Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Barfi ...

Lately a lot of people, mostly over FB but also in person had complained that Barfi is copied from other movies with a lot similarity from Charlie Chaplin. While I agree that many a scene can be called frame to frame copy from somewhere else (check this http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4082374652071), I still don't see any point in calling the movie a copy, and just by this logic denying the whole ingenuity in the movie. The movie personally touched me so deep that now I don't even remember which one was the last movie that was so deep. I checked the whole list of Amir khan movies, while they were marvolous and I am big fan of him, still not that deep. And there shall be no no comparison. I am sorry to compare.

But to all those who think that the movie is a copy, I'll ask one simply question. When you know a person, what do you associate him with? I sure not the body part of his. If you see the person you wud call him by name. But if you to see (god forbid) only one part of the body of the same person, what ever part you may chose, would you call it the person. The same applies here too, a scene or two, in their isolation from the rest of context is not movie. They might be copy but the movie remains an original piece of work.

On a different note, even the whole movie was copy from another movie, frame by frame, just making it again with a different camera and actors, makes it different.