranchyat khot kadhnaychi.ji tumi (usmadhe jaoonhi) japlit.
archana mante tasa kharach tapasa swatala.
i like this blog. and i know his writting from saptahik sakal.
sagle lekh japun thevlet.
teva ganesh matkari kiva je koni ithe post kartay. batensarkhya kutrayna khushal bhuku dya.
commentvarun tynchi potdukhi kit mothi ahe hech distay.
गणेशशेठ व इतर लेखकु मंडळी,
इंग्लिशमध्ये काही वाचायला मिळतं म्हणून मराठीत तसे लिहू नये असा कोठे नियम असल्याचे मला माहीत नाही. (तसा नियम असलाच तर तो फाट्यावर मारून) तुम्ही नि:संकोचपणे लिहीत रहा.
मराठीत असणार्‍या प्रत्येक साहित्याने तथाकथित अमरत्वाचा व दर्जाचा पट्टा गळ्यात बांधूनच शेपूट हलवली पाहिजे असे नाही!
तुम्हाला जसे वाटते, जे वाटते ते अवश्य व मनापासून लिहा.
चंदनाच्या वासें धरितील नाक । नावडे कनक न घडे हें॥
साकरेसी गोडी सारिखी सकळां । थोरां मोठां बाळां धाकुटियां ॥
तुका ह्मणे माझें चित्त शुद्ध होतें । तरि का निंदितें जन मज ॥
तेव्हा आम्ही प्रत्येक लेखावर प्रतिक्रिया दिली नाही तरी वाचत आहोतच एवढे ध्यानात ठेवा!
तुम्ही येथे लिहिलेल्यापैकी बरेच चित्रपट कॉलेजमध्ये असताना पाहिले होते. या निमित्ताने त्यांची आठवण होत आहे. ते पुन्हा पहावेसे वाटत आहेत हे ही नसे थोडके.
’माझ्या कलाकारांनो’ नावाचे एक सुरेख मराठी पुस्तक तुम्ही वाचले आहे का? अवश्य वाचा. बाजारात मिळत नाही ते. मात्र ग्रंथालयात अवश्य मिळेल. माझ्या अल्पस्मरणशक्तीमुळे मला त्याचे लेखक आत्ता आठवत नाहीत. शांताबाईंनी पाश्चिमात्य चित्रपटांविषयी लिहिलेले (बहुधा पश्चिमरंग) एक पुस्तकही असेच फार छान आहे.
शेवटी काय! निंदकाचे घर । असावे शेजारी ॥ असे तुकोबांनी म्हटलेच आहे. तेव्हा लिहीत रहा.
चू.भू.द्या.घ्या.
अभिजित,
कुठल्याही सिनेमाबद्दल काय लिहिलं जायला हवं आणि ते कुठल्या भाषेत, याचे तुझे तुझे निकष नक्की असतील. पण म्हणून सगळे जण तुला आवडणार्‍या शैलीत, तुला हवं ते लिहितील, अशी अपेक्षा करणं चूक नाही का? कदाचित तशी अपेक्षा करणंही चूक नाही. पण 'माझा अपेक्षाभंग झाला' हे सांगण्याची 'ही' पद्धत आहे का? 'तुम्ही हा सिनेमा खरंच पाहिलात का?' असं विचारणं म्हणजे लिहिणार्‍या माणसावर कुणाचंतरी साहित्य चोरल्याचा गंभीर आरोप करणं आहे, हे तुझ्या लक्षात येतं आहे का?
अजूनही अनेक सीन्सवर अनेक अजरामर लेख होऊ शकतील. लिही ना. परीक्षण हे परीक्षणासारख्या 'निरस' पद्धतीनंच लिहिलं गेलं पाहिजे असं अजिबातच नाही. पण 'निरस'पणाच्या तुझ्या आणि इतरांच्या व्याख्या वेगवेगळ्या असू शकतात. असतात. एका माणसाला शैलीहीन वा निरस वाटलेली माहिती कुठून तरी चोरलेलीच असते वा लिहिणारा माणूस साफ बिनडोक असतो, असा तुझा समज झाला आहे का?
तुझी शैली अप्रतिम आहे. पण तू तिचा गैरवापर करतो आहेस.
priya abhijit
We r very thankful for u .
Really you are very nice person.
I hope so.
The way you are giving or writing the comment is very good.Keep it up
This comment will inspire the people to do good job.
Marathi ta mhan ahe na "Nimda ka che ghar asawe shejari"
Thanks yar
Dear Abhijit,
Let’s not enter a pissing contest here.
I will try to be a little more civil here than you (actually I am tempted to do otherwise , because remember, I am the so called “CRITIC “here.)
It’s really funny to see the same objection raised against me which I normally raise against others, though never in a public forum. Even I am of the opinion that reviews should not be all stories, assuming of course that the articles in question are reviews.
Though you seem to think that review is the only form of cinematic writing, I beg to differ. You comment in general is about my articles and I assume that you would have gone through a sufficient number prior to commenting on them, but as far as I can tell, you may have seen only two. Out of the four articles mentioned by you, crash is not written by me and adaptation is in a completely different form than Magnolia and Fight Club where the story is not at all the major part of the article. I suggest you read it and you might immediately see the difference. In fact, for an observer of the caliber you claim to be, you should have noticed that there are two distinctly different types. The first type is longer and has proportionately less story and concentrates on some of the aspects of the film (O, Hard Candy ,Brick, iqbal etc) the second type is shorter, has proportionately more story but has no detailed analysis (Magnolia,Fight Club). There is a definite reason for this.
First type of articles are all from my column in Saptahik Sakal. Though this deals many times with films released in India , it is not a standard reviewing format, mainly because it focuses on certain aspects which I find relevant(others may or may not), usually these deal with either theme or structure of the film, or are about some conventions or new concepts. These don’t do two things a review is expected to do firstly- they don’t comment on each and every issue and secondly they don’t pass judgment. For example see O (high school madhla Othello)
Second type is I believe what you are mainly objecting to. These are articles from a different column, featured in Mahanagar namely Choukati bahercha cinema and is restricted to half a page. The premise for this column was to introduce the reader to films which break conventions (as the name of the column suggests) detailed analysis is not a part of it .I really face a space crunch while writing this column but I think it is important that readers are aware of the possibilities other than the popular blockbuster Hollywood fare. To get the reader interested certain amount of story is necessary, but in cases like Magnolia which has a larger canvas it really gets out of hand. I can write much more if I want to go in details. For example in case of Fight Club, I have not only seen all fincher but I have also read the Palahniuk book on which fight club is based, and the brilliant adaptation is worthy of an article in itself (Or Narrative Technique or the unreliability of this particular narrator). Point being space is major constraint here, and presenting a film is important, not analyzing. And yes, Fight Club fits the definition of a thriller.
All said and done the fact remains that these articles serve the purpose of educating the reader of the various possibilities which have challenged the conventional means of presentation.
The initial thought while uploading the articles on the blog was to have a mix of articles and we have planned that we will not separate them on the basis of their form and reach.
If I desired an intellectual image of a CRITIC, why would I just copy a story from IMDB when there are other many more sites which could provide me with far more complex analysis? Looking at the questions posed by you it seems you already know them.
Thank you Archana ,Kavita ,Ajanukarna ,Meghana and Sandip for the support you have shown.
While, I am not taking the advice on not writing a reply, all I am doing is making my standpoint clear and letting Abhijit know that I don’t appreciate his allegation on my intelligence and my analytical ability.
जगातल्या कुठल्याही गोष्टीवर (च्युत्येगिरी करून) लिहिण्याची क्षमता असणारा थोर अभिजित राव बाठे. बरा आहेस ना? की काही प्राँब्लम निर्माण झालाय आयुष्यात.
येवढी मोठी कमेंट लिहिण्याइतका वेळ मिळतो, तुला? (रिकामटेकडा असतोस, की कामाएेवजी ब्लाँगवर दिवसच्या दिवस शब्दमैथून्य करत असतोस?(दोन, तीन लेख स्कँन करून पाठवून देऊ का, अॉपरेट करायला? तेवढीच आम्हाला मदत.)
तुला घाणेरड्या शब्दातही सुनवता येईल खूप.
पण दुस-याचा अनादर करण्याची माझी स‌वय नाही.
बरं मला एक सांग तू फाऊंटनहेड वाचलीस का?
ती तुला कळली काय़?
हा प्रश्न केला तर कसं वाटेल तुला ?
यू.एसमध्ये जाऊन मराठी भाषेवर जगू पाहत असलास तर निदान दुस-यांविषयी (च्युत्येगिरी करून ) लिहिण्यापूर्वी जरा विचार कर.
इथे लिहिणारा प्रत्येक जण मराठीतील नावाजलेल्या वृत्तपत्रांमध्ये (अर्थातच ते महत्त्वाचं नस‌लं तरी तुला सांगावं लागतय ) अनेक वर्षे सिनेमांवर लिहित आहे, तरी त्यातलं कुणीही आपल्याला खूप कळतंय, आपलं लिखाण ग्रेट आहे असं म्हणणार नाही.( तुझ्यासारख्या करंट्या विचारांच्या माणसाला ते कसं कळणार? म्हणा ) आपल्याला सिनेमातलं कळतं. असं तुला वाटत असेल तर खूशाल तुझं शब्दमैथून्य त्यावर खर्च कर की. तुला कोण अडवतंय. बाबा रे,तुझ्या कमेंटमुळे गेल्या दोन दिवसांत तीनेकशे लोकं ब्लाँगवर येऊन गेले . आपण एखाद्याला मूर्ख ठरवायला गेलो आणि त्यामुळे आपलीच लाज गेली असं नाही का वाटत तुला?
कुणीतरी भुंकणारा कुत्रा म्हटलंय तुला, मेघनाचा लाडका लेखक म्हणून प्रतिमा होती तुझी,माझ्या मनात. धुळीला मिळवलीस.
इथे तुझ्या कमेंटवर खरोखरच वाद घालायला तुझ्याइतका रिकामा वेळ नाही (आणि तुझ्यासारखी घाणेरडी प्रवृत्तीही नाही) दुस-याचा आदर करायला शिक आणि चांगल्याला चांगलं म्हणण्याचा प्रामाणिकपणा ठेव. येवढंच सांगवासं वाटतंय. टीका करायला तुला कोणी नाही म्हणत नाही. पण हा दुस-यांना आपल्यापेक्षा कमी लेखण्याचा तुझ्या लेखनातून उमटणारा अहंकार बाळगण्याची आपली खरंच लायकी आहे का? याचा विचार कर.
तेव्हा चुत्येगिरी करून (शब्दांचे फवारे उडवत)पंडिती थाटात कमेंट लिहायसाठी हा ब्लाँग नाही. हे ध्यानात ठेव. आणि आणि काय नाय,येत जा अधून मधून .
Dear Abhijit, Ganesh and other enthusiasts,
Reviewing a review of a review is not only a waste of time, but also an exercise in futility. A review means just that - one person's individual impression of a movie. And the great equalizer called the Internet will decide if a critic is liked or not. The rule is simple – people decide who is right, wrong, has errors in judgment or does not write meaningfully. If people don’t like it, they just opt out. I am sure Ganesh’s writing attracts a number of returning visitors.
I must tell you people that it is a great joy to see this happening in Marathi. I hope I am joined by many others in applauding your consistent effort. But let us try and keep the dark side of being Marathi out of this. Let us not comment on each other, but on the movies. If you don’t like a review, simply give it a star or no star like in Amazon. (Cinema Paradiso, can we do it on this blog?)
I wish Ganesh and others here all the very best. I am a fan of your writing and will continue to be. If I ever write, unlike this time, it will always be about movies. All the very best to Abhijit, too. If you wanted this comment of yours to drive some traffic to your own blog, you were successful. I am going there. But I promise you I will not comment on it. If I don’t like it I will just opt out.
Dear Ganesh Matkari,
Talking of objections in the public forum – you entered the public forum ahead of me by publishing these articles here and giving me the liberty to write a comment. So I guess the onus is on you. However, I agree with you that there is no point in starting a pissing contest. I also have to agree that you have been very civil in your reply (though I don’t think I was uncivilized) – I am sure I would have been far more aggressive if I was in your place. However I am not and here is my reply.
You are a professional writer and I am an amateur reader and viewer of the same movies that you write about. So there is no comparison here. I will not even contest that your intelligence and analytical ability regarding the movies is far better than mine. What pisses me off is the utter lack of regard by the critics (I use this word here for a lack of better one) for the intellect of the reader. Here I am not talking about you but the scores of people who write in scores of publications in India. When I see a movie and read a review later, I feel like – dude, what were you smoking when you wrote this? I am not trying to appease you but I find that you are different. (Take it as a compliment or leave it – it doesn’t make a difference either way).
I think you are giving me far more credit than I deserve when you say that I am - or that I claim to be an observer of any caliber. I am not. So it’s no wonder that I did not notice the two distinctly different types of articles that you mentioned. I also have to admit that I had not read all the articles on this blog and did not see who wrote which. (So many people are writing here, that it’s hard to keep a track of. I think a blog should have an identity of its own – i.e. of the person who is writing it, but again – that’s just me). So the first thing I did was to read the articles written by you about the movies that I have seen. This leaves me with nine movies. Here is what I think after reading them:
I agree that there are indeed two different types of articles, and that I was not too impressed with second type. I will take a liberty of being a bit personal here. I was thinking of an analogy while driving home, and since apart from movies, cricket is my other favorite pastime – I thought of you (or any critic in general) as a commentator. (It also didn’t help – listening to Arun Lal’s “inputs” yesterday about field placements when Bhajji and Ishant were bowling, but that’s another story). You see, sometimes the commentators forget that even I can see what they are seeing. I don’t want them to tell me that Ishant is running in to bowl to Amla! (Of course he is – I am not dumb you idiot!!) I want them to talk about – even if they just can’t manage the pauses of a Benaud – what Ishant is thinking! How he is trying to set up the batsman – what’s the plan, what the batsman is thinking, if he is playing for lunch or if he is on the edge. I want them to talk about what a batsman feels like when he falls on the ground defending a yorker – how that affects his concentration, how that defines his character! C’mon man – tell me something that I don’t know, and you better know something that I can sense is going to happen….
Anyway – it’s hard enough for me to concentrate on one topic – forget about the observations and intellect and analysis.
The point I am trying to make Matkari is –
I am you, before you started writing!!
I am the person who sits and watches a movie – without thinking of the shot angles and duration of the scene, and editing and gimmicks.
I am the person who doesn’t want to watch even a documentary if I am late for the titles, who hates someone whispering in the seats behind him, who doesn’t want to miss a single dialogue, a person who wants to be awed!
What I usually end up doing is watching 10 movies – where the director thought that I would not notice something, where a character was not well defined, where a scene didn’t make any sense and where I can sense that I am being cheated or being taken for a ride when I had fully surrendered myself to the movie!
And the reaction is – what the ****!
I am you – who doesn’t have to write, who can just go with the flow, without taking notes – consciously or otherwise, who doesn’t have any limits – of the word count or of the deadlines!
And when after watching tens of stories which lost their way – I find a Shawshank Redemption, a Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a Little miss sunshine, a Raatra-arambh, a Dor, a Life is Beautiful, a Being John Malkovich, and yes, a Magnolia.
When I see someone write about it, I feel like – Whoa! You better be extra careful with it or I am going to get mighty pissed!
More often than not – people botch it.
Not because they are not good writers, but because they cant match the amazing thought.
You are writer – so I am sure you are an avid reader – what I am saying is that a serene backfoot straight drive by a certain Sachin Tendulkar in a pressure situation should not get lost in a match report! Or in an analysis for that matter!!
You might as well forget the last two paragraphs – lets get back to the movies. And yes, your articles.
1) Magnolia
I guess this one comes in that second category. A lot has been said about this one (at least by me) but I thought you could have done far better with this one – again, that’s just me. Salil Wagh is one of my favorite poets and the first poem of his first book starts with “Don’t try to read this or make a sense of it – this is a dummy copy”! The line repeats for the entire page! I felt something like that when I saw that shower of frogs. I have always wondered what that was!! See, anyone could have done four or five different stories somehow connected to each other. One’s past doesn’t forget him - is also a pretty general and a vague idea. An RGV might treat it differently than a Benegal and that’s where I think Paul Thomas Anderson shows his class. I haven’t seen “There will be blood” and was going to see it for Daniel Day Lewis – but I guess now I will watch it for Anderson!
Anyway – the movie has made me think a lot. I am still struggling with it, trying to connect the events and the conclusions to the start of the movie.
I thought if I struggled so much with the movie (and I am still intrigued), how would a person get so interested in going through the trouble of finding this movie and watching it – after reading your article? That’s when I used that analogy of grocery prices – important, essential but don’t know why! I guess that was pretty dumb way to put it! (I still stand by it though).
This was an ideal selection for ‘chaukaTi baaherachaa cinema’ but I thought you never stepped out of a certain ‘chaukat’ to justify it.
2) Adaptation
This one comes in the first category I guess – because I loved it!
It’s been a few years since I saw adaptation but it’s a kind of cinema that you need to see more than once for it to sink in. I had thought that I had forgotten about it completely but the way you have written about it is a story in itself – without ever taking a stance of Arun Lal – Here is Ishant running in….!
Not only did I remember the story, but I found it more interesting this time around.
Honestly, I do not have the analytic ability to compare this article with that of Magnolia, however I liked this article. If I hadn’t seen the movie, I would definitely feel like watching this one by reading your article. This movie would be like watching the team meeting – planning for the next days match – all full of pregnant ideas! And with Kaufman at the helm of it!!
3) Fight Club
As you mentioned – you have read the book too! I myself avoided this movie for a long time and was wowed after seeing it – just like Matrix, but this article follows the Magnolia line – it fails to describe the greatness of the movie. One thing I would like to mention – and I may be wrong here – all three articles look like of the same length – at least it felt that way – why the difference then? Just the type 1 & 2? Something is missing – I am not able to point out.
4) Iqbal
Though I liked this article – I was irritated in the first 1/3rd part of it. Don’t get me wrong if I say – what were you smoking if you hadn’t seen or liked the “Hyderabad Blues” or “Teen Deewaaren”! )
It was long before I became an NRI when I saw HB – I was living in a village in Nagar district and I somehow connected instantly with HB! Ditto with 3 Deewaaren – which I saw later. I thought it was as good as Shawshank! But I guess you were just warming for the stuff you wrote after that. I also liked the analogy of this being a fantasy and your list of places of humor without using a comic character. You mention the camera speeds and such stuff in all your articles, and I am sure it helps in the general feel of the movie – I would love it if you can write something about such things from different movies – so that it would help me understand these techniques and identify their use and overuse.
5) Run Lola Run
I guess by far it is understood that somehow I appreciate this kind of articles, which give me a view of a person who watches films professionally. Did you notice any resemblance here between – Magnolia, Crash and Run Lola Run – where stories intertwine and the concept of what might have happened if something was different? You mentioned somewhere about linear and nonlinear progress of a movie and that nonlinearity being more popular in the west. In bollywood, people – especially Gulzar - have used the flashback technique extensively. But I guess would still be considered linear! Anyway – I liked this article too.
6) Juno
I liked this article, but I don’t agree with you that Juno came from a well to do family. A well to do family would be the one who is adapting her child. Also, the most amazing thing about the movie was the unwavering focus the movie maintains with the character of Juno – yet doing justice to each and every character in the movie. I think it handles far more issues than what you give it credit for. She is not only dealing with the accidental pregnancy, but the kind of treatment she starts getting from the society, her relation with her stepmother, her relation with her child’s adapted father (he connects with her), the way her stepmother stands by her in the hospital….I thought even telling her parents about pregnancy was not an easy scene. Though as you mentioned all these situations were handled very sensitively and without ever losing focus from Juno’s character! You got that perfectly right!!
7) Being John Malkovich
Matkari – why don’t you write a series on Kaufman? This one needs far more space to explore than what you were given. The concept of Malkovich going in his own head and starting to see everyone as Malkovich was plain amazing! If you want people to know this movie, more should be told about it – this one is amazing! (Also, did you know that John Malkovich saw and liked Sivan’s ‘Terrorist’ so much that he bought the rights for the movie?)
8) Born into Brothels
When I started watching this one, I felt it was yet another documentary about the misery of India. I guess this is the only article by you on this blog about a documentary. I haven’t seen too many of them to compare it to anything. I thought this one showed the hope and yet the hopelessness of the entire situation. I guess your article was different than the ones for movies. It followed that informative un-judgemental approach of a documentary. No doubt I liked this one too.
9) City of God
All I remember from this movie was the violence and a sense fear. Something I felt after watching Parinda, Gardish or even a Salam Bombay! Have you seen City of Joy?
Anyway – I loved the fact that you spent half of the article talking about movies like ‘Psycho’ and ‘West Side Story’. As a normal viewer – I wouldn’t have imagined Hitchcock’s technique of taking you’re your mind away without ever losing the hold on the story. Since you mentioned West Side Story – what’s your take on the long music piece at the start of the movie? That was something really unique!
About City of God – you mention the places of violence – do you see any resemblance in the violence portrayed here with that of Quentin Tarantino?
Matkari – Let me stress it again – I am casting no doubt on you integrity, intellect or ability. I am in no position to do so. All I was expecting was for the critic to rise up to the product that he is writing about. I wish you well with this blog where you don’t have any space or other constraints. I would like to read more of your articles (I guess of the first type), and I am sure you would look forward to a dialogue with people you intend to inform about these great movies. As you showed with your earlier comment I know that you will take this ultra long comment in your stride.
In the meantime I will let you deal with the civilized support that you are endorsing.
Dear Abhijeet,
Much better.I will go through the detailed reply and get back on various points. this blog was not my idea but was all for it, as I /We felt the need to initiate a serious discussion on Cinema. world cinema, not of a particular region. This can be achieved if all of us can talk on these terms and not put each other in defensive.
There is only one point I would like to point out here about repeating the obvious. This you will find particularly where I assume that reader probably has not seen the movie(in other words ,it was not released here), hence the need to describe. But you have your objection ,fair enough.
Let me go through this and we will talk some more.
Hi abijeet,
Firstly, how does one request permission to access your blog. My mail id is ganesh.matkari@gmail.com, and as I am sure you will understand, I am curious about your blog.
Now, these are good observations. I have my reasons for some of the objections, but we will get to them soon enough. My comment about public forum was more in tune with my suggestion to be civil. I generally don’t like any criticism published in our papers with a possible exception of Rashid Irani, who used to write in times of India and now writes for Hindustan times. But I never accuse anyone publicly .I understand your POV but that’s what it meant in the first place.
Now, I am also not a professional writer technically. Meaning I am not a journalist, or I don’t write for the money (actually, the money is so meager that nobody writes for money.) I am not trained as a press or media person. I started writing about cinema one fine day when I was asked to. To give a short version of back story, I am an architect who likes movies a lot. In 1997, I was fed up with published criticism, and I used to sometimes mention the problems with foreign film reviews in Mahanagar to the editor, Mr. Nikhil Vagle . he offered me to step in as their foreign film reviewer and from that week onwards, I did. I wrote till 2001 and when my work couldn’t allow me to see press shows, I stopped. As soon as that happened I was asked by saptahik sakal to write for them. This column doesn’t ask me to follow current releases or specific language or force their POV’s. just last week I wrote about Spanish film Orphanage which will never release here and this week writing a negative review of Khuda Ke Liye which is praised to the hilt by every other critic. So, it gives freedom ,which is what I need.
Essentially, my liking of cinema eventually brought me to second, smaller column. They could not give more space, but I too the opportunity to list out good cinema for whoever may be reading. And I am told that they do. I have reduced it from weekly to fortnightly because of work load but it’s on. Along with this ,I have done other things, but lets not waste time on that.
I agree that blogs should be written by 1 person but I will tell you how this came about. I actually write for a serious but small film journal Roopvani too. That, along with my regular work (and I am planning a book for a while) exhausts me so bad that I had sort of given up the idea. So when a friend offered to put up my articles, I welcomed it. As it’s not my blog, I am just a contributor or one of the team, and still happy that more people are reading it.
About individual observations
Magnolia- I see your point, maybe I should do a longer article about it. Actually I am thinking of doing one on films which combines stories , either like Magnolia,short cuts (have u seen it?) or crash which combines the story lines ,or anthologies like new York stories or Eros. Let’s see. It will have to be done for Diwali Anka . Even Sakal space would be small for that.
Adaptation –glad you liked it
Fight Club- no explanation. Not even for length issue. All I know is that they actually are short. In my foolscap notebook, mahanagar is 2.5 to 3 pages and sakal 4 to 5 pages.
Iqbal- I have seen Hyderabad blues but never liked it.matter of individual opinion I guess. I have not seen but heard that teen diwarein idea borrows from amores perros ,which also inspired Yuva. What’s your take on it?
Run lola run- frankly I am surprised you liked it. There were so many things I wanted to write but couldn’t ,it was really frustrating.this was first in choukatibahercha cinema.i don’t really see resemblance between crash, magnolia and lola. First two are interconnected stories, last is alternate possibilities of same events. If you want similarity for lola ,look at Rashomon(kurosawa), Blind Chance (Kieslowski) ,Sliding doors(Peter Howitt) etc. as you righly say flashback in a way is also linear.
Juno- chotya ,sukhavastu is not really well to do. what I meant that it’s a normal family, they are not poor or any financial trouble and generally ok. They are not rich, I agree.
Being John malcovich.- amazing film ,little space. What can I say. I think one of the comments here mentioned that they had seen the dvd many times but passed it over, but will now definitely see it. I rest my case.
Born into Brothels- great docu. Have you seen any of Michael Moore’s? Say Bowling for Columbine?
City Of God- the way I have spent some time on beginning of films is what I do sometimes to talk of concepts or conventions(Mcguffins, unreliable narrators, refrigerator movies ,what have you?) coming to think of it , I never gave much thought to the opening piece of music. Probably because I never saw it in theatre . I first saw it on VHS ,when I was in 11th .and thought that maybe it had titles and vhs release people have something to do with removing them from NY bay fading in. I will think about it though.
Have not seen city of joy, but I think this violence and terentino’s case has a obvious difference. Terentino is all style. Its almost a performance, many times it doesn’t get real at all. Remember Mexican standoff at the end of reservoir dogs or samurai fights in kill bill? City is all way too real.
I wish you would read the articles about the movies you haven’t seen. Maybe some of them will interest you.
Matkari -
I appreciate your response. Let me get through this and I would love to take this discussion further. In the meantime, I have sent you an invite which will let you see my blog.
A quick update – I haven’t seen Altman’s Short Cuts, but have seen his Gosford Park and Prairie Home Companion. I haven’t seen Amores Perros, but have seen 3 Deewarein and Yuva. I have seen Roshomon and Sliding doors but haven’t seen Blind Chance. I have seen Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me. I loved Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs but haven’t dared to venture into Kill Bill. I usually don’t read a review until I have seen the movie, but I plan to read your take on the movies which I haven’t seen - before I write my reply, and then see the movies ASAP.
Also bade bhaay – Since you haven’t disassociated yourself from them, should I assume that you agree with the comments of your supporters? Am I free to use this space to address their concerns – now that they seem to have stretched your norms of a civilized conversation?
Abhijeet,
I am not entirely sure what you mean in the last paragraph,and what are these concerns you want to adress, but with the exception of the first post, we seem to be having a perfectly fine conversation, and I am sure the other readers will agree. i dont see anyone objecting if we continue on this level.
Matkari -
Thats why I said it gets really confusing with multiple people writing - I dont know if you are the host of this blog or someone else, and if you have any kind of say on the coments written here (administrative privileges).
This "cinema paradiso" guy or gal call herself the host (preshak). She has used shall we say - strong yet civilized - language against me. I am itching to write back to her. But if you say that you dont agree with her statements - I am perfectly willing to ignore her and move on. Others I already concider not worthy of note. I can continue with this conversation with you and some mudslinging with her using this space. Do you mind if I do that? The reason for asking you this question is - you have acknowledged the support by others and but not by this person.
Changing subjects - I saw 'Shewari', 'Halla Bol', 'Atonement', 'Cry Freedom' and 'Apna Asman' today. Someone had recorded Dwiwedi's 'Chanakya' on the VHS of Palekar's 'Anakahee' so ended up watching that as well. (Well today turned out to be the movie day). Due to our ongoing discussion - I tried to keep an eye on the shot angles, the length of the scene and long shot vs close up - but didnt understand a thing. I guess the stories were too engrossing.
I am trying to keep this comment as short as possible but couldnt avoid noticing the flashes of 'Rainman' and 'Awakenings' in 'Apna Asmaan'. At one point I could'nt help thinking of 'Ek Doctor ki Maut' as well. I have seen 'Cry Freedom' many times, but I tried to look for a book I have about making of it - written by Attenborough or his assistant. I found it in library trash a few years ago.
With the length of my comments, I cant say that I am a man of few words but I am thinking of writing to you about the reasons/inspiration with my first comment, my POV on the difference in medium between a newspaper column and a blog, my inspirations regarding movies and my expectations from a critic/writer (also - how you can reach out to more people. I think you deserve to be heard and you have the ability to 'convert' more people to meaningful cinema - like that guy who might pick up the DVD of 'fight club'). I thought a bit before saying 'my expectations' because, though I am a pretty mediocre writer myself, I hate it if someone "expects" me to write on a certain topic. So those are not exactly expectations but we can call them thoughts. (When I say you can reach out to more people - I assume that that's what you want to do. I try to avoid doing that).
I also do not want to get destracted by your supporters or their opinions of my opinions of your opinions of movies! (I guess Kaufman would burry his head in sand if he reads this sentence). :))
So we can move this conversation to mails if you want. (I have successfully avoided doing such a thing with my blog though).
We can discuss and have opinions about each other and can agree to disagree on things. But I dont want to fight on several fronts.
p.s. if you have web access - and havent seen 'glengery glenn ross', you can watch snippets of it on youtube, also - 'inside the actors studio' - the best movie program I have ever seen. I also feel mighty lucky that almost all the films that we talk about here are usually a click away for me.
Lets just get this support issue out of hand, so we can concentrate on movies.
Abhijeet ,
this is what I think.
For the moment we will switch to e mails. But for comments (or should I say smaller comments?)relevant to newer posts ,we can take it to the blog again.u have my mail id.let me know yours.
Contd….
Cinema paradiso guy /or gal means no harm. The person was obviously also put off by your style and maybe answered in a similar style . I suggest that lets not go there,there will be no end to it. Since the person hasn’t repeated the strong (or any)language , that matter should be over.
You seem to have lot of patience with films. Personally, I don’t like tosee more than 2 or max 3 films at a time. I have seen 4 a few times ,but I in my opinion I kindof loose it after 3rd. not fair to the 4th film. So how did youlike these films. Surprisingly, I haven seen only halla bol of the lot.liked about 4 minutes of it. The scene with pankaj kapoor on the swimming pool.santoshi kind of kills it with melodrama. Of others , I have atonement but not yet seen. Others don’t have, not seen. (Have seen rainmaker, ek doctor… though. )But I don’t believe that you found all stories equally engrossing. Did you? I mean that’s a wild assortment,if you know what I mean.
I think you can safely assume that I do want to reach out to more people. I think It was clear enough. Any suggestions are welcome.
As I said earlier ,we can switch to e mails. Only issue would be, that if someone is really interested in this conversation(and someone always is) that person will miss out. But we will think about that later.
I agree with the Abhijit's point from his 1st comment.
This article is not at all conclusive or readable enough but all other posts are really nice.
But Abhijit went to far in his comments and those who wrote against him are claiming themselves as civilized is quite laughable.
-Hemant
@ सिनेमा पॅरेडेसो
mi vachali Fountainhead.... tehi don vela
pan tari nahi Zepali .... :P :D :P :D
wow.....
tatvik bhandan ani te hi Rajkaran, Dharmakaran kinwa Cricket sodun wa wah !
BTW Abhijit's point is right(absolutely) but what he forgot is that this blog ain't for serious movie buff but for commoners who are interested in good cinema. All the marathi blogs are too optimistic.
p.s : i recently watched Udaan its like only Hindi movie worth a sequel. check it out.
हं !!! बऱ्याच दिवसांनी शाब्दिक धुमश्चक्री वाचायला/पाहायला /अनुभवायला मिळाली....
हे वादविवाद चूक कि बरोबर हे आमच्या सारखे विन्ग्लीश शिणेमे फारसे न बघणारे समजू शकत नाही मात्र माझ्या सारखे प्रेक्षक/वाचक मतकरींचे परीक्षण काय आहे हे पाहण्या साठी येथे नक्कीच खेचले जातात यात मात्र शंका नाही ... अर्थात त्यास महत्वाचे कारण म्हणजे त्या परीक्षणाची स्टाईल.
"तर एक भाऊ होतो पुलिस इन्स्पेक्टर नि एक होतो स्मगलर " हि होती ७०-८० च्या दशकात,बाळासाहेबांच्या "मार्मिक" मध्ये अमिताभ ज्या सिनेमा पासून खरा मोठा झाला त्या "दीवार" च्या परीक्षणाची सुरुवात..."दीवार" फर्स्ट डे-फर्स्ट शो सुपर-डुपर हिट असतानाची
थोडक्यात काय तर कोण कशा पद्धतीने परीक्षण करेल किंवा कुणाला ते कशा पद्धतीने करावेसे वाटेल नि कुणाला ते आवडेल-न आवडेल हा ज्याचा त्याचा वैयक्तिक प्रश्न असतो..... त्या मुळे धुमश्चक्री हि ओघानेच आली...........
abhijitrao,
aamale nai samajat na english. mang Ganesh bhau lihite tho picture (hindi Dub) paayato raja... tule taras hot asan t nako vaachat jau raja...
falatu time pass kayale karat aapala ? dusar kahi asan tar vaach na bhau... kas ?
Ganesh Bhau tumhi liva... aami vaachatoy
varila sarava post kahi dokyat aalya nahit pan charchya karanyat aapan kadhi mage nahi he patal.... pan mala ek vicharayach aahe ..... english kiva world cinema pahilya shivay ehtdeshiy cinema banavan kharach khup avaghad aahe ka?
this is my personal Q don't take personally.
are kaay he, blog peksha comment bhari ase zalay, esakal che muktapeeth vachlyasarkhe watle (Hyala pan like/dislike che button karun ghya rao)
A fine display of intelligent conversation. l expect others to respect writer's right to free expression and and honesty while enjoying the encounter..... Awdhoot
A fine display of intelligent conversation. l expect others to respect writer's right to free expression and and honesty while enjoying the encounter..... Awdhoot
A fine display of intelligent conversation. l expect others to respect writer's right to free expression and and honesty while enjoying the encounter..... Awdhoot
A fine display of intelligent conversation. l expect others to respect writer's right to free expression and and honesty while enjoying the encounter..... Awdhoot
Post a Comment