|
A scribe says that by acting in the same kind of films, the pain of 'hot' performer Shaila has increased. The scribe says that Shaila has already become more than just a little tired doing hot roles.
The scribe claims that whenever she gets a breather during shooting she wails over the scribe's shoulders for roles in good movies (as opposed to obscene movies?).
The scribe claims that Shaila was certain that if she moaned enough to the scribe the scribe would get her a role in a good film almost immediately.
This the scribe denies, hinting that life is not like that at all. The scribes does declare piously that it was the scribe's intention to do good for people but it was well nigh impossible to do anything like what was being demanded by Shaila because she debuted in a film that got banned right after its release because of serious lewd and obscene content in which she also played a role wittingly or unwittingly. If that was not bad enough then the fact that she had continued to do those kind of roles was.
The scribe posed the pragmatic enquiry, "Which clean film director will use a girl like her in their film?"
Difficult question to answer but there but surely one could find at least one clean but brave filmmaker who will take Shaila in his film. Of course there is but the scribe in question didn't want to take the trouble to direct her to that director and just told her the bitter truth, or so the scribe claims, that she will not be able to find a director like that in this lifetime.
The scribe admits to not being in the least crazy about putting in a good word for what he call a 'hot heroine' like Shaila and taking heat for that. In fact the scribe became nervous and lit out of there making excuses like having left milk on the stove or the baby, mother-in-law or even dog unattended in the flat and no saying what kind of a trouble they could get into.
The irate individual also asserted that many supporters of those lewd and obscene films were creatures worthless and unfit for work (in fact they had a term for them: effeminate film clergy),
Then there are those so-called 'dense-theory' artists (after their first few words only they themselves can make sense of what they are driving at) who have recently claimed that "those writers who have consecrated the whole world, to demons, derive the greater part of morality from there and that for those that are not come unto the film realm that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a weird trumpet, and the voice of foreign words; which voice they that heard were most certainly the voice from the grave."
Whose grave? Now how in hell are we supposed to know that?! Besides, as we said before, these nuggets of wisdom make sense only to those who advance them and defend them. To most of us, they are either straight offerings from "cuckoo land" or are very 'high thought" stuff.
"The fact of the matter is not only obscenity and lewdness," says a really very angry fan, "but admit it, our filmmakers are also really extremely outdated if not really very bad! And also, as you cannot teach old dogs new tricks, you will have to look for better directors who are at least better trained because these old loudmouths have failed to deliver!"
That seems to us to be very harsh judgement. Perhaps re-education is not possible in the case of ancient canines but surely some of our directors could be taught a few new tricks enough so that their work is at least tolerable. Any takers? — A Cine Viewer
|