Movies, mainly.

I think I've lost something. Earlier, I used to have loads to write, each time I logged into Blogger, even if that was thrice a day or more! And now, I can't find what to write. I'll start with the first thing that happened after I logged out of Blogger 12 hours ago, last night. I watched District 9. The movie had defeated all the Steven Spielbergs and Robert Emmerichs by it's sheer way of narration, and not just technical brilliance or emotionally wrenching events. The most believable alien movie that I've watched till date. I also know why people like Deshraj didn't like the movie. Because of the way of narration! It didn't have the "movie" feel to it. Which brings me to the question that Baba and me hit on, while discussing 3 Idiots. Why is it necessary for a movie to be of a commercial type to be a success? Thanks Maa was a movie with a social message, and a good story (good, not great), and a great screenplay. The camera work was bad, especially because it's a low budget film. The music was touching, but not scoring! There was very little of perceivable editing, and dialogue writing, because they just showed things as what it is, they didn't improvise anything, just for the sake of the camera. Therefore, the movie releases with only one show a day in a couple of multiplexes, and it won't be there next week. In spite of the critical acclaim, it's not a success, because it didn't reach out to the masses. For a movie (especially one with a social message) it's essential to reach out to the masses, to be a "success" according to me! So, that's where 3 Idiots wins. It had spicy song sequences, it had superstars in the cast, it had melodramatic dialogues, it had a big, big budget! Result: it became the talk of the town for over a month. Everyone watched it. The movie became a movement (which affected me the most). Maybe the message it had to impart wasn't hammered into every brain around, but there's always hope that it's just the beginning of a change. Coming back to the Robert Emmerich/Steven Spielberg movies and Neill Blomkamp's District 9, the latter had a good budget too I'm sure (camera-work was more down-to-earth, though, there were considerable uses of special effects) but the movie wasn't promoted at all. I have no idea why. Moreover, it didn't have a plot, though there was a climax, and an anti-climax. It was more of a descriptive-type narration. Like My Brother Nikhil. I remember that I didn't like My Brother Nikhil, because of the scenes-interrupting before-the-camera monologues by each of the characters. It still remains a good movie, for me, because it had the usual effects of a good movie on my psyche. Just that these scene-interrupting interviews irritate me, during the course of the movie. It would have worked for D-9 too, if they weren't vital-information-givers. I think both My Brother Nikhil and D-9 wouldn't have been unique movies in their own respective genres, if not for this "lack-of-a-movie-feel" type screenplays. The fact that it doesn't click with me, or someone else, doesn't mean it doesn't click with everyone. But the experience of watching a movie should be an entertaining experience too, so a way to compromise the two contrasting types must be figured out.