Misplaced Pages

Talk:Murali K. Thalluri: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:12, 2 January 2008 editBetacommandBot (talk | contribs)931,490 edits noting Image:Murali237.jpg is about to be deleted WP:NONFREE← Previous edit Revision as of 10:03, 30 October 2009 edit undo118.210.202.173 (talk) Plot Sickens article addedNext edit →
Line 8: Line 8:


{{WP Australia|class=Stub}} {{WP Australia|class=Stub}}

the plot sickens
LEIGH PAATSCH
786 words
24 August 2006
Herald-Sun
1 - FIRST
I07
English
Copyright 2006 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved
ROUND these here parts, they say a week is a long time in football.

There are times in the film industry, however, when a week can go by in a flash.

Just ask Murali K. Thalluri, the young Adelaide-based director of the controversial suicide-themed drama 2:37.

Last Thursday, Thalluri was the toast of the local film scene.

Today, the only thing that looks like toast is Thalluri's career as a credible filmmaker in this country.

Now even if you didn't like 2:37 -- and believe me when I tell you there is not a lot to like -- you had to admire the guy for single-handedly sling-shotting the movie out of the slums of indie obscurity -- and then hitting some very impressive targets in the legitimate film world.

On the back of a surprise invitation to screen in Cannes, 2:37 was chosen to open the recent Melbourne International Film Festival. A high-profile release into cinemas across Australia was to be the icing on the cake.

But on the morning 2:37 was finally unleashed upon the public, the dream run of Murali K. Thalluri began to take a nightmarish detour.

The problem was Kelly.

In virtually every interview conducted to promote the release of the film, Thalluri referred to his inspiration as a former schoolfriend named Kelly.

According to Thalluri, this young woman (not her real name) sadly took her own life, but not before recording a videotaped suicide message that later came into Thalluri's possession under circumstances yet to be fully clarified.

In many of the same interviews, Thalluri also made reference to a suicide attempt of his own, which then triggered a 36-hour writing burst that ultimately became the script for 2:37.

The decision to turn the alleged death of Kelly, along with Thalluri's own close brush with the same tragic fate, into principal selling points for the film was as cynical as it was strategic.

Combine the two anecdotes, and so much sympathy floods into the room that scrutiny just has to remain outside.

Or so it seemed until journalists started making a few phone calls.

Two scribes in particular, The Australian's Michael Bodey and Michelle Wiese Bockmann, began to mount a very convincing case that there was less to Thalluri's tale than met the eye.

A piece in last Friday's Australian (under the headline "filmmaker fabricated details") forced Thalluri to admit he had altered the stated date of Kelly's death by as much as a year, in order to protect her grieving family.

An Adelaide Justice of the Peace told The Australian that Thalluri had shown him the video in question, but that the subject of the recording "appeared to be a woman in her early 20s."

By the time a follow-up piece ran in The Weekend Australian ("Director's suicide claim fiction"), it became clear there is now a strong possibility that Kelly only ever existed inside Thalluri's imagination.

The schools that Thalluri attended as a youth have no record of any suicides during his tenure as a student. Thalluri's mother declined to verify her son's claims about his attempt to take his life.

A Sydney director named Daniel Krige went on the public record to state he heard 2:37 co-producer Nick Matthews say Thalluri had cooked up the parallel suicide anecdotes to enhance the promotion of the film.

So what are we to make of this sordid mess? Who exactly is telling the truth here, if anyone? And does it really matter?

After all, as they say in the classics, it is only a film -- and a film that tanked ingloriously in its opening week at the box office.

Of course it matters.

As each day passes and the allegations of bizarre and wilful duplicity surrounding the marketing of 2:37 continue to pile up, the silence from the Thalluri camp is becoming deafening.

And the hosts of the official 2:37 website should note the brazenly fake footage of a 17-minute standing ovation for Thalluri in Cannes isn't helping the cause at all.

At this point in time, the only lesson worth learning from the 2:37 experience applies to the ambitious and desperate among the filmmakers of the future.

If you're prepared to use a hot topic to generate some heat for your career, just remember it could all go up in flames at any time.

Anyone with personal problems can call Lifeline on 131 114; Victorian Statewide Suicide Helpline on 1300 651 251; or Mensline Australia on 1300 789 978.


== 2:37 Controversy == == 2:37 Controversy ==

Revision as of 10:03, 30 October 2009

WikiProject iconBiography: Actors and Filmmakers Stub‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
WikiProject iconAustralia Stub‑class
WikiProject iconMurali K. Thalluri is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

the plot sickens LEIGH PAATSCH 786 words 24 August 2006 Herald-Sun 1 - FIRST I07 English Copyright 2006 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved ROUND these here parts, they say a week is a long time in football.

There are times in the film industry, however, when a week can go by in a flash.

Just ask Murali K. Thalluri, the young Adelaide-based director of the controversial suicide-themed drama 2:37.

Last Thursday, Thalluri was the toast of the local film scene.

Today, the only thing that looks like toast is Thalluri's career as a credible filmmaker in this country.

Now even if you didn't like 2:37 -- and believe me when I tell you there is not a lot to like -- you had to admire the guy for single-handedly sling-shotting the movie out of the slums of indie obscurity -- and then hitting some very impressive targets in the legitimate film world.

On the back of a surprise invitation to screen in Cannes, 2:37 was chosen to open the recent Melbourne International Film Festival. A high-profile release into cinemas across Australia was to be the icing on the cake.

But on the morning 2:37 was finally unleashed upon the public, the dream run of Murali K. Thalluri began to take a nightmarish detour.

The problem was Kelly.

In virtually every interview conducted to promote the release of the film, Thalluri referred to his inspiration as a former schoolfriend named Kelly.

According to Thalluri, this young woman (not her real name) sadly took her own life, but not before recording a videotaped suicide message that later came into Thalluri's possession under circumstances yet to be fully clarified.

In many of the same interviews, Thalluri also made reference to a suicide attempt of his own, which then triggered a 36-hour writing burst that ultimately became the script for 2:37.

The decision to turn the alleged death of Kelly, along with Thalluri's own close brush with the same tragic fate, into principal selling points for the film was as cynical as it was strategic.

Combine the two anecdotes, and so much sympathy floods into the room that scrutiny just has to remain outside.

Or so it seemed until journalists started making a few phone calls.

Two scribes in particular, The Australian's Michael Bodey and Michelle Wiese Bockmann, began to mount a very convincing case that there was less to Thalluri's tale than met the eye.

A piece in last Friday's Australian (under the headline "filmmaker fabricated details") forced Thalluri to admit he had altered the stated date of Kelly's death by as much as a year, in order to protect her grieving family.

An Adelaide Justice of the Peace told The Australian that Thalluri had shown him the video in question, but that the subject of the recording "appeared to be a woman in her early 20s."

By the time a follow-up piece ran in The Weekend Australian ("Director's suicide claim fiction"), it became clear there is now a strong possibility that Kelly only ever existed inside Thalluri's imagination.

The schools that Thalluri attended as a youth have no record of any suicides during his tenure as a student. Thalluri's mother declined to verify her son's claims about his attempt to take his life.

A Sydney director named Daniel Krige went on the public record to state he heard 2:37 co-producer Nick Matthews say Thalluri had cooked up the parallel suicide anecdotes to enhance the promotion of the film.

So what are we to make of this sordid mess? Who exactly is telling the truth here, if anyone? And does it really matter?

After all, as they say in the classics, it is only a film -- and a film that tanked ingloriously in its opening week at the box office.

Of course it matters.

As each day passes and the allegations of bizarre and wilful duplicity surrounding the marketing of 2:37 continue to pile up, the silence from the Thalluri camp is becoming deafening.

And the hosts of the official 2:37 website should note the brazenly fake footage of a 17-minute standing ovation for Thalluri in Cannes isn't helping the cause at all.

At this point in time, the only lesson worth learning from the 2:37 experience applies to the ambitious and desperate among the filmmakers of the future.

If you're prepared to use a hot topic to generate some heat for your career, just remember it could all go up in flames at any time.

Anyone with personal problems can call Lifeline on 131 114; Victorian Statewide Suicide Helpline on 1300 651 251; or Mensline Australia on 1300 789 978.

2:37 Controversy

There were notable controversies regarding claims made by Thalluri whilst promoting 2:37. The main one was Thalluri claimed to be partly inspired the alleged suicide of a friend, but the existence of this friend was disputed and Thalluri refused to identify her. This was well-documented in mainstream Australian newspapers The Age and The Australian. The Misplaced Pages page should reflect this controversy. It should not be whitewashed out, but rather counter-claims by Thalluri should be incorporated into the text to maintain a neutral point of view . 125.31.39.99 07:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

2008 Project

Where does the title Bermuda come from? Unable to find any reference to it on the filmmaker's site or in the news. Does this information come from the filmmaker himself? 125.31.39.99 07:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No mention of it anywhere = deleted for now. Somebody better not restore it without a suitable reference first. 210.149.120.115 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Murali237.jpg

Image:Murali237.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories: