OK, this is actually about all the people who hated Fanaa because it was unrealistic. You know, Fanaa. The movie whose one-line summary is "A blind girl and a terrorist fall in love." And it's a summary known basically to everyone who went to see it. This is not going to be a slice of real life, kitchen-sink drama, and you know exactly in advance what it's going to be. That's right, an epic, angstorrific melodrama, like so many other Bollywood movies. You've been warned. This is the genre it's in. It's like going to see MI3 and complaining there is too much action or some slasher flick and complaining about the violence. You can complain if the romance or the action or the horror is badly done, but you have to look at the movie within the confines of its genre.
( Fanaa and genre )
In other, completely unrelated news, I've been reading the essay
aliterati recommended on Robespierre by Hilary Mantel. I think I have a bit of a girl-crush on her now. That site has a lot of thoughtful essays and they are not all about the French Revolution either. There is a fascinating one about saintly fasts in the context of anorexia. Btw, Hilary Mantel is a novelist who wrote the best novel about the French Revolution I've read, called A Place of greater Safety which is the interconnecting stories of Danton, Robespierre and Camille Desmoulins (if the book has a main character, it's him). According to
aliterati, she started the book in love with Camille and ended it in love with Robespierre but it was too late to re-write. I am not complaining since there are plenty of books about Robespierre and Danton and not that many about Camille.
And to go on a tangent, I remember reading Carlyle's The French Revolution and thinking how differently the historians used to write. Because I mentioned Camille, here is how Carlyle introduces him:
A fellow of infinite shrewdness, wit, nay humour; one of the sprightliest clearest souls in all these millions. Thou poor Camille, say of thee what they may, it were but falsehood to pretend one did not almost love thee, thou headlong lightly-sparkling man!
Or this description of Robespierre (whom he clearly wasn't fond of, sorry
aliterati): With a strict painful mind, an understanding small but clear and ready, he grew in favour with official persons, who could foresee in him an excellent man of business, happily quite free from genius. Ouch.
Or on Danton: The great heart of Danton is weary of it. Danton is gone to native Arcis, for a little breathing time of peace: Away, black Arachne-webs, thou world of Fury, Terror, and Suspicion; welcome, thou everlasting Mother, with thy spring greenness, thy kind household loves and memories; true art thou, were all else untrue! The great Titan walks silent, by the banks of the murmuring Aube, in young native haunts that knew him when a boy; wonders what the end of these things may be.
Can you imagine a modern historian writing so? But I actually rather like it. It makes for a hell of an entertaining read, if nothing else.
And of course, the Georgians were struck by the 'romantic,' just the way we are. Just see this: Camille's young beautiful Wife, who had made him rich not in money alone, hovers round the Luxembourg, like a disembodied spirit, day and night. Camille's stolen letters to her still exist; stained with the mark of his tears. (Apercus sur Camille Desmoulins in Vieux Cordelier, Paris, 1825, pp. 1-29.) The citation at the end is rather anticlimactic :) (I did read some of them, as well as his other stuff, and he was quite a good writer. Understandably angsty and self-pitying in the letters to Lucile that Carlyle mentions though).
Of course, whatever Carlyle's historical biases, he was an immensely readable writer.
And thus ends this digression from anything...
( Fanaa and genre )
In other, completely unrelated news, I've been reading the essay
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
And to go on a tangent, I remember reading Carlyle's The French Revolution and thinking how differently the historians used to write. Because I mentioned Camille, here is how Carlyle introduces him:
A fellow of infinite shrewdness, wit, nay humour; one of the sprightliest clearest souls in all these millions. Thou poor Camille, say of thee what they may, it were but falsehood to pretend one did not almost love thee, thou headlong lightly-sparkling man!
Or this description of Robespierre (whom he clearly wasn't fond of, sorry
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Or on Danton: The great heart of Danton is weary of it. Danton is gone to native Arcis, for a little breathing time of peace: Away, black Arachne-webs, thou world of Fury, Terror, and Suspicion; welcome, thou everlasting Mother, with thy spring greenness, thy kind household loves and memories; true art thou, were all else untrue! The great Titan walks silent, by the banks of the murmuring Aube, in young native haunts that knew him when a boy; wonders what the end of these things may be.
Can you imagine a modern historian writing so? But I actually rather like it. It makes for a hell of an entertaining read, if nothing else.
And of course, the Georgians were struck by the 'romantic,' just the way we are. Just see this: Camille's young beautiful Wife, who had made him rich not in money alone, hovers round the Luxembourg, like a disembodied spirit, day and night. Camille's stolen letters to her still exist; stained with the mark of his tears. (Apercus sur Camille Desmoulins in Vieux Cordelier, Paris, 1825, pp. 1-29.) The citation at the end is rather anticlimactic :) (I did read some of them, as well as his other stuff, and he was quite a good writer. Understandably angsty and self-pitying in the letters to Lucile that Carlyle mentions though).
Of course, whatever Carlyle's historical biases, he was an immensely readable writer.
And thus ends this digression from anything...