Monday, June 14, 2010

Censoring needs censoring!

I have a bone to pick with the censor board. I admit it may not be their fault alone that it often does not look like they know what they are doing... but they DO get to take a call and often, seem to take the wrong ones!

Looking at fairly recent releases where the censor board's failed me big time (by me, I mean the common man -- um, ok, the commonwoman)...


Sura for example, has a few scenes dedicated to the topic of suicide. Worse, it has a scene that is explicit on the different ways of committing suicide. This film, with an 'U' certification! Are they MAD? ( a little voice inside my head suggests the BAD word C-word: Corruption!Hmmm. Could it be?)

Once, when I asked the booking guy at the cinemas whether I could bring a child in to one of actor Vijay's films, he almost chortled and said: "M'am, for Vijay-movies, you don't even have to ask. Kids are always there." Sounds finer than it is.

How DARE the censor board allow this to happen? This suicide thing was supposed to be comedy -- romance as well as Vadivelu's comical bits, which we all know, draws far more attention than even mere drama! Bad enough we have ONLY skimpily-dressed actresses these OTHER inappropriate stuff too! Do we want our kids to know all about suicide? Or is it that our society is now warped-enough that our kids 'anyway' know all about it and so, it's better to joke about it in the open? A lose-lose situation, people.


I really like Vikram in Tamil cinema, OK? But he had given an interview prior to the release of Kandhaswamy and spoken about HOW great the film was for family-viewing and HOW much kids would enjoy watching it.

Really? The film had too much of Shriya Saran's too-little wardrobe. Too much of her pushing herself on to Vikram (in the film I mean;)), and all of it tastelessly done! It got me shuddering to think of what 'family-viewing' must mean these days!


This film had an uncertain U/A certification. Apparently the A was added just because the heroine wore a too-revealing (I mean some 2 degrees more than 'normal') blouse. Hah. BLOUSE, it seems. 'Innerwear' paraded as outwear is more appropriate. Still, in these 'If-you-have-it, flaunt-it' times, what does one expect, eh? And how abou that 30-lakh prostitute (or some other equally-ridiculous figure) on a multi-purpose van dancing to the tunes of the lecherous villain? That's a kid-ok scene is it?

Well my point here is, if the censor board is ONLY going to take note of less or more clothes and overlook much else which youngsters OUGHT to be prevented from watching, why do you need a BOARD for it? One guy can just sit up and say 'less', 'more', 'none'(!!) and do the needful...

And it's not as if the common man has common sense. For an U/A certification, he will bring his kids, his nephews and his nieces -- perhaps even some neighbours' kids for an U/A certified film. In Singam too, I noticed this boy (couldn't have been more than 6) watching a suicide scene unblinkingly, standing in the aisle.

You know what, when I started this post, I was picking a bone with the censor folk. Now, I think it's the parents I am getting to too.

Honestly, blood and gore seems a better option than too few clothes for NO good reason, tasteless coming-on of actors to actresses and vice versa, and suicide methods!

Is there a way out?

Note: Actress Shriya in this pic seems dressed for winter(!) compared to EVERY other outfit she sports in the film. Ugh.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Suriya or Surya is 'Singam' (Another animal title!) - Teesutalkie / movie review

I was so excited at the prospect of watching Suriya in Singam. What added the 'so' in that first sentence is that I saw him at the hotel Park around the time he was shooting for this film -- in this 'getup', and he looked oh-so-handsome. My I announce that he has the most gorgeous eyes I have ever seen on a man and that I grudge him for keeping his eyes downcast so I couldn't check them out in person when I came to within 3 feet of him at the Park's weird entrance!;)

The film Singam had the usual cliches -- one roaring lion image appearing often enough instead of Suriya's face, etc. Proper MTR masala types. BY branding the masala, I meant good quality!

The comedy scenes were comforting thanks to Vivek. However, one or two scenes seemed more Vadivelu' s style than Vivek's. That kind of humour whereas, I normally associate Vivek's style with a cleverer tone overall.

Prakash Raj as the proverbial villain amazes me with HOW consistent he is in his mannerisms and style of talking. He delivers alright, but is it really so hard to find other actors who could do the trick just for the sake of variety? Just because this guy makes a 'good villain' is hardly enough reason to allow him to repeat himself in EVERY film esp in a negative role.

Anushka, the tall heroine I was SURE (after Vijay's Vettaikaran) would never be paired with shorter actors, is the heroine for Suriya here. Tall and rather big made, she wore revealing outfits (and I mean a little more revealing than 'normal') that earned the film the U/A certification rather than just 'U'.

Now, I have a bone to pick with the censor board about their general approach to censoring, but that's for another post.

Her expressions aren't bad but she does not really suit Suriya although director Hari has done a cool job of make-believe in this area.

Suriya. Well, he is a cool actor who, I do think could have won himself a National award or two for his acting in many a scene over many a film in the past say, 5-6 years...but he hasn't. This actor has some expressions down pat. Like the embarrassed one(THE best in the industry), the disappointed one, the angry one, the sarcastic one and the 'I-am-a-wonderful-son' one. Thing is, as I said, he has simply bee-you-ti-ful eyes, but they are also very expressive. So expressive in fact, that he gives himself away in some scenes like the one when confronted with Prakash Raj whose face comes to within one foot of himself. The guy's eyes smile and it makes you think he has a tough time keeping a straight face.

Alright, alright, you have to be Suriya-crazy to notice these things. Am not QUITE there yet. Who am I kidding, eh?Oh, and the veg puff at Sathyam cinemas this time, was bad.

Now, why on earth did they give Suriya so many gayish, girlie and METROSEXUAL moves in the songs, I want to know. Irritating.

The songs are not great. Between being distracted by Anushka's outlandish-for-tamil-cinema-height and appreciating Suriya's high-energy, the frivolous song scenes pass.

The movie is also not boring, thanks to director Hari who ONLY needs to watch out for repeating himself. The films Saamy and Aaru were wonderful and refreshing albeit masalas. Somehow, Singam is not THAT much so.

I say watch the movie for Suriya. Nothing else is compelling enough in the film.

Teesu talkie?

I was just going to write a movie review when I suddenly got a feeling that my blog seems to be more about tags and reviews than my own, you know, 'teesutalk'.

Bothers me a bit. But I have to admit, social networking sites take up quite a bit of energy and sharing and so, teesutalk moves to the background. Feeling bad about that. After all, I have plenty to talk about, rave, fondly remember, rant, announce, etc.

Besides, have taken up a small venture and taking up a business on any scale uses up a lot of energy!

After all this blah-blah, my mind is on my next 2-3 posts and they are all about Tamil cinema and a 'self-taken tag'.

What the heck, may as well indulge. Teesu's JUST-talk is just about these now, then.