My name is not Khan and I’m not your audience
LINK

Recently in New York city, I sat behind a motley group of New Yorkers as they settled in to watch Karan Johar’s “My Name is Khan”, an epic film that’s been declared a global hit with a message of peace that as some press nugget said “has spread across the world”.
Maybe they were confusing it with volcanic ash, as this message clearly got lost in travelling from Washington D.C., where the film’s lead (Mr. Khan, played by, yes, in a clever twist of words, Shah Rukh Khan, who, that’s correct, is also named Khan), shakes hands with President Barack Obama (the actor playing him looked like Anupam Kher) to New York’s Times Square where ten days ago, a young Pakistani man tried to blow up an SUV. His name was Shahzad and he was a terrorist.
In this geopolitical mess, a film that supposedly deals with it head on, opened in the U.S. across many art house theatres now, some months after the money machine that it became in India (revealing clearly that at the core of it a lightly handicapped megastar walking across Colorado and Alabama to get to DC is what Indian audiences identify with).
It has arrived here, shorter by 45 minutes, edited by the team that did the romantic comedy “500 Days Of Summer” (no, they didn’t change the title to “132 Minutes of Khan”). One Chicago newspaper described it as ‘”Monsoon Wedding” meets “Hurt Locker’”.
The day I saw it, the motley crowd in front of me had a professorial looking Jewish man, with the unkempt look that only the extremely wealthy business owner can afford, one African-American corporate sort (blackberry being the clue) and his African-American actress girlfriend (the iPhone and red shoes being the clue) and a frail Japanese lady who brought some sort of milk drink and that deceptive shyness hiding perhaps a world famous fashion designer or cellist, or both.
This was not a special screening for a multicultural melting pot, this was the average audience of downtown Manhattan, a cluster of globetrotting over-achievers, with backgrounds from Manila to Memphis.
This was also, arguably, the exact demographic the new Bollywood wants to go after.
When Karan Johar went one-up on Yash Raj studios relocating our Bollywood romance from Swiss valleys to Manhattan in the mid 90s, first the immigrant cab drivers and shopkeepers were mesmerised, then together with Shah Rukh Khan, they entered the middle-class homes of professional NRIs, New Jersey doctors, London barristers, and took the second generation from being ashamed of Bollywood to making nightclubs have Bollywood nights worldwide.
The final blow for NRIs came when they saw their white friends dancing to “You are my Sonia” better than them from some lesson at a Delhi winter wedding. The conquest was complete.
So now that the global Indian is done and the Indian Indian was always in the pocket, Mr Johar and Mr Khan and all the studios began eyeing the next big market — the non-Indian world cinema lover.
The sort that reads Suketu Mehta, shows up at the Jaipur literary festival, is comfortable in a western winter with a scarf bought in Goa and enjoys fusion Indian dinners every other week.
A perfect sample of which sat before me.
These were people fluent in their Almodovar, Woody Allen, Wong Kar Wai, Jacques Audiard and could debate the finer nuances of “Amelie” or new German cinema. So they assumed what they were about to watch was somewhere between “Bend it like Beckham” and “Persepolis”.
First, they were given a trailer for “Kites”, the next Bollywood offering to the world. “Who is that guy? He looks like Sinbad”, asked the Jewish man of another megastar Hrithik Roshan as he bounced around deserts in New Mexico.
Once MNIK (as Bollywood loves abbreviations, this one’s pronounced Manik) began, a few things happened, when Mr Khan said he would walk to tell the President that he was not a terrorist, a moment clearly intended to be poignant, the Jewish man started laughing.
At a scene where a large number of students are cheering for President Bush at a California campus, the Asian woman said, “I’m from California and no one has ever cheered for Bush”.
Finally, when an African-American gospel choir started singing “We shall overcome” in homeless robes after Khan saved them from Hurricane Katrina, the African American couple walked out.
Clearly, it seems that we have a longer journey to make than Mr Khan’s to get this global audience. Maybe instead of MNIK’s catch phrase what they needed was someone to say ‘My Name Is Story And I Will Make Sense’.
May 11, 2010 at 9:10 PM
I was thinking the same thing last week when the Times Sq story broke. Not what Johar was looking for to re-introduce his shorter cut!
May 12, 2010 at 12:21 AM
“Finally, when an African-American gospel choir started singing “We shall overcome” in homeless robes after Khan saved them from Hurricane Katrina, the African American couple walked out.”
this was the worst scene in the movie and KJo shd. be sued for such an assault on the sensibilities of the audience
May 12, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Why?
Haven’t there been scenes, shown in India with no real understanding of its culture in some Hollywood films?
May 12, 2010 at 1:22 AM
Is this a review or a set of racist remarkes??
May 12, 2010 at 4:09 AM
Satyam it was’t a rare moment as i also faced the same dilemma after certain scenes that whether walk out or give some more time as it might be
an aberration and soon movie would get back to the track, alas that was not to be and i lost my all my hopes after a while.
May 12, 2010 at 7:19 AM
MNIK is the most disappointing film i have seen this year.KJO definitely not the right kind of director to make a film dealing with something like autism . He better do his melodramas.
MohanLal’s latest movie “alexander the great” also having same subject.The film is getting mixed reviews.The newcomer director wasted an opportunity considering lal on board.
May 12, 2010 at 8:52 AM
apparently Alexander is a big flop while Pokkiri Raja is a big hit..
May 12, 2010 at 2:37 PM
ya..satyam….pokkiri raja is a big hit…….film is just passable at best….wht works for the film is mammootty+prithviraj combo….
also i feel minimum marketing done for “alexander the great “..else it would have made much better results….
agree with gf here ..it resembles “rainman” a lot
May 12, 2010 at 2:41 PM
yes I heard it (Alexander) didn’t even get a proper opening..
May 12, 2010 at 2:47 PM
That’s actually true about Alexander’s marketing. I don’t think it would have been some mammoth opening, but certainly filmmakers have a bad habit of throwing up a Lal release just to have the two-M clash continue. In this specific instance, there was no real competition considering both the product and the way it was sold.
May 12, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Given what I’ve read of this movie, I doubt any kind of marketing could have saved Alexander- especially against Pokkiri Raja. Lal’s inability to pick scripts and directors is legendary at this point…
May 12, 2010 at 9:00 AM
I read it was a retread of Rain Man…and it’s getting from what I see mostly totally bad reviews…
May 12, 2010 at 3:56 PM
I agree- our comments crossed
May 12, 2010 at 7:39 AM
what i dont understand with karan is why kajol rejected srk on the basis of name “khan”if he was Rathod it would have been ok,so was she a racist or dumb reaction from karan…kajol knew he was muslim but how can american or english if you living in UK know whether you are an indian,karan should live in usa or america for few years and realise how hard is to live in western world and also learn that all asian living here in uk are recognised as muslim or as far as i can see it because english people cannot see a difference between indian and pakistani unless you tell them about your nationality….kajol rejecting srk was a dumb scene and some other storyline in the film were fantacy of KJO,funny enough but kajol would have seen according to american eyes as a muslim and only her friends would have known that she is indian,..pity karan does not realise when he was making this venture…only saving grace on this film was srk who i think was out-standing..There was mama-jennie her house being flooded and where was rescue from goverment and meeting the president in the end was a bit weird….karan please next time make a sensible film and not a typicle boredom….
May 12, 2010 at 9:10 AM
So much for the May roll out of MNIK – the second phase.
Inspite of being nearly the top overseas grosser, it sounds and feels very much like a dud.
KJo is entirely to blame here. SRK did his part but the film was extremely weak, overall.
Am a little sad for KJo as I think he had his heart in the right place but he overreached, was unaware of his creative limitations and his peri-release antics made him almost unbearable.
SRK/KJo should split mutually. At least temporarily as this association is not helping either of them.
May 13, 2010 at 2:28 AM
Agree here with Rajen…The most constructive criticsm in a while…
May 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Karan Johar interview:
http://movies.rediff.com/report/2010/may/12/karan-johar-gets-candid.htm
May 12, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Re: It is more thought provoking and deeply psychological film than anything I have done before.
LOL. He might actually be right but it still doesnt mean much when the comparision is with his own films!
And it is getting annoying seeing all and sundry making these brazen,shameless claims that their film is a huge hit like Akshay,Sajid, KJo. It is true that some buy it.
May 12, 2010 at 9:27 AM
yeah this sort of ‘selling’ of a film has really reached new heights of propaganda.
May 12, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Johar himself confirming a 39 m worldwide figure and suggesting it might touch 40. That’s gross. And that’s 175 crores worldwide.
May 12, 2010 at 3:45 PM
with a 100 crore Indian gross we’re looking at a 60-70 crore range depending on how the conversion is done..
May 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM
“The day I saw it, the motley crowd in front of me had a professorial looking Jewish man, with the unkempt look that only the extremely wealthy business owner can afford, one African-American corporate sort (blackberry being the clue) and his African-American actress girlfriend (the iPhone and red shoes being the clue) and a frail Japanese lady who brought some sort of milk drink and that deceptive shyness hiding perhaps a world famous fashion designer or cellist, or both.”
Ok, it is one thing to criticize a movie for its stupidity, and another to make these types of dumb comments. Some of these reviewers get carried away in their own smugness.
Anyway, it did take guts by KJo to release this in the arthouse circuit. Or was it presumptuous?
May 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM
Obviously, it is a rather poor attempt at humor.
Releasing it in arthouse circuit is not a question of guts but a case of serious misconnct with reality.
May 12, 2010 at 9:34 AM
I don’t think a lot of these ‘international’ releases are done for their own sake but to get mileage back home. It’s like Ash’s ‘Hollywood’ career. It makes for great copy back home despite how forgettable all her appearances are in this sense. Take the whole Bret Ratner deal with Kites. And now MNIK at Angelika. In each case a narrative of Hollywood prestige. The only distinction between Ash and these other two examples as I see it is that she really knows what she’s doing (she’s in on it if you will). The other two some extent buy their own ‘copy’. Because they I think in an ideal world would really like that sort of deal, i.e. to be ‘international’ stars.
Incidentally despite the colonized nature of such aspirations I wouldn’t mind them so much if the latter didn’t ride on the backs of basically laughable cinema. and this is always my greatest gripe with Bollywood. Why not market serious works? And these actors who are so desperate for international name ID, why not be brave enough to really do a risky film with the right film-maker and then take it to Western markets or wherever?
May 13, 2010 at 1:15 PM
obiously ash knows what she is doing and kjo and srk do not after all she is bachchan bahu.
May 12, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Which arthouse circuit?
May 12, 2010 at 9:16 AM
Hahahahaha!
This seems to be a counter post to lead heat away from ‘Raavan’ Posts.
And I’ll not say anything about the motley group of Americans who have the habit of laughing at the wrong places and walking out at some point
Such ‘for’ and ‘against’ posts all sound the same, one has just to substitute names.
May 12, 2010 at 9:21 AM
To make myself clear, I know it is a linked post – I’m talking about the intent of posting it here with glee.
May 12, 2010 at 9:26 AM
This has been posted on various other filmi sites as well. Maybe it has been the only review from the arthouse circuit? To balance things out, you should provide links to the first positive review coming out of the arthouse circuit for this movie as well.
May 12, 2010 at 9:37 AM
actually there was earlier another post on MNIK doing very well in Syria and how people in the Mideast were relating to the film:
http://satyamshot.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/my-name-is-khan-too-say-syrians/
May 12, 2010 at 9:42 AM
I think all audiences that were going to be romanced by ‘Muslims as the victims’ angle have already seen the film. So there is not much steam left for the second phase.
May 12, 2010 at 9:43 AM
what ‘heat’ is there on the Raavan posts?!
One can argue against the article, I don’t agree with everything being said here but I do like the gist of what’s being said, however why does everything from the American audience at Angelika (surely one of the more sophisticated ones on the planet in these matters.. why is is that they can understand all kinds of world cinema but otherwise undergo mental paralysis when they see an Indian film, specially one that is supposedly not regular fare and so ‘serious’?) to the motivation of the person posting it and so on become an issue?
Could it be that there are issues the film has? why does it have to be this universal problem so that if MNIK has issues so do many other films. That’s like saying Drona is a terrible movie but so are many others so no one should mention Drona without also naming a 100 other films.
May 12, 2010 at 9:26 AM
>So much for the May roll out of MNIK
It would be fairer to mention ‘where’. As I keep repeating, US is not the world.
May 12, 2010 at 9:30 AM
Sorry, did forget Poland and Lithuania and Timbaktoo.
May 12, 2010 at 9:43 AM
…and Leichtenstein, and Luxembourgh…….and…
I don’t get the sarcasm here.
Honestly, shouldn’t one applaud when a film does well in remote places?
May 12, 2010 at 9:45 AM
I would if it were for the right reasons. Shameless exploitation of the alleged Muslim victimhood is unfortunately not one of them.
May 12, 2010 at 9:53 AM
This *exploitation* of the word ‘victimhood’ negates any constructive discussion of any subject relating to any community anywhere in the world.
The exploitation of the word ‘victimhood’ gags any community from voicing any opinion not liked by any other community and on and on and on and…..
May 12, 2010 at 9:50 AM
There’s nothing wrong with a film doing well anywhere. It is when those remote places are used as defensive arguments when the film doesn’t exactly perform well in ‘well-known’ places! I have never seen either SRK’s fans or for that matter Johar himself focus so much on Indonesia and Bahrain and what not. The India thing is almost said in passing. He says it’s a big hit there but moves on quickly. Because he knows what the truth is. And this has been the narrative on the film ever since it started collapsing in India (which is very soon). The foreign markets then came to the rescue.
Did anyone ever talk about Bahrain with 3I? No one needed to. As usual people looked at the Indian gross and the big overseas markets (US/UK more or less) and that was it. This is what has happened with every film. JA did astonishing numbers in the US. Was good in the UK but nothing like the US. Did well enough in India. But these were the only numbers people looked at. No one went to these other markets.
So if MNIK has done very well in some of these obscure parts of the part that’s great but it shouldn’t be a way of ‘avoiding’ the real conversation on its Indian returns.
May 12, 2010 at 10:07 AM
Satyam, I’m hardly one propogating a BO success or any such topic which really I don’t care about.
The success in remote places is just that – ‘success in remote places.
I’m absolutely not a supporter of this measurement of success measured on the basis of distributor share and what not.
It is not people friendly and people oriented.
I like to know how many** people* watched a film – and ‘where’ adds to its achievement.
IMO Many many people saw MNIK – even in US and India – but they didn’t see it more than once or twice.
So one can say it didn’t have repeat value (which such a genre rarely has).
But to keep harping about collections based on an amount for people wholly unconnected with public is getting more and more ridiculousday day by day.
Its like saying 3I is a flop because some stupid fellow bought it for Rs 250 cr.
Who cares for this fellow!!
I would judge ‘Raavan’s’ success in the same way – How many people went to see it.
May 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Oldgold, I am not into the whole distributor share etc nonsense either. But actually not many people saw the movie in India. This is quite obvious. Had the film done extremely well in single screens or smaller centers I would have said it sold more tickets than many other films. But that didn’t happen here. As for ‘many’ seeing it in the US a vastly lower number in the US compared to 3I! ‘Many’ indeed saw MNIK but this ‘many’ was less than the ‘many’ of many other films! And the ‘many’ who saw it in India evidently did not like it. This was true even in the US. Not so in the UK but remember here it crossed 3I because 3I was never record-breaking in the UK as it was in the US. A lower bar to start with. So it’s not ‘unconnected’. In India MNIK and Housefull opened the same way and faded equally fast. These are not the trajectories of a film that has been liked (in either case) by any substantial cross-section of the population (even if Housefull has been successfully ‘sold’ as a blockbuster). But again the ‘number of people’ that patronize a film can be determined from the gross assuming that the films being compared are multiplex successes in each case (which is to say they derive most of their gross this way). It is when a film does something other than this that your point comes into play. For example wanted, a film that did disproportionately well in single screens and smaller centers. Hence it’s 60 crore gross or whatever means more than than 75-80 crore gross of many multiplex successes purely in terms of tickets sold.
May 12, 2010 at 5:45 PM
Spot on. Remote areas is like the crumbs to hang on to. Wooppee do I say. In India the film underperformed. In US and UK the gross is substantial. But hey, the makers, Fox, Karan and what not promote it as a “truly” global film and first of its kind so even the overseas returns could have been way better.
Most importantly film just did not trend well. Biggest clue to its so called success.
May 12, 2010 at 9:39 AM
But it is precisely Johar who keeps acting as if the US IS the world. Where have his last three films been set? KHNH, KANK, MNIK? The Poland/Germany point is the ‘defensive’ one to make when one cannot make a comparable splash in the US. Note how he says in his current interview that MNIK made more than 3I in the UK. Why didn’t he also admit it made 2.5 m less than than film in the US?! But again it is Johar himself who’s made the US ‘the world’. For Johar it is precisely ‘the world’ even before India!
May 12, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Huh!!
I thought we were talking about people’s reaction.
Can’t say about the other films, but the setting of this film there does have a reason – and not a very flattering one.
May 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM
On a serious note, there was an opportunity here and a potentially good film to be made on the subject as the discrimination is very real. But, KJO dispelled any doubts that one might have had that he is certainly not the person to make that film.
May 12, 2010 at 11:07 AM
Housefull is a successful film which cant be compared to MNIK.
May 12, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Thanks, Sunil. This post desparately needs some comedy.
May 12, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Am not implying that Housefull is funny. But, the notion that it is successful is certainly certainly comic.
May 12, 2010 at 5:51 PM
Keep em coming Sunil. Akshay is making a great habit of getting hits over the first weekend and flops from there on.
May 12, 2010 at 9:29 AM
Re: “Who is that guy? He looks like Sinbad”
Thats actually damn funny. I am a Hrithik fan but am not liking his get up in Kites. And he suddenly seems to have developed an attitude and seems to be laboring under a misconception that with this seemingly cheesy movie he has made some kind of a cross cultural master piece.
May 12, 2010 at 11:15 AM
haha,yes housefull is flop.
May 12, 2010 at 10:06 AM
Oldgold,
The feeling of discrimination and victimhood is real.Am not denying it. And as I said above there was a good film to be made on the subject. New York for all its faults was a far more worthwhile effort.
MNIK was certainly not a sensible attempt in any way.
I have nothing agaiinst crossdressers. But, if one made a film showing crossdressers as victims and eventually heroes, it will do well in all crossdressing pockets of the world including the most remote ones. And am in no way equating Muslims with crossdressers. Just making a point that romanticising a certain notion and finding acceptance amongst those who share the notion is not an evidence of the quality of the effort or overall accpetance or the appeal of the star vehicle.
May 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM
We can agree to disagree on this topic.
There is too much of ‘labelling’ in your post and that does not go well with me.
IIRC you haven’t seen this film, so how would you know how the film addressed this subject?
I got no sense of any portrayal of victimhood as such from the film. Prejudice was more like it – from both sides, very well explained when SRK insisted upon praying in public because it was his time to, while another couple felt reluctant because they felt it wasn’t the place – Result? Nothing happened to SRK. He prayed – and moved on.
He wasn’t prejudiced as the couple was.
May 12, 2010 at 10:10 AM
On MNIK, let’s be clear.. it’s done best in those parts of the world where there is a certain religious majority! In India the same minority wasn’t enough to prevent a total collapse of the film. But I think there’s something more here. My own sense is that the film really speaks best to a certain sense of grievance that many Muslim communities feel around the world. This is justified to a certain extent but also very easily bleeds over into a persecution complex where it is always the ‘other’ that is responsible for one’s predicament. Leaving aside the bad faith representations of the film (CA seems like Nazi Germany in the 30s after 9/11.. with Muslim stores being attacked and people being kicked out of their stores and what not.. certain incidents did happen but not in the ‘common’ way depicted in the film.. and this is too ‘serious’ a subject to take these kinds of liberties with it..) this film really reflects the anxieties and self-sympathizing stance of the ‘defeated’ (I don’t mean this in an insulting sense but purely descriptively.. nor is such a ‘complex’ limited to only this religious community.. there are other groups with similar tendencies.. precisely because it is a common human reaction in certain circumstances.. but this current subject deals with this community). The ‘Muslim’ is never really responsible for anything in MNIK. Who could disagree with SRK’s humanistic stance? But what the film refuses to have a conversation about is that those ‘non-autistic’ types who repeatedly commit terrorist acts around the world attacking not just the ‘West’ but first and foremost other Muslims (consider Pakistan where weekly there are bomb attacks somewhere or the other, sometimes multiple ones). MNIK though has everything happening ‘to’ the Muslim after an abstraction (this is how 9/11 is presented in the film). Including the child’s death which was incredibly gratuitous. By having the Obama-like figure at the end it confirms the ‘Bush-Cheney Nazi Germany-like US paradigm. Not that I’m a fan of the latter by any means but as someone who lived through that era and who knew of course many others who also did the representation of MNIK strikes not just a false tone but frankly a ridiculous one (and I am certainly not unaware of some of the incidents or excesses that took place in places around the US). Incidentally I personally think the film does not speak to the Indian Muslim quite the way it does to Muslims in Pakistan or the Mideast and so on. Because the grievances that this community often has in India is vis-a-vis the Indian state and less likely to be ‘globalized’. Whereas this is precisely what happens in some of these others countries where people consider themselves victims of their respective states to some extent but ultimately much greater ones of an American global order. It is not at all coincidental that India has a democracy and none of these other countries do. I am hardly naive about the excesses of the Indian state in these matters or the fraught nature of majority-minority relations in India (even here blame cannot be affixed only in one direction) but that is a problem of a different nature (for the most part). Again MNIK speaks best to people who consider themselves ‘casualties of history’ (no nation is a permanent one but if that is the state of affairs that prevails in one’s lifetime it might as well be so!) and who essentially consider themselves ‘passive agents’ who are always at the receiving end from colonial powers. There is of course the history of the latter in all of these countries but note how especially in non-democratic states this feeling of passivity and powerlessness is enhanced. MNIK in the final analysis never holds the Muslim responsible for anything at all. 9/11 might well have been a meteor out of the sky! Again I am not at all denying ‘Western’ responsibility, I have said so much on all of this before much as I have critiqued the Indian state so often. But there has to be a certain conversation on the other side as well. At least MNIK does not provide any hint of such a conversation.
May 12, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Incidentally as everyone knows I didn’t mind the film all that much as pure narrative. Certainly Johar’s heart is in the right place. I am just referring to the overall political set of issues here.
May 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM
KJo comes across as a desperate fella – he knows that he hasn’t exactly a very good film on hand but can’t resist to project his film as one having a global appeal …
May 12, 2010 at 10:26 AM
You are prejudiced – with all this talk of **knowing who the film caters to**.
May 12, 2010 at 10:31 AM
really? consider where the film is breaking these ‘records’? I’m not saying it. Johar and some of the SRK fans are. They’ve come up with these numbers and reports. In 99% of the cases these are Muslim majority countries.
I don’t mean anything judgmental in any case. It’s like certain films cater to the multiplexes, certain to Northern interiors so on and so forth. Nor am I being judgmental with respect to everything I said above. Again it’s meant to be descriptive. I’m sure SL Tamilians suffer from similar complexes but this film does not deal with that issue. I tend not to have any permanent loyalties when it comes to national, ethnic, religious groupings and so on. So for example I have been in many arguments about Gujarat with many on the right. On the other hand I found Firaaq appalling for its representation of the majority in Gujarat. It’s all about the contexts involved. Precisely because I refuse to read anything ‘essential’ into one set of humans versus another. Certain historical complexes can be determinative for a certain period of time. This is all that I’m referring to with MNIK. Not because I otherwise have an issue with any one community or another.
May 12, 2010 at 10:45 AM
This is an extremely well-argued point, Satyam.
May 12, 2010 at 10:59 AM
thanks GF..
May 12, 2010 at 10:47 AM
Satyam – what a superb , well articulated comment- you made my day !!
PS-don’t forget to include this comment in your upcoming book !! LOL!!!
May 12, 2010 at 10:59 AM
thanks Rocky.. you’re always TOO kind..
May 15, 2010 at 2:33 AM
Powerfully argued, and despite my weakness for SRK who is for the most bang-on here, Johar’s sincerity doesn’t translate in to his vision and he is beyond his realm as a director in a territory he is clearly not comfortable in. Getting excited over Bhansali’s BLACK and “pretending” to know meaningful cinema is what Johar is doing here. He feels forced to conform to another level and rely on his productions like I HATE LUV STORIES and DOSTANA 2 to do the “fluff” and get hits. His experiments like KANK is only half met here. A break-up from Farha Khan and Karan Johar will do SRK more good than harm.
A.Shah
May 17, 2010 at 6:55 AM
This is an excellent comment. (I haven’t seen the film yet, but having a reasonably good idea about the film, found this comment very lucid.)
May 17, 2010 at 7:12 AM
thanks much Zero..
May 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM
What is fascinating is — despite the fact that this generation is so steeped in american global pop culture, has traveled there so often, and in many cases has even studied there — that B’wood’s depictions of the USA are so “off.” It isn’t about good/bad/positive/negative, it just seems really “off.” No less “off” than India in “Octopussy”. Apparently, decades of globalization and cross-cultural exchange and commercial interactions haven’t made an iota of difference…
May 12, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Q,
Good point but as you rightly pointed out with ‘Octopussy’ exapmle, we do not have a monopoly on this kind of ‘off’ depictions. And it comes from looking at ‘foriegn’ culture with the eyes you have been trained to look with. Years of living here, often doesnt change it. Let alone brief visits.
Some of it comes from a desire and a calculated attempt to profit from and cater to these long held misconceptions. Westerners are easily charmed by the depiction of India as a country of snake charmers and elephants and Indians at home revel in the typecasted depictions of the ‘White people’ as prejudiced and dismissive of Asians.
May 12, 2010 at 11:21 AM
tThanks, true: I added a more fleshed out version of my comment on my blog: http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-happens-in-minneapolis-when-youre.html
May 12, 2010 at 10:49 AM
Q- when they actually get it a little bit right, it is so alien to Indian culture that it sucks- prime example- Pyar Impossible !!
May 12, 2010 at 11:22 AM
I didn’t even bother seeing that film! It takes a lot for me to watch a YRF film these days!
May 12, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Wow, aaj suraj paschim se nikla hai!
“On MNIK, let’s be clear.. it’s done best in those parts of the world where there is a certain religious majority! In India the same minority wasn’t enough to prevent a total collapse of the film…..”
“This is justified to a certain extent but also very easily bleeds over into a persecution complex where it is always the ‘other’ that is responsible for one’s predicament. Leaving aside the bad faith representations of the film, this film really reflects the anxieties and self-sympathizing stance of the ‘defeated’ The ‘Muslim’ is never really responsible for anything in MNIK….the film refuses to have a conversation about is that those ‘non-autistic’ types who repeatedly commit terrorist acts around the world attacking not just the ‘West’ but first and foremost other Muslims”
Satyam, Im glad that you finally came around to reality. Back then, these points of mine were being shot down.
The persecution complex is real. Unfortunately, those who are ignorant of reality (esp those living in the autocratic societies of the middle-east, pakistan,etc) are made to toe the line of there being a US-Israel-India nexus in anything and everything. For them, the TTP is an organization enabled by RAW-Mossad. 9/11 was a CIA-Mossad joint-venture. Faizal Shahzad was brainwashed by the Indian Ulema wing of RAW. That Ft Hood dude was brainwashed by the Ulema wing of Mossad. etc etc etc.
When people start bellieving the unbelievable, the self-sympathy automatically creeps in, and no blame is given to the actions of co-religionsists.
The same thinking does exist in the Indian Rightwing. That idiot Sadhvi Pragya, and colonel who planted the bombs in Maharashtra are being made out to be a Congress creation. Obviously, the burden of proof becomes too big for people to swallow. Im am only glad that a democratic secular and progressive India has enough educated people with good judgement to not fall for these traps. Every year that we get more educated and open, we also rid ourselves of these ignorant ‘self-sympathies’. Unfortunately, Bwood thrives on these themes and is ready to exploit them at the drop of a hat.
May 12, 2010 at 11:20 AM
yes but remember one of my big points of contention with you was on the Indian returns. The film did not work here. Also in the US the film opened very big like all SRK films but did not sustain as well as it might have. But I do concede part of your original point.
May 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM
But I did certainly underestimate this sort of appeal on MNIK’s part, certainly before release. After watching the film and subsequently reflecting on it the resonance it has for Muslims makes sense.
May 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM
I haven’t seen My Name is Khan, but agree with satyam’s wider points (which, IMO, cannot be reduced to some sort of “right wing” or “left wing” frame; to try and do so in fact misses the nuance here) — I also agree that — based on my anecdotal experience with friends and relatives — My Name is Khan does IMO have greater appeal to the “global citizen” than to the “India-bound” Muslim…
May 12, 2010 at 8:36 PM
“I haven’t seen My Name is Khan”
“It takes a lot for me to watch a YRF film these days!”
You are becoming abnormal
May 12, 2010 at 9:24 PM
Surely, you meant MORE abnormal.
May 12, 2010 at 11:34 AM
While doing a research to find some reviews of mnik I read that it has been released only in 2 cinema halls, one of them Angel something. I was quickly skimming over pages, and lost this one so can’t give the link.
This reviewer is some bufoon/clown;
Check out his statements.
-a professorial looking Jewish man, with the unkempt look that only the extremely wealthy business owner can afford,
How prejudiced and busy stereotyping.
one African-American corporate sort (blackberry being the clue)
ditto
an his African-American actress girlfriend (the iPhone and red shoes being the clue)
ditto
and a frail Japanese lady who brought some sort of milk drink and that deceptive shyness hiding perhaps a world famous fashion designer or cellist, or both.
ditto
May 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM
Angelika in NY is one of the most prestigious art house theaters in the world.. of course they started diversifying into cities like Houston years ago resulting in diminished prestige. or such is my own reasoning!
May 12, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Angelika is undoubtedly the premier “must exhibit” theatre for the Art movie. As the reviewer above says the patrons know their Almodovar, Woody Allen, Wong Kar Wai, Jacques Audiard,..
Hence my comment on the ‘gutsiness’ (or “suspension of reality” as Rajen puts it) of KJo to release this movie in Angelika.
May 12, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Why all this angst about MNIK? Bottom line is it was not liked in India and by the general population in the US.
KJO’s attempt fell way short because of his obvious lack of knowledge about the US and its people. He should have based the movie in India which would have been more courageous IMO.
May 12, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Re: “He should have based the movie in India which would have been more courageous IMO.”
agree with this — although I also believe it was not any cowardice on Johar’s part that he set it outside India, but simply because he (thinks he) knows that world, and certainly is more comfortable in that setting. Perhaps commercial considerations (international markets) etc. played a part, but I do believe he was sincere — i.e. he sincerely makes films for “NRIstan” and that is the cinematic world he is more comfortable in.
But yes Tyler — given the salience of these issues to Indian society (perhaps more than to ANY other society, given that India is the only country in the world with such a large number of Muslims AND that is nevertheless a minority AND given the commonplace acts of terror as well as issues of communal prejudice, social disadvantage/bigotry, that is routinely discussed every day, why the hell shouldn’t the film be set there? Filmmakers as diverse as Govind Nihalani, Raj Kumar Santoshi; even smallish films like Aamir and Wednesday, have touched upon these themes in recent years.
May 12, 2010 at 3:31 PM
I don’t speak with Salman: SRK
May 12, 2010 at 11:13 PM
SRK’S sense of humour is irritating for me. Bigger than bradpitt mantras from media even worsens the situation.Why media is overhyping this man….even in india he got no chance aginst guys like sachin & rehman..
In Bollywood also , IMO aamir is more respected than him
May 13, 2010 at 3:09 PM
Rooney, that interview you were trying to post is already here..
May 12, 2010 at 5:46 PM
“You were missing in action most of 2009, but 2010 seems to be the year of ‘Khan’…
We have to give other actors a chance. So I thought, let people make hay while the sun is away. I’m just kidding.”
This answer summarises what is special and also what is absolutely irritating to me about SRK….
May 12, 2010 at 5:59 PM
“Faizal Shahzad was brainwashed by the Indian Ulema wing of RAW.”-nykavi –thats one of the most astounding statements i have heard recently…
where have u procured such “gems”, by the way…
or are they “purely anecodotal”?
May 12, 2010 at 8:06 PM
Alex, this is in all sorts of sites/blogs such as these:
http://www.defence.pk
http://www.pakistanthinktank.org
etc
An example of a regular comment out there:
“US is fully aware by Indian Terrorist Activities into Pakistan. But they keep quite over that since. India supported and supporting Afghan Taliban with lots of $$$, weapons and other things. Just to do as much as terror they can make into different part of Pakistan.
But whole world and their media keep quite over it. US got only 1 9/11, but Pakistan getting such situation almost every day. Nobody care for it.
Un other words, US building India as a strong power against Pakistan & China. Because US never shown so much interesting to India than before. One more thing that I should add here that, Pak media is so coward so coward to show the real face of India to world.
Just look at Huge Indian Media always propaganda against Pakistan. Even they using so bad words against Pak. But Pakistani Media is always busy to show Bollywood Movies, Talk Show, Drama`s, Celebrities, IPL, ICL etc. . . .”
May 13, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Thanks for the “links” nykavi.
thes links from pakstan defence and pakistan think tank giving claims about RAW like “Faizal Shahzad was brainwashed by the Indian Ulema wing of RAW.”-is quite understandable and expected.
I was expecting a more unbiased source of these links.
However, I am NOT for a moment suggesting that RAW may be “doodh ka dhula”-that is what
these agencies are there for. but there is a line even they cannot/ should not cross.
according to much more credible and diverse sources than the ones furnished (pakistanthinktank), ISI may have crossed that limit(s).
on a related note, there is news of chinee company Huawel whose dirt-cheap modems are being used in the UK and usa are indulging in hardcore espionage of indian targets.
and our dear jairam “foot-in -the-moth-ramesh” again repeated the “shashi-tharoor” syndrome vis-a-vis china.
I have personally felt that india is over estimating the “danger” from the north-west and underestimating the one from the “northern dragon”.
“But Pakistani Media is always busy to show Bollywood Movies, Talk Show, Drama`s, Celebrities, IPL, ICL etc. . . .”-agree there nykavi–partly that is bcos the fact is that there is more in common with the socio-cultural ethos between pak and parts of india than within india itself.
May 12, 2010 at 6:32 PM
“The day I saw it, the motley crowd in front of me had a…d, one African-American corporate sort (blackberry being the clue) and his African-American actress girlfriend (the iPhone and red shoes being the clue) ….This was not a special screening for a multicultural melting pot….. demographic the new Bollywood wants to go after.”
“when Mr Khan said he would walk to tell the President that he was not a terrorist, a moment clearly intended to be poignant, the Jewish man started laughing.”-haha
i, for one, really enjoyed this write-up.
no doubt, kjo failed in his “coming of age” endeavour but the writer of this piece surely has talent not only in writing a good pasage but also in “setting up” a scene. he should try his had in writing good screenplays and scripts.
whilst i am not suggesting that he ha cooked up” this story, he certainly has added a flavour there and a nuance there to “complete the picture”. the mention of blackberry and ” red” iphone placed strategically has been done strategically.
May 12, 2010 at 6:52 PM
Political INCORRECTNESS alert….
“Is this a review or a set of racist remarkes??”
agree rajeev, but only partly…
With all due respect, the word “racist” is being used nowadays at the drop of a hat, including by yours-truly—–on self-analysis.
esp while one is living in a purely “alien” usa-uk-europe surroundings ( not a ghettoised neighbourhood).
“racist/m” has wrongly become an all-encompassing term nowadays which gets far-reaching connotations beyond its intended use…
For eg, when i suggested that my few greek friends, are all v lazy–was i actually being racist. well, i said it more as a naughy rebuttal to their daily demands/ dependance on a siesta…. I seemes to also cunnngly, naughtily suggest a correlation of this particular cultural characteritic to their current financial mess (which infact maybe unrelated).
another eg–I, personally, dont know many (actually none) caribbean guys who are NOT laid -back, non-ambitious and goal-driven.
i have always envied that they live a v healthy, stress-free life..
Similarly, if one has lived in london or new york for some time, u can predict few (not all) things just by knowing their background.
I and a few friends had made this a harmless sort of hobby for idle talk.. anecdotal trends confirmed certain “trends”-the exact correlations found may be too politically incorrect to mention here but were harmless nonetheless and wiht no malice.
Now, this has LESS to do with RACE and MORE with the socio-cultural-political dynamics of ones background and exposures.
But again, on self-analysis—feel that these things are not that straight-forwardly simple and one can not just do this as idle-talk, not because of wrong intentions but bcos of the potential for misinterpretation…..
May 12, 2010 at 7:01 PM
“I have nothing agaiinst crossdressers. But, if one made a film showing crossdressers as victims and eventually heroes, it will do well in all crossdressing pockets of the world including the most remote ones. And am in no way equating Muslims with crossdressers.” hahaha -that was a wonderful square -drive….
“given the salience of these issues to Indian society (perhaps more than to ANY other society, given that India is the only country in the world with such a large number of Muslims AND that is nevertheless a minority AND given the commonplace acts of terror as well as issues of communal prejudice, social disadvantage/bigotry, that is routinely discussed every day, why the hell shouldn’t the film be set there? “agree qalander- but then kjo in an indian setting will be a bit like asking david dhawan to direct the 3rd part of sarkar series (although NOT to the same extent..)
May 13, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Re: “but then kjo in an indian setting will be a bit like asking david dhawan to direct the 3rd part of sarkar series”
LOL, this is hilarious…
May 12, 2010 at 7:15 PM
:These were people fluent in their Almodovar, Woody Allen, Wong Kar Wai, Jacques Audiard and could debate the finer nuances of “Amelie” or new German cinema. So they assumed what they were about to watch was somewhere between “Bend it like Beckham” and “Persepolis”.
First, they were given a trailer for “Kites”, the next Bollywood offering to the world. “Who is that guy? He looks like Sinbad”, asked the Jewish man of another megastar Hrithik Roshan as he bounced around deserts in New Mexico.”
If these diverseviewers were highly intelligent encuclopedias of world cinema (esp east european and iranian) –then they certainlly derve to be catered carefully.
but dont like this suggestion that just because they happen to be non-asian, non-traditional (new) patrons of bollywood movies, thay are already on a high pedestal allowed to look down upon the “bouncing around the desert- sinbad”.
I dont think there is anything wrong in being assuredly quietly confident. the key howver , fr bollywood, if it were to “cross-over” is ti give something authentically indian, exceptional product technically (NOT necessarily high on special effects or 3d etc) and high on concept.
lagaan was one such film. although not exactly, but aamirs upcoming peepli live is another one up the same street (Not to the same extent).
MNIK is definitely not…
May 12, 2010 at 7:51 PM
on a related (but somewhat different note), this got published in “times of india”–
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US/Pakistanis-are-posing-as-Indians-to-escape-discrimination/articleshow/5907956.cms.
sure will provoke interesting comments…
May 12, 2010 at 8:03 PM
just to add-the above link(s) were sent just as an analytical piece and not with an aim to incite trouble or belittle any particular background(s).
—disclaimer—-
not like srk says in most of his “well-meaning ” jokes/pot-shots at aamir etc -haha
May 14, 2010 at 2:32 PM
Bollywood Does America
My Name is Khan … and I am Not a Terrorist!
By CHARLES R. LARSON
I missed this important Bollywood movie when it was released commercially in the United States in a PG-13 version in February. Unfortunately, it didn’t stay around long enough for many people to see it. Fox Searchlight, the American distributor, must have believed they had another Slumdog Millionaire, but the movie failed with American viewers no doubt because of its depiction of racism in the United States in the aftermath of 9/11—especially, the violent acts against Muslims or perceived Muslims by mainstream Americans. Too bad, because My Name Is Khan is every bit as uplifting as Slumdog, but Americans have never been good at trying to understand their racism.
The film is flawed, yes, because it attempts to do too much, but its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses—notably its unflinching look at America through non-Western eyes and the quite dazzling acting by Shah Rukh Khan, a huge Bollywood attraction, who many people have thought is not much of an actor. In My Name Is Khan, he plays a man with Aspergers Syndrome, and the result is more than convincing, major acting by any standards. If this were an American film, he’d be up for an Academy Award next year, but that’s not likely to happen because, well, again our ethnocentrism.
My knowledge of Aspergers Syndrome is too limited to know if all of Khan’s mannerisms (never looking anyone in the face, difficulty controlling his extremities, repeating phrases ad nauseum, avoiding physical contact with others) are authentic, but Khan, the actor, is so convincing that my wife assumed that the film was not fiction but the documentary account of a real person suffering from Aspergers’. Shah Rukh Khan has two or three incredible scenes in the film when you’ll find it difficult not to be all choked up. And the rest of the time he is so believable that he clearly steals the entire movie, becoming in the process a soul brother of Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump (there are other similarities between the movies also—especially their scope.)
Putting events in chronological order, there’s a scene when Rizvan Khan (six or seven years old), his mother, and his older brother witness an attack on Muslims, in a retaliation riot by Hindus. Rizvan’s mother tells him that there are only two kinds of people in the world—not Hindus and Muslims—but good and bad. Some years later, the young boy’s older brother leaves for America, and after the passage of additional years when Rizvan is an adult, he too goes to the United States because his mother has died. Rizvan begins selling beauty products for his brother, who has become a successful entrepreneur.
One day, Rizvan meets a young Indian woman, a Hindu named Mandira, who is divorced and has an eight-year-old son named Sam. Their courtship is complicated but eventually they marry (to the consternation of Rizvan’s older brother who henceforth has nothing to do with him because he’s married a Hindu). Eventually, Rizvan closely bonds to Mandira’s son. Then 9/11. In the ugly aftermath, Sam is killed by young schoolboys because of his last name: Khan. The marriage abruptly ends because of the boy’s death, but Rizvan leaves on a quest because in her anger Mandira screams at him to tell the President of the United States that just because someone has the name Khan, that person is not a terrorist.
Thus begins Khan’s quest to meet with President Bush, a search somewhat like Forrest Gump’s trek across the United States. Khan knows that he can’t simply show up at the White House and expect to be admitted for a meeting with George Bush so, instead, he tracks the President’s speaking engagements throughout the country and prays that he’ll gain admission to one of them and deliver the message—not only that he himself is not a terrorist but that his son was murdered because of the name “Khan.” There are a number of ugly incidents that follow because of the search but, also, a final love affair with America.
What is so memorable about My Name Is Khan is not simply director Karan Johar and his co-author Shibani Bathija’s decision to make a Bollywood movie set mostly in the United States but the choices of the settings. There’s a tense scene after Khan first arrives in the United States, in San Francisco, when he’s paralyzed by an approaching trolley because the grids on the pedestrian crossing are painted with yellow stripes and the trolley is also yellow, a color we have learned earlier that terrifies Khan. There he is trapped between yellow stripes as the trolley heads directly towards him. The scene is one of many tense, but humorous scenes in a movie that veers seamlessly back and forth from the tragic to the comic.
Another powerful incident comes at the end of Khan’s bonding with another boy, after Sam’s death. He carries a black boy home to his family after the child is injured and subsequently stays with the family in Georgia for some time as a sense of mutual respect develops between the two. At the end of this interlude, Khan stands up in the boy’s church and narrates the story of his life, including the loss of Sam and his wife, Mandira. It is one of several powerful moments when Khan—often inarticulate—discovers his voice.
How can you see My Name Is Khan? A week ago, the film was re-released in New York City in an unrated version called “The International Director’s Cut.” You might also go to an Indian grocery store and purchase or rent the film. The only trouble with the imported DVD is that not all of the dialogue has been translated into subtitles. Or you can wait a little longer until the American DVD is released, presumably with all the spoken lines in the subtitles. But don’t miss this Bollywood take on America—with a fabulous soundtrack–or you’ll miss one of the great roles of recent cinema: Shah Rukh Khan as Rizvan Khan.
My Name Is Khan
Fox Searchlight: Directed by Karan Johar
With Shah Rukh Khan and Kajol Devgan
Charles R. Larson is Professor of Literature at American University, in Washington, D.C.
May 14, 2010 at 2:36 PM
President Bush?!
Thanks for posting this here…
May 14, 2010 at 3:25 PM
And no cringing?
I’m glad to read an American’s POV. He has written things which I hesitated to express.
Regarding his comment about not knowing what the syndrome symptoms are, I have read several comments from Asper syndrome associations where they have praised the portrayal and have felt related to it.
SRK for Oscars!!
Would have loved that.
May 14, 2010 at 3:27 PM
“He has written things which I hesitated to express.”
why did you hesitate?
May 14, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Well, firstly, if I had been as profuse in praising the film and especially SRK I would have been much much more of a laughing stock here as SRK fan than normally one is.
I would certainly have been mocked and run out of the blog if I had so much as hinted at an oscar for SRK.
Secondly, it is best for remarks like the following to come from where it came from.
>but Americans have never been good at trying to understand their racism.
>he’d be up for an Academy Award next year, but that’s not likely to happen because, well, again our ethnocentrism.
May 14, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Yeesh, sorry you have such a low opinion of us!
May 14, 2010 at 4:08 PM
I’m sorry you feel that way.. I think that irrespective of the views that some of us on SRK have this shouldn’t prevent you from articulating yours. You can still do so if you like, I’ll put it up separately as a post..
As for becoming a laughing stock never buckle down for this reason.. believe me I have been a laughing stock and have also faced a great deal of abuse in the past defending certain sets of choices.. so I know! Hopefully no one’s been uncivil to you here. At any rate you shouldn’t prevent yourself from saying whatever you want to. Alright, I’ll make a solemn pledge to go easy on you whenever you say something about SRK!
May 14, 2010 at 3:46 PM
I hate this guy – pretentious snot. I took a few classes with him and he has major issues. His students disliked him immensely. He likes to pretend he is very cultured – nose in the air.
May 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM
>President Bush?!
IIRC when he started on his journey it was Bush. By the time he reaches it was Obama.
May 14, 2010 at 3:29 PM
didn’t remember this..
May 14, 2010 at 4:10 PM
@GF
>Yeesh, sorry you have such a low opinion of us!
Truth hurts?
No. This opinion is only regarding the reactions to SRK.
May 14, 2010 at 4:27 PM
Not hurt in the least. I know you’re kidding, but I don’t think there’s a lot of “truth” to what you’re saying because if you expressed yourself as others have you might be made fun of, sure, but you also might open up a dialogue and invite others to share their opinion in a way that’s not necessarily pejorative. I know you have fairly strong opinions with regard to the American ability to be inclusive and open to other viewpoints, but I can assure we’re not all that bad!
Anyway, it’s your prerogative. You don’t have to do anything at all, but I wouldn’t mind reading your thoughts on MNIK or anything else, and I just don’t think it’s fair to be backhanded about these things without actually giving it a real shot.
May 15, 2010 at 9:24 AM
kjo in phoonk3
http://movies.indiatimes.com/news-gossip/gossip/Phoonk-3-starring-KJo-and-crow/articleshow/5930777.cms
May 16, 2010 at 4:30 AM
Just MNIK all over again
“I know I went to see MNIK for the second time at my own risk. Johar had promised us an improved, slicker film, but I have to sadly report that despite the shorter length, the new version is still sluggish and heavy handed. It is certainly not cleaner and significantly better than the original film that I saw at the Berlin Film Festival.”
May 16, 2010 at 8:16 AM
I’m not surprised by the writer’s impressions. Can’t say I sympathize with him for falling for the idea that the shorter cut would be significantly better.
May 25, 2010 at 8:26 AM
i have sympathy for this satyam ghost for admitting him in mental asylum for his anti SRK and Anti Bollywood stance.This negativity of his towatds bollywood has taken toll in his health.Poor guy.
May 25, 2010 at 9:16 AM
If Bollywood is the norm I prefer madness..
May 26, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Munna:
My Name Is Khan to be telecast across DTH platforms in India