Koffee with Karan (Abhishek-Aishwarya debut episode)
This entry was posted on November 7, 2010 at 4:46 AM and is filed under the ugly. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
136 Responses to “Koffee with Karan (Abhishek-Aishwarya debut episode)”
Abhishek is a lot more candid here towards the end than I’ve seen him elsewhere. Loved his response on Agneepath! Some of the responses that follow this are interesting too. The rest is of course fluff.
“Dhoom3 – Give me another opportunity.”
What did he exactly mean?
This was iommediately followed by a bit of “consoling” by aish…
Also, kjo in a way appeared to mean that it was “surprising” that their marriage has survived 3 years.
Also, kjo did appear to be a bit dominated by abhi.
Found that abhi performed better than he usually does in films, If he becums the same expressive self in films,he has a good future.
What was it about not letting ranbir and imran establish “as long as he is there”—i think that sort of a “joke” is ok if an srk, aamir says it but not whwen abhishrek (post raavan) says it.
I remote recorded this show at my end. The “recording” did not have the part where ash found her father -in law “Hot”—which made headlines.
Was it deleted.
Also the part where ash smokes a cig with hritik or moans “seductively” in guzarish has been deleted in adverts etc?
what all will ger deleted now—lol?
But Abhishek never does these roles in films. When he did in a Dostana everyone liked him.
On the rest there was a bit of a dig there as well. When asked to choose between Dostana 2 and D3 he chose the latter. I think he probably feels there is some unfinished business there. Of course there is some posturing here as well because had he been more interested earlier this project would have taken off. Even at this point it’s unclear to me whether he’s completely committed to it. Have been saying this for years. This project doesn’t get made without him irrespective of the other stars. I think it could happen tomorrow if he completely signed on to it. He did say some months back that script was being written but I don’t know.
Loved it. Esp AB’s answers. kept hinting at Agneepath throughout. Karan looked awkward when those references came up, also a little irked by AB’s one-upmanship at various points in the show! Both were less PC , AB choosing Aamir over SRK in an answer. \
On a parting note, someone on twitter commented Ash laughs an astounding 54 times in the whole ep(escluding the recap) !!
“On a parting note, someone on twitter commented Ash laughs an astounding 54 times in the whole ep(escluding the recap) !!”
I wouldn’t be surprised if the person doing the counting missed a few giggles…out of sheer frustration, boredom or simply being distracted by the other plasticky flaws!
Ash fans: that’s the end of my quota of Ash bashing for this year! So at least TMK is spared 🙂
lol…I think her personality moves in both the extreme;from kiddish laugh to dignified answers. She will come out more natural if she doesn’t put that accent/elongation in her reply.
karan might have waited for raavan’s BO before announcing HR for Agnipath. I don’t see any wrong from his side either. AB has to stop talking, he ahs to blame himself for current situation.
1)Johar of course has every right to be pragmatic.
2)One might argue that even with failure Hrithik gets you a better flop result than Abhishek. However this is not true for Hrithik in a different film. What was the JA opening?!
3)There is a particular bar with Agneepath moreover where his casting seems particularly absurd. Also I think he puts the fact that Abhishek is not in the remake front and center with this sort of decision.
All in all I don’t believe this is the right decision on pragmatic grounds let alone anything else.
But yes this should never have been remade, even with Abhishek, though if it was going to rather him than anyone else. Plus I think that even at the box office Abhishek would have a certain credibility for this project. People would ‘understand’ it in a way in which the hrithik choice just doesn’t seem comprehensible,. Much as irrespective of how Devgan is doing he was very effective for the OUATIM role.
The way I see it K Jo is making a very ‘diffrent’ Agneepath.
There is no way Hrithik can play Vijay Dinanath Chauhan.
If they tried to portray that character as in the original, it would be funnier than even SRK’s Don.
I have always maintained that the new Don was fairly okay on its own, if you look at it in isolation. And expect, Don2 to be a fairly enjoyable fare. If you compare it to the original, it obviously pales.
And, again that was made by Farhan who has some merits. This new director who is supposedly going to direct Agneepath remake, one has no idea how good he is. He may make a good film and it might even succeed but is not going to have the soul of the original.
my problem is that if you do a remake without doing a remake (!) what’s the point? Already Johar has eliminated Mithun’s character. If you have a gangster film with the title of the original and a loose skeletal resemblance you’re doing something else altogether. Incidentally I think distributors will have something to say about this if Guzaarish doesn’t work. Not to say they already don’t! Ironically the only ‘guarantee’ Johar can offer them is Dostana 2! Which is why if I were Abhishek I would never do the latter. But guess not everyone has the same notion of playing hardball!
@rajen, the director Karan Malhotra has a fairly impressive resume as an AD with Lakshya, JA, MNIK among others to his credit. He debuts as a director with this.
I find it immensely difficult to view Farhan Akhtar’s Don in a vacuum, but I think even if one were to try and watch it in isolation as you suggest, it really isn’t successful at doing what it attempts which is to be a fast-paced, exciting thriller. I found it very inert, very slow, and very tame. It wallowed in its own style so much that the resulting film felt like a fashion show with some guns and cars thrown in almost arbitrarily. I might at some point revisit this with fresh eyes but I remember thinking how boring this was.
But stepping out of the vacuum and watching both Dons side to side is quite an interesting experiment not only because it shows you how the same essential script can produce two wildly different films, but because the interests represented in either film are so completely different. Simply watching Barot’s Don and then Akhtar’s does more to show how deeply the industry has changed (for the worse mostly) than any amount of nostalgic writing for bygone eras and lost idols.
I agree with you, Satyam,
The point is, I believe K Jo is just out to exploit the iconic position that Agneepath enjoys and is not looking to recreate the same film. And, he is going to have no qualms about making as many changes he needs to KJofy and Hrithify the film and the role respectively as neccessary.
“It wallowed in its own style so much that the resulting film felt like a fashion show”
that’s how it felt to me as well. I think farhan is trapped in this whole changing the looks of the character and clothes and all that thing…all of his movies he does that even the productions. it’s kind of like m. night and his endings
I like Roni’s comment about Abhishek. If he shows his real life entertaining character in the films , it will be wonderful. I agree with him. He was not at his usual self even in Bingo.
Is the institution of marriage really crumbling that badly in India, are people really losing faith? I could be wrong but from the people family and friends we have, not much has changed. I think some of these indian celebrities just see and hear some western media stuff and repeat w/o even thing whether or not it makes sense locally. and i thought the wedding talk was over now.
On Aish…It must be so strange to have everyone talk about you beauty all the time…it can be something that could really create some psych. problems for some, especially when you start losing it or people move on to the next best thing. how do you even react to it? no matter what you do someone will find it stuck up. I think she laughs a lot b/c she’s trying not to be what comes naturally to her in public, which is being serious and professional…that’s what she used to do and people called her stuck up and now she laughs a lot and people call her fake.
“I think she laughs a lot b/c she’s trying not to be what comes naturally to her in public, which is being serious and professional…that’s what she used to do and people called her stuck up and now she laughs a lot and people call her fake.”–Agree.
never see much wrong with aish–excpet her exaggerated “giggle”.
Well, but ive always been baised in favor of aish!
Another thing is that –irrespective of what they may put on—giving agneepath remake ahs hurt the bachchans!
Thanks for putting up the videos. However, I find my tolerance level for Karan is so low that I could barely finish part 1. I can’t watch the rest. So my question for the rest of you who have watched the whole thing is, how do you compare the Abhi-Ash interaction here to their appearance(s) on Oprah’s show?
Rohit Shetty to make comedy film with Ajay Devgn and Abhishek Bachchan
Ajay Devgn, Abhishek Bachchan The verdict is out. Rohit Shetty’s laugh-a-thon Golmaal 3 has emerged as the clear winner at the Box Office this Diwali. While the filmmaker is but obviously elated with his latest success, he is not one of those who believe in resting on past laurels. Rohit is already busy planning his next two films. While his immediate next as reported earlier would be the remake of the Tamil film Singam and would star Ajay Devgn in the lead, Rohit is also planning a comedy with Ajay Devgn and Abhishek Bachchan. Interestingly, the duo starred in Rohit’s directorial debut Zameen.
Confirming this news Rohit says, “Yes I am planning a comedy with Ajay and Abhishek. I have narrated the idea to them and am waiting to see how the dates can be worked out. The comedy flick would be produced by Shree Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Ltd.”
However, Rohit maintains that the immediate next project that he would be working on would be the remake of Singam. “The comedy film will start only by mid next year. I would first be doing the Singam remake with Ajay. That is an action film and is being produced by Reliance Big Pictures. We start shooting in Feb. 2011 and I plan to wrap the film in two months. We are aiming at a June release.”
With these two films, Rohit Shetty surely has his plate full for next year.
The headline horrified me a bit but then I was glad to discover it’s not starting anytime soon! Which means it might not eventually! The Bazmee stuff keeps cropping up also. Abhishek shouldn’t be doing more than one of these in a calendar year. And even then Rohit Shetty is really the pits!
On a related note the Italian Job shoot has begun.
Rohit Shetty has released Golmaal 2, All The Best and Golmaal 3 during the Diwali season. And next year won’t be any different, except that instead of a film with Ajay Devgn, the director’s next festive release features Abhishek Bachchan. And yes, it is a comedy film.
on the one hand I could say that these comedy film stories keep cropping up and Abhishek has yet to actually begin one. On the other hand he clearly has shown a certain openness to the possibility which is why these stories get started and I certainly expect something to happen on this front sooner or later. What disappoints me here is still the relative indifference to masala. I know not many in Bombay do the latter but (and as I’ve always argued) is it really such a miraculous leap of faith to go South and make a project happen yourself?!
On a related note I think some new Tamil cinema remakes would also work well with Abhishek. Once again probably a bridge too far! But also one has to be housed in these traditions in some fashion. The problem is that barring examples here and there Bombay stars are far more likely to watch every conceivable Hollywood genre rather than authentic films from other Indian industries. Even those who do better than others. Abhishek loves the Vikram stuff for example but there’s really so much else out there.
By the way Ranbir shows up for a minute also talking about them and he’s not going to endear himself to some Hrithik fans with his response that he’s looked up to both Hrithik and Abhishek but the latter more!
We can not take him seriously. We have to see his response when questioned for HR. He will talk about perfection, dances, style and box office. I’ve read in one of his interviews he mentioned that.
[I know this comment will be sent up for moderation because of the several links.
It was intentional (that’s why I put them together) so that you can check whether these links have already been linked to from here before.]
These video clips of Amitabh’s are great. Very grateful to Tom for having put them up on his youtube site.
The flashback portion could not easily been left out. Did not see any point in it? Instead more question should have been better.
On Abhi:
He was very direct and honest. I was surprised at his choice for Aamir over Shah Rukh. He is very close to Shah Rukh and never seen him interact with Aamir. Obviously he is not going to pick Salman. I have never ever seen him comment on Aamir before this is probably the first time.
He was never backed off mentioning Shatrugan’s name but then made it right by saying he has a right to his opinion.
Very sarcastic regarding the Agneepath comment.
All in all he made the show very enjoyable.
On Ash:
She was her usual giggly self with one of the most annoying English accent. It is half British and half American.
Do not agree with Kareena over Priyanka choice
She was very diplomatic and politically correct. The questions regarding picking the khans was so good since she has problems with all the 3 khans including Aamir during the casting of Mangal Pandey. The role finally went to Rani. She is probably the only mainstream actress that has some public fall outs with so many actors whether it was her fault or not.
Interesting comment by Ranbir on Abhi and Hrithik.
Karan for the first time looked overmatched and not on his game with Abhi. Also you could he was very easy on them and backed a number of times with his questions.
This show is always funny and enjoyable because the questions are always probing and interesting though some of the answers are diplomatic.
“This show is always funny and enjoyable because the questions are always probing and interesting though some of the answers are diplomatic.”
Really? What probing questions?
I think the show sucks because Karan asks the same questions every season – who is the best Khan (expecting SRK to be selected of course), who is the better actor/actress A or B, who is hot, etc. Karan is a terrible host with limited interviewing skills.
But this is what passes for being good in BW based on very low standards.
I meant probing in a gossipy nature. Yes sometimes the questions are repetative but if you put in context who is answering that they becoming interesting.
As I said Karan was not at his best this time with the whole show including the questions. He looked a little lazy or too comfortable.
Hope the show gets better with other guest. The one with Imran and Ranbir looks good.
Also hopefully Aamir will also come on the show.
I am not saying it is the most intelligent show out there but it does bring out a different side of the actors that we do not see in a regular interviews
agreed all round.. Abhishek really took control here and there was definitely some edge to his humor. Also talked about the SRK-Ash pair being better than the Hrithik-Ash one but he did it in a somewhat damning way. The Aamir response I was very pleased with not least because I consider it factually accurate! By the way he has a very strong relationship with Aamir. But this is one of the industry’s better kept secrets.
I actually liked Rajni-Ash in Robot. Of course Rajni is too old at this point, I think he would have been great with her had he been younger (Rajen will bludgeon me for saying this!) but it still worked in Robot, especially the end portions.
I do think Abhishek is on the money about Hrithik-Ash. Contra media opinion I always felt this was a poor pair because it’s just about putting two pretty faces together. The best pairs are always ‘asymmetric’ in my view. Which doesn’t mean the other person shouldn’t be good looking or attractive on screen, just so in a different way. Hence I’ve liked Ash with Abhishek but also with Dutt in Shabd, with Akshay in Khakee (AR doesn’t count!).
“But this is one of the industry’s better kept secrets.”
Hardly. Aamir himself follows AB Sr and Jr on twitter(a vague, but pretty accurate indicator of industry equations now) and they’ve interacted quite a lot on that site. Aamir’s profile picture itself is from a dinner with the bachchans.
Have to say I liked Ranbir’s words here. That moment got to the heart of the Hrithik/Abhishek “divide” in more plain-speak than anything else I’ve seen…at least from movie folk.
I would pick Bachchan’s performance in Agneepath. Even apart from the fact that Amitabh is the superior actor (Pacino lacks range, for instance; a comparison of him with Robert De Niro is instructive, although given the bullshit De Niro does, maybe we just want to close our eyes or look away), I prefer the Agneepath persona because of the “from hell” sense that it incarnates: “Vijay Deenanath Chauhan might be seen as Deewar’s Vijay had the latter lived, but that is in a sense too naturalistic a reading. As Bachchan’s entry shot — of Vijay planted so firmly on a chair he seems like a growth on it — demonstrates, Chauhan is a force, not of nature but of something more mythic, a refugee from the lower depths. There isn’t much complexity to his character, which makes Bachchan’s performance (like the Al Pacino turn in Scarface it is indebted to) all the more remarkable: as in Lawaaris and Trishul the character is relatively monolithic, but never loses the audience’s rapt attention. The same cannot be said for our sympathy though: Vijay Chauhan is other-than-human, and while we cannot resist his force, he never has our love.”
In sum, the protagonist of Scarface wants to live so much, he isn’t afraid to risk death to get the good life; the protagonist of Agneepath is likewise unafraid of death, but because he doesn’t seem to think life is really worth living.
Pacino Vs De Niro is a dead horse. Apart from the fact that I’d pick Pacino over De Niro in a heartbeat, I disagree that Pacino doesn’t have range. Anyone who can play Michael Corleone, Sonny Wortzik in DDA, Big Boy Caprice (Dick Tracy) & Ricky Roma (Glengary Glen Ross) just to name a few performances of the top of my head, knows about range. I haven’t even mentioned his work as a theater artist (he’s probably the most famous actor to have won an Oscar, an Emmy and a Tony! There are 17 others, to date). No doubt, I’m a huge fan and I can’t really pick favorites between Bachchan and Pacino. But I will say this: Tony Montana is a cultural phenomenon that transcends languageg and race. In terms of impact, Agneepath’s Vijay Dinanath Chauhan doesn’t come close…
The thing is that De Niro’s great roles have been so incredibly iconic they’ve tended to dwarf his other moments. Something like King of Comedy or Last Tycoon or some others. Barring rare exceptions I’ve just not been a fan of Pacino over the last twenty years because he has seemed quite over the top to me on many occasions. De Niro has done some awful stuff, there’s no defending it but Pacino in something like Heat (to use a by now classic example) often seems to be not in much control as far as I’m concerned (Insomnia is another example). De Niro on the other hand is superbly understated. I know these are different characters but Pacino was far more subtle in the 70s. He has just become too ‘obvious’ a performer in the last two decades and I always find this inexcusable in an actor. Or to put it different Pacino trades too much in the ‘grotesque’ in this period. But at their peaks I’d take De Niro because he simply surprises me more than Pacino and while both had screen presence De Niro was just the greater ‘star’ on screen.
In their respective peaks, I too would take De Niro and I completely agree that the reason people have “forgotten” him a bit in time is because of the past decade’s failures but also because those towering roles at the peak dwarfed other superb, surprising performances of his (precisely like Last Tycoon and the like) that were never heralded the way they may have been for anyone else.
It’s funny you mention Heat. Mann has the distinction of having given both De Niro (in Heat) and Pacino (in The Insider) their last truly great performances. The latter moment for Pacino was “surprising” in my book. At least in how controlled and “quiet” it often seemed.
I think he’s now more “theatrical” in his approach whereas earlier he was more restrained. It’s as if he played under the restraints imposed by his own physicality in his early phase (some say his best; he was on a roll in the 70s with 5 Oscar nods; a streak he shared with Brando, no less) he seems now to have outgrown it, completely. Pacino is now more “macho”, intimidating and threatening in his presence than his physical form would ever represent. You are right, there is a clear divide in his roles during the two phases. That doesn’t necessarily mean Pacino has become any less of a performer.There are exceptions like “The Insider”, lesser known pet projects like “Chinese Coffee” and how could I forget — the complete deconstruction of his tough guy image in ‘Donnie Brasco.’
Then again there’s ‘The Devil’s Advocate’ and ‘Any Given Sunday’ where Pacino is OTT and very much in sync with the requirements of the role. (Can anyone imagine Scent of a Woman with a subdued protagonist?)
On the issue of ‘stardom’, I have to disagree completely. It is instructive to compare both Pacino and De Niro with respect to that other collossus — Brando. De Niro is more truer to Brando’s ‘style’ of acting, imbibing his physical traits more and adopting a new body language for each role. Pacino imbibes the “method” of Brando and somehow makes each performance more visceral. There’s the unpredictability about Pacino, the intensity that I tend to favor over De Niro’s effective, but in equal parts, “distancing” method.
In very simple terms, I have sometimes felt that De Niro is a more “correct” actor but Pacino trumps him because of his “presence”. The same argument can be applied to a debate between Amitabh Bachchan & Naseeruddin Shah. (Having said that, I suitably recall Naseer’s super-intense performance in ‘Junoon’ and continue towards the path that ends up being a mobius strip)
Q’s answer can’t be bettered but I’ll add something. Bachchan could have done Agneepath half paralyzed, and in his sleep. For Pacino, standing every inch of his 5.whatever frame to take on a role like this and own everyone and everything on screen was never less than impressive to me. To say the least. Pacino’s Tony of course is the stuff of legend by now, in precisely the same way Vijay is. But I think Pacino’s accomplishment is in someways more impressive than Bachchan’s because of the implausible physicality, because of the grand intensity and for the way in which Pacino’s performance seems perfectly attuned to De Palma’s over-the-top sensibilities in the world of this film.
Re: “But I think Pacino’s accomplishment is in someways more impressive than Bachchan’s because of physicality…”
Just to make sure I’m on the same page, am I correct in reading your point to be that Pacino’s physical — not the right word but can’t think of another — disadvantages (vis-a-vis the more imposing Bachchan) make the dominance of his achievement in Scarface all the more impressive?
And I’m glad you added that corrective about the De Niro comparison. If one were to look at the past 15 years or so, Pacino has been continually fascinating and aged into something wonderful in a way that really shames De Niro. It’s almost as if Pacino is Mammootty to De Niro’s Mohanlal!
“But I think Pacino’s accomplishment is in someways more impressive than Bachchan’s because of the implausible physicality, because of the grand intensity and for the way in which Pacino’s performance seems perfectly attuned to De Palma’s over-the-top sensibilities in the world of this film.”
I think you guys are mistaking the film for the role/performance.
Scarface is an enduring favorite and while I would take Pacino over anyone else in Hollywood ( tho I do agree with Q regarding ‘range’ to a degree, particularly of late ), I would find it hard to pick one over the other.
But the films in both examples are completely keyed in to the performance and vice-versa. It’s natural to compare both. I think I find Vijay a far more “likable” character than Tony, (certainly he’s much easier to empathize with) but Tony is far more complex. What I like about Scarface is that it’s ultimately a bloody melodrama about immigrant experience. Agneepath doesn’t have a whole lot of thematic resonance beyond the career-subtext of the towering star at its center.
would take Bachchan over Pacino but then I’ve never valued the latter as many do, certainly not as much as De Niro. Some recent comments of mine on Agneepath:
I think it’s a valid comparison, Rajen. Although, I’d reverse the references to the two actors (Mohan Lal & Mammooty) — only in terms of acting prowess, not in terms of film choices….
Since I’m on a Pacino rant at the moment, has anyone seen “You Don’t Know Jack”? I’ve heard from very good sources that he’s at the top of his game in this one. I’ve heard from some very discerning people that his performance ranks up with the very best in his career!
Angels in America is worth watching for sure. I preferred reading it and I’ve never seen it on stage but the TV version was I suppose as good as it could be.
Couldn’t resist commenting this early in the morning as it’s Pacino! You can’t find a bigger Pacino fan than me… I’ve every work of his (Chinese Coffee and Looking For Richard even!). And I have always believed him to be the finest actor… yes, he’s become ‘theatrical’ over the years… but Pacino operates in a fashion where the performance is always that- a performance. I can’t quite express myself correctly, but in his refusal to ‘become’ the character, and yet ‘become’ so by way of donning and radiating the ‘gist’ of what it means to be that character, he allows for a distanced appreciation of his performance. In other words, we’re never immersed into his role but watch it from afar, helping us ‘see’ the actor perform. There is a certain ‘stage’ element that he thus brings to his roles, as opposed to DeNiro who always strived to ‘imbibe’ the character.
As GF has rightly pointed out, Pacino has aged well as well after a rather shaky mi-90s and early 2000s. His work as Shylock in Michael Radford’s The Merchant of Venice is to me his finest work in his later years. Of course, looking forward to the Jack Kevorkian movie as well as the Salvador Dali biopic.
Thanks Satyam. I’m still trying to wake… but Pacino got me wanting to comment. I loved how Pacino delivered the famous “Hath not a Jew…” monologue. He uses the old English, but by sheer manner of delivery and the right pauses, he makes it so accessible, you feel he’s speaking common English. And the voice modulation is just right in that scene.
Pacino perhaps is the only actor I can think of who can ‘modulate’ a grunt even. In Scent of a Woman, even his ‘ha!’ has expression. His dinner table ‘ha!’ has a distinct feel of resignation and defeat to it.
I actually had the pleasure of seeing Pacino perform Merchant of Venice this past summer at Shakespeare in the Park. Got goosebumps when he delivered these lines. It was the best Shakespeare performance I’d seen since Kevin Kline’s superb Falstaff…
(great set ofd comments and debates guys, abzee me too it got a pacino fan out.. in morning and now i want to see scarface again)
One thing common for me in Big B and Pacino is i have seen their movies on TV, as i dont belong to their generation, and i have seen both of them, Agneepath was seen by me long time back.. later i saw SCARFACE.
the intensity of this small height man blows u. incredible moreso for me is before that only movie of pacino i ever remember was The Godfather, and michael corleone, the silent assassin, Sicilian… so it was a shocker and huge blown away experience. the way he rises, his walk, his talk with police..
and fact is that cant be ignored u see shades of pacino in vijay dinanath chauhan, and what can be more a proof of accceptance of pacinos performance than that even BIG B followed it imo. the style, the dialogues, and
and thus for entire feel and physicality and surprise from corleaone i clearly get more affected towards scarface.. but i did say big b’s performance is not second best, if only he had imo tried more different than original.. and i am sure he would have been succeeded
my favourite pacino speech (ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, it inspire me a hell lot.. inch by inch)
Off Topic but interesting blog post on Sholay by memsaab
How many dvd versions of Sholay does one need to have? Depending upon your level of OCD, it could be three or even four. Sadly, there is no definitive version—they all have their issues, plus there are two different endings: the theatrical release with a censor-imposed ending, and the “director’s cut” with Ramesh Sippy’s original—and much much more powerful—one intact. Plus, none of the dvd versions have subtitled songs, one of my biggest pet peeves. I have no idea why the Sippys or anybody else have not bothered to try and do something wonderful with this film, but nothing surprises me when it comes to the Indian film and dvd industry anymore.
Most online discussions on the subject agree that the French widescreen dvd (by Carlotta) is the superior in terms of picture to any other versions; it is not cropped on all four sides to make the “widescreen” version like others, but only on the top and bottom as envisioned originally by Sippy and Dwarka Divecha (his superb cameraman, one of the best in Indian cinema history) to make the 70mm version from 35mm film. Alas, the French did not care to provide English subtitles (you sons of silly persons! no, just kidding—je vous aime, mes amis francais!).
So Tom—whose OCD exceeds even mine and happily benefits all of us—took the Carlotta dvd, converted it properly to NTSC from PAL, and put English subtitles on it, including the songs. He did much more as well in his usual expert manner; he goes into detail on what other enhancements he made in his descriptive pdf file here. I am thrilled with the results and you will be too, especially if you have a nice big widescreen television…
there are only two versions really. Subs are not an issue frankly when analyzing these things unless language is a major issue for one. I think the director’s cut is the one to get. However because the theatrical release has had such a canonical history also it might be worthwhile keeping both (a dialog or two is different among the versions). The biggest issue is of course the original transfer which was then converted into 2.35:1 (but not shot this way). There can be an argument for both I suppose but I always prefer more screen information than less, specially since it was shot that way. If one could watch it in the theater one might prefer the greatest widescreen possible but with home viewing I’m not as bothered. Ultimately it’s not two hard keeping both versions. One would like to see a restoration here though as Indian DVDs go this is still pretty good.
I detect a colonized attitude here.. where no Indian actor no matter how important might be compared with the equivalent Hollywood star. This explains more or less your initial sentiment. You might disagree with the opinion completely (though if you followed the discussion carefully there were enough people on either side of the debate) but why would this warrant your kind of response unless you considered it ‘self-evident’ that Pacino was better than Bachchan (in this context and/or any other)? And here my response is that the ‘self-evidence’ derives from that sort of ‘colonization’. Many people have this sense when Pacino or De Niro are compared with an Indian star. However the reverse never holds. It’s like ‘Indian stars are great within the context of Indian cinema not otherwise’! I reject this kind of stance. Perhaps you meant something else but in which case it would hardly be ‘self-evident’ as you seem to imply.
But again such a list is instructive too. Often there are important star-actors who are better than competent and sometimes very good in certain parts but who give the impression of being ‘fine’ because they’re playing important parts. There is a difference. I don’t consider Tony Leung a great actor by any stretch of the imagination. Mastroianni is a genuine movie legend but outside the Fellini stuff even his mother probably wouldn’t praise him too highly! Auteuil is excellent but also a mood actor. Depardieu and Mifune come much closer to Bachchan in terms of being that all encompassing star-actor presence or certainly the defining ones for an entire generation of actors. Even here Mifune would have to be qualified in some ways. But in any case the point is that much as certain genres are always overrated because of their association with ‘Hollywood’ similarly all non-Indian stars (specially those belonging to the West) are also over-esteemed. And even when we respect the Naseers of India we sometimes do so because we can more easily assimilate him with Western categories. Bachchan himself becomes at times the only exception to this overall (colonized) schema. This is not to discount that in Hollywood you often have genres and parts that are more challenging by their nature than might be available in most Indian commercial industries. But just appearing in these films does not mean one has does a great job though one might have been competent at it. Similarly it is not at all true that performing in meaningful commercial cinema in India is necessarily easier. By the way entire schools of film criticism account for this in the West which is why stars who play ‘signature’ more than anything else are also celebrated for ‘great’ performances from time to time. One might disagree with this approach but it’s there. Almodovar for example thought extremely highly of John Wayne. Because a star can be very effective on screen even when not performing in any traditional sense. Paradoxical as this might sound! One can be ‘better’ on screen not acting compared to someone who does!
I think Tony Leung can be criticized for not having enough range, but he’s very good/great at projecting angst-ridden, brooding characters. I haven’t seen his entire filmography but from the Wong Kar Wai stuff that I’ve seen, I’ve been mighty impressed.
Plus, if it comes to ‘signature’, I’d have to side with Eastwood rather than Wayne…
I’m a fan of Al Pacino but he has given his share of ‘hammy performances’ and been in many crappy movies too. All great actors have bad performances and movies.
Everything Western is not automatically sacrosanct.
my own view has been that beginning with Sea of Love (only because Pacino returned at that point after a long battle with alcoholism and so on) and continuing through to the present day Pacino has more often than not hammed in his films or has been at least on the borderline. I still find him a ‘presence’ on screen, still captivating but that’s saying something different. This extends the longer comment I just made but star-actors can be great actors at one point in their career and then simply effective stars at a later stage even when become less interesting as characters. The signature can bail one out a lot in the movies. On the other hand there’s Jack Nicholson who barring an early period has more or less always played ‘signature’. To act for him is to act ‘Jack’!
Pacino took a break after he got panned brutally for Revolution. In the mean time he worked on a self-financed short called ‘The Local Stigmatic’.
Regarding Pacino’s “hamming”, that’s where his iconic image (partially) comes into play. If Michael Mann decided to ask Pacino to turn it up a notch in Heat, he had a reason to do so. It actually fits in with the contrast/duality between Pacino and De Niro’s characters (cop/robber, loud-emotive/ice-cold) as well. Pacino’s “hamming” isn’t without justification — at least not in films involving good/great directors. It’s films like 88 Minutes, The Recruit where it seems perfunctory (albeit still enjoyable) that people seem to be criticizing and in turn generalizing with respect to his overall career trajectory. Righteous Kill, for example, is a dumb film, but Pacino’s solid in it, without being a quarter of a decibel loud. But nobody mentions his subtle turns because that simply doesn’t fit in with the demise-of-the-legend theory..
I’m surprised the extent to which you seem to imply some sort of method acting on De Niro’s part. If anything he is quite the opposite. The actor most likely to surprise within that list you have. At least on his best days. There was more of an ‘edge’ to his persona than any of the others and so many of his important performances seem to feed off this element. Pacino was certainly fine in the 70s, obviously more understated than De Niro but I wouldn’t say he ever surprised me more than the latter.
If you are talking about ‘edge’ that’s limited to his association with Scorsese, right? My favorite De Niro on-the-edge performance — Mean Streats.
The worst part about De Niro (which I agree shouldn’t take the sheen of his career) is that since 1990 he hasn’t had a single great moment in films. Pacino, in comparison, has had at least 6 or 7.
KJo is all set to resume shoot for his talk show and start work on his next
By Subhash K. Jha, November 11, 2010 – 11:52 IST
Karan Johar The exclusive idea for Karan Johar’s next directorial venture is finally in place, thanks to his unscheduled time off due to a sudden bout of malaria.
Because of the illness, Karan had the time to ponder deeply over what he wants to direct next. After months of a mental block, Karan has finally zeroed in on the subject that he wants to take on next.
And here’s the arresting news: after My Name Is Khan, Karan will direct a full-on fun film filled with music and songs…lip-sync songs which were missing in Khan.
Weak but back with his sharp tongue, Karan says, “I suppose out of every setback some good is bound to happen. So yes, that elusive idea for my next film for which I had even taken time off to be in New York but came back empty-brained, is finally locked in.” Karan has decided to make a complete departure from the mood of his last film My Name Is Khan. He will now make a full-on masti musical with at least 10 songs.
Says the excited director, “I don’t think I should be talking about it so soon. But I can’t help it. Yes, after a serious film like Khan, I am moving into the fun zone. I am doing a fun-and-frolic film. I don’t care if ‘frolic’ is too frivolous a word. That’s what I am doing in my next.”
Significantly, Karan’s next is going to be full-on musical. Says the director, “In My Name Is Khan, I couldn’t have my protagonist singing on screen. Though I’m very proud of its songs, I somehow feel deprived when I don’t do full-on lip-sync songs. My next will be a full-fledged musical with the characters singing away on screen. At the moment that’s all I can tell you.”
On Saturday evening, Karan had the Big B over for dinner. Would it be correct to assume that the mega-star would feature in Karan’s next directorial venture?
At the moment, all one can assume is that Shah Rukh Khan will definitely be a part of Karan’s masti-bhari musical.
Says Karan, “Amitji just came home for a conversation, dinner and an evening with me and my mother. Every time I speak to him, I feel blessed. I’m very fortunate to have not just known him but also worked with him. Of course I’d love to work with him again and with Abhishek.”
Karan intends to invite Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan as solo guests on this season of Koffee With Karan.
“With them, there’s no combination that makes any sense any more,” opines Karan. After 9 days of no-work, Karan will now get back to shooting episodes of his new talk show Koffee With Karan which went on air on Sunday.
Sighs the filmmaker-turned-talkshow-host, “Fortunately, I had shot four episodes before I fell ill. So there’s a bank. I’m proud of what I’ve shot so far. People talk about Imran Khan-Ranbir Kapoor and Sonam Kapoor-Deepika Padukone being rivals. On my show they got along so well!”
Interestingly, Deepika is said to have confirmed on Karan’s show that it was Ranbir Kapoor whom she had accused of two-timing in print.
Says Karan, “I’m not saying anything. Just watch my show.”
the more SRK gets challenged by his peers, the more he seems incapable of defining the critical or commercial benchmarks of any given year the more Johar keeps elevating him! Not to mention constantly putting him alongside Bachchan!
Well, I don’t know about Salman (not that he’s above KJO) but lately he’s into action, and so I doubt their paths will cross.
As for Amir. He sells fast food in the garb of health food in his shop while KJO sells ‘mithai’ as…… ‘mithai’ in his halwai shop. So *their* paths will never cross.
Ignoring the discussion on sweets and food, the easiest reading of this situation goes like this: The #1 star in Bollywood shows KJO one of his fingers!
The whole Koffee with Karan is about ‘stars’ right? The biggest star ain’t coming, so KJO can stick to the has beens…
also note the dishonesty.. he would always have SRK with Kajol.. this time he had Abhi-Ash.. so he suddenly pretends that SRK can only be on the show ‘alone’! What about all those other times?!
Yes, Amir has a lot to learn about humility and good manners. Showing one of his fingers doesn’t really show him up as elegant and well mannered.
Such an attitude shows a lack of self esteem and inspite of his ‘success’ a lack of self confidence…as himself, in public, where he’s not changed by acting and photography, and being seen larger than life..
Aamir has willingly made an appearance on KBC (with Bachchan) and with Salman on DKD. If he hasn’t appeared on shows hosted by KJo or Farah Khan, there’s a reason for that!
I think it was ‘Tyler’ who mentioned this, it’s so excruciatingly annoying and also sad that KJO has to ask everyone the same question about the best ‘Khan’. As if any form of legitimacy achieved on his show will automatically subvert the reality. I’d be genuinely concerned with this kind of pathological behavior if I was a shrink, but since I’m not, I choose to laugh at it..
you’re exactly right.. it’s precisely anxiety that drives Johar to constantly propagandize about SRK.. if it were that obvious why would anyone need to say it?!
Johar has forever had this need to imagine SRK as Amitabh and SRK-Kajol as Raj Kapoor-Nargis or some such legendary pair! Over the years and specially over the last decade as SRK has been increasingly challenged Johar has also according become increasingly hyperbolic. Today if there is someone in SRK’s generation who is considered in a class apart by most Indians it is Aamir. The latter has just built up this currency over the past decade. SRK is very much seen as past his prime. And anyone, yes anyone can confirm this anecdotally in all sorts of situations.
A very good point. SRK-Kajol, in KJo’s universe, inhabit the same stratosphere as Raj Kapoor-Nargis. It’s as if he’s on a mission to subvert BW history. SRK the biggest star, the greatest actor in the history of BW and Kajol greater than any other heroine, past or present.
I actually think this guy sweet talks the Bachchans a lot and has taken them for a ride again and again. All based on the good will Amitabh shared with Yash Johar. Casting Hrithik in the Agneepath remake almost confirms it!
agreed on all counts.. and the deconstruction of Bombay film history is very integrally a part of this other move to elevate SRK beyond all reason or rationale. The past contains giants and hence it must be deconstructed. There is a certain typical right-leaning move in all of this. His films are conservative counter-reactions that like all such movements at the political level try to re-imagine the heritage often in very radical ways but always in anodyne formulations of simply restoring tradition and so on. The ‘family films’ that he and his audiences celebrate for example have nothing to do with any older family film tradition whether in the 50s or the 70s. The ‘nostalgia’ that is always a part of every such imagining on the right is always a false one. And the gap then has to be covered with ‘violence’. Not that Johar is otherwise anything that a good old Congress voting liberal (don’t know this for a fact but this would be my guess). But he is culturally conservative much like his audience. There is also a lesson of globalization here which depends on exactly this kind of political ‘quiescence’ among the entrenched classes.
Re: Johar has forever had this need to imagine SRK as Amitabh and SRK-Kajol as Raj Kapoor-Nargis
Disagree with the second half of the statement. It should read – SRK-K Jo.
I feel in songs like Suraj Hua Madham, it seems like K Jo is imagining himself cavorting SRK instead of Kajol.
@satyam
>also note the dishonesty.. he would always have SRK with Kajol.. this time he had Abhi-Ash.. so he suddenly pretends that SRK can only be on the show ‘alone’! What about all those other times?!
I can’t make sense of this comment at all.
It sounds too much like ‘tu tu main main’.
was SRK not big enough when he had him on with others before?! Also it’s not exactly a secret that to get Abhi-Ash on for the debut episode was quite a coup.
Can you not make sense here or do you not want to make sense of it?!
not sure.. never saw this regularly.. do think Salman would appear if asked.. I wouldn’t bet against Aamir appearing either only because over the last couple of years he’s been courting the media quite a bit as well.
Aishwarya Rai, Abhishek participate in event organised by Bunt community
By Shaikh Sharik, Mumbai, Dec.27 : Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and her husband Abhishek Bachchan participated in Bunt community event here at the weekend.
Bollywood director Rohit Shetty was also present at the event.
Aishwarya said she was overwhelmed by the love given by her community for her work across the globe.
“The community has come from all over the world, and I think, it”s wonderful that we have functions such as these throughout the year of course and I knew it as well. We, as members of the community, have absolute pride and pleasure in participating albeit, in this brief manner but, definitely the community know that we are here,” said Aishwarya Rai.
“We love belonging. We are all family and it”s a pleasure being supportive and sharing such special moments. So, thank you so much for making it as memorable for us, for all your love and blessings,” she added.
Bunt or Tulunad Kshatriya is a Hindu community that belongs to the region of Tulu Nadu in the southwestern part of the country, which comprises the districts including Udupi and Dakshina Kannada in Karnataka.
The community speaks the Tulu language Aishwarya also interacted with the audience in Tulu.
SATYAMSHOT 
November 7, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Abhishek is a lot more candid here towards the end than I’ve seen him elsewhere. Loved his response on Agneepath! Some of the responses that follow this are interesting too. The rest is of course fluff.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 1:36 PM
Interesting one :
Dhoom3 – Give me another opportunity.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:12 PM
“Dhoom3 – Give me another opportunity.”
What did he exactly mean?
This was iommediately followed by a bit of “consoling” by aish…
Also, kjo in a way appeared to mean that it was “surprising” that their marriage has survived 3 years.
Also, kjo did appear to be a bit dominated by abhi.
Found that abhi performed better than he usually does in films, If he becums the same expressive self in films,he has a good future.
What was it about not letting ranbir and imran establish “as long as he is there”—i think that sort of a “joke” is ok if an srk, aamir says it but not whwen abhishrek (post raavan) says it.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:15 PM
Thanks for not using the word -Abhishrek.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:23 PM
yes, I agree, and with due respect to Alex disappointment with a star should also not become an exercise in masochism!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:18 PM
I remote recorded this show at my end. The “recording” did not have the part where ash found her father -in law “Hot”—which made headlines.
Was it deleted.
Also the part where ash smokes a cig with hritik or moans “seductively” in guzarish has been deleted in adverts etc?
what all will ger deleted now—lol?
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:22 PM
don’t remember those bits but I was also skimming through the show. Who could watch every single minute?!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:36 PM
I think that was just editing on their part for the promo to make it seem like Aish was saying Pa is hot – controversial comment to get viewers.
As for the Guzaarish promos, the smoking and moaning scenes are being shown on TV unless you are getting different promos.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:22 PM
But Abhishek never does these roles in films. When he did in a Dostana everyone liked him.
On the rest there was a bit of a dig there as well. When asked to choose between Dostana 2 and D3 he chose the latter. I think he probably feels there is some unfinished business there. Of course there is some posturing here as well because had he been more interested earlier this project would have taken off. Even at this point it’s unclear to me whether he’s completely committed to it. Have been saying this for years. This project doesn’t get made without him irrespective of the other stars. I think it could happen tomorrow if he completely signed on to it. He did say some months back that script was being written but I don’t know.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Loved it. Esp AB’s answers. kept hinting at Agneepath throughout. Karan looked awkward when those references came up, also a little irked by AB’s one-upmanship at various points in the show! Both were less PC , AB choosing Aamir over SRK in an answer. \
On a parting note, someone on twitter commented Ash laughs an astounding 54 times in the whole ep(escluding the recap) !!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 2:11 PM
“On a parting note, someone on twitter commented Ash laughs an astounding 54 times in the whole ep(escluding the recap) !!”
I wouldn’t be surprised if the person doing the counting missed a few giggles…out of sheer frustration, boredom or simply being distracted by the other plasticky flaws!
Ash fans: that’s the end of my quota of Ash bashing for this year! So at least TMK is spared 🙂
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 2:15 PM
Where do you live, Saket ?
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Rajen, don’t mind giving my address to you. We could always enjoy coffee together praising Amitabh and dissing SRK 🙂
I’ll throw in KJo as a combo and I’m sure you’ll forgive me for being allergic to Ash!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM
lol…I think her personality moves in both the extreme;from kiddish laugh to dignified answers. She will come out more natural if she doesn’t put that accent/elongation in her reply.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 2:52 PM
karan might have waited for raavan’s BO before announcing HR for Agnipath. I don’t see any wrong from his side either. AB has to stop talking, he ahs to blame himself for current situation.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:05 PM
By that logic he should have waited for Guzaarish? Or Kites fate was something different from Raavan?
ps – I am not even sure there is any need to remake the movie.
ps1 – As a producer he is free to choose anyone with all his bias.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:24 PM
the way I see it:
1)Johar of course has every right to be pragmatic.
2)One might argue that even with failure Hrithik gets you a better flop result than Abhishek. However this is not true for Hrithik in a different film. What was the JA opening?!
3)There is a particular bar with Agneepath moreover where his casting seems particularly absurd. Also I think he puts the fact that Abhishek is not in the remake front and center with this sort of decision.
All in all I don’t believe this is the right decision on pragmatic grounds let alone anything else.
But yes this should never have been remade, even with Abhishek, though if it was going to rather him than anyone else. Plus I think that even at the box office Abhishek would have a certain credibility for this project. People would ‘understand’ it in a way in which the hrithik choice just doesn’t seem comprehensible,. Much as irrespective of how Devgan is doing he was very effective for the OUATIM role.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM
The way I see it K Jo is making a very ‘diffrent’ Agneepath.
There is no way Hrithik can play Vijay Dinanath Chauhan.
If they tried to portray that character as in the original, it would be funnier than even SRK’s Don.
I have always maintained that the new Don was fairly okay on its own, if you look at it in isolation. And expect, Don2 to be a fairly enjoyable fare. If you compare it to the original, it obviously pales.
And, again that was made by Farhan who has some merits. This new director who is supposedly going to direct Agneepath remake, one has no idea how good he is. He may make a good film and it might even succeed but is not going to have the soul of the original.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:05 PM
my problem is that if you do a remake without doing a remake (!) what’s the point? Already Johar has eliminated Mithun’s character. If you have a gangster film with the title of the original and a loose skeletal resemblance you’re doing something else altogether. Incidentally I think distributors will have something to say about this if Guzaarish doesn’t work. Not to say they already don’t! Ironically the only ‘guarantee’ Johar can offer them is Dostana 2! Which is why if I were Abhishek I would never do the latter. But guess not everyone has the same notion of playing hardball!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM
@rajen, the director Karan Malhotra has a fairly impressive resume as an AD with Lakshya, JA, MNIK among others to his credit. He debuts as a director with this.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM
I find it immensely difficult to view Farhan Akhtar’s Don in a vacuum, but I think even if one were to try and watch it in isolation as you suggest, it really isn’t successful at doing what it attempts which is to be a fast-paced, exciting thriller. I found it very inert, very slow, and very tame. It wallowed in its own style so much that the resulting film felt like a fashion show with some guns and cars thrown in almost arbitrarily. I might at some point revisit this with fresh eyes but I remember thinking how boring this was.
But stepping out of the vacuum and watching both Dons side to side is quite an interesting experiment not only because it shows you how the same essential script can produce two wildly different films, but because the interests represented in either film are so completely different. Simply watching Barot’s Don and then Akhtar’s does more to show how deeply the industry has changed (for the worse mostly) than any amount of nostalgic writing for bygone eras and lost idols.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM
I agree with you, Satyam,
The point is, I believe K Jo is just out to exploit the iconic position that Agneepath enjoys and is not looking to recreate the same film. And, he is going to have no qualms about making as many changes he needs to KJofy and Hrithify the film and the role respectively as neccessary.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 8:01 PM
“It wallowed in its own style so much that the resulting film felt like a fashion show”
that’s how it felt to me as well. I think farhan is trapped in this whole changing the looks of the character and clothes and all that thing…all of his movies he does that even the productions. it’s kind of like m. night and his endings
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Watched the first Koffee show, new season.
Entertaining–with Abhishek being absolutely hilarious .
Ash was fine–except for her wierd laugh; but I guess she can’t help it.
good fun, overall.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Thank you so much for posting!
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 3:05 PM
I like Roni’s comment about Abhishek. If he shows his real life entertaining character in the films , it will be wonderful. I agree with him. He was not at his usual self even in Bingo.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 5:59 PM
abhishek is more entertaining in real life than in his movie
ashwayria, quite the opposite. she did better than her other interviews
i loved the show.
ashu was very genuine
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 6:07 PM
Is the institution of marriage really crumbling that badly in India, are people really losing faith? I could be wrong but from the people family and friends we have, not much has changed. I think some of these indian celebrities just see and hear some western media stuff and repeat w/o even thing whether or not it makes sense locally. and i thought the wedding talk was over now.
On Aish…It must be so strange to have everyone talk about you beauty all the time…it can be something that could really create some psych. problems for some, especially when you start losing it or people move on to the next best thing. how do you even react to it? no matter what you do someone will find it stuck up. I think she laughs a lot b/c she’s trying not to be what comes naturally to her in public, which is being serious and professional…that’s what she used to do and people called her stuck up and now she laughs a lot and people call her fake.
LikeLike
November 7, 2010 at 6:40 PM
“I think she laughs a lot b/c she’s trying not to be what comes naturally to her in public, which is being serious and professional…that’s what she used to do and people called her stuck up and now she laughs a lot and people call her fake.”–Agree.
never see much wrong with aish–excpet her exaggerated “giggle”.
Well, but ive always been baised in favor of aish!
Another thing is that –irrespective of what they may put on—giving agneepath remake ahs hurt the bachchans!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:59 AM
Thanks for putting up the videos. However, I find my tolerance level for Karan is so low that I could barely finish part 1. I can’t watch the rest. So my question for the rest of you who have watched the whole thing is, how do you compare the Abhi-Ash interaction here to their appearance(s) on Oprah’s show?
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 8:03 AM
Karan mentioned somewhere that Abhi-ash came 6 hrs late to shooting. It is clearly visible that thy were tired, not looking fresh.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Re: “I find my tolerance level for Karan is so low that I could barely finish part 1. I can’t watch the rest.”
aisi baaton se hi SM hamaara dil jeet leti hain…
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 7:53 AM
Rohit Shetty to make comedy film with Ajay Devgn and Abhishek Bachchan
Ajay Devgn, Abhishek Bachchan The verdict is out. Rohit Shetty’s laugh-a-thon Golmaal 3 has emerged as the clear winner at the Box Office this Diwali. While the filmmaker is but obviously elated with his latest success, he is not one of those who believe in resting on past laurels. Rohit is already busy planning his next two films. While his immediate next as reported earlier would be the remake of the Tamil film Singam and would star Ajay Devgn in the lead, Rohit is also planning a comedy with Ajay Devgn and Abhishek Bachchan. Interestingly, the duo starred in Rohit’s directorial debut Zameen.
Confirming this news Rohit says, “Yes I am planning a comedy with Ajay and Abhishek. I have narrated the idea to them and am waiting to see how the dates can be worked out. The comedy flick would be produced by Shree Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Ltd.”
However, Rohit maintains that the immediate next project that he would be working on would be the remake of Singam. “The comedy film will start only by mid next year. I would first be doing the Singam remake with Ajay. That is an action film and is being produced by Reliance Big Pictures. We start shooting in Feb. 2011 and I plan to wrap the film in two months. We are aiming at a June release.”
With these two films, Rohit Shetty surely has his plate full for next year.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 7:54 AM
The headline horrified me a bit but then I was glad to discover it’s not starting anytime soon! Which means it might not eventually! The Bazmee stuff keeps cropping up also. Abhishek shouldn’t be doing more than one of these in a calendar year. And even then Rohit Shetty is really the pits!
On a related note the Italian Job shoot has begun.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 2:13 PM
Rohit Shetty has already directed Abhishek in Zameen
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 8:57 AM
Midday for what it’s worth:
Abhishek not Ajay in Rohit Shetty’s next
Rohit Shetty has released Golmaal 2, All The Best and Golmaal 3 during the Diwali season. And next year won’t be any different, except that instead of a film with Ajay Devgn, the director’s next festive release features Abhishek Bachchan. And yes, it is a comedy film.
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 9:00 AM
Rohit Shetty & the Golmaal series is any day better than Dostana and its sequel. Good move!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 8:14 AM
on the one hand I could say that these comedy film stories keep cropping up and Abhishek has yet to actually begin one. On the other hand he clearly has shown a certain openness to the possibility which is why these stories get started and I certainly expect something to happen on this front sooner or later. What disappoints me here is still the relative indifference to masala. I know not many in Bombay do the latter but (and as I’ve always argued) is it really such a miraculous leap of faith to go South and make a project happen yourself?!
On a related note I think some new Tamil cinema remakes would also work well with Abhishek. Once again probably a bridge too far! But also one has to be housed in these traditions in some fashion. The problem is that barring examples here and there Bombay stars are far more likely to watch every conceivable Hollywood genre rather than authentic films from other Indian industries. Even those who do better than others. Abhishek loves the Vikram stuff for example but there’s really so much else out there.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 8:03 AM
By the way Ranbir shows up for a minute also talking about them and he’s not going to endear himself to some Hrithik fans with his response that he’s looked up to both Hrithik and Abhishek but the latter more!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 8:59 AM
Haha. Well, he wasn’t too far off the mark there. ‘Realistic’ was the word he used for AB , thereby implying the opposite for Hrithik.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 2:12 PM
We can not take him seriously. We have to see his response when questioned for HR. He will talk about perfection, dances, style and box office. I’ve read in one of his interviews he mentioned that.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 9:14 AM
[I know this comment will be sent up for moderation because of the several links.
It was intentional (that’s why I put them together) so that you can check whether these links have already been linked to from here before.]
These video clips of Amitabh’s are great. Very grateful to Tom for having put them up on his youtube site.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM
niiice, thanks for posting — can’t watch these at work but should brighten up a dreary Monday winter evening…
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Few thoughts here.
The flashback portion could not easily been left out. Did not see any point in it? Instead more question should have been better.
On Abhi:
He was very direct and honest. I was surprised at his choice for Aamir over Shah Rukh. He is very close to Shah Rukh and never seen him interact with Aamir. Obviously he is not going to pick Salman. I have never ever seen him comment on Aamir before this is probably the first time.
He was never backed off mentioning Shatrugan’s name but then made it right by saying he has a right to his opinion.
Very sarcastic regarding the Agneepath comment.
All in all he made the show very enjoyable.
On Ash:
She was her usual giggly self with one of the most annoying English accent. It is half British and half American.
Do not agree with Kareena over Priyanka choice
She was very diplomatic and politically correct. The questions regarding picking the khans was so good since she has problems with all the 3 khans including Aamir during the casting of Mangal Pandey. The role finally went to Rani. She is probably the only mainstream actress that has some public fall outs with so many actors whether it was her fault or not.
Interesting comment by Ranbir on Abhi and Hrithik.
Karan for the first time looked overmatched and not on his game with Abhi. Also you could he was very easy on them and backed a number of times with his questions.
This show is always funny and enjoyable because the questions are always probing and interesting though some of the answers are diplomatic.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:05 PM
“This show is always funny and enjoyable because the questions are always probing and interesting though some of the answers are diplomatic.”
Really? What probing questions?
I think the show sucks because Karan asks the same questions every season – who is the best Khan (expecting SRK to be selected of course), who is the better actor/actress A or B, who is hot, etc. Karan is a terrible host with limited interviewing skills.
But this is what passes for being good in BW based on very low standards.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:22 PM
Tyler
I meant probing in a gossipy nature. Yes sometimes the questions are repetative but if you put in context who is answering that they becoming interesting.
As I said Karan was not at his best this time with the whole show including the questions. He looked a little lazy or too comfortable.
Hope the show gets better with other guest. The one with Imran and Ranbir looks good.
Also hopefully Aamir will also come on the show.
I am not saying it is the most intelligent show out there but it does bring out a different side of the actors that we do not see in a regular interviews
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:13 PM
agreed all round.. Abhishek really took control here and there was definitely some edge to his humor. Also talked about the SRK-Ash pair being better than the Hrithik-Ash one but he did it in a somewhat damning way. The Aamir response I was very pleased with not least because I consider it factually accurate! By the way he has a very strong relationship with Aamir. But this is one of the industry’s better kept secrets.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:26 PM
Yeah I forgot to mention SRK-Ash Pair. He went directly for Rajni-Ash pair just for fun.
The choice of Aamir I too am happy because as of now that is a true fact which readily accepts and not afraid to say it.
Knowing Aamir I would not be surprised that they relationship is secret since he can be shy sometimes and is not always vocal who he is friends with.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:06 PM
I actually liked Rajni-Ash in Robot. Of course Rajni is too old at this point, I think he would have been great with her had he been younger (Rajen will bludgeon me for saying this!) but it still worked in Robot, especially the end portions.
I do think Abhishek is on the money about Hrithik-Ash. Contra media opinion I always felt this was a poor pair because it’s just about putting two pretty faces together. The best pairs are always ‘asymmetric’ in my view. Which doesn’t mean the other person shouldn’t be good looking or attractive on screen, just so in a different way. Hence I’ve liked Ash with Abhishek but also with Dutt in Shabd, with Akshay in Khakee (AR doesn’t count!).
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:32 PM
“But this is one of the industry’s better kept secrets.”
Hardly. Aamir himself follows AB Sr and Jr on twitter(a vague, but pretty accurate indicator of industry equations now) and they’ve interacted quite a lot on that site. Aamir’s profile picture itself is from a dinner with the bachchans.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Have to say I liked Ranbir’s words here. That moment got to the heart of the Hrithik/Abhishek “divide” in more plain-speak than anything else I’ve seen…at least from movie folk.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:01 PM
With regards to Agneepath, I’ll just throw in a simple but explosive question:
Who’s better? Amitabh in Agneepath or Pacino in Scarface?
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM
I would pick Bachchan’s performance in Agneepath. Even apart from the fact that Amitabh is the superior actor (Pacino lacks range, for instance; a comparison of him with Robert De Niro is instructive, although given the bullshit De Niro does, maybe we just want to close our eyes or look away), I prefer the Agneepath persona because of the “from hell” sense that it incarnates: “Vijay Deenanath Chauhan might be seen as Deewar’s Vijay had the latter lived, but that is in a sense too naturalistic a reading. As Bachchan’s entry shot — of Vijay planted so firmly on a chair he seems like a growth on it — demonstrates, Chauhan is a force, not of nature but of something more mythic, a refugee from the lower depths. There isn’t much complexity to his character, which makes Bachchan’s performance (like the Al Pacino turn in Scarface it is indebted to) all the more remarkable: as in Lawaaris and Trishul the character is relatively monolithic, but never loses the audience’s rapt attention. The same cannot be said for our sympathy though: Vijay Chauhan is other-than-human, and while we cannot resist his force, he never has our love.”
In sum, the protagonist of Scarface wants to live so much, he isn’t afraid to risk death to get the good life; the protagonist of Agneepath is likewise unafraid of death, but because he doesn’t seem to think life is really worth living.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Yaar, kaise aisa likh lete ho?
This makes me want to see Agneepath again.Now.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Shukriya, par ye kamaal mera nahin, Bachchan saahab ki kalaa ka hai…
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Pacino Vs De Niro is a dead horse. Apart from the fact that I’d pick Pacino over De Niro in a heartbeat, I disagree that Pacino doesn’t have range. Anyone who can play Michael Corleone, Sonny Wortzik in DDA, Big Boy Caprice (Dick Tracy) & Ricky Roma (Glengary Glen Ross) just to name a few performances of the top of my head, knows about range. I haven’t even mentioned his work as a theater artist (he’s probably the most famous actor to have won an Oscar, an Emmy and a Tony! There are 17 others, to date). No doubt, I’m a huge fan and I can’t really pick favorites between Bachchan and Pacino. But I will say this: Tony Montana is a cultural phenomenon that transcends languageg and race. In terms of impact, Agneepath’s Vijay Dinanath Chauhan doesn’t come close…
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:05 PM
The thing is that De Niro’s great roles have been so incredibly iconic they’ve tended to dwarf his other moments. Something like King of Comedy or Last Tycoon or some others. Barring rare exceptions I’ve just not been a fan of Pacino over the last twenty years because he has seemed quite over the top to me on many occasions. De Niro has done some awful stuff, there’s no defending it but Pacino in something like Heat (to use a by now classic example) often seems to be not in much control as far as I’m concerned (Insomnia is another example). De Niro on the other hand is superbly understated. I know these are different characters but Pacino was far more subtle in the 70s. He has just become too ‘obvious’ a performer in the last two decades and I always find this inexcusable in an actor. Or to put it different Pacino trades too much in the ‘grotesque’ in this period. But at their peaks I’d take De Niro because he simply surprises me more than Pacino and while both had screen presence De Niro was just the greater ‘star’ on screen.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:21 PM
In their respective peaks, I too would take De Niro and I completely agree that the reason people have “forgotten” him a bit in time is because of the past decade’s failures but also because those towering roles at the peak dwarfed other superb, surprising performances of his (precisely like Last Tycoon and the like) that were never heralded the way they may have been for anyone else.
It’s funny you mention Heat. Mann has the distinction of having given both De Niro (in Heat) and Pacino (in The Insider) their last truly great performances. The latter moment for Pacino was “surprising” in my book. At least in how controlled and “quiet” it often seemed.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:25 PM
Yes Insider would be one of the exceptions for me in this period. Liked him a lot in Donnie Brasco too.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:35 PM
I think he’s now more “theatrical” in his approach whereas earlier he was more restrained. It’s as if he played under the restraints imposed by his own physicality in his early phase (some say his best; he was on a roll in the 70s with 5 Oscar nods; a streak he shared with Brando, no less) he seems now to have outgrown it, completely. Pacino is now more “macho”, intimidating and threatening in his presence than his physical form would ever represent. You are right, there is a clear divide in his roles during the two phases. That doesn’t necessarily mean Pacino has become any less of a performer.There are exceptions like “The Insider”, lesser known pet projects like “Chinese Coffee” and how could I forget — the complete deconstruction of his tough guy image in ‘Donnie Brasco.’
Then again there’s ‘The Devil’s Advocate’ and ‘Any Given Sunday’ where Pacino is OTT and very much in sync with the requirements of the role. (Can anyone imagine Scent of a Woman with a subdued protagonist?)
On the issue of ‘stardom’, I have to disagree completely. It is instructive to compare both Pacino and De Niro with respect to that other collossus — Brando. De Niro is more truer to Brando’s ‘style’ of acting, imbibing his physical traits more and adopting a new body language for each role. Pacino imbibes the “method” of Brando and somehow makes each performance more visceral. There’s the unpredictability about Pacino, the intensity that I tend to favor over De Niro’s effective, but in equal parts, “distancing” method.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:54 PM
In very simple terms, I have sometimes felt that De Niro is a more “correct” actor but Pacino trumps him because of his “presence”. The same argument can be applied to a debate between Amitabh Bachchan & Naseeruddin Shah. (Having said that, I suitably recall Naseer’s super-intense performance in ‘Junoon’ and continue towards the path that ends up being a mobius strip)
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:20 PM
Q’s answer can’t be bettered but I’ll add something. Bachchan could have done Agneepath half paralyzed, and in his sleep. For Pacino, standing every inch of his 5.whatever frame to take on a role like this and own everyone and everything on screen was never less than impressive to me. To say the least. Pacino’s Tony of course is the stuff of legend by now, in precisely the same way Vijay is. But I think Pacino’s accomplishment is in someways more impressive than Bachchan’s because of the implausible physicality, because of the grand intensity and for the way in which Pacino’s performance seems perfectly attuned to De Palma’s over-the-top sensibilities in the world of this film.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:23 PM
Re: “But I think Pacino’s accomplishment is in someways more impressive than Bachchan’s because of physicality…”
Just to make sure I’m on the same page, am I correct in reading your point to be that Pacino’s physical — not the right word but can’t think of another — disadvantages (vis-a-vis the more imposing Bachchan) make the dominance of his achievement in Scarface all the more impressive?
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:25 PM
I actually corrected that phrasing, but yes.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:26 PM
Yes, just saw that, it’s clear now…thanks
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:27 PM
And I’m glad you added that corrective about the De Niro comparison. If one were to look at the past 15 years or so, Pacino has been continually fascinating and aged into something wonderful in a way that really shames De Niro. It’s almost as if Pacino is Mammootty to De Niro’s Mohanlal!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:30 PM
certainly a very valid point..
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:40 PM
“But I think Pacino’s accomplishment is in someways more impressive than Bachchan’s because of the implausible physicality, because of the grand intensity and for the way in which Pacino’s performance seems perfectly attuned to De Palma’s over-the-top sensibilities in the world of this film.”
This is a very valid point, GF!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM
I think you guys are mistaking the film for the role/performance.
Scarface is an enduring favorite and while I would take Pacino over anyone else in Hollywood ( tho I do agree with Q regarding ‘range’ to a degree, particularly of late ), I would find it hard to pick one over the other.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:47 PM
Yes, it’s not a decision that I can make with any degree of conviction. Mind says Pacino, the heart says Bachchan 🙂
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:51 PM
But the films in both examples are completely keyed in to the performance and vice-versa. It’s natural to compare both. I think I find Vijay a far more “likable” character than Tony, (certainly he’s much easier to empathize with) but Tony is far more complex. What I like about Scarface is that it’s ultimately a bloody melodrama about immigrant experience. Agneepath doesn’t have a whole lot of thematic resonance beyond the career-subtext of the towering star at its center.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:58 PM
I could agree mostly here.. and as you know I have always considered the Agneepath performance one of ‘risk’.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 5:36 PM
“Bachchan could have done Agneepath half paralyzed, and in his sleep. For Pacino, standing every inch of his 5.”–haha
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:30 PM
would take Bachchan over Pacino but then I’ve never valued the latter as many do, certainly not as much as De Niro. Some recent comments of mine on Agneepath:
longer discussion here:
and again part of this comment:
finally:
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:39 PM
Re: It’s almost as if Pacino is Mammootty to De Niro’s Mohanlal!
Two suicides reported. Not sure if they took place in Mollywood or Hollywood. But my bet is …….
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:43 PM
I think it’s a valid comparison, Rajen. Although, I’d reverse the references to the two actors (Mohan Lal & Mammooty) — only in terms of acting prowess, not in terms of film choices….
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM
Ha!!!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM
Since I’m on a Pacino rant at the moment, has anyone seen “You Don’t Know Jack”? I’ve heard from very good sources that he’s at the top of his game in this one. I’ve heard from some very discerning people that his performance ranks up with the very best in his career!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 6:40 PM
I haven’t unfortunately but yes he’s gotten raves for this as he did with Angels in America. Wanted to see this…he won an Emmy for it.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 10:04 PM
Angels in America is worth watching for sure. I preferred reading it and I’ve never seen it on stage but the TV version was I suppose as good as it could be.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM
haven’t seen it, releases on DVD around Christmas.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 9:59 PM
Couldn’t resist commenting this early in the morning as it’s Pacino! You can’t find a bigger Pacino fan than me… I’ve every work of his (Chinese Coffee and Looking For Richard even!). And I have always believed him to be the finest actor… yes, he’s become ‘theatrical’ over the years… but Pacino operates in a fashion where the performance is always that- a performance. I can’t quite express myself correctly, but in his refusal to ‘become’ the character, and yet ‘become’ so by way of donning and radiating the ‘gist’ of what it means to be that character, he allows for a distanced appreciation of his performance. In other words, we’re never immersed into his role but watch it from afar, helping us ‘see’ the actor perform. There is a certain ‘stage’ element that he thus brings to his roles, as opposed to DeNiro who always strived to ‘imbibe’ the character.
As GF has rightly pointed out, Pacino has aged well as well after a rather shaky mi-90s and early 2000s. His work as Shylock in Michael Radford’s The Merchant of Venice is to me his finest work in his later years. Of course, looking forward to the Jack Kevorkian movie as well as the Salvador Dali biopic.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 10:03 PM
this is a fine response Abzee.. I did like him in Merchant of Venice.. liked the film overall too..
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 10:08 PM
Thanks Satyam. I’m still trying to wake… but Pacino got me wanting to comment. I loved how Pacino delivered the famous “Hath not a Jew…” monologue. He uses the old English, but by sheer manner of delivery and the right pauses, he makes it so accessible, you feel he’s speaking common English. And the voice modulation is just right in that scene.
Pacino perhaps is the only actor I can think of who can ‘modulate’ a grunt even. In Scent of a Woman, even his ‘ha!’ has expression. His dinner table ‘ha!’ has a distinct feel of resignation and defeat to it.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 10:15 PM
the film also had a great score.
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 10:11 PM
Here’s the Shylock monologue. Watch his speech variation and voice modulation, esp. “If you tickle us…” onwards to “Why revenge!”-
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 10:22 PM
I actually had the pleasure of seeing Pacino perform Merchant of Venice this past summer at Shakespeare in the Park. Got goosebumps when he delivered these lines. It was the best Shakespeare performance I’d seen since Kevin Kline’s superb Falstaff…
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 12:44 AM
(great set ofd comments and debates guys, abzee me too it got a pacino fan out.. in morning and now i want to see scarface again)
One thing common for me in Big B and Pacino is i have seen their movies on TV, as i dont belong to their generation, and i have seen both of them, Agneepath was seen by me long time back.. later i saw SCARFACE.
the intensity of this small height man blows u. incredible moreso for me is before that only movie of pacino i ever remember was The Godfather, and michael corleone, the silent assassin, Sicilian… so it was a shocker and huge blown away experience. the way he rises, his walk, his talk with police..
and fact is that cant be ignored u see shades of pacino in vijay dinanath chauhan, and what can be more a proof of accceptance of pacinos performance than that even BIG B followed it imo. the style, the dialogues, and
and thus for entire feel and physicality and surprise from corleaone i clearly get more affected towards scarface.. but i did say big b’s performance is not second best, if only he had imo tried more different than original.. and i am sure he would have been succeeded
my favourite pacino speech (ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, it inspire me a hell lot.. inch by inch)
ps- was amitji’s voice dubbed in agneepath?
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 2:16 AM
Wow! nice speech! thanks man!
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 8:35 AM
no he made his voice hoarse for the film. You didn’t know this?!
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM
Off Topic but interesting blog post on Sholay by memsaab
How many dvd versions of Sholay does one need to have? Depending upon your level of OCD, it could be three or even four. Sadly, there is no definitive version—they all have their issues, plus there are two different endings: the theatrical release with a censor-imposed ending, and the “director’s cut” with Ramesh Sippy’s original—and much much more powerful—one intact. Plus, none of the dvd versions have subtitled songs, one of my biggest pet peeves. I have no idea why the Sippys or anybody else have not bothered to try and do something wonderful with this film, but nothing surprises me when it comes to the Indian film and dvd industry anymore.
Most online discussions on the subject agree that the French widescreen dvd (by Carlotta) is the superior in terms of picture to any other versions; it is not cropped on all four sides to make the “widescreen” version like others, but only on the top and bottom as envisioned originally by Sippy and Dwarka Divecha (his superb cameraman, one of the best in Indian cinema history) to make the 70mm version from 35mm film. Alas, the French did not care to provide English subtitles (you sons of silly persons! no, just kidding—je vous aime, mes amis francais!).
So Tom—whose OCD exceeds even mine and happily benefits all of us—took the Carlotta dvd, converted it properly to NTSC from PAL, and put English subtitles on it, including the songs. He did much more as well in his usual expert manner; he goes into detail on what other enhancements he made in his descriptive pdf file here. I am thrilled with the results and you will be too, especially if you have a nice big widescreen television…
http://memsaabstory.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/sholay-1975/
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 10:09 PM
LikeLike
November 8, 2010 at 10:15 PM
there are only two versions really. Subs are not an issue frankly when analyzing these things unless language is a major issue for one. I think the director’s cut is the one to get. However because the theatrical release has had such a canonical history also it might be worthwhile keeping both (a dialog or two is different among the versions). The biggest issue is of course the original transfer which was then converted into 2.35:1 (but not shot this way). There can be an argument for both I suppose but I always prefer more screen information than less, specially since it was shot that way. If one could watch it in the theater one might prefer the greatest widescreen possible but with home viewing I’m not as bothered. Ultimately it’s not two hard keeping both versions. One would like to see a restoration here though as Indian DVDs go this is still pretty good.
LikeLike
November 9, 2010 at 2:37 AM
i liked ash’s response about khans i.e. my name is NOT khan
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 1:20 PM
Sorry to say this blog is pure garbage.
Discussing hammy performance of bachchan to pacino ???
I know bachchan is all sugary and sweet here on this blog but guys hadh kardee aapne !!
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 2:57 PM
I detect a colonized attitude here.. where no Indian actor no matter how important might be compared with the equivalent Hollywood star. This explains more or less your initial sentiment. You might disagree with the opinion completely (though if you followed the discussion carefully there were enough people on either side of the debate) but why would this warrant your kind of response unless you considered it ‘self-evident’ that Pacino was better than Bachchan (in this context and/or any other)? And here my response is that the ‘self-evidence’ derives from that sort of ‘colonization’. Many people have this sense when Pacino or De Niro are compared with an Indian star. However the reverse never holds. It’s like ‘Indian stars are great within the context of Indian cinema not otherwise’! I reject this kind of stance. Perhaps you meant something else but in which case it would hardly be ‘self-evident’ as you seem to imply.
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 3:04 PM
In response I propose we compare Bachchan with the combined might of Daniel Auteuil, Depardieu, Mifune, Mastroianni & Tony Leung next…
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Then again, Govinda never made Hadh Kardee Aapne part II.
But we at SS need to continue the tradition!
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 3:20 PM
Ha!
But again such a list is instructive too. Often there are important star-actors who are better than competent and sometimes very good in certain parts but who give the impression of being ‘fine’ because they’re playing important parts. There is a difference. I don’t consider Tony Leung a great actor by any stretch of the imagination. Mastroianni is a genuine movie legend but outside the Fellini stuff even his mother probably wouldn’t praise him too highly! Auteuil is excellent but also a mood actor. Depardieu and Mifune come much closer to Bachchan in terms of being that all encompassing star-actor presence or certainly the defining ones for an entire generation of actors. Even here Mifune would have to be qualified in some ways. But in any case the point is that much as certain genres are always overrated because of their association with ‘Hollywood’ similarly all non-Indian stars (specially those belonging to the West) are also over-esteemed. And even when we respect the Naseers of India we sometimes do so because we can more easily assimilate him with Western categories. Bachchan himself becomes at times the only exception to this overall (colonized) schema. This is not to discount that in Hollywood you often have genres and parts that are more challenging by their nature than might be available in most Indian commercial industries. But just appearing in these films does not mean one has does a great job though one might have been competent at it. Similarly it is not at all true that performing in meaningful commercial cinema in India is necessarily easier. By the way entire schools of film criticism account for this in the West which is why stars who play ‘signature’ more than anything else are also celebrated for ‘great’ performances from time to time. One might disagree with this approach but it’s there. Almodovar for example thought extremely highly of John Wayne. Because a star can be very effective on screen even when not performing in any traditional sense. Paradoxical as this might sound! One can be ‘better’ on screen not acting compared to someone who does!
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 3:53 PM
I think Tony Leung can be criticized for not having enough range, but he’s very good/great at projecting angst-ridden, brooding characters. I haven’t seen his entire filmography but from the Wong Kar Wai stuff that I’ve seen, I’ve been mighty impressed.
Plus, if it comes to ‘signature’, I’d have to side with Eastwood rather than Wayne…
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 4:01 PM
he’s always seems a little insipid to me.. he’s alright in those films you mention but he could be so much more..
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 3:16 PM
I’m a fan of Al Pacino but he has given his share of ‘hammy performances’ and been in many crappy movies too. All great actors have bad performances and movies.
Everything Western is not automatically sacrosanct.
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 3:23 PM
my own view has been that beginning with Sea of Love (only because Pacino returned at that point after a long battle with alcoholism and so on) and continuing through to the present day Pacino has more often than not hammed in his films or has been at least on the borderline. I still find him a ‘presence’ on screen, still captivating but that’s saying something different. This extends the longer comment I just made but star-actors can be great actors at one point in their career and then simply effective stars at a later stage even when become less interesting as characters. The signature can bail one out a lot in the movies. On the other hand there’s Jack Nicholson who barring an early period has more or less always played ‘signature’. To act for him is to act ‘Jack’!
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 4:07 PM
Pacino took a break after he got panned brutally for Revolution. In the mean time he worked on a self-financed short called ‘The Local Stigmatic’.
Regarding Pacino’s “hamming”, that’s where his iconic image (partially) comes into play. If Michael Mann decided to ask Pacino to turn it up a notch in Heat, he had a reason to do so. It actually fits in with the contrast/duality between Pacino and De Niro’s characters (cop/robber, loud-emotive/ice-cold) as well. Pacino’s “hamming” isn’t without justification — at least not in films involving good/great directors. It’s films like 88 Minutes, The Recruit where it seems perfunctory (albeit still enjoyable) that people seem to be criticizing and in turn generalizing with respect to his overall career trajectory. Righteous Kill, for example, is a dumb film, but Pacino’s solid in it, without being a quarter of a decibel loud. But nobody mentions his subtle turns because that simply doesn’t fit in with the demise-of-the-legend theory..
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 4:19 PM
If I had one word to describe Pacino, De Niro, Nicholson, Hoffman I’d say this:
Pacino – the most “lively” actor
De Niro – meticulous
Nicholson – charismatic
Hoffman – intellectual
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 4:38 PM
I’m surprised the extent to which you seem to imply some sort of method acting on De Niro’s part. If anything he is quite the opposite. The actor most likely to surprise within that list you have. At least on his best days. There was more of an ‘edge’ to his persona than any of the others and so many of his important performances seem to feed off this element. Pacino was certainly fine in the 70s, obviously more understated than De Niro but I wouldn’t say he ever surprised me more than the latter.
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 4:44 PM
If you are talking about ‘edge’ that’s limited to his association with Scorsese, right? My favorite De Niro on-the-edge performance — Mean Streats.
The worst part about De Niro (which I agree shouldn’t take the sheen of his career) is that since 1990 he hasn’t had a single great moment in films. Pacino, in comparison, has had at least 6 or 7.
LikeLike
November 10, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Re: Sorry to say this blog is pure garbage.
Discussing hammy performance of bachchan to pacino ???
I know bachchan is all sugary and sweet here on this blog but guys hadh kardee aapne !!
Someone forgot to lock the asylum again ??
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 10:11 AM
KJo is all set to resume shoot for his talk show and start work on his next
By Subhash K. Jha, November 11, 2010 – 11:52 IST
Karan Johar The exclusive idea for Karan Johar’s next directorial venture is finally in place, thanks to his unscheduled time off due to a sudden bout of malaria.
Because of the illness, Karan had the time to ponder deeply over what he wants to direct next. After months of a mental block, Karan has finally zeroed in on the subject that he wants to take on next.
And here’s the arresting news: after My Name Is Khan, Karan will direct a full-on fun film filled with music and songs…lip-sync songs which were missing in Khan.
Weak but back with his sharp tongue, Karan says, “I suppose out of every setback some good is bound to happen. So yes, that elusive idea for my next film for which I had even taken time off to be in New York but came back empty-brained, is finally locked in.” Karan has decided to make a complete departure from the mood of his last film My Name Is Khan. He will now make a full-on masti musical with at least 10 songs.
Says the excited director, “I don’t think I should be talking about it so soon. But I can’t help it. Yes, after a serious film like Khan, I am moving into the fun zone. I am doing a fun-and-frolic film. I don’t care if ‘frolic’ is too frivolous a word. That’s what I am doing in my next.”
Significantly, Karan’s next is going to be full-on musical. Says the director, “In My Name Is Khan, I couldn’t have my protagonist singing on screen. Though I’m very proud of its songs, I somehow feel deprived when I don’t do full-on lip-sync songs. My next will be a full-fledged musical with the characters singing away on screen. At the moment that’s all I can tell you.”
On Saturday evening, Karan had the Big B over for dinner. Would it be correct to assume that the mega-star would feature in Karan’s next directorial venture?
At the moment, all one can assume is that Shah Rukh Khan will definitely be a part of Karan’s masti-bhari musical.
Says Karan, “Amitji just came home for a conversation, dinner and an evening with me and my mother. Every time I speak to him, I feel blessed. I’m very fortunate to have not just known him but also worked with him. Of course I’d love to work with him again and with Abhishek.”
Karan intends to invite Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan as solo guests on this season of Koffee With Karan.
“With them, there’s no combination that makes any sense any more,” opines Karan. After 9 days of no-work, Karan will now get back to shooting episodes of his new talk show Koffee With Karan which went on air on Sunday.
Sighs the filmmaker-turned-talkshow-host, “Fortunately, I had shot four episodes before I fell ill. So there’s a bank. I’m proud of what I’ve shot so far. People talk about Imran Khan-Ranbir Kapoor and Sonam Kapoor-Deepika Padukone being rivals. On my show they got along so well!”
Interestingly, Deepika is said to have confirmed on Karan’s show that it was Ranbir Kapoor whom she had accused of two-timing in print.
Says Karan, “I’m not saying anything. Just watch my show.”
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 10:17 AM
the more SRK gets challenged by his peers, the more he seems incapable of defining the critical or commercial benchmarks of any given year the more Johar keeps elevating him! Not to mention constantly putting him alongside Bachchan!
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM
And I love the fact that Aamir and Salman haven’t given Johar their time, yet!
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Well, I don’t know about Salman (not that he’s above KJO) but lately he’s into action, and so I doubt their paths will cross.
As for Amir. He sells fast food in the garb of health food in his shop while KJO sells ‘mithai’ as…… ‘mithai’ in his halwai shop. So *their* paths will never cross.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 11:33 AM
Ignoring the discussion on sweets and food, the easiest reading of this situation goes like this: The #1 star in Bollywood shows KJO one of his fingers!
The whole Koffee with Karan is about ‘stars’ right? The biggest star ain’t coming, so KJO can stick to the has beens…
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 11:59 AM
also note the dishonesty.. he would always have SRK with Kajol.. this time he had Abhi-Ash.. so he suddenly pretends that SRK can only be on the show ‘alone’! What about all those other times?!
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Yes, Amir has a lot to learn about humility and good manners. Showing one of his fingers doesn’t really show him up as elegant and well mannered.
Such an attitude shows a lack of self esteem and inspite of his ‘success’ a lack of self confidence…as himself, in public, where he’s not changed by acting and photography, and being seen larger than life..
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Aamir has willingly made an appearance on KBC (with Bachchan) and with Salman on DKD. If he hasn’t appeared on shows hosted by KJo or Farah Khan, there’s a reason for that!
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 10:44 AM
“I had even taken time off to be in New York but came back empty-brained…”
Funny how it’s taken him this long to see KANK.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 11:24 AM
KANK??
I thought it was New York 😉
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 11:39 AM
I think it was ‘Tyler’ who mentioned this, it’s so excruciatingly annoying and also sad that KJO has to ask everyone the same question about the best ‘Khan’. As if any form of legitimacy achieved on his show will automatically subvert the reality. I’d be genuinely concerned with this kind of pathological behavior if I was a shrink, but since I’m not, I choose to laugh at it..
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 11:57 AM
you’re exactly right.. it’s precisely anxiety that drives Johar to constantly propagandize about SRK.. if it were that obvious why would anyone need to say it?!
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Johar has forever had this need to imagine SRK as Amitabh and SRK-Kajol as Raj Kapoor-Nargis or some such legendary pair! Over the years and specially over the last decade as SRK has been increasingly challenged Johar has also according become increasingly hyperbolic. Today if there is someone in SRK’s generation who is considered in a class apart by most Indians it is Aamir. The latter has just built up this currency over the past decade. SRK is very much seen as past his prime. And anyone, yes anyone can confirm this anecdotally in all sorts of situations.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:22 PM
A very good point. SRK-Kajol, in KJo’s universe, inhabit the same stratosphere as Raj Kapoor-Nargis. It’s as if he’s on a mission to subvert BW history. SRK the biggest star, the greatest actor in the history of BW and Kajol greater than any other heroine, past or present.
I actually think this guy sweet talks the Bachchans a lot and has taken them for a ride again and again. All based on the good will Amitabh shared with Yash Johar. Casting Hrithik in the Agneepath remake almost confirms it!
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:40 PM
agreed on all counts.. and the deconstruction of Bombay film history is very integrally a part of this other move to elevate SRK beyond all reason or rationale. The past contains giants and hence it must be deconstructed. There is a certain typical right-leaning move in all of this. His films are conservative counter-reactions that like all such movements at the political level try to re-imagine the heritage often in very radical ways but always in anodyne formulations of simply restoring tradition and so on. The ‘family films’ that he and his audiences celebrate for example have nothing to do with any older family film tradition whether in the 50s or the 70s. The ‘nostalgia’ that is always a part of every such imagining on the right is always a false one. And the gap then has to be covered with ‘violence’. Not that Johar is otherwise anything that a good old Congress voting liberal (don’t know this for a fact but this would be my guess). But he is culturally conservative much like his audience. There is also a lesson of globalization here which depends on exactly this kind of political ‘quiescence’ among the entrenched classes.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:04 PM
Re: Johar has forever had this need to imagine SRK as Amitabh and SRK-Kajol as Raj Kapoor-Nargis
Disagree with the second half of the statement. It should read – SRK-K Jo.
I feel in songs like Suraj Hua Madham, it seems like K Jo is imagining himself cavorting SRK instead of Kajol.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:10 PM
It seems like more in your imagination 😉
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:17 PM
correction:
‘fantasy’ in place of ‘imagination’.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:08 PM
@satyam
>also note the dishonesty.. he would always have SRK with Kajol.. this time he had Abhi-Ash.. so he suddenly pretends that SRK can only be on the show ‘alone’! What about all those other times?!
I can’t make sense of this comment at all.
It sounds too much like ‘tu tu main main’.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:49 PM
was SRK not big enough when he had him on with others before?! Also it’s not exactly a secret that to get Abhi-Ash on for the debut episode was quite a coup.
Can you not make sense here or do you not want to make sense of it?!
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:51 PM
http://koimoi.c2w.com/2010/11/11/amitabh-bachchan-the-audience-does-not-want-to-see-an-old-man/
I am not sure whether it is posted.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:54 PM
entire interview here:
the Abhishek question was quite deliberate on Nahata’s part but then it’s Bachchan’s fault for agreeing to appear anywhere and everywhere.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Re: As for Amir. He sells fast food in the garb of health food in his shop while KJO sells ‘mithai’ as…… ‘mithai’ in his halwai shop
Agood line even tho not entirely true. Aamir’s health food is a little ‘rich’ but far from being fast food. And K Jo’s mithai sounds stale these days.
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:28 PM
@satyam- offtopic
Pankaj Advani writer of KHKN and DIRECTOR of Sankat city last year passed away
RIP
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think Ajay Devgan or Akki have appeared on KWK…
LikeLike
November 11, 2010 at 12:52 PM
not sure.. never saw this regularly.. do think Salman would appear if asked.. I wouldn’t bet against Aamir appearing either only because over the last couple of years he’s been courting the media quite a bit as well.
LikeLike
December 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM
LikeLike
December 27, 2010 at 8:40 AM
Aishwarya Rai, Abhishek participate in event organised by Bunt community
By Shaikh Sharik, Mumbai, Dec.27 : Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and her husband Abhishek Bachchan participated in Bunt community event here at the weekend.
Bollywood director Rohit Shetty was also present at the event.
Aishwarya said she was overwhelmed by the love given by her community for her work across the globe.
“The community has come from all over the world, and I think, it”s wonderful that we have functions such as these throughout the year of course and I knew it as well. We, as members of the community, have absolute pride and pleasure in participating albeit, in this brief manner but, definitely the community know that we are here,” said Aishwarya Rai.
“We love belonging. We are all family and it”s a pleasure being supportive and sharing such special moments. So, thank you so much for making it as memorable for us, for all your love and blessings,” she added.
Bunt or Tulunad Kshatriya is a Hindu community that belongs to the region of Tulu Nadu in the southwestern part of the country, which comprises the districts including Udupi and Dakshina Kannada in Karnataka.
The community speaks the Tulu language Aishwarya also interacted with the audience in Tulu.
LikeLike