Re-release of 'Nanak Shah Fakir' , chalked in for 13th April

[BhForce]

On 3/16/2018 at 7:20 PM, jkvlondon said:

 

The speaker states that the movie is essentially a lie because the actor playing Guru Nanak is not in fact Guru Nanak ji. Which is true. 

Then he also states that the actor speaking the words of Guru Nanak is also unacceptable.

I want to quibble with this a bit: When kathakaar says "And then Guru Nanak said such and such", he's also mouthing what he purports to be the actual words of Guru Sahib, which is also a "lie". 

And Suraj Prakash is also a lie, by the same standard. And when the kathakar mouths the words, he's basically speaking in the voice of Guru ji.

So, why is that OK, but it's not OK when accompanied by an animation of Guru Sahib?

Also, the vast majority of Sikhs don't have a problem with still-life paintings of Guru ji, so why an objection to animation?

I do agree with not having actors playing Guru Sahib.

Do note that I'm not saying we should have this movie, or these types of movies. Just asking questions. Also, I don't think that these types of movies should be made by random Sikhs. First, the whole panth should agree that it wants to make such a movie. If there is not agreement, then don't make it. If there is agreement, the SGPC should make the movie, and release it for free after it recoups its costs. 

The movie should not be a money-making vehicle for private entities.

[BhForce]

12 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

review of NSF by gursikh
http://www.gurmatparchar.com/#/nanak-shah-fakir-review/4589118383

I was a bit skeptical when you said a review by a "gursikh", but I read a few articles on the site skeptical of Dhunda, Harjinder Dilgeer, and Nanakshahi calendar, so it seems OK. 

The article says the movie reduces Guru Sahib to the status of a mere man, and not God himself. Also, Guru Sahib speaks out in Gurbani against Ras Leelas and the like. There was always a tradition of sakhis, but never of actually playing out the role of the Guru like the HIndus do.

Also, anything remotely likely to offend Hindus or Muslims was self-censored, like Mecca turning, watering fields from Haridwar, refusing Hindu marriage ceremony. Also, he doesn't show the deer Guru Sahib boiled at Kurkshetra turning into rice pudding. Why not?

What is Sikka's agenda?

[BhForce]

10 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

do you think he had two cuts of the film  one to get approval initially and one which was for the cinemas which suit the diminishment of Guru Nanak Devji etc ? because it is too fishy that they  sat through the film and didn't notice the glaring omission of Naam Japna ...  Sikka sounds pushy because he is kind of adamant that it will be shown internationally . 
I noted that he did not correct mistranslation of gurbani in subtitles , guess 3 years is not enough to proofread and consult ?

 

Possibly. 

By the way, is the 45-yr old looking man with a long black beard supposed to be Bhai Mardana ji? Thank God Sikka didn't depict Bhai Mardana with his mustache shaved off like Muslims like to do.  I don't think I could stomach that.

That, btw, is the problem with representations. When you just say "Bhai Mardana" the audience of a kathakaar can imagine him like they want. Once you fix an image as a representation, you necessarily have to come down on once side or another. Sabat surat or jihadi beard? Etc.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Possibly. 

By the way, is the 45-yr old looking man with a long black beard supposed to be Bhai Mardana ji? Thank God Sikka didn't depict Bhai Mardana with his mustache shaved off like Muslims like to do.  I don't think I could stomach that.

That, btw, is the problem with representations. When you just say "Bhai Mardana" the audience of a kathakaar can imagine him like they want. Once you fix an image as a representation, you necessarily have to come down on once side or another. Sabat surat or jihadi beard? Etc.

Most likely Mardana, like Guru Nanak ji had an uncut beard, as did most Muslims/Commoners in the Delhi Sultanate. Guru Nanak ji are known to have worn a seli topi (woolen hat) which many saints wore back then. Mardana ji may have also worn a seli, or a makeshift turban. Mardana ji were a Marasi from backround and most likely was born poor. I don't think poor people back then could afford razors etc. Probably affluent Muslims had the commodity of using razors and styles for their beards and hair

[jkvlondon]

1 hour ago, 5akaalsingh said:

Most likely Mardana, like Guru Nanak ji had an uncut beard, as did most Muslims/Commoners in the Delhi Sultanate. Guru Nanak ji are known to have worn a seli topi (woolen hat) which many saints wore back then. Mardana ji may have also worn a seli, or a makeshift turban. Mardana ji were a Marasi from backround and most likely was born poor. I don't think poor people back then could afford razors etc. Probably affluent Muslims had the commodity of using razors and styles for their beards and hair

Also when Bhai Mardana asked Guru ji how to become a sikh first hukham was to keep kesh intact , a fact most fools who claim they are sikhs of Guru Nanak Dev ji  not Guru Gobind Singh ji are unaware of . The film  seems to be pointless and misrepresents sikhi as just liberal airy fairy langar servers which there seems to be  a decided agenda to reduce us to...

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

Also when Bhai Mardana asked Guru ji how to become a sikh first hukham was to keep kesh intact , a fact most fools who claim they are sikhs of Guru Nanak Dev ji  not Guru Gobind Singh ji are unaware of . The film  seems to be pointless and misrepresents sikhi as just liberal airy fairy langar servers which there seems to be  a decided agenda to reduce us to...

All Guru's are Guru Nanak Sahib Ji but reincarnated in human form, which is what I heard.

(I heard, not I said)

[jkvlondon]

1 hour ago, monatosingh said:

All Guru's are Guru Nanak Sahib Ji but reincarnated in human form, which is what I heard.

(I heard, not I said)

preaching to the choir bro , but these fools are desperate to justify their lack of rehit ... all are App Parmeshvar

[Guest]

SGPC are the biggest hypocrites of all time. First, clearing the film to release, much to the dissent of many Sikhs. Then, a week before the release they join them in protests. If you have seen the movie and found it wrong, at least tell that to the producers etc. They throwed so much money on promotion and stuff, only to face the wrath of most Sikhs.

Saying that, I remember  a video of Bhai Jagraj Singh(RIP) of BoS where he specifically talked about Nanak Shah Fakir and said he didn't like the fact that Guru ji were presented like a walking statue. He said that it would have been better to get an Amritdhari Singh in the role of any Guru, rather than an animation than never speaks. He specifically quoted Guru Gobind Singh ji's Sarbloh Granth "Khalsa mero roop hai khaas, khalse mai ho karo niwas". If a Khalsa is so dear and beloved to Guru ji, then why not get a Khalsa to act Guru ji?

Who made the rule that Gurus should not be acted, anyway? The SGPC? I mean they have no problem with animations of Sahibzade and Mata ji, where the dialogues are pure fiction..

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

first hukham was to keep kesh intact , a fact most fools who claim they are sikhs of Guru Nanak Dev ji  not Guru Gobind Singh ji are unaware of .

Probably, though the Gurus didn't object or discriminate against Sehajdhari Sikhs, who later in history helped the Khalsa, during the most difficult of times. But, being born in a Sikh family and having no serious threat or difficulty, keeping their hair, is the least someone can do.

[jkvlondon]

1 hour ago, 5akaalsingh said:

SGPC are the biggest hypocrites of all time. First, clearing the film to release, much to the dissent of many Sikhs. Then, a week before the release they join them in protests. If you have seen the movie and found it wrong, at least tell that to the producers etc. They throwed so much money on promotion and stuff, only to face the wrath of most Sikhs.

Saying that, I remember  a video of Bhai Jagraj Singh(RIP) of BoS where he specifically talked about Nanak Shah Fakir and said he didn't like the fact that Guru ji were presented like a walking statue. He said that it would have been better to get an Amritdhari Singh in the role of any Guru, rather than an animation than never speaks. He specifically quoted Guru Gobind Singh ji's Sarbloh Granth "Khalsa mero roop hai khaas, khalse mai ho karo niwas". If a Khalsa is so dear and beloved to Guru ji, then why not get a Khalsa to act Guru ji?

Who made the rule that Gurus should not be acted, anyway? The SGPC? I mean they have no problem with animations of Sahibzade and Mata ji, where the dialogues are pure fiction..

Guru Sahiban made the rules themselves even Guru Gobind SIngh ji told crying sangat from his pyre do not attach to this body attach to the Gurbani ... they also banned us from making asthaan rememberance on that jagga ... Naam is everything