the rot spreads. a different take on these films
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rajiv
http://www.virgincomics.com/index.html (headline announced "Indian horror film deal" - it is Ramayan)
http://www.virgincomics.com/ - click and see description of Devi...
Pls see Shekhar Kapur and Deepak Chopra in a JV with Virgin Comics (UK). They feed the culture of violent comics, film and video games, using Hindu deities as fodder. Ramayana is being called and positioned as a horror film - imagine a film on Bible being called a horror film by its producers! Devi is a seductress looking like a slut - see character description at http://www.virgincomics.com/minisites/devi/devi.html. Sadhu is an Englishman's spiritual journey in India in which his ugly side pops up because the sadhu's path is frustrating.
While Hindus protest against westerners' abuses, why is this being ignored? What does this say about Hinduism to the youth? I request AGAINST shouting and threatening or in any way behaving abusively. But there must be voices that calmly and intelligently expose that such products are making tens of m,illions of dollars at the expense of creating more Hinduphobia.
The framework started by certain academics to depict Hinduism is getting spread into film, games, pop culture, museums, textbooks. Hinduism is getting repositioned as demonic just like the native americans and european pagans were, and then they got oppressed as savages.
7 comments:
Hi Rajiv,
The Ramayan is NOT being positioned as a horror film by Virgin Comics. The horror film deal is a separate deal with Studio 18 for which the stories are still in development.
The Ramayan 3392AD is a separate series under Virgin Comics' SHAKTI imprint!
Reposting my earlier comment dated 1/03/2007
I am shocked that the Govt. of India, normally so sensitive to its citizens' sentiments, has not banned the comic "Ramayan 3392AD" which uses characters from epics which remain part of the living culture of Hindus.
Specially as the blurb on the website suggests that the eternal characters of Rama and Ravana are cast into the semitic narrative of God vs. Satan which is totally antithetical to that of Sanatana Dharma. (In fact it reminds one of Tolkien.)
I do not think this should be permitted on the grounds of artistic licence that applied, for example, to 1960s US comic featuring the god Thor (with other Norse gods) in a modern US context. Thor had been a "forgotten" god by then.
Well, there are already plenty of Indian comics on Ramayana, Mahabharata, and every other Hindu mythological vein you can think of.
But I agree that it is rather unseemly to create "Ramayana 3392" where Lakshman uses cheesy phrases like "You morons" and "Status Report?" When he first meets Vishwamitra who has just rescued him, he says "Who the hell are you?" Even Boromir never talked like that.
I'm a fan of Tolkein, but he'd never approve of this kind of hack writing. Since when does Ayodhya have spaceships? I also don't recall Rama having tattoos. He also gets nicknamed "Blueboy" at one point.
There's a scene where one of Ravana's demons commits a Taliban-style suicide-bombing attack with a bomb strapped to his back, yelling "God is Great! Ravan is Greater!" Other demons look exactly like the Orcs from the Peter Jackson movie trilogy. Hanuman looks like a cross between long-haired Chewbacca and pointy-eared Legolas.
The artwork is great, but the style and atmospherics are straight out of the movie "300", where Rama is a hack-and-slash killing machine. He's armed with the energy-sword, energy-blade, energy-bow, energy-everything. He's even got that double-saber that Darth Maul has in Star Wars.
I'm reminded of the fantasy comic, "Jesus Hates Zombies"
http://www.comicspace.com/jesus_hates_zombies/comics.php?action=gallery&comic_id=3291&bl_type=4&bl_from=%2Fsearch.php%3Fsearch_type%3Dcomics%26terms%3Djesus%2Bhates%2Bzombies%26search%3DGo
except of course that has inferior artwork, because it's low-budget.
I think it's nice to make Ramayana and other mythological tales accessible to the world -- but in their original form, and not as weirded out kill-fest. I really don't want to see Rama shrieking, "This -- Is -- Ayodhyaaaaaaaa!"
[[Lakshman uses cheesy phrases like "You morons" and "Status Report?" When he first meets Vishwamitra who has just rescued him, he says "Who the hell are you?"]]
Reminds me of that cheesy 3D film "Pandavas". Dialogue ... ugh.
Not saying the dialogue has to be all-original, but it can be made to sound a bit more epic. The character design and wardrobe, however, should definitely stay. The Vanaras look positively simian, rather than like ordinary humans with silly play-doh protruding mouths like in the 80's TV series. As for the demons, the character design is simply demonic (as it should be, and better than using stereotypical plump dark-skinned mustachioed men), and the suicide bombing is a nice touch (wonder if there's a hidden message regarding a certain modern phenomenon). I've not seen a cooler depiction of Rama since the Prince of Light anime.
Oh, and yes, Ramayana 3392 AD is not being cast as a horror film.
[[Since when does Ayodhya have spaceships?]]
And they're not spaceships ... they're vimanas.
off topic, but is this sohan dsouza or sohan ramakrishna pillai?
if it is dsouza, my um... 'biographer' on wikipedia, let me explain to you that:
'atlanticist' does not refer to all white people, only those who are NATO-types who see the world through eurocentric eyes. i didn't invent this term , it is a term first used by henry kissinger (yes, the war criminal).
'christist' is in analogy with 'marxist' -- blind faith in some person's (alleged) views. in fact it would be more accurate to call these people 'paulists' because they have blind faith in paul's fabrications. also some protestants claim that they are the only 'christians' and that 'catholics' are different. so 'christist' is a comprehensive term that includes anyone who purveys the mythology of christ.
'mohammedan' is a pretty standard term and i don't why this should be irritating to them. they should talk, consider they refer to so many people as 'kafirs'!
Yes, it is I, and I wrote that it was "distinctive", not offensive or original. I think qualifiers are unnecessary, except perhaps for "Atlanticist".
Post a Comment