As someone who has been perversely addicted to following this story since the Bunny took it up, I have to say this latest post makes me feel a little ill. No longer is the Bunny pointing out MKT's merely fraudulent methods of creating a ballyhoo over his film in a crowded marketplace, where the stakes are probably no more than financial and artistic. Now we're talking about things like and death and grief, not to be trivialized. I suppose that this is the Bunny's whole point: if indeed MKT is exaggerating or falsifying the circumstances of his friend's situation, then he's the one trivializing serious matters. I guess I lean heavily (probably too heavily) towards respecting the boundaries an artist decides to set around his personal life. Do we analyze all the outrageous claims made by, say, Klaus Kinski? No, we just accept them (require them?) as part of the mystique of the artist.

I hadn't noticed this thing going on until now, and I'm finding it really bizarre. I have no idea as to the accuracy or otherwise of the claims being made on either side (apart from people's perceptions regarding its similarities to Elephant, which are undeniable to anyone who's seen it), but it strikes me that the Bunny's got a real vendetta going on against Thalluri. And the Bunny's not doing himself an awful lot of favours in this by accusing Thalluri of doing stuff under false names while refusing to reveal his own.

I can follow you to an extent, Brian, but I'm not sure how far. Suppose Thalluri suddenly up and declared this entire series of events - the review, the Cannes video, the claims made in interviews, the works - to be part and parcel of an overall artwork of which the film itself is only the centerpiece? That's highly unlikely, of course, but bear with me and let me take what seems to be your line of reasoning to a ridiculous extreme to ask, Would that then "excuse" these "fraudulent methods"?

Part of the debate over the "end of art" of a few years ago had to do with a supposed erasure of the line between art and non-art (Arthur C Danto blamed/credited Warhol's Brillo Box). Though that line is constantly in flux, I think it's still out there, squiggling around in interesting ways (see Greg Allen's "summertime" answer today, as it happens), and I think we can call on common sense and determine that 2:37, no matter how good or bad it is, is Thalluri's art, while the reviews and so on are not. They reflect on each other, yes; we will probably see the film in a different light, knowing what Thalluri's done to promote it. But I don't think those actions can be wrapped up, right along with the film, in some overall cloak of mystique.

A second part of the debate of recent years over what art is or isn't, on a different level, has to do with the question of whether or not definitions of morality evaporate once anything becomes possible in art. But again, I think most of us share a larger set of moral standards than we, giddy with our pomo situation, even want to admit. If Chris Burden asks an assistant to shoot him, that's one thing; if Burden were to shoot the assistant without the assistant's consent, that'd be an entirely different thing, and we'd call the police.

In other words, harming another person crosses the line. And that goes for exploitation as well.

Building up buzz around promotion is all about the movies business! (be it from the PR or the director himself) what do you expect?
I agree with Brian, it's not our business (even if he's mythomaniac), leave that to the tabloids pretty please...
Anyway I don't see what is fraudulent there. Public forum comments aren't official press reviews. This is not a David Manning case. Nothing legal or moral prevents private annonymous commenters online (or film crews) to post lies...
The guy is barely 21 yold in Cannes, with a single-handedly made indie film, somehow I can understand how success could mix up his mind. His film is very good, much more professional than the average mainstream movie made by a seasonned studio and a director with several films under his belt. This is all that matters really, especially to film critics.

But Harry, can... should critics consider a film outside its context - as if that were possible - whether its the broader context of the issues it speaks to or a more specific context such as its making or even its marketing?

Hmmm. Perhaps I shouldn't have brought the a-word into this in the first place. I wouldn't want to wrap up Thalluri's promotional techniques in a cloak of mystique either. And though Energizer Bunny's persistance is rather tabloid-esque, until the "Kelly & Co." post the target seemed like relatively fair game.

I think what makes me uncomfortable about that particular post is its dissection of a person's (never mind an artist's) interpretation of a personal tragedy. Thalluri may be crossing the line into exploitation, and he certainly wouldn't be the first or last filmmaker to have done so. I think a worthy argument can probably be made about that, without parsing the words he's chosen to describe the tragedy (I for one find it much more difficult to use precise, accurate language to talk about subjects bound up in intense personal emotions).

If "Kelly & Co." were the Bunny's only post about Thalluri it would be in extremely poor taste. Some might say that with the prepondernace of evidence (like this) pointing to Thalluri's willingness to stretch the truth, it's fair to subject every word out of his mouth to the scrutiny of a potential exaggeration or falsehood. I say, unless you have greater evidence than a semmingly contradictory claim about an emotionally-fraught event, let people make up their own minds about Thullari's veracity in this situation.

P.C. interviews with directors are full of hyperbolic optimism and exaggerations. We don't need justification for every decisions he took in the writing. It's fiction, not plagiarism. The general context informs the understanding of the oeuvre should the author choose to share it with us. What difference does it make to us either way?
If he wants to tell B.S. to the press, if he wants/needs to invent a story around his inspiration to mourn (or to sell his film), it's his problem I say. Nothing outrageous about it. We don't "need" petty journalistic investigations to check every word they say.

As far as marketing, I wish it would be left outside criticism, but apparently everyone wants it in. In 20 years nobody will care about movie marketing details except for trivia gossips.

Obviously Thalluri got carried away because he feels like a star interviewed by so many journalists. The confusion about Clarke's Elephant, is the only solid evidence they got, and still it's forgivable... He's young, and he's learning that everything told to the press comes back in your face. Next time he'll think twice before namedropping.
The rest is only gossips and assumptions based on other anonymous poster's assumptions. The Bunny case is full of inconsistancies.

Even the "suicide incentive" controversy is ridiculous... now this is a case where liberty of art should be defended.

It's fiction, not plagiarism

Fiction and plagiarism are not mutually exclusive things.

They repproach him to exploit somebody's real life. It's only when the film is an actual historical event or based on somebody else's pre-existing story that we could ask for accountability to the source. When it's pure fiction (inspired by non-celebrity acquaintance here), there is no plagiarism possible.

This reminds me of 12 Monkeys, and Gilliam pretending he's never watched Marker's La Jetée... it was ridiculous to say (whether true or not) but then again it's his problem, the films are only remotely connected (just like 2:37 and Elephant).

Harry, I am the co-author of Energiser Bunny. Though I appreciate your generally well written criticism, I believe you have erred substantially in your interpretation of our views in several aspects.

I do agree that hyperbole is the norm when it comes to promotion for a film. There is certainly nothing legally wrong with posting pseudonymous comments in forums online, but I do not share your blanket dismissal when it comes to the morality of doing so - how things are does not necessarily equate to how they ought to be. A filmmaker posing as an pseudonymous extra posting to such a forum is congruent with another filmmaker using fictitious reviews in an advertising campaign - the difference lies in the magnitude of the credibility of the reviewer and the scope of those exposed to the deception. Naturally, at the lower end of the continuum, this behaviour is relatively innocuous; disproportionately vituperative legal threats for pointing out this behaviour are not. It is that, not the fake reviews themselves, which has served as the initial impetus for writing.

We have been cautious to omit any criticism for the film itself until either of us see it. While I agree that cinema can be judged on its own merits, I do not believe it necessarily hermeneutically sealed as you suggest - external factors inevitably alter the context in which art is received, and it is ill-judged to ignore them completely. In the case of Two Thirty 7, the movie is inextricably linked to the history of the filmmaker, the 'true story' of his friend's suicide and his own attempt, knowledge of which clearly colouring the audience reception of the film. In my view, fact must always trump fiction, and if he wishes to use true stories to promote and prepare audiences for his film, it is perfectly reasonable that these claims are able to withstand scrutiny.

You appear to have dismissed most of our points on an a priori basis, claiming "inconsistancies". I contend that we do not rely solely on "gossip", but in fact also include material from numerous sources including official news publications and Murali's own words and video. If you have the time and inclination to pick out specific claims, I am certainly willing to rebut, amend or retract statements that do not stand up.

James,

Your appraisal of this affair on your blog is, I believe, suitably impartial and very accurate. I write only to clarify some of the finer points.

Shock from the threat of a defamation lawsuit was certainly an early impetus for changing from parody to investigation. However, as time went by, the site became something of a lightning rod, attracting comments from people claiming grievances with Murali, spurring further investigation. The more my co-writer and I dug, the more we found.

I appreciate that writing pseudonymously may strain our credibility. To combat this, we attempt to provide, or link to all the third-party evidence that leads us to form the opinions we do. However, I recognise that the sheer volume of material would make it difficult for only recently acquainted with the situation to validate it all quickly.

You are correct to say this has been going for months, though I would contend that anything remotely newsworthy has only been published within the last two weeks.

The use of fake names is a double-edged sword. To date, my use of a pseudonym is not a tactic meant to deceive anybody. Instead, I have no desire for fame (or notoriety) from this for now, opting for anonymity. In contrast, Murali's apparent use of multiple pseudonyms has exactly the opposite goal, allowing him to speak about himself in the third person in a self-aggrandising manner.

I assure you this experience has been at least as bizarre for those writing it as it has been for those reading it. I respect that you and other readers suddenly exposed to it may not know what to make of it all. I would ask, however, that anybody contesting my views to diligently examine the presented evidence first before providing any counter-argument.

Anonymous Bunny don Quixotte,

sadly I just figured out that you couldn't take rebuttal on your blog, and had to edit my comments before publication to serve your agenda.
(And I have to reply here because you make the rules on your blog)
Now I regret taking the time to respond to your allegations. I'm not part of your game of self-delusion.

I'm sorry Harry, I think that's misleading.

We have not cut a single word from the text of your comments, and we even linked the posts they were relevant to so that they clearly retain their context was retained. The formatting we chose was to enhance clarity. Given many of your points appear to be based on a misreading of the text, we feared the site had become too unwieldy and had concerns publishing your comments "as is" would only add to the sprawl.

We did give your objections careful consideration, and it did give us pause. We shall publish your comments in their original format as you wish, but our rebuttal still stands. If you want to change our minds, you ought to rely on evidence that falsifies our claims, not arguments of personal incredulity or cases of special pleading.

This Energiser Bunny fellow is unfair... I left a comment about how my brother posted me a long suicide letter before he killed himself, and it wasn't approved. Why not? My comment wasn't rude or insulting! He doesn't listen to anything but what he wants to listen to. He says "disturbingly, the amount of "hate mail" we recieve directed towards Murali outweighs the hate mail directed towards us by an enormous margin"... but how do WE know when he is not objective?

This situation, as read from both sides to the fence, has reached its culmination. From a stand point, what Mr Thullari has done is morale reprehensible but not unusual in the world of PR. Mr Clayfoot, the road you head down has no end to it and will only lead to hurt for yourself and all concerned. Your position may be one of higher morale ground but it does smell awfully like a vendetta. Despite Mr Thullari’s personality and deeds he has done a good thing for the South Australian film industry, getting a feature production going in this town is no small achievement. Maybe it’s time you take a look another moral high ground? Why not lead by example? By no means should you be bullied into taking your site down but do you really need to pursue this matter further? Don’t continue to be reactionary, make the first move.

I am most defiantly not an advocate for MKT just one who hopes a little common sense will prevail and this doesn’t turn into something it never should be?

Sam

Well, I for one think it's sick. I've met Murali and he's a nice, intelligent person. He's not perfect by any means - but who is? I know for sure, however, he did not lie about his friend. All these accusations are ridiculous! Anyone who's met the guy knows he hates being "famous" and can't stand having giving interviews to the media. That's hardly the sort attitude you'd expect if he was even half the attention-whore the Bunny is making him out to be. The more unreasonably savage these detractors get, the more I intend to stand up for him... it's essentially schoolyard bullying, albeit from an eloquent coward who's content to hide behind the computer screen.

"Celeste", your story would be published if I for a second thought it was actually true.

You share the IP address and browser cookie with a number of other aliases who leave comments on the site: an anonymous irate commenter; "Grace Morton", who claims to have all sorts of dirt on MKT to give us if we only provide MSN contact to reach her; and "Vergissmeinnicht38", a regular on the IMDb, who staunchly defends the movie 2:37 in face of any criticism.

We can say unequivocally that all these personalities come from the pen of...

[Because Clayfoot has agreed to allow this comment to be edited - see below - the rest of this paragraph has been deleted.]

"Celeste", I suspect you will probably make protestations to the contrary, but unlike you, IP addresses and cookies do not lie. You know in your heart of hearts I'm telling the truth, and that is enough.

I would appreciate it if Clayfoot or the bloghost removed my name and any identifying details, please. Your Googlestalking efforts are almost to be commended, but I do not appreciate my details being broadcast to the world and I did NOT consent to it.

Furthermore, if you're trying to link every random supporter of Murali, why didn't you sieze the opportunity to claim we were the same person?! Come on, you know you want to.

For that matter, do you really think it's going to earn you any credibility points for attempting to drag MY private life into your crazy vendetta just because I disagree with you? I'm a kid in Year 12, not some big scary director with a movie studio behind him. Play fair and respect my privacy, at least.

We have happily respected your privacy until you began your aggressive campaign of insults and trickery, and it was your outright dishonesty on this page that forced our hand. Lying to defend somebody else we see as dishonest is hypocritical on your part.

If a moderator wants to remove your details, that that's fine by us. But you can hardly be surprised if people won't mollycoddle you when you treat them with such disrespect.

Enough with the self-righteous crap. I made a polite request on your own blog, no hissy fits or lawyers - the fair and grown-up thing to do would be to listen to it. But I forgot - you're allowed to do what you want in the name of your cause, aren't you? What you'd cry foul over from anyone else is fine and dandy when you do it.

What do my personal details have to do with anything anyway?! "Oh, we reckon Person X is also Person Y and Person Z - by the way, here's as much crap on her real-life identity that we can dig up as possible."

I give up. You happy? I hope you enjoy bullying schoolkids into submission. This is between you and Murali now. Now PLEASE remove those details before I have to worry about what weirdos might be looking up my family in the phonebook. I have a younger sister to worry about.

Oh, by the way. One last thing - "Filmmaker defends suicide story": http://www.smh.com.au/news/film/filmmaker-defends-suicide-story/2006/08/15/1155407810322.html

You ready to stop yet? Circulating an email to industry associations and government film agencies indeed...

vergissmeinnicht38 haven't you brought this all on yourself? Reaviling your details was a poor choice by the bunnies but surely you can see their justification?

What, with their rather convenient CLAIMS of identical cookies and ISPs? I'm surprised they didn't extend that to include Murali, although their Googlestalking obviously provided enough evidence with which I could prove myself a seperate individual.

So I called them douchebags. Aww, diddums.

vergissmeinnicht38... your really showing your age...

The I guess it'd be a bad time to mention that it's spelt "you're", huh?

What bugs me here is the hypocrisy. Kommandant Bunny expects us to trust his (or rather, their) word on so much - multiple ISPs/cookies, that he didn't send that email mentioned in today's article, that Murali threatened to bring in lawyers right at the beginning of all this, etc - yet tells us that we can't even take Murali's word that a friend committed suicide. Furthermore, he's using tactics that he'd scream bloody murder about if it were Murali employing them instead. Publishing personal details on the internet? Bringing people's personal lives into this and nitpicking over THAT? Possibly even sending emails to industry members in the hopes of ruining Murali's reputation...? He is really quite insane, and I don't use that term lightly.

This all started because of alleged legal threats and the Bunny's resulting persecution complex. Now the Bunny is quite possibly stalking Murali (Yep, I've taken the Google out of it) and bullying anyone who defends him. I've criticised Murali and 2:37 countless times on the IMDb, does he mention that? No. He makes me out to be some ruthless, conniving henchwoman instead. Thanks. Remind me never to disagree with psychotic randoms on the internet ever again.

I don't care if this makes me "sound" adolescent - quite frankly, Kommandant Bunny can go fuck himself. I'm going to enjoy his downfall.

HaHa fair enough, my spelling is bad to say the least. Probably says more about my attention to detail and ability to rush things. I don't think what you said is entirely fair, you were mentioned early on as giving the bad reviews etc read their blog, your still there.

oh and they've done a pretty good job of refrencing their information, i'm sure if something doesn't ring true you could ask for more info behind their reasoning

Well, it's dead now.

Pardon me if I break out into a victory jig.

Well, Energiser Bunny web site is down and out. Obviously, Murali got Roadshow and their lawyers to tear the site down. This is the biggest denial of freedom of speech ever, especially considering what other wbe sites sprout to the converted. I would love for Energiser Bunny to pop up somewhere else and pursue the biggest fraudulent act since Helen Demedenko. There is absolutely no difference between what she did and what Murali has done. They are both frauds and the truth will come out. If Energiser Bunny's claims were false (and they didn't appear to be to anyone with an ounce of intelligence), then Roadshow would not have closed them down.

Now, we will hear the usual bullshit from Roadshow and Murali about how great 2:37 is. I saw the film last night and it's the worse film I have seen for the last ten years.

Actually, the only way Roadshow COULD have closed them down was if they were false. True information is not defamatory, thus there would have been no grounds to threaten any sort of legal action.

It's a simple matter of the law, sweetie.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20178208-16947,00.html

Thanks you for posting the article in The Australian. Something smells rotten in this whole fiasco and I assume we will hear more about it.

vergissmeinnicht38, I beg to differ. Many time throughout history, the truth is suppressed by authorities because of the harm it will do to their cause and themselves.

You miss my point here. The Energiser Bunny wouldn't have any cause for fear if his claims were true, because any court cases would be ruled in his favour.

Deleting the blog is the sign of a guilty conscience (who knows he's been caught out).

Another article in The Age in Melbourne today:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/gilding-the-lily/2006/08/21/1156012471596.html

So we have The Age, SMH and The Australian all investigating Murali's claims and none of them can find any grain of truth to them or an evidence supporting Murali's claim.

No matter how hard Murali and his lawyers tried to silence Energiser Bunny, the mainstream press have caught on. Stay tuned for more twists to this fraud, the like we have not seen since Helen Demendenko.

you'll notice that they haven't proven that he is 'guilty' either, he is simply refusing to provide the media with the details of his friends family. Smart thing I say, especially if they plan on chasing the family as they've chased Murali.

If you've just had a daughter die, would you want the media in your face?

Nor would I want the media to report that she committed suicide when she is still alive and well.

i personally hate that he keeps saying in the media that he was bashed by an "Asian gang"... why does he have to keep pointing out that they are Asian who cares, its not relevent unless your a racist.