For right now, it is. But if the film industry lets this pass by without a protest there would be more such bans tomorrow. I said it might be the start of an ugly trend. And any bad trend needs to be nipped in the bud. But even assuming if they dont ban anything further, what they did was bad and ridiculous. That’s my stance

“why did you not blame it on parthiban for ulle veliye? or someone else in the recent past? you blamed avm saravanan because he supports the ban you oppose.”

I am not blaming just AVM Saravanan. There are w hole host of others. But since he is the first one who has openly endorsed this ban, I am just pointing out the hippocrisy, thats all. If Parthiban supports the ban and calls it a welcome move, then probably I’ll talk about him too.

“to compare his current stance of supporting the ban to something he did 20 years ago is like calling germans hypocrites for talking about world peace because hitler, a german did all he could to destroy the same. that was then, this is now!!!”

wrong analogy. Its the same AVM Saravanan who has existed for the last 20 years. However Hitler is long gone. The present day Germans might not relate to any of his beliefs. But Saravanan exists and he is the SAME guy who gave bad films earlier and is now endoring the ban.

“creativity is not hampered by insignificant details. if it does, then it is not creativity at all. churchill and cigar may be inseparable, but the cigar did not make the man churchill was.’

again you missed the point by a humongous margin. The fact that Churchill smoked a cigar might not be very important in British history, but when it comes to art, when it comes to the portrayal of the man on screen, any scene showing him without it would look awkward and incomplete. The fact that Gandhi had a stick while walking might sound insignificant(to you) when compared to what he accomplished. But when you portray Gandhi on screen, if you see him walking swinging both his arms and without his stick, how awkward will it be for the viewer who is accustomed to seeing him a different way? You are confusing significance in art with significance in reality. Its these so-called small things that a great director who makes a biopic includes in his films in order to make an impact in the viewer’s mind.

“but my point is when people do stuff knowing truly well that it is harmful to them, in that context, don’t you think it makes sense why laws are made not only to protect you from yourself and others?”

If people willingly smoke knowing the perils of smoking, then it is their decision, to forsake health for pleasure and they will live with their decision or learn to live with it. As long as it doesnt affect others its not immoral or illegal.Is there any law that prevents you from sticking your finger in the fire in your kitchen knowing it is going to burn you? Maybe some people dont mind living a shorter life for the pleasure of smoking. In the case the govt. is unnecessarily intruding into their lives and telling them what to do and what not. If a guy decides to sit and watch TV all day, do nothing and ruin his life, then thats his decision. The govt. cant react by banning all TV programmes as it incites laziness.

i still stand by my statement about the functionality of laws in general. it does not pertain to this issue specifically. and i don’t understand why that is hard to grasp because if you as a thinking individual don’t need a law to protect yourself from any harm or anything, you wouldn’t smoke! you can counter by saying smoking is not illegal, but my point is when people do stuff knowing truly well that it is harmful to them, in that context, don’t you think it makes sense why laws are made not only to protect you from yourself and others?

katz

the laws are not only from protecting you from others, but also to protect you from yourself

This is where the difference of opinion is between you and those who oppose the ban. If you need a law to protect you from yourself, then this debate is pointless.

no use debating this topic because i am looking at what is and you are looking at what if or what could have been! big difference in the two perspectives.

what is is known and factual to an extent. what if is unknown and if debated can go to asinine lengths of conspiracy! what could have been again is wishful thinking.

what is existing is the ban to stop showing smoking scenes in movies and television and from my perspective, i can live with that because it is not critical to any areas of creativity that without it, one cannot come up with a good movie, story etc.

what if are the conspiracy theories and shouts of orwellian analogies. what if aruvaals are banned tomorrow? what if the world ends tomorrow? then wont it make no difference if aruvaals are banned or not?? what if this could be the start of something ugly?? when you can think of so many what ifs that you don’t know whether will come true or not, why not think of WHAT IF THE BAN IS JUST WHAT IT IS SAID TO BE???

what could have been is your references to 1980′s movies as reasons about sex offenses and eve teasing? why did you not blame it on parthiban for ulle veliye? or someone else in the recent past? you blamed avm saravanan because he supports the ban you oppose. people’s thought process changes with time, and for you to compare his current stance of supporting the ban to something he did 20 years ago is like calling germans hypocrites for talking about world peace because hitler, a german did all he could to destroy the same. that was then, this is now!!!

lastly, agreed the scene in nayakan was a good one, but in my perspective, if say paan was banned, i wouldn’t bemoan the restriction of my creativity to showcase that scene using paan but instead will utilize my creativity to convey the same sentiments as effectively some other way. creativity is not hampered by insignificant details. if it does, then it is not creativity at all. churchill and cigar may be inseparable, but the cigar did not make the man churchill was. history needs to focus more on what the man did, his characteristic behaviour as opposed to whether he smoked a cuban cigar or had his clothes tailored at saville row. the former is an important part of world history, the latter is mere trivia!

katz

If you dont get the point, then watching blue films in theatre is probably OK with you.
If the scenes and songs are titillating like “nila kaayudhu” with all its moans and shrieks and the way it was picturized( its more vulgar than a blue film) it can definitely be a cause for rise in sexual offenses or eve-teasing just like how you feel a character smoking on screen is bound to affect impressionable minds. And the movie was a blockbuster too.

“there is a difference between smoking in the confines of your bedroom as opposed to smoking on a giant screen on 100 or so theatres for 4 shows a day”
By smoking on the silver screen the actor isnt affecting your health. Neither is he endorsing the product. Thats what I meant. By smoking in a bus-stand you are causing harm on unsuspecting non-smokers. Hence its logical to ban that.

Its like saying “Pulp fiction” should be banned because it glamourizes mafia life.

“the laws are not only from protecting you from others, but also to protect you from yourself. i would think committing suicide is an offence under the legal system”

under the legal system it might be. But not in my books. In fact on the internet there are many open debates as to whether suicide/euthanasia/prostitution etc. should be legalized or not. This is a gray area and not a clear-cut offense. In any case smoking cigarettes isnt as extreme as smoking, you would agree.

“just because avm saravanan supports the ban you oppose, does not mean he is the cause of the vulgar songs! ”

how did you conclude like this?!! ) I was pointing out his hippocrisy, of course him making movies like sakalavallavan has nothing to do with his endorsement of the ban

“extreme reaction for something so simple!!!’

its not simple, its the start of something ugly.

” i am surprised how hurt the writer of the piece feels on not being able to see holmes with his pipe. holmes was famous for his hat and pipe, no doubt, but what made holmes legendary were not these props, it was his analytical mind!

it is like saying the rayban worn by kamal in kurudhi punal is so critical that without it the movie or character is totally of no consequence!”

rayban worn might not have been critical but Kamal giving the paan to NizhalgaL ravi and him chewing it, turning away from Kamal( a scene that was discussed recently as one of the great ones in the movie) in Nayagan might be a significant scene. If we impose these dumb rules such scenes might not be possible.

Churchill might have been famous for his acumen, but him and his cigar were inseparable. Any biopic that portrays him with his cigar blurred will look unrealistic and odd. I can cite many more examples, but I guess you catch the drift. Once again the issue is not just with cigarettes – this is just the start of an ugly trend.

Tomorrow they can pose a ban on all characters who take “aruvaaL” in their hands as it may lead to violence. Kamal carrying an “aruvaal” in Virumandi or Vijay carrying one in Gilli might look cool to some “impressionable minds” )

besides according to the ban, any older movies that have smoking scenes have to show a health warning before being played. so you can still see winston churchill and feluda etc. but i am surprised how hurt the writer of the piece feels on not being able to see holmes with his pipe. holmes was famous for his hat and pipe, no doubt, but what made holmes legendary were not these props, it was his analytical mind!

it is like saying the rayban worn by kamal in kurudhi punal is so critical that without it the movie or character is totally of no consequence!

but then to each his/her own musings.

katz

If you can’t accept the opinion, that banning something now will lead to a bigger issue, I probably have to stick to my own arguments without listening to yours.

I would still say banning ciggies from movies is a dumb move and will result only in curbing creativity of a director. Just give yourself a minute a think yourself as a director. If you were to shoot a scene you should have an advocate with you standing by your side saying which is acceptable and which is not. You will end up directing what they want and not what you want.

If one is controlled of ‘anything’ what one wants think/read/see/write, I think we aren’t progressing. We are just been made brain dead. My arguments are bigger than the issue of cigarettes.

there is a difference between smoking in the confines of your bedroom as opposed to smoking on a giant screen on 100 or so theatres for 4 shows a day. the porn you create within the confines of your bedroom is a personal issue, but doing the same on a stage is not! like i said, this is probably not targeted at the “adults” who ignore the warnings but at impressionable teenagers who may not know better. if i glorify suicide as the best method to put to end all my personal suffering and thereby influence someone else’ thought process to follow suit, i am also responsible to some extent as a contributor to that death. if only people are capable of taking responsibility for all of their actions, we would be in utopia! sadly that is not the case.

the laws are not only from protecting you from others, but also to protect you from yourself. i would think committing suicide is an offence under the legal system (fact check anyone)(on second thoughts i think it is, for kamal said in an interview that his inspiration for punnagai mannan was an inmate in bangalore jail who was jailed after a failed attempt after seeing ek duje ke liye and he survived and his lover died). if what you say is true, they could just ignore you killing yourself for that is one number reduced in our population. that is not how it works.

avm saravanan’s movies provided fodder???? only his movies?? people were corrupted by his movies long before midnight masala? yes maybe, but then you saw the movie probably twice in the theatre and had to wait for another 3-4 years before it came to video tape or doordarshan to get a glimpse of it. but i believe more “impressionable minds” were corrupted when midnight masala became a daily fixture featuring songs for only one purpose. titillation! just because avm saravanan supports the ban you oppose, does not mean he is the cause of the vulgar songs! so many others have contributed to its cause. the point is then it was not midnight masala, it was once in a while masala. so the midnight masala focus or feature is all maran’s fault.

besides, i don’t get the point of that analogy. by watching a nethu raathiri yemma, are you saying that people will be tempted to put on the same get-up and dance in their garden, a la kamal and silk smitha? i would think it is easier to smoke a cigarette than to go searching for someone willing to dance with you in the same manner. and if you use your logic, kalashnikov is the root of all terrorism!!

katz

You are right, it is a personal issue just like smoking. It is not the fault of the cigarette, but that of the smoker. As long as he smokes in the privacy of his room, its his own fate. Why punish art and cinema for what a few people decide to do on their own? smoking in public is different.Likewise selling cigarettes to kids is different. But if an adult decides to imitate his hero on screen and smokes in his own private space, then its his own fault. If a guy decides to kill himself after seeing Punnagai Mannan’s opening scene then its his own fault. You can’t ban all suicide scenes in films. Now if certain scenes in films are capable of provoking crimes or offenses against society then they can be addressed. But what an individual does to himself, is his own responsibility. We cannot make general laws to prevent what a few individuals do to themselves. Laws are made to protect members of the society from each other, not from themselves.

Secondly, there is no systematic statistical study to find out how much cinema influeneces cigarette smoking and I bet there wont be any survey or study 2 or 3 years from now to determine how much banning of cigarettes in films helped reduce smoking. Its all just based on heresy.

“avm saravanan was not the fool because of whom we have midnight masala. THAT FOOL is someone called maran”

I didnt say AVM saravanan started midnight masala. But his movies ended up being fodder for such stuff. Even if midnight masala wasnt started his movies had already corrupted several young “impressionable minds”. There are a lot more things that should have been banned in AVM saravanan’s films before smoking is to be banned in tamil films.