What's love got to do with it?
Its no surprise to me that Namrat Joshi moans and wonders why we have forgotten the classic silver screen love stories of yore.
She wails, 'Our poll revealed an almost unnerving indifference to the great romances of the past. Mughal-E-Azam, Pakeezah and Kaagaz Ke Phool seemed to have faded from public memory. Raj Kapoor and Nargis are the only romantic pair from their generation that managed to make it to the top 10. What does that say about us? After all, love is not just another four-letter word. Love is also about sociology, history, economy and politics; it is a marker of changing times and generational shifts. From the idealistic 1950s to the materialistic 2000s, we have come a long way. So have our on screen romances.'
Namrata may have a hold of sociology, history, economy and politics, but she comes up short on understanding consumers. Because when we watch a movie, unlike the critics, we are in effect engaging in an act of consumption that's aimed at fulfilling a need. I know, the way I said it, its awful, but that's the boring truth.
For Namrata to understand movie viewing better, she needs to tune into what Seth Godin's said; (Quote) 'Every week the number one best selling DVD in America changes. It's never "The Godfather," it's never "Citizen Kane," It's always some third rate movie with some second rate star. But the reason it's number one is because that's the week it came out. Because it's new, because it's fresh. Because people saw it and said -- I didn't know that was there -- and they noticed it.'
What we do, we do to fulfill needs. We aren't interested in anything other than ourselves, though we may profess otherwise. I know Self-Actualised people exist, though I have this sneaky feeling there's still a need behind that state. So for us, it surely is about a love that fills a void of 'wanting to belong', and the answers to those yearnings don't lie in the nostalgia of the past that we forget, but in the mushy movies that run on sliver screens of the present.
She wails, 'Our poll revealed an almost unnerving indifference to the great romances of the past. Mughal-E-Azam, Pakeezah and Kaagaz Ke Phool seemed to have faded from public memory. Raj Kapoor and Nargis are the only romantic pair from their generation that managed to make it to the top 10. What does that say about us? After all, love is not just another four-letter word. Love is also about sociology, history, economy and politics; it is a marker of changing times and generational shifts. From the idealistic 1950s to the materialistic 2000s, we have come a long way. So have our on screen romances.'
Namrata may have a hold of sociology, history, economy and politics, but she comes up short on understanding consumers. Because when we watch a movie, unlike the critics, we are in effect engaging in an act of consumption that's aimed at fulfilling a need. I know, the way I said it, its awful, but that's the boring truth.
For Namrata to understand movie viewing better, she needs to tune into what Seth Godin's said; (Quote) 'Every week the number one best selling DVD in America changes. It's never "The Godfather," it's never "Citizen Kane," It's always some third rate movie with some second rate star. But the reason it's number one is because that's the week it came out. Because it's new, because it's fresh. Because people saw it and said -- I didn't know that was there -- and they noticed it.'
What we do, we do to fulfill needs. We aren't interested in anything other than ourselves, though we may profess otherwise. I know Self-Actualised people exist, though I have this sneaky feeling there's still a need behind that state. So for us, it surely is about a love that fills a void of 'wanting to belong', and the answers to those yearnings don't lie in the nostalgia of the past that we forget, but in the mushy movies that run on sliver screens of the present.
Comments