What's your opinion about writers inserting themselves in their fictional works?
I'm just surprised nobody has yet mentioned Milan Kundera, arguably the greatest writer of our times around who hasn't won a Nobel yet, whose "unstructure" of a novel is dazzling in its complexity and its simplicity. Be it in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" or in "Immortality", two of his celebrated works, Kundera peeks in and out, giving us his pithy, keen and insightful observations. Kundera believes, rightfully I feel, that a writer's vision is only fully realized in the final reader's imagination, it is incomplete before the message gets across, writing and reading go together, and neither is complete without the other. Inasmuch, he is not as concerned with descriptions of exact physicality of his characters as he is with the words he wants the readers to associate with the character.As such, in his seemingly third person stories, he uses first person narrative suddenly, as a literary device to great effect, to startle readers and freeze key ideas/events in their minds. The whole book "Immortality" is based on the beautiful gesture of a woman, a product of his own creation who comes into a larger truer focus, while the author and the real 'stream of consciousness' fade in and out. I believe the explosion of the use of the first person narrative device in the 70s as stated by Aman Anand is directly attributable to the 'Kundera' influence. How others fared with it will rest on whether they have Kundera's deep understanding of a "plot" of a novel (or lack thereof), and the intellectual boldness to stand many conventional notions on their heads.I would highly recommend any of his works to people who want to delve deeper into what truly constitutes the structure of the plot of a novel, into what is fiction and what is non-fiction and how blurry are the boundaries, or into the verisimilitude novels must inevitably have with circular, non-linear reality.For starters: www.goodreads.com/book/show/28634.ImmortalityP.S - Not mentioning Kundera in discussions about authors popping into novels is like not mentioning Woody Allen when talking about directors popping into films.
How accurate is the movie Braveheart?
Just to add another few inaccuracy Edward longshanks wasnt an evil villain. The Scottish continuously pillaged england so he was trying to tame them and secure the northern border. As people had been since the Romans.York wasn't sacked I don't think it ever was… If you ever see yorks walls you would know why.The Scottish didnt have blue paint. That was the British back in Roman times.Kilts were not worn then by Wallace and other lowlanders. This was most likely put in for American audiences.Wallace didn't go round and kill all the lords in some revenge attack. Infact he was on the run.When executed he wouldn't have shouted freedom. By this point he had been dragged naked through the streets by his heels. Hung and cut down while still breathing. Had his manhood cut off. His guts cut out and burned infront of his eyes (then at this point he is supposed to have shouted). Also they wouldn't have given him the option of a quick death as he was classed as a traitor. So the priest asking him to swear to the king and it would all end is dramatic.That said it is an amazing film as long as you watch it as fantasy. Sadly it engenders hatred from the Scottish due to its evil send up of the English. When the real situation was much more complex. In fact a Scottish king ended ruling England so the Scottish were not downtrodden peasants even at this stage when the film is set.
How do filmmakers make it look like it’s raining in movies?
Two excellent answers by Neal Edelstein and Jon Mixon. I'll add another element thus far unmentioned. It's difficult for the camera to pick up on rain drops. There is no focus capable of capturing water in the form of rain drops, while being able to focus on the actors and sets as well. Just take a look at most weather channel storm chaser shows or news reports. You can only REALLY tell it's truly pouring by the objects the rain hits. The ground, windshields, glass, people, etc. If you go watch Mel Gibson's Braveheart, you should know that it rained about 80%, if not more, of the time during production. Sometimes blustering rain. But you never really get a sense of that rain in the footage. All you get a sense of is wetness. Wardrobe is wet. Sets are wet. But you never really see it, at least for the most part. That was all natural rain weather. So what productions have to do to convey dramatic rain, something that is visible on screen and cinematic, is inject a substance into the water source. Something that is less translucent and can be picked up on camera. They usually utilize milk. I'm sure there are a number of variances as far as what they use, but the predominant substance they use is milk. Lighting can be utilized as well, but additional substances like milk is the best option. The following clips likely utilized this technique...THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION - Clearly a studio stage setting. The rain is present, its dramatic, etc. JURASSIC PARK - Another clear studio stage sequence. A masterful use of this technique. SINGING IN THE RAIN - The ultimate classic use of this technique.
What are the most realistic movies ever made depicting the Middle Ages?
None of the popular ones like Braveheart, Becket, or The Lion In Winter. The last two in particular make medievalists cringe: the former is based on entirely false premises since Becket was Norman, not Saxon, and the characters in the latter seem to have rolled out a psychiatrist’s couch in Manhattan, circa 1960. I don’t know of any film that has done Eleanor of Aquitaine justice.Even though it’s based on an eminently post-modern novel, and the central conceit comes from Borges’ great modernist short story The Library Of Babel, the most authentic film about the Middle Ages I know is Annaud’s The Name Of The Rose. The director overreaches in casting actors who were on average more grotesque than I think medieval people were, and it makes the period grubbier than it was, but much of the detail is superb and the script intelligent. Annaud rightly calls the film a palimpsest; I don’t think that it is possible to do full justice to Eco’s brilliant novel in any film. (After all, Eco is a medievalist.) Give yourself two pleasures: read the book, and see the film.
What should I choose in life, routine job or passion?
Great Question..Because Nowadays Due to Digitalization There are lots of Earning ways Comes out of the box Right ?Dear There are lots of Opportunities Available for us But Problem is Where we should go -For Daily Routine JobPassionEarlier I also Suffer From This Problem But I got Solution That I Want to Share With You.Actually Speaking When we Do Job We Have lots of Pressure Right & At the End of The Day we Frustrate Out of it.Finally Seee………If You Have own passion Then Work On It Along With job. Never Leave job For your Passion Because If you Do This Then You May get Pressure From Home/Dad To Again Join Job.So It’s better to Join Job & along With That Work On Our Passion.When You Work on Passion side By Side then after some Time You Get Success on that Field.After that You can Easily Leave your Job & Work On passion Only.I Think This Will Help You. If you Find This Article Helpful Then you Can Motivate Me By Just UPVOTING This Answer.Before Leaving From This Answer I Have Some Useful Articles for You :-How to Solve any Problem By Asking Go [Spiritual way of Solving any Problems]How to Apply : Vipassana Meditation Course [FREE OF COST]That’s It. We will Meet You Later.Regards, Dipak ChauhanHealth & spiritual Blogger at www.innovativelearnings.com
Is Bahubali an overrated movie?
A big yes.Reasons :A cliche, mediocre revenge story nothing more than that.The weight of the whole movie is balanced only by VFX effects. Now, when I talk about VFX I'm not comparing it with Hollywood, I'm just of the opinion that if you remove VFX effects from the equation the movie stands below average. VFX isn't the only aspect of the movie to be considered for rating.Next coming to genre, it's been tagged under fantasy movie. Now, in the whole movie considering both the part I didn't find one single fantasy element in it except for the big ship suddenly growing it's own wings and flying sky high. Now let's consider Ega movie by the same director, in that movie the main character a small house fly was beautifully designed and that is a piece of fantasy not this one in this movie. So the movie doesn't justify the genre under which it is being tagged.The next thing is the action sequences throughout the movie. People who are considering that action sequences are out of the world are the ones just awestruck by the VFX effects. When I see a stunt being performed I expect a tiny bit of realism, if the action sequences doesn't even satisfies that tiny bit what good is being done by the VFX, I think VFX has made action sequences more awkward than watchable, particularly when climax sequence. Let's consider a movie called Mahadeera, directed by the same director who has done Bahubali, in that movie the protagonist will single handedly deafeat 100 soldiers, I liked that.Characterisation was lacking and contradicting. Let's consider the character Sivagami Devi portrayed by Ramya Krishnan - in the first part th character was deemed to be the most self righteous person and she never pay heed to others advice and always take matters in to her own hands. But in the second part the character was dancing to whims of other characters especially when she gave the order to kill Bahubali thereby being self contradictory. The next character is Balwal Devan enacted by Rana, being the main antagonist, this character failed to create the impact which it should've. I hardly remember any one particular scene in which that particular was outstanding. I clarify here I'm not being a critic of acting of an individual but only the way in which the character was portrayed.Considering these many drawbacks in the movie, it being rated as 9.2/10 and 8/10 in IMDB is overwhelmingly overrated in my opinion.