Hindi cinema has come a long way but how far has it reached in terms of depicting Indian women professionals on celluloid remains a question. The earlier films from the 1950s portrayed the Hindi film heroine as either an urban, college going daddy's girl or as the poor, underprivileged single woman battling it out in the big, bad world until rescued by the hero. In the 1960s, we saw the emergence of an urbane, fashonable, independent woman travelling the world with friends or family and falling in love (Love in Tokyo, An Evening in Paris).
It was not until the 1970s that the woman with a career (career women, as they are suggestively called) or those who simply earned their living was portrayed on-screen. There were women from lower and middle class backgrounds working as housekeepers, office secretaries and nurses and then, there were doctors, businesswomen and lawyers. With more and more women becoming financially independent in India and with the increased reportage of crimes against women, the mid to late1980s saw the emergence of the angry young woman often portrayed as agents of justice such as police inspectors or lawyers who took on the system head on and did not hesitate to give the men a piece of their mind.
Incidentally, this was also the time when the age old Bollywood theme of 'revenge' began to be articulated by these very powerful female characters. These women had to 'become' like men to fight the injustices that they or their families had been subjected to- so, rage and revenge it was. And the fact that they were dressed in masculine clothing also helped them play these parts in male ways.
Most of the 1990s, the decade I grew up in, was a regression in terms of portrayal of women in Hindi cinema. The rise of candy floss cinema and the Hollywood rom-com rehashes relegated the heroine to the background. She remained auxiliary and not essential to the plot of the film, mostly providing emotional support to the hero as a wife or girlfriend. But a trend that I noted in a few films during this time is the emergence of the 'other' woman. Both on television and film, extramarital relationships gained a lot of prominence. However, the 'other' woman was always a career woman, ambitious and thus, uncaring and responsible for the breakup of a marriage. I remember this movie called Biwi No. 1 where Sushmita Sen was a successful model, a woman with questionable morals who came in between a happily married couple, that of Salman Khan and Karishma Kapoor, a docile homemaker, and their two kids. Salman Khan’s wife and friends embarked on a mission to rescue him from the clutches of the career woman. What remained unquestioned was Salman Khan’s character’s own role in this affair (he had lied about his wife and kids and when his girlfriend does find out about his marital status, he informs her that his wife is his widowed sister-in-law and the kids are not his own).
Even in a 'different' movie like Dil Chahta Hain, the only seemingly strong female character played by Dimple Kapadia dies unhappy and soon after, her almost beau meets a PYT just like his other two friends.
This trend continued well into the 2000s when Hindi cinema continued to portray women as ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Those women who had successful relationships had either no career or had sacrificed her career it at the altar of a happy marriage and those who had successful careers failed in the love department. Aitraaz, the Bollywood remake of a Hollywood film, Disclosure, had Priyanka Chopra play the role of a successful model who had sacrificed her relationship to focus on her career wanting to win back her lost love (Akshay Kumar) who is now married (to Kareena Kapoor). In a tale of seduction and revenge, Akshay Kumar’s character is accused of sexually molesting Priyanka Chopra’s character. In a display of great wifely devotion, Kareena Kapoor’s character who had long given up her career as a lawyer returns to the court of law (one last time, I think) to fight the case to prove her husband’s innocence. In order to do so, she, of course, maligns the ‘other’ woman as being cold and heartless as she is rich and ambitious who is trying to phasao her poor husband.
The ‘vamping’ of the career woman in Hindi film continues unabated. The plot punishes them by depriving them of love, marriage and children, all in an effort to reward and glorify the more 'traditional' woman. Then, of course, there is the fallen woman, the prostitute, with the sad back story and a heart of gold who, by virtue of her position in society, can love but never really be loved in return.
Despite recent attempts at redeeming the career woman in Bollywoodland, scriptwriters, directors and actors are trapped in the same trajectory. No One Killed Jessica is one such film that immediately pops to mind. Along side terribly botched up court room scenes, this film kills it for the career woman while actually intending to uplift her from the dark margins of Hindi filmdom (Not to say that this movie is entirely a bad one). Rani Mukherjee who plays the Barkha Dutt-esque cold blooded journalist always hounding for the story that sells does not initially find that spark in the Jessica Lal murder case because it seemed to be an ‘open and shut’ case. Throughout the movie, she refers to herself as chudail or bitch. As she has such a high opinion of her own self, it is not unnatural that others, from the hapless male boss to the foul mouthed and fiery female house help, address her in those very terms. It can be inferred from her characterization that in her ambition to succeed, she will go to any lengths, which begins with her rant ‘You know I am a bitch/ I am a bitch and I don’t care” then, reflects in her dissing a lover in a moment of passion to chase the big story and also, in her use of ‘dubious’ (if there is any such thing as that in journalism today) means to achieve her journalistic ends. Whether this is self-deprecation or self-endorsement is hard to say.
In other words, to portray an independent woman, Bollywood will construct a career woman in Bollywood as a ‘bitch’, both by her own admission as well as by others. She is self-centred, arrogant and will happily trample over others without care or concern to reach her ‘career’ and ‘personal’ goals (which is almost always related to being romantically involved with a married man). Her personal life, however, will be empty where she will either be abandoned by her parents/husband/lover or she will remain without love until she reforms herself (does a good deed like help a fallen colleague in Fashion or start being nice to boyfriend’s kids in We Are Family or completely or partially abandon her career.). Please note, that the ‘real’ heroine (first lead) in such films will almost always be a 'modern' Indian girl with 'traditional' values…the one who can be the good wife with/without a career.
I remember the time when hours were spent discussing the objectification of women in Hindi cinema. Today, they are subjects in Hindi films but their subjectivity is of a different kind. The ‘vamp’s has been revamped and this time around, it is the 'career woman'.
P.S- I use several words in quotes to point to the fluidity of all these concepts.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Academic Actors
There is something extremely sexy about actors with an education or (earned) academic degrees.
James Franco (who, in my eyes, arrived way before 127 hours) completed his undergraduate studies from UCLA and his graduate degrees from NYU (film making) and Columbia (fina arts). Now, he has been accepted as a doctoral student in English Literature at Yale. All this, while continuing to make quality movies, write books and screenplays, paint etc. ( I am quite sure I am missing out some things here)
David Duchovny, on the other hand, has not enjoyed the kind of success and adulation that Franco has which has mostly to do with his disastrous movie choices!!! He studied at Princeton, got a Masters in English Literature at Yale and then, enrolled but did not completed his PhD from the same University on the topic " Magic and Technology in Contemporary Poetry and Prose". Despite his continuing struggle to find his feet as an actor, I find his role as Hank Moody in the otherwise extreme, explicit television series CALIFORNICATION as one of his finest and most 'real' to date. This is not to discount his performance as the wry but lovable Fox Mulder in The X-Files.
Duchovny has expressed his interest in completing his PhD some day.
The fact that Franco and Duchovny look the way they do cannot possibly hurt in the 'charm' department!!
Back home, we have a host of our very own Bollywood celebrities who have been showered with honorary doctoral degrees by 'phoren' Universities. Leading the pack are Preity Zinta, Shahrukh Khan, Akshay Kumar and Shilpa Shetty for their extraordinary contribution to Indian cinema. I believe Katrina Kaif and Imran Khan are due to receive it anytime soon!! :-)
I, of course, choose not to mention some truly 'eligible' actor/honorary doctorate holders like Amitabh Bachchan, Shabana Azmi and Naseeruddin Shah.
This post is not meant to undermine the host of intellectually leaning actors/creative persons who decided to quit higher education as they deemed it pointless at some stage. But, in a traditional society where merit is still judged by academic achievement, a handful of actors with degrees are refreshingly attractive as compared to a sea of dopey drop outs!!
James Franco (who, in my eyes, arrived way before 127 hours) completed his undergraduate studies from UCLA and his graduate degrees from NYU (film making) and Columbia (fina arts). Now, he has been accepted as a doctoral student in English Literature at Yale. All this, while continuing to make quality movies, write books and screenplays, paint etc. ( I am quite sure I am missing out some things here)
David Duchovny, on the other hand, has not enjoyed the kind of success and adulation that Franco has which has mostly to do with his disastrous movie choices!!! He studied at Princeton, got a Masters in English Literature at Yale and then, enrolled but did not completed his PhD from the same University on the topic " Magic and Technology in Contemporary Poetry and Prose". Despite his continuing struggle to find his feet as an actor, I find his role as Hank Moody in the otherwise extreme, explicit television series CALIFORNICATION as one of his finest and most 'real' to date. This is not to discount his performance as the wry but lovable Fox Mulder in The X-Files.
Duchovny has expressed his interest in completing his PhD some day.
The fact that Franco and Duchovny look the way they do cannot possibly hurt in the 'charm' department!!
Back home, we have a host of our very own Bollywood celebrities who have been showered with honorary doctoral degrees by 'phoren' Universities. Leading the pack are Preity Zinta, Shahrukh Khan, Akshay Kumar and Shilpa Shetty for their extraordinary contribution to Indian cinema. I believe Katrina Kaif and Imran Khan are due to receive it anytime soon!! :-)
I, of course, choose not to mention some truly 'eligible' actor/honorary doctorate holders like Amitabh Bachchan, Shabana Azmi and Naseeruddin Shah.
This post is not meant to undermine the host of intellectually leaning actors/creative persons who decided to quit higher education as they deemed it pointless at some stage. But, in a traditional society where merit is still judged by academic achievement, a handful of actors with degrees are refreshingly attractive as compared to a sea of dopey drop outs!!
Friday, January 7, 2011
Law, Like Love: W.H. Auden
Law, say the gardeners, is the sun,
Law is the one
All gardeners obey
To-morrow, yesterday, to-day.
Law is the wisdom of the old,
The impotent grandfathers feebly scold;
The grandchildren put out a treble tongue,
Law is the senses of the young.
Law, says the priest with a priestly look,
Expounding to an unpriestly people,
Law is the words in my priestly book,
Law is my pulpit and my steeple.
Law, says the judge as he looks down his nose,
Speaking clearly and most severely,
Law is as I've told you before,
Law is as you know I suppose,
Law is but let me explain it once more,
Law is The Law.
Yet law-abiding scholars write:
Law is neither wrong nor right,
Law is only crimes
Punished by places and by times,
Law is the clothes men wear
Anytime, anywhere,
Law is Good morning and Good night.
Others say, Law is our Fate;
Others say, Law is our State;
Others say, others say
Law is no more,
Law has gone away.
And always the loud angry crowd,
Very angry and very loud,
Law is We,
And always the soft idiot softly Me.
If we, dear, know we know no more
Than they about the Law,
If I no more than you
Know what we should and should not do
Except that all agree
Gladly or miserably
That the Law is
And that all know this
If therefore thinking it absurd
To identify Law with some other word,
Unlike so many men
I cannot say Law is again,
No more than they can we suppress
The universal wish to guess
Or slip out of our own position
Into an unconcerned condition.
Although I can at least confine
Your vanity and mine
To stating timidly
A timid similarity,
We shall boast anyway:
Like love I say.
Like love we don't know where or why,
Like love we can't compel or fly,
Like love we often weep,
Like love we seldom keep.
Law is the one
All gardeners obey
To-morrow, yesterday, to-day.
Law is the wisdom of the old,
The impotent grandfathers feebly scold;
The grandchildren put out a treble tongue,
Law is the senses of the young.
Law, says the priest with a priestly look,
Expounding to an unpriestly people,
Law is the words in my priestly book,
Law is my pulpit and my steeple.
Law, says the judge as he looks down his nose,
Speaking clearly and most severely,
Law is as I've told you before,
Law is as you know I suppose,
Law is but let me explain it once more,
Law is The Law.
Yet law-abiding scholars write:
Law is neither wrong nor right,
Law is only crimes
Punished by places and by times,
Law is the clothes men wear
Anytime, anywhere,
Law is Good morning and Good night.
Others say, Law is our Fate;
Others say, Law is our State;
Others say, others say
Law is no more,
Law has gone away.
And always the loud angry crowd,
Very angry and very loud,
Law is We,
And always the soft idiot softly Me.
If we, dear, know we know no more
Than they about the Law,
If I no more than you
Know what we should and should not do
Except that all agree
Gladly or miserably
That the Law is
And that all know this
If therefore thinking it absurd
To identify Law with some other word,
Unlike so many men
I cannot say Law is again,
No more than they can we suppress
The universal wish to guess
Or slip out of our own position
Into an unconcerned condition.
Although I can at least confine
Your vanity and mine
To stating timidly
A timid similarity,
We shall boast anyway:
Like love I say.
Like love we don't know where or why,
Like love we can't compel or fly,
Like love we often weep,
Like love we seldom keep.
Friday, December 3, 2010
On Media Ethics (no, Barkha Dutt)
What can I, as a layperson, say about media ethics or the lack of it that has not already been said before? That the triangular bonding between the media-corporations-politicians is deeply dubious; that the daily news manufacture and manipulation at the television news channel factories is unacceptable and that Rakhi Sawant’s gradual siliconisation is not exactly ‘breaking news’. Suffice to say that the Fourth Estate is crumbling, collapsing and how.
A lot has been written about the devastating blow that the Radia tapes have proved to be on the Indian public’s faith in the media. Media darlings such as the fiery Ms. Barkha Dutt and the suave Mr. Vir Sanghvi ( I thought he had quit non-serious political reporting to become a serious food/restaurant critic hosting custom-made eponymous television shows but hey, what do I know and who am I to say?) have been gamed, named and shamed-all in one go.
Dutt and Sanghvi’s equally glorious media buddies after maintaining uncharacteristic silence for several days on the pretext of upholding highest journalistic standards ( hat they were waiting for the verification of the authenticity of the tapes etc) were finally pressured to speak but they only squealed. Mostly, they argued that the larger issue of business- politician nexus (most important) and media ethics (less important as it exists in abundance) should not be diverted by targeting individual journalists/small fries such as Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi ( who are only the editorial bigwigs in the country’s most watched English news channel and most widely circulated English daily).
I will not talk about Vir Sanghvi as I think he has long moved on to reporting on food, luxury brands and other fancy-shmancy stuff and post the tapes, has severed his last tie to serious journalism by suspending his newspaper column but has promised to be back when this controversy is resolved.
But I wish to talk about Barkha Dutt who is really the ‘face’ of news in India. In the past, her journalistic style has raised a lot of questions but never her journalistic standards. For several days, she did not think it fit to speak on this issue citing legal reasons and deep personal hurt and outrage. Yet, she happily tweeted away in her distinctive self righteous, moralistic and catty style that SHE COULD DO NO WRONG!!
As an afterthought after a few weeks of the expose, (which could only be explained in terms of thousands of I hate Barkha Dutt emails and facebook pages of Take Barkha Dutt Off the Air), NDTV decided to host a dialogue between four senior journallsts, including Manu Joseph, Editor, Open Magazine which published the taped conversations and Barkha Dutt which was hopelessly mediated by Sonia Singh. It turned out to be what it was always supposed to be- a slanging match between Dutt and Joseph (some internet news stories have amusingly titled this debate as a due between BARCA and Man U).
Many commentators have commended NDTV’s largesse in this regard for hosting this discussion but cynics like me believe that this was the least that they could do. In fact, what startled me was the complete absence of Prannoy Roy in this discussion (which would have added a lot more credibility to this debate). I was outraged when I saw Barkha Dutt continuing to report and discuss the whole 2G scam and the Radia tapes as if she were not involved (even if, in a small way). And of course, no sanctions (however, minor) were issued against her by the channel.
On this NDTV mediated dialogue, Barkha Dutt, as expected, showed scanty regard for other people’s views by systematically attacking and interrupting them, completely sidelined the mediator proving once and for all who’s the real boss at NDTV and also, played (rather unsuccessfully) the gender card which seemed to be the last resort of this otherwise verbose and vociferous journo.
She tried in vain to appeal to public sentiments by quoting her long, illustrious and immaculate career in the media. She launched a verbal assault on Manu Joseph as he had not consulted her before publishing the raw tapes in his magazine as if she has, in her investigations always sought the views of her subjects before she telecast a news story on her channel. Manu Joseph’s question as to why she did not break open the story about corporate collusions in cabinet formation/s in 2009 and also in 2010, when there was clear evidence of corruption in the Telecom Ministry and Swapan Dasgupta’s question as to why Radia chose her to plug a request to play mediator between Congress and DMK and endorse Raja as Telecom Minister-was it because of her closeness to the Congress party and the pro-Congress slant in her reportage) remained unanswered.
Barkha’s dull and uninspiring response to these questions will put even an aspiring school magazine reporter to shame. Like a five year old, she mumbled and grumbled that she was a victim of a conspiracy and the poster girl for a smear campaign that helps Open magazine to sell copies. She said that she was naïve and gullible and as a political journalist, did not understand the workings of the brutal corporate underworld. Isn’t gullibility and naive ness the lamest possible excuse for someone of her stature and experience?
When one of the panelists asked her to end this debate by admitting and apologising to her viewers for a mistake that she had made, she doggedly refused, reiterating that the only mistake that she had made was in relation to the alleged casualness of her conversation to Radia and her promise to speak to the Congress on Raja’s ministerial berth was just to humour her source (because words like ‘sorry’ and ‘thank you’ were too hard to find in her vast vocabulary).
Anyhow, the point of this tirade is that those who have the power and influence over the spoken and written word owe no responsibility to their readers/viewers. Barkha Dutt’s continued screeching on television grossly overvaluing her own importance and undermining the viewer’s intelligence does not annoy but amuses me, the viewer –because it does not matter, SHE does not matter!
A lot has been written about the devastating blow that the Radia tapes have proved to be on the Indian public’s faith in the media. Media darlings such as the fiery Ms. Barkha Dutt and the suave Mr. Vir Sanghvi ( I thought he had quit non-serious political reporting to become a serious food/restaurant critic hosting custom-made eponymous television shows but hey, what do I know and who am I to say?) have been gamed, named and shamed-all in one go.
Dutt and Sanghvi’s equally glorious media buddies after maintaining uncharacteristic silence for several days on the pretext of upholding highest journalistic standards ( hat they were waiting for the verification of the authenticity of the tapes etc) were finally pressured to speak but they only squealed. Mostly, they argued that the larger issue of business- politician nexus (most important) and media ethics (less important as it exists in abundance) should not be diverted by targeting individual journalists/small fries such as Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi ( who are only the editorial bigwigs in the country’s most watched English news channel and most widely circulated English daily).
I will not talk about Vir Sanghvi as I think he has long moved on to reporting on food, luxury brands and other fancy-shmancy stuff and post the tapes, has severed his last tie to serious journalism by suspending his newspaper column but has promised to be back when this controversy is resolved.
But I wish to talk about Barkha Dutt who is really the ‘face’ of news in India. In the past, her journalistic style has raised a lot of questions but never her journalistic standards. For several days, she did not think it fit to speak on this issue citing legal reasons and deep personal hurt and outrage. Yet, she happily tweeted away in her distinctive self righteous, moralistic and catty style that SHE COULD DO NO WRONG!!
As an afterthought after a few weeks of the expose, (which could only be explained in terms of thousands of I hate Barkha Dutt emails and facebook pages of Take Barkha Dutt Off the Air), NDTV decided to host a dialogue between four senior journallsts, including Manu Joseph, Editor, Open Magazine which published the taped conversations and Barkha Dutt which was hopelessly mediated by Sonia Singh. It turned out to be what it was always supposed to be- a slanging match between Dutt and Joseph (some internet news stories have amusingly titled this debate as a due between BARCA and Man U).
Many commentators have commended NDTV’s largesse in this regard for hosting this discussion but cynics like me believe that this was the least that they could do. In fact, what startled me was the complete absence of Prannoy Roy in this discussion (which would have added a lot more credibility to this debate). I was outraged when I saw Barkha Dutt continuing to report and discuss the whole 2G scam and the Radia tapes as if she were not involved (even if, in a small way). And of course, no sanctions (however, minor) were issued against her by the channel.
On this NDTV mediated dialogue, Barkha Dutt, as expected, showed scanty regard for other people’s views by systematically attacking and interrupting them, completely sidelined the mediator proving once and for all who’s the real boss at NDTV and also, played (rather unsuccessfully) the gender card which seemed to be the last resort of this otherwise verbose and vociferous journo.
She tried in vain to appeal to public sentiments by quoting her long, illustrious and immaculate career in the media. She launched a verbal assault on Manu Joseph as he had not consulted her before publishing the raw tapes in his magazine as if she has, in her investigations always sought the views of her subjects before she telecast a news story on her channel. Manu Joseph’s question as to why she did not break open the story about corporate collusions in cabinet formation/s in 2009 and also in 2010, when there was clear evidence of corruption in the Telecom Ministry and Swapan Dasgupta’s question as to why Radia chose her to plug a request to play mediator between Congress and DMK and endorse Raja as Telecom Minister-was it because of her closeness to the Congress party and the pro-Congress slant in her reportage) remained unanswered.
Barkha’s dull and uninspiring response to these questions will put even an aspiring school magazine reporter to shame. Like a five year old, she mumbled and grumbled that she was a victim of a conspiracy and the poster girl for a smear campaign that helps Open magazine to sell copies. She said that she was naïve and gullible and as a political journalist, did not understand the workings of the brutal corporate underworld. Isn’t gullibility and naive ness the lamest possible excuse for someone of her stature and experience?
When one of the panelists asked her to end this debate by admitting and apologising to her viewers for a mistake that she had made, she doggedly refused, reiterating that the only mistake that she had made was in relation to the alleged casualness of her conversation to Radia and her promise to speak to the Congress on Raja’s ministerial berth was just to humour her source (because words like ‘sorry’ and ‘thank you’ were too hard to find in her vast vocabulary).
Anyhow, the point of this tirade is that those who have the power and influence over the spoken and written word owe no responsibility to their readers/viewers. Barkha Dutt’s continued screeching on television grossly overvaluing her own importance and undermining the viewer’s intelligence does not annoy but amuses me, the viewer –because it does not matter, SHE does not matter!
Friday, July 16, 2010
Five Reasons why Aamir Khan is becoming unbearable.
1. He is living in denial about his age. He is fast approaching his 50s and has kids who are now rushing into their 20s. He has a relatively new wife (who is way cooler than he is ) but he is no spring chicken!! He is more and more prone to play a college student/college passout/recently graduated business professional or someone who just refuses to leave college. He has unnecesarily pumped up, wears a hairstyle unsuitable for someone his age and is sometimes, seen wearing outrageous costumes. Basically, he is Shekhar Suman but talented and succesful.
2. He is an extremely capable actor but way too overrated as far as his movie choices go. His repertoire consists of rare gems like Mela, Aatank Hi Aatank, Awwal Number etc. In fact, after QSQT, Aamir Khan spent the entire 1990s engaged in mostly making crappy cinema (barring Hum Hain Rahi Pyaar Ke, Andaz Apna Apna and Jo Jeeta Wahi Sikander). I have to admit here that as a child, I thoroughly enjoyed a movie named Dil (and to think, I have never been accused of good cinematic taste)
It was only post-Dil Chahta Hain that Aamir showed some class in selection of his movies and roles reflected in Lagaan and Rang De Basanti. As an avid movie watcher, I would like to remind Aamir that 'quality' is not defined by 'quantity' and vice versa. Therefore, just by virtue of doing less films, he cannot claim to have produced quality work. Besides, even after establishing this false sense of being a 'quality' actor and a perfectionist, his participation in historically inaccurate biopics like Mangal Pandey, which he spent years researching and growing a moustache (not even a beard) for, the horror of a tormented love story like Fanaa and not to mention, the very, very original Ghajini, is unforgivable.
3. His rejection of popular film awards is obviously pretentious. While many might view it as an expression of his political will, I see it as a covert attempt to insult a fraternity that he has 'fed' of but won't 'feed' into. In fact, I support every taunt and joke made at his behest at the innumerable awards functions year after year even by the extremely unfunny bags of recycled humour that are Sajid Khan and his protege, Riteish Deshmukh.
What surprises me even more is that Aamir will graciously accept the National Awards (notorious for its alleged botch ups....the winners from the last few years will prove it) as it comes for the Government of India (the most reliable awards authority in the country where merit is always preferred over petty favouritism). Needless to say, Aamir would never say NO to the Oscars where he can hobnob with Hollywood royalty and may be, breakthrough with a studio deal or two. Officially, he will gush at interviews that the Oscar experience is much bigger than the award itself...ya right!!
At least, he is not as shameless as Anil Kapoor whose behaviour at the Oscars and related international red carpet events left the makers of Slumdog Millionaire (including the demanding parents of the child actors) red faced!!
4. He is well on his way towards becoming the Mahesh Bhatt of our generation. Wherever there is a cause, Mr. Khan has an opinion, not necessarily a well-informed one. The quality of Indian education remains one of his pet subjects on which he has made a number of films, will continue to and cast himself as a college student in each one of them.
He is at once, an educationist, legal expert, social activist and a 'lecturer' in the truest sense of the term. He has allegedly argued that the new copyright law should not protect lyricists and musicians as it is the actors who make the song popular (deep thinking) and of course, all this has nothing to do with the fact that he has recently turned producer and music is an important part of his films. He has, in a unique example of balance of interests, managed to defend both the Narmada Bachao Andolan and Coca Cola, on complete;y contradictory grounds. Again, his support for Coca Cola arises out of social concern and not out of pure self-interest. He has also very succesfully managed to pass on the Coca Cola ambassadorial baton to his much younger, less than talented, eyebrow shaping nephew, Imran Khan.
5. While he argues in favour of persons being able to express themselves freely; he himself will take a great idea conceived by someone else and will pass it on as his own and hog the credits (Taare Zameen Par and Amol Gupte). Then, when the movie garners all the awards and appreciation, he will consciously stay away from this and still be talked about. He will appear in ample number of media (non-movie related promotional) events and blog and tweet about every day/event of his life, yet claim to be reclusive, reserved and media shy. Displaying immense emotional maturity, he will also name pet dogs after his greatest competitor because he does not believe in the rat race or care for popularity in filmdom.
AND as you can possibly tell, I am not at all petty and judgmental.
I just hope Aamir Khan the person was as simple, believable and lovable as some of his movie characters!!
2. He is an extremely capable actor but way too overrated as far as his movie choices go. His repertoire consists of rare gems like Mela, Aatank Hi Aatank, Awwal Number etc. In fact, after QSQT, Aamir Khan spent the entire 1990s engaged in mostly making crappy cinema (barring Hum Hain Rahi Pyaar Ke, Andaz Apna Apna and Jo Jeeta Wahi Sikander). I have to admit here that as a child, I thoroughly enjoyed a movie named Dil (and to think, I have never been accused of good cinematic taste)
It was only post-Dil Chahta Hain that Aamir showed some class in selection of his movies and roles reflected in Lagaan and Rang De Basanti. As an avid movie watcher, I would like to remind Aamir that 'quality' is not defined by 'quantity' and vice versa. Therefore, just by virtue of doing less films, he cannot claim to have produced quality work. Besides, even after establishing this false sense of being a 'quality' actor and a perfectionist, his participation in historically inaccurate biopics like Mangal Pandey, which he spent years researching and growing a moustache (not even a beard) for, the horror of a tormented love story like Fanaa and not to mention, the very, very original Ghajini, is unforgivable.
3. His rejection of popular film awards is obviously pretentious. While many might view it as an expression of his political will, I see it as a covert attempt to insult a fraternity that he has 'fed' of but won't 'feed' into. In fact, I support every taunt and joke made at his behest at the innumerable awards functions year after year even by the extremely unfunny bags of recycled humour that are Sajid Khan and his protege, Riteish Deshmukh.
What surprises me even more is that Aamir will graciously accept the National Awards (notorious for its alleged botch ups....the winners from the last few years will prove it) as it comes for the Government of India (the most reliable awards authority in the country where merit is always preferred over petty favouritism). Needless to say, Aamir would never say NO to the Oscars where he can hobnob with Hollywood royalty and may be, breakthrough with a studio deal or two. Officially, he will gush at interviews that the Oscar experience is much bigger than the award itself...ya right!!
At least, he is not as shameless as Anil Kapoor whose behaviour at the Oscars and related international red carpet events left the makers of Slumdog Millionaire (including the demanding parents of the child actors) red faced!!
4. He is well on his way towards becoming the Mahesh Bhatt of our generation. Wherever there is a cause, Mr. Khan has an opinion, not necessarily a well-informed one. The quality of Indian education remains one of his pet subjects on which he has made a number of films, will continue to and cast himself as a college student in each one of them.
He is at once, an educationist, legal expert, social activist and a 'lecturer' in the truest sense of the term. He has allegedly argued that the new copyright law should not protect lyricists and musicians as it is the actors who make the song popular (deep thinking) and of course, all this has nothing to do with the fact that he has recently turned producer and music is an important part of his films. He has, in a unique example of balance of interests, managed to defend both the Narmada Bachao Andolan and Coca Cola, on complete;y contradictory grounds. Again, his support for Coca Cola arises out of social concern and not out of pure self-interest. He has also very succesfully managed to pass on the Coca Cola ambassadorial baton to his much younger, less than talented, eyebrow shaping nephew, Imran Khan.
5. While he argues in favour of persons being able to express themselves freely; he himself will take a great idea conceived by someone else and will pass it on as his own and hog the credits (Taare Zameen Par and Amol Gupte). Then, when the movie garners all the awards and appreciation, he will consciously stay away from this and still be talked about. He will appear in ample number of media (non-movie related promotional) events and blog and tweet about every day/event of his life, yet claim to be reclusive, reserved and media shy. Displaying immense emotional maturity, he will also name pet dogs after his greatest competitor because he does not believe in the rat race or care for popularity in filmdom.
AND as you can possibly tell, I am not at all petty and judgmental.
I just hope Aamir Khan the person was as simple, believable and lovable as some of his movie characters!!
Monday, March 22, 2010
OD'ed on LSD
Honesty is hard to find in mainstream Hindi movies and for it to succeed as a concept is almost unthinkable. The scope for pretence and falsehood, however, is ample.
LSD comes at a time when Karan Johar is 'allegedly' coming of age as a film-maker, Shyam Benegal is going mainstream, the literary giant, Chetan Bhagat is horrified that Bollywood copies without due credit (not only from mediocre movies but also from classic fiction), SRK and Aamir Khan are gradually moving away from films....more and more into sports ventures and social causes and the Bachchans have decided to counter public scrutiny by clarifying every single detail about their personal lives through regular press meets, blogs and of course, twitter, because as fans, we have a right to know it all.
The timing for LSD could not be more appropriate as the country overdoses on reality on television. Couples break up/make up/make out on facebook and spy on their spouses on prime time television; ministers tweet their frustrations with the government they represent; blood brothers fight over property at press conferences and arranged marriages find a whole new meaning on television where women queue up to marry Rahul Mahajan and if we can still believe what we see, they actually do!!
LSD explores and exposes the voyeur in all of us. Is it true? Of course, it is. Do we like to hear about it? Of course, not. And it is this shock value attached to something that all of us practice or partakes of, in our own lives is what makes us such hypocrites and such attempts, laudable.
Won't rant. Will just mention a few things that caught my attention and captured my imagination:
1. The three elements of Love, Sex and Dhokha run as a thread through all the inter-related storylines instead of taking the commonly tread path of all stories going their different ways until they converge..usually at an airport or as a result of some tragic accident or simply because the director decides to connect the dots at some point in the movie. But as is expected in this age of spy cams and live footage, there is more of 'S' and 'D' and less of 'L'.
2. The storylines are not unique, so to speak, but that is not a lack of originality on the part of the makers and is attributable to how 'real' these situations are and could be. To me, that is a great achievement.
3. The use of the camera/s as if if were a real character in the film was amazing. The use of digital cameras and spy cameras adds to the rawness of the sub-text and the drama lies in the situations that these characters gets entangled in over the course of the film.
4. The cast was well-picked and yes, all of them could act fairly well. May be they were NSD graduates..may be not (I just find it very funny when pseuds talk about theatre actors as a blanket category...Oh...he is awesome..he does theatre or he graduated from NSD...he should not be wasting time on that daily soap and my favourite...he is so underrated as an actor... he comes from a theatre background, yaar!!)
They looked believable in their parts and comfortable in their so-called (to use Bollywood lingo)..bold skins.
5. What is commendable about Dibakar Banerjee is his fearlessness. He is three films old...all three on completely different themes....the Indian urban middle class, the charming conman swindled by a doctor, and then this...the dark world of technology and titillation. Having picked up national awards for both his films (not that it means anything anymore....Arjun Rampal..the 'handsome piece of wood' has also won one), he seems strangely relaxed and unconcerned. His kind of nonchalance is rare yet not arrogant.
I just hope these honours do not corrupt the simplicity and satire; honesty and humour in his work that many of us have come to love. I also hope that LSD-the movie about voyeurism attracts more than just a voyeuristic audience.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Emotional Atyachaar: Reality Television at its very worst
Look what you've done, Mr. Anurag Kashyap?? While I hailed you for the fantastic effort that is DevD, I cannot help but blame you in part for inspiring the cheapest form of reality television (also, I am pretty sure the entertainment media will stoop lower...and lower in the future)
As if the horror of prospective brides violently blushing at the sleazy advances of the very unemployed and totally unmarriageable Rahul Mahajan and lost celebrities regressing into their past lives to find their lost fame on prime time television was not enough, here's another addition to the reality TV bandwagon...EMOTIONAL ATYACHAAR...
Claiming to be of extreme social value, this television show aims at helping young married/committed men and women to discover the status of their relationships through loyalty tests conducted on their partners with hidden spy cameras and undercover agents. The show is, of course, not about the sex and the sleaze but to rescue people from cheating partners and meaningless relationships!! The fact that the show is aired post-dinner on a channel called BINDAAS is also a mere co-incidence.
The format is simple....the formula...tried and tested....sex sells!!
Allegedly, the emotionally tormented/ tortured (atyacharit) partner approaches the EA team, like a NGO, counsellor or even the police, and seek their assistance in establishing the loyalty of their better or battered half, as the case may be. A loyalty test is thus, conducted, with full consent of the tortured party against the accused party and the proverbial linen is washed dirty in public. There is some serious cheating, buckets of tears, shot of abuses followed by some hardcore slapping, punching and beating, if you are lucky.
The tortured party orders the loyalty test on their partners with the disclaimer that they love and trust them, despite the test. The accused party, invariably, picks up the undercover agent (almost always, struggling models and actors) at the very first meeting at a coffee shop. Things move quickly and soon (by soon...I mean a day or two..tops), they are a couple. Nothing is hidden from the hidden cameras...and all unedited footage is shown to the tortured party with them bawling and screaming beeped unmentionables at the camera and the hapless host mumbling...'we can stop the footage if you want' or 'this is all live feed ..they are in this building now' but the tortured party, being iron-willed, tough individuals, continue to watch the misdeeds of their loyal partners despite the tears and the heartache.
It all ends with a confrontation, often violent, drawing the curtains on the relationship, at least on camera, with the tortured party thanking the show for saving their so-called lives and the makers and undercover agents shouting LONG LIVE INFIDELITY!! But mind you, this is all a sociological experiment not merely entertainment!!
As if the horror of prospective brides violently blushing at the sleazy advances of the very unemployed and totally unmarriageable Rahul Mahajan and lost celebrities regressing into their past lives to find their lost fame on prime time television was not enough, here's another addition to the reality TV bandwagon...EMOTIONAL ATYACHAAR...
Claiming to be of extreme social value, this television show aims at helping young married/committed men and women to discover the status of their relationships through loyalty tests conducted on their partners with hidden spy cameras and undercover agents. The show is, of course, not about the sex and the sleaze but to rescue people from cheating partners and meaningless relationships!! The fact that the show is aired post-dinner on a channel called BINDAAS is also a mere co-incidence.
The format is simple....the formula...tried and tested....sex sells!!
Allegedly, the emotionally tormented/ tortured (atyacharit) partner approaches the EA team, like a NGO, counsellor or even the police, and seek their assistance in establishing the loyalty of their better or battered half, as the case may be. A loyalty test is thus, conducted, with full consent of the tortured party against the accused party and the proverbial linen is washed dirty in public. There is some serious cheating, buckets of tears, shot of abuses followed by some hardcore slapping, punching and beating, if you are lucky.
The tortured party orders the loyalty test on their partners with the disclaimer that they love and trust them, despite the test. The accused party, invariably, picks up the undercover agent (almost always, struggling models and actors) at the very first meeting at a coffee shop. Things move quickly and soon (by soon...I mean a day or two..tops), they are a couple. Nothing is hidden from the hidden cameras...and all unedited footage is shown to the tortured party with them bawling and screaming beeped unmentionables at the camera and the hapless host mumbling...'we can stop the footage if you want' or 'this is all live feed ..they are in this building now' but the tortured party, being iron-willed, tough individuals, continue to watch the misdeeds of their loyal partners despite the tears and the heartache.
It all ends with a confrontation, often violent, drawing the curtains on the relationship, at least on camera, with the tortured party thanking the show for saving their so-called lives and the makers and undercover agents shouting LONG LIVE INFIDELITY!! But mind you, this is all a sociological experiment not merely entertainment!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)