Although we have never published posts by outsiders on this blog in the past, we are making an exception in this instance. The below post is a great response to a comment on our review of U Me Aur Hum. The author Araj, a reader of the SearchIndia.com blog, is responding belatedly to a comment from tsk_tsk on July 7th, 2008 at 1:50 am to our review of U Me Aur Hum. The reason for publishing Araj’s comment as a separate post is to give it greater exposure as otherwise this fine piece would get buried as a comment on a movie released four months back (April 2008).
Here is Araj’s comment on tsk_tsk‘s comment to the U Me Aur Hum Review:
1) Your statements are contradictory. On one hand, you say Hollywood lacks originality â€˜coz its movies are â€˜copies of booksâ€™ and on the other you condone Indian plagiarism since it adds to the â€˜beauty of the originalsâ€™ which, according to you, are highly unoriginal in the first place since they are mere copies of â€˜originalâ€™ books. Therefore, do you mean to say â€˜copy of a copyâ€™ is better than â€˜just a copyâ€™?
2) My dear, a film that is based on a book is called an â€˜adaptationâ€™ for christâ€™s sake, not a â€˜copyâ€™( if you do not know what is an adaptation and the kinds of adaptations, read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_adaptation. You will get an idea.). An adaptation is an age-old tradition of art of movie-making as it helps a film-maker to explore the facets of life that otherwise lie outside his experiential jurisdiction hence inaccessible. Adaptation is a technique that enables the filmmaker to draw from the collective perspicacity of the authors whose works he can convert into screenplays. Because, from a deepest creative viewpoint, making movies is an impossibly unsustainable task i.e. one cannot keep on making great movies drawing from oneâ€™s own experiential pool alone however abundantly imaginative oneâ€™s mind is. Literature, therefore, frees the mind of a film-maker from