By now, Rajamouli’s statement, “I copy from Hollywood and I’m not guilty about it” has gone viral. For the kind of successful and big director he is, the kind of justification he has done is something some hardcore film lovers accept in the way he said.
Our Baahubali maker feels that art itself is a copy and develops on the work of predecessors. Is that so? In fact, there are films like Lord Of The Rings, The Hobbit and others where every single action sequence is new, ever single character is a new design, while emotion on a whole remains the same. Even in James Bond, we see similar story of ‘saving the world’ all the time, but every time they come up with new action scenes, not just copying any other Hollywood film’s scenes.
“Various great artists copied techniques of their predecessors but haven’t reproduced the work itself. Rajamouli is copying the shots and scenes very straight without even building anything over it. So, this couldn’t be called as art”, an art-critic shared. In that case, Rajamouli’s justification of copying itself is ‘art’, will not hold correct. What say folks?