1) The first series creates its own cinematic world and drives its own narrative within it, having greater independence. It can depict the breakdown of a nation within its own Cinematic World. However, the second series struggles to maintain it's narrative. It wants to include current social issues (Gauri Lankesh, Islamophobia, casteism, etc.) without becoming "political." As a result, the underlying narrative of this series seemed forced. A drama becoming Political is not necessarily a bad thing, but it takes guts to stand for the political narration. The current audience does not appreciate weak statements like "I don't understand politics, but Buddha Dev Bhattacharya was a good leader." At least I found it boring and disappointing.
2) The first series' narration style is unique. The entire series is told from the perspective of the antagonist. This style is uncommon and I personally very much liked it. This style may have been influenced by the great movies like ‘American Psycho’and ‘Nightcrawler’. The second series' narration is more traditional. It may be a good crime thriller, but it can't offer the viewers any fresh experience.
3) If we look at the acting, the actors in the second series are better. Especially Joydeep and Abhishek are exceptional. In the first series, however, Vishesh Bansal, who played the character of Subh Joshi, is the only one with outstanding acting. Arshad Warsi's acting was inconsistent in some scenes.
But the series is character-driven. The story makes you so engrossed that you forget about the acting. You will visualise the story.
That makes the series, Asur, better.
Comments
Post a Comment