Bachchan — 342
LINK
“Nostalgia grips me as the ceremony concludes and we are led into the dining area for the traditional refreshments. The President is gracious and informal now. She chats with the ease of exchanging pleasantries, wishes that we come over some time. The Prime Minister, who has never failed to enquire after my health through either a personal emissary or letter, pushes through his security cordon to hold affectionately my hands and ask on my health. I reciprocate in asking of his condition; he having been through a serious heart surgery not so long ago. I assure his gracious wife that a correction she had asked me to make in the words of the Granth Saheb quoted and printed on the passing away of my Mother, had indeed been executed and incorporated. There are many there who have studied under my Father at the Allahabad University and many that worked with him in the External affairs Ministry when he was in Delhi. In all it is a warm and comforting late morning brunch but we keep away from the generous spread and battling the autographs come away, driving through the lanes that I had traversed almost every day during the times when we lived in Delhi – South Avenue, Teen Murti House, the Secretariat…”
March 31, 2009 at 5:19 PM
["The murals painted on the roof and the sides are mostly of Mughal depictions, lined above and below with Urdu or perhaps Arabic, gold embossed writings."
These are most likely in Persian (of course the script in each case is the same though there are additional characters in Persian or Urdu compared to Arabic). The Mughal court language was initially Turkish and later on became Persian.
A characteristically reflective post here. I did see some video footage of the event. I cheer whatever recognition Akshay gets. It seems to me that he is that rare old school hero in today's times, that rare representative of a bygone era. Now this is not nostalgia on my part. I think (and I've said this before) that Bombay cinema for all its periodic shifts (as is only natural) in terms of aesthetics and narrative nonetheless formed a kind of continuum from roughly the era surrounding Independence to approximately the early 80s. One could following Javed Akhtar term this a kind of 'literary' cinema. But after the early 80s there is a clear break. Things haven't been the same since. In this current decade there is much to cheer as the industry seems to have emerged from the exhaustion of the 80s and the synthetic burst that was the 90s and yet there is still not a very strong sense of a rooted cinema. Even as I appreciate and admire many films these days I have the sense that these are works that are good in spite of the tradition, not because of it. I mourn the fact that so many film-makers today, even the talented ones are unable to draw on these reserves of tradition. And to be candid one still does not see the promise of a Raj Kapoor or a Bimal Roy or a Guru Dutt in anyone today. There are interesting script-writers after a long time but who really pushes the envelope the way Salim-Javed once did? Who writes memorable lines anymore? I will not even get into the field of music because I find it completely infuriating that Rafi and Kishore and Lata and Asha and Mukesh and so many others have been exchanged for those who for the most part are not much better than bathroom singers. The singing befits the composing! Rahman is that rare exception in a sea of mediocrity. Even the better films are by and large 'predictable', often more 'attitude' than anything else.
Partly all of this has come about because the people making films or acting in them have simply not partaken of the experience that earlier generations of actors did. The former constitutes a group that in all probability does not even know of an Indian reality in any meaningful sense that is not defined by South Bombay or some such equivalent. There is therefore no real connection with an earlier cinema. Unfortunately these same folks are not even intelligent readers of the Western tradition that they otherwise aspire to. Even here one does not at all get the sense that the riches of the past are informing these filmmakers and/or actors. Having said all of this I do not some positive changes even in this regard. There has been more rooted, meaningful cinema than in a very long time. Perhaps some optimism is called for.. I continue to be skeptical..
In this regard, and for all my admiration for his sincerity towards his craft as well as his willingness to take genuine risks even in the face of adversity, I have been somewhat disappointed by Abhishek's choices as well. At any given point he seems to have a set of worthwhile films, often these are the choicest projects around. One could hardly argue with this. At the same time I wonder why this work ethic could also not incorporate a project or two that could then signify a commitment to renewing the tradition as well. Aamir has shown us how it can be done. It is not just a question of repeating things but doing things in a new way in the light of older cues. I would never suggest merely copying the moves of the past whether it is a question of assuming your legacy or that of an older cinema. It is one however of reconstituting a medium that could be more universal and in general a more representative cinema. There is even a democratic calling to all of this. The heartland that you hail from is also today (and for a long time) now a place where Bombay cinema is more or less extinct barring in key centers where it limps along. The game today is about multiplexes in major metros and a few more bonus ones that have started mushrooming elsewhere. This cinema does not speak to anyone. Even to its main adherents it offers nothing more than popcorn entertainment. Abhishek I believe is uniquely placed for many reasons to advance what I would call this very worthwhile agenda. Is it a tall order? Yes. But hopefully not too much of a challenge for a Bachchan! Again to be very clear about this, I laud his film selection (even if I think that doing a purely commercial venture here and there, a bread and butter film, is not so bad an idea..) but I would also like to see him pursue the Aamir kind of course where quality cinema is married to fidelity to a tradition. I say this also accepting that he has done this with a Mehra or a Rathnam and some others as the opportunities have arisen. But a larger career narrative might be called for. This incidentally would be useful to him even otherwise. Stars can never simply be 'actors. They have to respect the iconic appeal of their signature. No star can completely control the box office but any star worth the name is almost forced to recognize the boundaries of stardom which is to say that a star can be a 'sincere actor' only upto a point. Even as a star gets success or failure at the box office it is important to analyze why each comes about. All successes do not mean the same, nor all failures.
All of this started with Akshay Kumar. I like this aspect of his persona very much. He could have existed in the 70s. I do not consider him thespian material (nor I suspect would he!) but he is a very welcome presence on screen. I wish he would break out of this cycle of meaningless comedies but I understand his decision making for more reasons than one.
Since I am not trying to match the length of your post (!) I shall finally cease writing...]