The Kingdom of Khan (Open Magazine)
thanks to Iamthat..
LINK
Before the release of 3 Idiots, Aamir Khan came up with an unusual marketing gimmick. Since the movie was built around two friends searching for his character Rancho, Aamir would lose himself in different parts of India, and leave fans guessing where he could be. On one such trip, he announced he was off to see his mother. But instead of going to Pune, where she now lives, he went to Banaras, in search of her ancestral house. He didn’t know her maiden name. “All I knew was that the house was in a locality called Telia Nala, and the name of the house was Khwaja Manzil,” he says.
Aamir had disguised himself as an old man and had little hope of finding the house. He went to a teashop and asked for help. Suddenly, there was what he calls an entire ‘paltan’ on his side. “Somehow, in that locality, people were very helpful. They took me to all the old people; they were probably thinking ‘Inki ammi yahaan dus saal ki umar mein rehti thhin, toh bahut pehle ki baat hai (His mother lived here when she was ten—that’s a long time ago).’ I was taken to Banney miyan and Nawabsahib, who must have been 89 or so,” he says.
His mother was also on the mobile phone giving him directions. “I told her I’m in your mohalla. So she said ‘Go to the Shia masjid’.” Thrice did she guide him like this, but he couldn’t find the house. Aamir remembered her telling him that when they moved out, the house had been sold to a Sikh family. “So I asked, ‘Yahan koi Sardarji rehte hain? (Does a Sikh live here?)’ They said ‘yes’. It’s a Muslim mohalla. Only one Sardar family lives there. They took me to the house.”
Had Aamir revealed his identity, he could perhaps have enjoyed the hospitality of the current owners. A lady in the house said her husband wasn’t at home, and she looked unsettled by the sight of a strange old man with buckteeth at her doorstep. “Had I revealed who I was, she would probably have welcomed me. I just told her I wanted to see it because my mother lived here.” And then Aamir Khan quietly left.
More than a year later, while he narrates this experience, Aamir forgets the names of both the locality and house. He calls up his mother in the middle of the interview. “Ammi, main Khan bol raha hoon,” he says. Brought up in an Urdu-speaking household, his tongue sharply distinguishes the ‘kh’ of khana from the ‘kh’ of Khan. Mohammed Aamir Hussain Khan is the son of Mohammed Tahir Hussain Khan. While his father decided to shorten his name to just Tahir Hussain when he entered the film industry, his son decided to call himself Aamir Khan. “Aamir Khan felt better, sounded better,” he says.
for more follow the link..
January 27, 2011 at 5:14 PM
this is the sort of ‘communal’ framing I tend to dislike intensely. The name ‘Khan’ becomes entrenched in a kind of minority coding to group together stars who otherwise have nothing in common in terms of their images or acting styles or what have you.. nothing at all but their religious identities! The idea that this makes these stars part of a clan akin to the Gandhis pushes the limits of even the ridiculous.
I’d also dispute the notion that someone like Dilip Kumar wasn’t trying to become more ‘mainstream’ by choosing such a name. Rachel Dwyer’s point could be accepted if Yusuf Khan had chosen a different Muslim name to make that leap into ‘modernity’. But it is curious that while there are many Hindu actors of that period who went in for more ‘saleable’ names these did not involve changing that essential marker of religious identity whereas it did for Muslim stars. To make the equation that Muslim identity is just like ‘caste’ and both had to be effaced equally to build that bridge to ‘modernity’ is a hopeless crude and uninformed claim.
I would suggest a different formulation for the label ‘Khans’. Leaving aside the always ‘communal’ ring of this label there is another dynamic at work as well. It involves the attempt to set up another site for genuine stardom in the post-Bachchan (which is to say that which follows his peak period) age or to establish a ‘trio’ that could then compete the Bachchan signature. The shadow Bachchan cast has however been a very long one and persists to this day in all sorts of ways. Because that one ‘alternative’ couldn’t be plausibly offered the ‘Khans’ were invented. And like all histories there is something retrospective to this one. This narrative was really given currency after the late 90s much as SRK’s ‘baadshah’ label also came about and was pushed with greater ‘insistence’ after this period. I would also track it to SRK in a more limited sense. To the extent that SRK became increasingly challenged in the past decade this label allowed him to always be on the ‘winning’ side. ‘Hey if it’s not one Khan it’s the other’! Of course Aamir was not part of any such ‘sharing of the spoils’ through the 90s. Even Salman had a longer lean period in that decade but in any case no one was grouping them together barring the odd ‘Khans’ reference here and there. But again to enunciate a term like ‘Khans’ is to also say ‘Bachchan no longer’.
I have long suggested that there has been a great deal of Bachchan resistance for just about forever and Abhishek has been the beneficiary of this (that the resistance has been created because of him is a view that is again completely misinformed). I have pointed to many moments in this history, many examples in this archive but the ‘Khans’ label is just another symptom of this. It is communal coding for sure but also an attempt to deal with Bachchan’s legacy. What we have lived with over the last two decades is a kind of ‘chaos’, an ‘interregnum’ if you will. No plausible superstar since Bachchan (despite the propaganda of the media and those like Johar!) and hence this label comes in handy. And yes this framing has worked for SRK when Aamir has done better than him (for example) but the reverse has rarely been true if at all.
January 27, 2011 at 6:31 PM
I don’t understand this rant of yours, Satyam. It might have made sense in other contexts, but here, the article takes great pains to keep stressing that the number of Khans in the film industry is just a coincidence, albeit a curious one, and, further, that the mere sharing of a surname does not indicate any other commonalities, since Khans come from all flavors and varieties. It specifically says that “Khans” cannot be considered a dynasty, nor framed in communal terms. So why you went off the rails on those points is a mystery to me.
As for the “coincidence” of so many Khans, or so many from a particular geographical region (such as Dilip Kumar, Prithvi Raj Kapoor, or SRK’s father), surely that is not so surprising, is it? During the partition, many people from entire neighborhoods went to the other country, so it is not surprising that they would share a common origin. Actually what that bit about those three reminded me of was the current H1B phenomenon in the Silicon Valley in the U.S. Not only entire classes of IIT graduates, but people from the same hostels, and even the same wings of the same hostels, clan together once they are in the Silicon Valley. It is not at all unusual to find batchmates/classmates/hostelmates all working not just in the same industry, but in the same company. If people like Dilip Kumar and Prithviraj Kapoor were in show business in Pakistan, wouldn’t they naturally go into show business once they had emigrated to India?
The other thing I got from the article was that “Khan” as a surname is about as common as “Smith” in the anglophone countries of the west, so it is not a surprise to find a plentiful supply of them in whatever field of endeavor.
January 27, 2011 at 8:39 PM
actually the writer here stages it as a debate. right below the title you see this: “They have ruled Bollywood for as long as you can possibly remember. Plain coincidence? ” The rest of the piece then gets into various histories and then ends on the same “uncanny” note. My point is simple: if you really believe it’s a ‘coincidence’ there is utterly no need for such a piece! There is nothing to it! What the writer does here is play on the ‘Khans’ mythology, get into all the angles. Whether he accepts them or not is less important. He considers these ideas worthy of debate. I just don’t believe this is serious enough to even warrant such a piece. Much as if there were 10 Hollywood actors with the last name ‘Smith’ I would consider it an interesting coincidence and move. I wouldn’t start examining it from all angles! If this were the only piece on the subject I’d mind it less but it seems to me this feeds into a certain ‘communal’ framing that we’ve seen elsewhere and which has sometimes reared its head in ugly fashion. But even otherwise I have always argued that there is nothing to this media framing. It is not that people intend communalism but they fall prey to such a framing. And ‘Khans’ barring the religious deal does not make even minimal sense. And there is an important distinction here with something like ‘John Smith’ precisely because of these fraught ‘communal’ debates in India.
January 28, 2011 at 12:23 AM
Completely agreed.
“To make the equation that Muslim identity is just like ‘caste’ and both had to be effaced equally to build that bridge to ‘modernity’ is a hopeless crude and uninformed claim.”
Incidentally, I’ve always found the Khan title/surname odd as a marker of Muslim identity because generally Muslim names don’t have an essential caste-denoting surname or something to that effect. So I was looking for the origin of ‘Khan’ some time back, and found that, it indeed originated from Central Asia (Genghis Khan and so on) and came to be used by Muslims only later.
January 27, 2011 at 6:37 PM
One other point that struck me: While one can say Yusuf Khan changed his name to Dilip Kumar to be more acceptable to the audience of his day (though I don’t know how true that is, since there were other artists with recognizably Muslim names at that time, who were equally popular), do you think a name like Hari Om Bhatia would have been acceptable to the present generation of audience? I am curious about the reasons why he felt the need to change it to Akshay Kumar.
January 27, 2011 at 6:42 PM
Hari Om Bhatia would be a more befitting name for the star of AR and TMK!
Come one Be seriois, SM. Would you consider entering film industry with a name like Hari Om Bhatia ?? There is not much to a name unless of course it is something like Hari Om Bhatia!
I find it very believable that Dilip Kumar changed his name precisely because of insecurity regarding his lineage given how petty, insecure and phony he was or is.
January 27, 2011 at 6:46 PM
But then that would make it his (Dilip Kumar’s) personal choice, and not a reflection of societal mores.
It doesn’t explain why Ashok Kumar changed his name, though. Or, say, Chiranjeevi. I myself think all these people were searching for something that would be easy for the audience to remember, and thus make it easier to build up their brand equity.
January 27, 2011 at 6:49 PM
Possibly I am sure it is a prevalent thought to have a more mainstream name or a more star like. Tho I really am not fond of names with Kumar at the end.
Sometimes they are froced to change their name by people who give them films.
January 27, 2011 at 6:58 PM
In Hollywood, the rule used to be (and perhaps still is), that no two names in the Screen Actors Guild could be the same, so if someone else already had your name, then you had to change yours before you could join SAG and be on your way in your acting career.
In the Telugu industry of the 1950′s and 1960′s, the later person would add a “jr.” to his/her name, so that you had, for instance, Sree Ranjani and Sree Ranjani jr., and Kanchana and Kanchana jr. Interestingly, talking of coincidences, both Sree Ranjani’s, while versatile actresses, became typecast into noble, self-sacrificing, long-suffering women’s roles. OTOH, I can’t remember any men with the “jr.” tag; there used to be an actor called R. Nageswara Rao, who used the “R” to distinguish himself from A. Nageswara Rao, who was the bigger star, though they were both more or less contemporaries.
But nowadays you are right that the producers more often than not change the actors’ names to make them more sexy (in the case of heroines), or “powerful” (in the case of heroes).
January 27, 2011 at 8:46 PM
Given the atmosphere of post-partition India it is frankly disingenuous to claim that these things weren’t in the air. Entire sociological histories could be written about this. I know someone who used to be part of a studio in Madras in the 50s. This guy was a Muslim and even in this city which was hardly like the North he felt considerable pressures. You should check out a film called Garam Hawa.
January 27, 2011 at 8:43 PM
Devika Rani who launched him gave him a choice of three names — Vasudev, Jehangir and Dilip Kumar.
January 27, 2011 at 8:32 PM
I agree. I have never found the argument, that Yusuf Khan had to change to a Hindu name to be accepatble to the audience of his times, particularly persuasive. After all, Fatima Rashid took on a recognizably Muslim screen name – Nargis and still achieved tremendous success.
January 27, 2011 at 8:43 PM
I think his name is Rajiv Bhatia. As for the history what examples are there of male stars sticking to their original names before contemporary times in Bombay cinema? Among female stars there are a few examples though note how these things are often ‘gendered’ so that it is easier to appropriate the female diva within a much fetishized archive of the Muslim courtesan.
January 28, 2011 at 4:02 AM
The term’Kahn-dom’ ,i would like to say,has it’s origin from within media who starts hyping newcomers against the current league of superstar/to be more precise Amitabh. All in all,if viewed as a counter-term to ‘Bachchan -aura’,it falls flat….but if viewed as a term that symbolizes their supremacy in past 20 years or so,it holds its ground quite nicely.
Now Bachchan cannot be matched.But that does not mean that one cannot appreciate anyone after him. Yes,the term ‘Khan-dom’ might have a communal feel to it,but no one can deny,that it by and large makes people realise bollywood instantaneously,once uttered. One cannot deny,this term refers to a large chunk of happenings in bollywood during 90′a and 2000′s. Irrespective of Bachchan being there or not,the term has its significance. yeah,if viewed as an attempt to thwart bachchan,the term altogether has no meaning.
But more than being communal,it’s symbolic of bollywood for past 20 years!
January 27, 2011 at 5:56 PM
I think there is something to the article.
Unfortunately, one cannot raise this question, without raising communal hackles. I think it is largely a coincidence but indeed a somewhat mystifying coincedence. There are some ideological inconsistencies in the article
The irony is that the three Khans share nothing but the last name.
They are so different from one another and appeal to different sets of people. To club them together is an injustice to atleast two of them and an undeserved honor for one
January 27, 2011 at 6:14 PM
LOL on the last bit!
I think it is nothing more than coincidence. Evidently ‘Khans’ have done well whether they’ve had the ‘Khan’ name or not (Dilip Kumar?). And very many have not (Sanjay Khan, Feroz Khan was also nothing more than glorified B movie star for most of his career, and their poor ‘Khan’ star-kids!). And some have done ‘ok’ like Saif!
And of course the ‘Kumar’ name was also another ‘superstition’. so you had so many from Dilip to Rajendra to Raj to Manoj but suddenly the first superstar ever was a Khanna. The next one was a Bachchan! Dilip was himself part of a reigning trio with a Kapoor and Dev ‘Anand’.
January 28, 2011 at 2:33 AM
@rajen,
>> To club them together is an injustice to atleast two of them and an undeserved honor for one
Baaz nahi aavoge… jab b mauka mile chakka laga dete hoo
January 28, 2011 at 3:49 AM
Rajen…your last line is clearly a mark of a deep inflicted wound…a trauma to your belief once upon a time in the past when Bachchan started falling…the idiocy of the comment which you have presented in the garb of pathetic sarcasm is absolutely despicable. You know what- This all the more confirms my belief that SRk is a real star..
People like us inspite of being SRK-lovers,know who and what Amitabhji is and that no one can touch him. Still that makes SRK no less in his stature as he is now.
Sad,people like you who are Bachchan-Lovers,inspite of knowiing who is bachchan,are so vulnerable to your fears,your past traumas,that you yourself have no faith in his aura.
Between faith and doubt,doubt always wins…faith if present,remains there alone,doubt does not accompany it.
January 28, 2011 at 8:38 AM
G.One.. I think he [Rajen] seems to have hit the mark with that comment! Don’t you think that you are displaying the very anxiety or ‘doubt’ you’ve been arguing against?! In other words if you are secure about SRK why this kind of reaction?! But if you are only reacting to it because you find the remark very unfair and so on well Bachchan fans similarly ‘contest’ some pretty mad claims made by others in these contexts. Case closed!
January 28, 2011 at 3:53 AM
How about the esteemed and legendary title of ‘bachchan’ conferred upon a disappointment like abhishek….i think more than undeserved,that’s derogatory to the title of bachchan!!
January 28, 2011 at 5:42 AM
Rajen, please don’t usurp my position of being the **ridiculous one** here with regards to another star
January 28, 2011 at 6:33 AM
Gr8 bouncer oldgold,
now i dont know rajen is going to duck or hook it for anthr Six… i expect later as he is admirer of SRT
January 27, 2011 at 6:19 PM
What is surprising is this :
This year we will experience 4 unusual dates…1/1/11, 1/11/11, 11/1/11, & 11/11/11……
Now go figure this out…..take the last 2 digits of the year you were born plus the age you will be this year and it will equal 111……crazy!!
January 27, 2011 at 6:21 PM
remarkable indeed!
January 27, 2011 at 6:43 PM
What exactly is “crazy” about it?
I’m always curious why people are so ready to invest the behavior of numbers with mystic qualities, when these kind of phenomena are mere outcomes of basic mathematical and numerical principles.
Here’s another one: If you take the multiplication table for 9, the product of 9 with any number will always add up to 9. So, for instance, 9 x 2 = 18, 1+8 = 9; 9 x 11 = 99, 9+9 = 18, 1+8 = 9; or, taking a number at random, 9 x 129 = 1161, 1+1+6+1 = 9. Do you find that equally “crazy”?
Having said that, I must also add that Ramanujan, the great number theorist, said that all the integers have individual “personalities”, and that reflected in their numerical properties.
January 27, 2011 at 6:46 PM
SM,
Sometimes you can be so daft!
Crazy here does not mean really crazy. It means surprising. Does it have to be spelled out? And, now dont say – what is surprising about it!
Aap kabhi kabhi baal ki khal nikalte ho.
Sorry I am wrong Replace kabhi kabhi with hamesha.
January 27, 2011 at 6:51 PM
Sorry, I don’t understand the Hindi. I think it means I make you pull out your hair? Well, then, you can always ask Salman to recommend a good hair transplant surgeon.
Since you don’t want me to say “what is surprising”, I will just say, I am often dismayed by people’s readiness to assign occult meanings into any interesting natural phenomena, which prevents them from investigating said phenomena and thus increase their scientific knowledge. To me knowledge is always more wonderful, romantic, and blissful, than ignorance.
January 27, 2011 at 6:56 PM
It means splitting hair. Literally translated it means to skin a hair. Something, you have Masters degree in! Kiddin.
Tho the end result is certainly making me want to pull out my hair.
January 28, 2011 at 2:45 AM
@sm 4 you
Ramanujan’s Insights Yield a Startling Result
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/science/ramanujan-s-insights-yield-a-startling-result
January 27, 2011 at 8:11 PM
wow..This is cool!
January 27, 2011 at 6:25 PM
But, you are doing injustice to the original Khans. They may not have dome really prestigiuos movies other than Feroz’s Kurbaani but they were treated like royalty and were the first ones to bring Hollywood style chic to Bollywood. And, you are risking incurring GF’s wrath by belittling their progeny.
January 27, 2011 at 6:27 PM
LOL! true! I certainly enjoyed Feroz Khan’s antics on screen and yes they built up a certain reputation that was disproportionate to their accomplishments. Qurbani is certainly one of my all time favorite films.
January 27, 2011 at 7:23 PM
Re: you can always ask Salman to recommend a good hair transplant surgeon.
If I really had to ask Salman for something, I would ask for the following;
1 List of his girl friends – so that I can show them not all men are violent, abusive jerks
2 His gun – so that he doesnt kill members of threatened species for entertainment
3 His license – so that he doesnt run over innocent people
4 Name of his trainer – so that I can turn him over to the authorities for providing people with anabolic steroids and HGH
5. Name of the acting school he attended – so they can be tried for fraud
and after this post, I would ask him for the list of his fans, so that I can avoid them in the dark.
Am just kiddin.
January 27, 2011 at 7:46 PM
‘Am just kiddin’ – haha
January 27, 2011 at 7:59 PM
Was that really necessary rajen
January 27, 2011 at 8:05 PM
Not really, Naveed.
I actually like Salman tho he is unquestionably flawed
It is a little tongue -in- cheek
Actually thought of you when writing it as I knew it would upset you a little bit.Just having some fun with SM and at the same time catalouging Salman’s shortcoming for posterity.
Actually, the only thing I would ask of him is all the DVDs/BDs of Veer he has, so that he cannot unleash terrorism on mankind in future.
January 27, 2011 at 8:17 PM
No worries rajen. It takes more than that to upset me. lol
I just feel the Indian media write a lot of negative things on the guy to sell their papers etc. Are yaar aur bi star hai unko badnaam karo (just joking on the last part)
“Actually, the only thing I would ask of him is all the DVDs/BDs of Veer he has, so that he cannot unleash terrorism on mankind in future.”
LOL now that’s funny
January 27, 2011 at 11:20 PM
LOL! I couldn’t help chuckling loudly on reading your wish list – how true
January 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM
ROFLMAO – good one Rajen!
January 27, 2011 at 8:19 PM
Alex Adams – I don’t know whether you will catch my comment on a previous thread but I asked (if you don’t mind) where in England are you from.
I’m from Huddersfield myself.
January 28, 2011 at 12:22 AM
I have been reading Open magazine since they started off in mid-2009 as a fresh new voice in the overcrowded newsmagazine segment–and thankfully, the voice still remains fresh, the perspectives and takes still new. Open brings back fond memories of the now defunct Sunday magazine from the seventies and eighties–such a readable relevant weekly journal, always out with something unexpected–Sunday was the first to fearure Amitabh Bachchan in a cover story interview, post Bofors mess, when he finally broke his silence and media boycott.
In any case this latest issue of Open has a lot more besides the Khan cover story; equally interesting and informative, esp this interview with Aamir, about his personal family details, roots, about connecting with the audience whethert you are a Khan or a Khanna…. all.
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/art-culture/my-name-is-mohammed-aamir-hussain-khan
Also interesting–Javed Akhtar’s take on the dispute between lyricists and film producers, including the unofficial ban against him. Link is there in the site, right below the Khan story and the Aamir interview.
January 28, 2011 at 7:22 AM
Something offtopic..
Yesterday I watched the film which is widely regarded as an all time classic – PULP FICTION.
Okay, so this was very well directed, had some very smart dialogue in certain portions.. but what was the deal all about?
is it just me… or I found this film soulless.. seemed to me like a film without a purpose..
what was Tarantino trying to convey.. – that there’s no Good or Bad.. Only Power! or something other than this that I was simply not able to get..
Help me out please!
January 28, 2011 at 9:50 AM
OT,
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=hub050211THEMUMMIFICATION.asp
January 28, 2011 at 1:53 PM
Very interesting debate. In the case of muslim actors, religion imparts a certain force and style in their acting and their overall performance which the hindu actors lack. Hindu actors achievements is more individualistic and less dependent on their religion. They may sing bhajans and visit temples, but they are truly secular as for as their acting or performance is concerned. They lack the arrogance and a certain attitude. Will any of you agree? Or disagree?
January 28, 2011 at 2:08 PM
I must say I find this entire ‘comparison’ of acting styles based on religious identity astonishing to say the least! won’t say more! I wonder if you could compare Christian and Jewish and Buddhist actors similarly..
January 28, 2011 at 1:54 PM
Sorry for some obvious grammatical errors.
January 28, 2011 at 3:23 PM
The proper title should be ” The kingdom of Rajen’s remarkable and witty humor and observations”. That was the only thing gets my attention in this whole thread.
January 28, 2011 at 6:35 PM
” In the case of muslim actors, religion imparts a certain force and style in their acting and their overall performance which the hindu actors lack. Hindu actors achievements is more individualistic and less dependent on their religion. “—vatikala—not sure if one can classify these comments !
At first glance they do appear idiotic—however one absolutely cannot negate the impact of socio-politico-religious influences.
whether one likes it or not, coding and identity politics happen all the time….
Needs a lengthy (and politically incorrect response) but not upto it at the moment….
Naveed–im currently based near london but do have to move around/ travel quite a lot esp europe, uk, us..
Any more info and im at risk of being hounded by “fans”–hahaha joking
For those living in true metro–cosmopolitan places like new york, london, will undertand what im saying—most can immediately place (with experience) where exactly a person is from..
u start even placing not only for eg is a guy is from middle east but distinguishing kurds freom iraqis from northern turks …similarly, without knowing an iota of those languages, one can make out a pole from czech from slovak and definitely a german (provided one has some local expereince)
Not only that, there is a whole set of “characteristics” that most of the places bring—know it is foolish nd even idiotic to generalise but a fair bit of background info gets flashed up immmediately…
The above passage is def flawed but a thought-provoking and interesting one…
will try to respond further later…
just a few points that can be responded to immediately—
all those pretending that yusuf khans name change to dilip kr and rajov bhatias to akshay krs is quite similar need to either get honest or get real.
“”Hindu actors achievements is more individualistic and less dependent on their religion. They may sing bhajans and visit temples, but they are truly secular as for as their acting or performance is concerned. They lack the arrogance and a certain attitude. Will any of you agree? Or disagree?”"—vatikala—im not sure if i agree or disagree to your comment but in a strange way, u have set me thinking…as of now, think it is a v difficult q to answer!
January 28, 2011 at 7:01 PM
the rather curious thing is that a country with an overwhelming Hindu majority loves seeing Muslim actors and making them top stars thereby buying into the ‘Muslim’ coding these gentlemen (Dilip, SRK, Aamir, Salman, Saif, others) presumably evidence.
January 28, 2011 at 6:52 PM
http://www.ourbollywood.com/2006/10/i_know_of_only_two_khans_gengh.html
BTW it was during one of these interviews that SRK uttered his now famous statement which will certainly go down in the annals of Bollywood history:
“I know of only two Khans, Genghis Khan and Shah Rukh Khan.”
January 28, 2011 at 6:58 PM
well if that’s the company SRK likes! Of course for my purposes the analogy even holds because I do not see the Yashraj/SRK contribution to Hindi cinema as less than ‘barbarian’!
Yashraj as distinct from the Yash Chopra who once made worthwhile movies.
January 28, 2011 at 7:13 PM
I would like to remark that given what a small minority the Muslim population in India is, it has indeed given a proportionately large number of stalwarts to Bollywood Not just actors but in all departments of film making.. I think it is somewhat cultural and has nothing to do with religion but the contribution of Muslims to Bollywood is undeniably huge and somewhat out of proportion to the size of the community. I cannot back it up by numbers but it is indeed the impression I have always carried.
January 28, 2011 at 10:00 PM
no that’s quite true.. Muslims are disproportionately represented in Hindi cinema and right down to the technicians.
January 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM
saw an interview of srk where he openly declared how he admired changez khan and how his genes were spread throughout central/ south asia…
interesting reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changez_khan
Amazon.com: The Leadership Secrets of Genghis Khan (9780593062029): John Man: Books
January 28, 2011 at 10:03 PM
‘Khan’ incidentally is one of those last names which more often than not is based on spurious authority. In other words people assume a Pathan or Central Asian connection and so on when it was (as the writer of the piece points out) too often a title of honor given to people who had nothing to do with Pathans or Central Asia. It’s one of those things where people privilege the exotic connection.
January 28, 2011 at 7:44 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html
January 28, 2011 at 11:07 PM
To further my views, the muslims are ferociously loyal to their religion and they never for a moment have doubts with some rare exceptions. Their religion teaches them a do or die attitude, unquestionable allegiance and a certain attitude that they are superior. While hindus always have doubts about the religion they practice or not practice inspite of their superficial rituals. Thus secularism is ingrained in them because of their lack of true faith in the religion they profess and the religion which allows them the freedom to question and discard. As for other religions, I feel none of them equals Islam in ferocity and single mindedness. Maybe Jewism to certain extent. Thats why RSS attempts at Islam like hinduism is clumsy and half hearted.
This to some extent explains the khans’ aggressiveness, competitiveness, sharpness and a sort of religious fervour in whatever they do whether acting or something else. Bachchan was or is never aggressive. He is not even competitive. He just goes about his business or art of acting with an air of nonchalance. Thus he chooses films listening to his heart and other emotional reasons most often than boxoffice point of view. There may be exceptions.
January 29, 2011 at 8:32 AM
Vatikala- I raise some interesting points again .
Good to hear your views.
Maybe one can agree with your views to some extent.
As for the 3 particular khans “ruling” bollywood over the last two decades, agree with satyamahot point that this is more a mechanism to club them together to counter bachchanism.
Again, the fact is that none of these khans are strict followers of islam as far as I know– interms of alcohol, marriage and even praying- fasting bit.
They are competitive indeed but not sure how much of that they derive fromtheir religion. But parts of what u said about body language and aggression ( not only wrt these 3 khans) is true.
One guy who seems to have immensely benefitted personally and professionally from his association with islam ( in the correct sense) has been a.r. Duleep (Rahman). He seems to have got the essence rite ( till now) and continues to give us real gems of music in his blissful association with god!
January 29, 2011 at 8:38 AM
As for bachchan not being aggressive — the likes of bachchan , sachin, Rahman, Lata operate in a different milieu where these outward manifestations of “aggression” cease to be compatible. However do agree that Many a times one feels the likes of bachchan should be more emphatic and hands- on rather than employing a passive convenient attitude.
January 31, 2011 at 8:34 AM
Judge Aamir heads to Berlin
January 31, 2011 13:42 IST
Aamir Khan is all set to go to Berlin as a member of the international jury for the 11-day film festival beginning there next month.
He says he accepted the invitation to become member of the jury of Berlin International Film Festival as he could not refuse the offer for the fourth time. Khan and his wife Kiran Rao [ Images ] are taking off to the German capital on February eight.
The festival organisers have been approaching the actor-filmmaker to be part of the jury since 2008, but he kept declining as he was occupied with his films. So when they renewed the offer for the fourth time, he couldnt refuse, sources close to the actor said.
Enthusiastic to watch all the new films at the festival next month, Khan says, “I look forward to experiencing what the different voices in world cinema have to say. And not to forget, I am also equally excited about exchanging ideas and view points with the other highly respected members of the jury.”
The seven-member jury, headed by Italian-American actor Isabella Rossellini includes some big names like Australian film producer Jan Chapman, German actor Nina Hoss, Canadian filmmaker Guy Maddin, British costume designer Sandy Powell and Iranian director Jafar Panahi.
The festival, which commences on February 10, will feature 22 films in its main programme, 16 of which will vie in the competitive section. When Khan was first approached to be a member on the jury three years ago, he couldn’t take it up as he was going to start shooting for A Murugadoss’s ‘Ghajini