This entry was posted on November 22, 2010 at 6:30 AM and is filed under the bad. 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.
67 Responses to “Images from Yamla Pagla Deewana (updated)”
yup.. becoz, same guy made nanahe jailselmer, and vaada i promise with bobby if i remember correctly.. so some deol connection?? leads me to believe hes the same one
amazing, after giving such wonderful DISASTERS, this director keeps getting films 😦 this is torturing the audience. Rooney, koi PENAL CODE hai iske liye? 😉
i started watching HEROES once – after initial atrocious 20 minutes (they had lifted one sequence straight out of “FPS” by Bhagat – and who was that guy? arbaaz or sohail or whoever…..the whole thing was so putting off….) – I stopped watching that movie though many reviews said that it was watchable (maybe towards the end?)…..this director doesn’t know the pulse of audience but knows the pulse of some foolhardy producers 😉
ideaunique: if on the strength of Betaab Rahul Rawail could keep getting films for over two decades; and if apoorva lakhia can get films, Karnik can too 🙂
Kyun Ho Gaya Na was not horrible, but it was completely lacking in any grip.
i think samir karnik is not a bad director at all.. kyun ho gaya na wasnt a great film by any means but wasn’t bad either.. nanhe jaisalmer was a fine attempt and heros was also decent though didnt find appreciation at the ticket window
This film should be an easy success provided the director doesnt screw it up. The film has low cost with all three Deols and Sunny as a sardar should be enough to bring the film to a hit status.
What is the evidence to suggest that Sunny as sardar gets more eyeballs than sunny in general? If you are talking about Gadar, is the point also that a Sunny film needs a Muslim love interest or Amrish Puri as an antagonist for the film to do well? Let’s not forget Jo Bole So Nihaal. And two of the three Deols together couldn’t take Yeh Dillagi to hit status.
qalandar, i believe jo bole so nihaal had a good opening .. the controversy around the film’s release did affect its collections to a certain point.. the film ultimately went on to become a colossal disaster mainly because it was plain horrible and embarassing to watch..
a good opening in Punjab is a given for this.. BUT what is doubtful is what’ll happen in the rest of the country – i wonder if sunny deol has it in him to still deliver a fine opening even with a genre friendly film
Jo Bole So Nihaal was taken out of theaters after about a week, as I recall, after someone put a bomb in a Delhi theater. It was later proved to have been part of the internal politics of Delhi, but it still impacted the film. At that point it was doing well.
It may have been a bad film. All I was saying was that, at the point when it was pulled from theaters, it wasn’t doing so badly as you are saying. It was too soon to give a verdict either way. It was certainly doing poorly compared to Gadar (which was the benchmark for every Sunny film in those days), but other than that, i don’t recall any articles that it was doing badly, except in the context of the protests.
I was responding to the idea that Sunny playing a sardar proved anything. For instance, at no point was Jo Bole So Nihaal doing comparable business to The Hero — and that shouldn’t surprise anyone: Rahul Rawail’s only hit, as far as I know, was in 1983 with Betaab. Only Deol loyalty kept this guy employed for the last couple of decades, and quite frankly, I wish they were less loyal to this sort of mediocrity. If Dacait was directed by Rawail (I think it was) IMO that was the last watchable film from him — over two decades ago…
I agree with the point that Sunny’s popularity is not predicated on his playing a Sardar role. People like him or not for himself, and not because he is or is not playing a Sardar.
The evidence is Border, Gadar, and JBSN. JBSN did get a decent opening but even with or without controversy the film was going to flop as the final product was awful. I grant you Sunny is no longer a relevent star and my point was that in North India I believe Sunny still has a strong following. Now I dont have any hard evidence to prove this outside of speaking to people in the North of India who still mention his name as amongst the biggest stars. I’m sure its mostly the single screen crowd, but the Deols in the right picture can still be successful. Maybe not to the Gadar level anymore, but nowadays only Aamir is able to do that. I wish the Deol’s good luck on this film.
I agree with you becasue of age the turban and beard does look better on the older actors as opposed to their wigs :). But I do have to disagree with you on that Sunny fans will come to see him no matter what. We Deol fans are a loyal bunch, but we are also have been burnt in the past with some awful Deol starrers and films advertised as Sunny starrers only to be a cameos. He did alot of these post Gadar. I think Deol fans will still come out if the product is decent, ie Apne. Anyway good chatting with you. I dont post often here, but I do come here often and enjoy reading your posts.
I mean that as a compliment, btw: I think they adhere to “old school” values of loyalty, who-has-stood-by-me etc., which I find charming in an increasingly “corporatized” environment. But it does leave them open to exploitation, “capture” by mediocrities or has-beens (like, sorry to bring him up again, Rahul Rawail); Sanju was the champion of doing lame films because a yaar was making it. [Conversely, it is easy to decry the ruthlessness of an aamir or whoever, but no-one ever looks at how the “stronger”/more successful party can be exploited by free-riders.]
Totally agree with you on that point. I think a number of the “old school” actors are in this category. The Deols, Sunju, Salman, and even Amit ji has done crap films for friends as favors. I think that is the charm of the actors I mentioned is that they somehow seem more real and geniune as opposed to always looking out for themselves. I do give Abhay Deol alot of credit for doing his own thing and carving a niche for himself, and not getting caught up in with the Deol families re-tread directors (ie Rahul Raiwail, Guddu Dunoa, Anil Sharma, etc). With that said I do give Sunny credit in giving some pretty good directors a break with his prodcution company ie Santoshi with Ghayal, Imitiaz Ali with Socha Na Tha, and Gurinder Chadha with London eventhough it never got finished and latter became Dillagi directed by Sunny himself. *****Sorry I replied here I could not reply at your post below for some reason***
Re: “I do give Sunny credit in giving some pretty good directors a break with his prodcution company ie Santoshi with Ghayal, Imitiaz Ali with Socha Na Tha, and Gurinder Chadha…”
Don’t agree. For me it is other way round. Surely, consistent bad back problems has affected physically and career wise but still he can come back with good script and good director.
Overall, dharmendra is better than all deols combined and much more.
I feel that he did not get his due–infact, his comedy timing was amongst the best ever in bollywood.
even in the films he did with amitabh (at his peak), he fared v well (maybe better)
infact, amongst all those who costarred with amitabh (at his peak) he was the most effective.
many feel shatru did well but think he was hamming to the core and trying over-hard not to get overshadowed by the bachchan.
shashi, rishi comfortably got relegated to the second hero role.
True: no other actor who debuted in the late 1950s is even a tenth as well-remembered or loved today I mean by today’s generation), be it a Shammi or a Jubilee Kumar…
What I mean is he certainly had the second fiddle to Bachchan but this didn’t really work against his own “effectiveness” when it came to the films. To be fair Bachchan pretty much relegated everyone in those old films, even if they clocked in with equal or greater screen time.
in the current context, the only deol capable of any pulling power is sunny. perhaps , it is a little too late in the day for him. post gadar, h handled his career in the owrst possible way. also had back issues.
But inspiteof it all, given the right maker (like santoshi), subject and script , he still can be quite a handful.
unfortunately, it does not seem he will get those makers scripts…
As fo bobby, nothing neeeds to be said.
surprisingly, abbhay deol seems to be more “happening” than any of these deols….
it was actually good for abhay to have charted an independent career graph (till now)…
Agree, I would pick Dharam over all comers; certainly above Vinod — this dude was a little too angular. Shashi Kapoor was also very good-looking IMO…the young Rajesh Khanna was also pretty good looking…
Incidentally this film sounds a tad bit like the Malayalam film Thommanum Makkalum, later remade in Tamil with Vikram as Majaa. Doubt it’s a remake but the basic setup sounds similar.
Rahul Rawail started a fine director. Love Story was a huge film as was Betaab! Arjun was a fine film; not a flop at all. Biwi-O-Biwi was hilarious; Dacait was a good film that didn’t fare well… So, it’s disagreeable.
Sunny as a Sardar does have a following. Gadar was Sunny’s film. He did look good in Border as well.
Dharam was a very good actor actually. I cannot envision anybody else in Chupke Chupke, Sholay, Dharam Veer, Satyakam etc.
Chupke Chupke is indeed one of the fine comic performances in Hindi cinema. Dharam was golden here. But the star/superstar point gets illustrated in an interesting way here. Because this film needs a burst of Bachchan oxygen towards the end. Mukherjee smartly realized this and the very last section of the film is more or less given over to Bachchan. There was a danger of things flagging a bit if Bachchan had not been introduced.
But yes I will certainly agree that Dharam was not a ‘replaceable’ star in any sense. Incidentally for those who haven’t seen it his hit from the early 70s, Raja Jani, still comes across as a rather trendy, cool film.
Yes, Dharam was a very good actor. And this is something overlooked. As Satyam said earlier, he may have got his due but never the recognition that he was a good actor. It was always about the other hero things–looks, physique, acttion, Amitabh’s foil in Sholay. Dharam was a better actor than say Rajesh Khanna who was for a time a superstar. RK made up for lack of acting ability with his charisma,screen presence and good looks. A superstar has to have the personality to carry the title. RK did, Amitabh did. But Dharam didn’t — nor would I like him if he did for it would have also endowed him with a super ego.
He-man, Greek god and Garam Dharam-all laughable and stupid labels which he accepted and glorified was surely a mistake by public and him. Public is not always right and myth of Dharmendra’s Greek god body and He-man ship is one of the strongest evidence. Barring few movies he acted in many b-grade movies and acted very badly and cheaply.
Now to move on to completely different topic let me paste very interesting article on no ball to Shewag saga here due to unable to find proper thread to post.
“So it is now open season on Suraj Randiv, who bowled the no-ball that ‘denied’ Virender Sehwag a century he truly deserved (In contrast to those knocks where he blazes away from ball one, on this particular occasion Sehwag absorbed the loss of his colleagues at the other end, battled with the demons of the pitch and atmosphere, revealed an unsuspected ability to do the grind, and fulfilled the fantasies of millions of Indian fans who, ever since the swashbuckler made his debut, have lusted after the possibility that one day, he will bat through an innings). It is also open season on Kumar Sangakkara, the Sri Lankan captain, who if the transcription of words picked up from the stump mike is to believed, reminded Randiv, just as he prepared to bowl the decisive ball, that “If he hits it, he gets the run”.
Digression: Consider Randiv’s brains, or lack thereof. If Kumar was in fact instructing his bowler, was that instruction to bowl a no-ball? Ridiculous – a batsman can and, in this instance did, hit a no-ball. A more canny bowler would have bowled a wide – because it is the wide that, by definition, you cannot hit.
But back to cases: So everyone, from the Sri Lankan cricket board to sundry Indian stars of yesteryear, have been banging on about the Lankans’ lack of sportsmanship (If there is any irony in Mohammad Azharuddin, who was banned from international cricket for match-fixing and related activities, talking of the spirit of the sportsman, ignore it, please – it is also the silly season).
What strikes us is how the public discourse, and wall to wall ‘exclusive’ coverage on television channels, misses the point: Sehwag was denied his century not by the Kumar-Suraj combine, but by scorers and umpires who were clearly asleep and/or ignorant of the rules.
Here is what happened, pure and simple: Randiv bowled. The umpire called ‘no-ball’. There is a reason the umpire calls it as soon as a bowler bowls one – it is to let the batsman know that there are no real penalties attached to having a go. A batsman, on hearing that call, knows he can have a swing without running the risk of being bowled, caught, declared LBW.
So Randiv bowled. The umpire called. Sehwag had a swing, and despatched the ball over the ropes.
That is seven runs added to the total – one to the team total as an extra, the other six to Sehwag, the batsman who was quick to seize on the opportunity. Simple.
This is where the idiocy of umpires comes in: How could the game be over as soon as Randiv over-stepped? A ball, to be deemed bowled, has to be delivered; the batsman has to play/miss it; in the case of the former the ball has to be retrieved while the batsman runs, or not…there is no provision in cricket for declaring a result, and ending a match, at some intermediate stage of this process.
Thus, for umpires to declare that the game was over as soon as Randiv overstepped is plain folly. To understand this, consider a hypothetical situation: Randiv bowls. It is a no-ball. Sehwag decides the game is over, lets the ball go and walks off. Sangakkara collects and whips off the bails.
Is the batsman out? Of course he is. The extra run cannot be counted until the ball in question is officially dead; in our example Sehwag left his crease while the ball was in play, therefore he is out.
So, if his dismissal off a no ball counts, why were the runs he scored off that no ball not counted to his name?
The question, simplified: How could the umpires, or the scorers, or both, consider the match over before the ball had completed its necessary course?
Read Law 24 (No ball)
Runs resulting from a No ball
The one run penalty for a No ball shall be scored as a No ball extra. If other penalty runs have been awarded to either side, these shall be scored as in Law 42.17 (Penalty runs). Any runs completed by the batsmen or a boundary allowance shall be credited to the striker if the ball has been struck by the bat; otherwise they also shall be scored as No ball extras.
Where is the ambiguity? The law clearly says that any runs completed by the batsman, or a boundary allowance, off a no ball shall be credited to the striker.
Sehwag ‘completed’ a sixer. His score – unless the scorer is a congenital idiot – should have been 105. End of story.
The key is to understand that a game is not declared over midway through a cricketing action – which is the space between a ball being ‘live’ and being ‘dead’. Consider this example: India needs one run to win. Sehwag whacks the ball high in the air. While the ball is in the air, the batsman cross over and complete a run. The ball comes down, and is caught.
Is the game over, simply because the batsmen had crossed while the ball was in the air, and had not yet been caught? No, the verdict in this case would be, the batsman is out, the run doesn’t count. So clearly, runs and results are not declared at some arbitrary point while the ball is live – such a determination happens only after the ball is ‘dead’.
The fallacy appears to be in the thinking that any runs accruing to the batsman and/or side after a result is achieved do not count. That is equally a fallacy. Here is an illustrative example:
India needs to get one run to win. Sehwag drives, and the batsman race across for a single. The ball then goes on to cross the boundary. Do you award Sehwag one run, or four? Clearly, the answer is ‘four’ – despite the fact that the first of those runs won the game.
It is not the intention of this post to ‘excuse’ what Randiv did, or what Sangakkara asked him to do. That action was clearly unsporting, childish, petty. Here was one of the great batsman of the modern era, in challenging conditions, digging deep within himself to play a match-winning innings that was contrary to type. A gracious opposition would have admired, applauded; instead, the Lankans appear to have conspired to score a childish ‘victory’.
Fair enough. What beats us, though, is this: Why is there, amidst all this noise, no attempt to question the outcome declared by the scorers? Why is there no debate on the central question? Where were the umpires, the match referee? And where, incidentally, was the Indian team management that it did not think to question the scorers’ declared result?
Personally, because Randiv is a kid who probably wouldn’t have done it had some senior not asked him to, it’s the senior who should be penalized.
Re: “The ball then goes on to cross the boundary. Do you award Sehwag one run, or four? Clearly, the answer is ‘four’ – despite the fact that the first of those runs won the game.”
In fact, isn’t this done? i.e. there are many matches in the history books where we see that team 1 has scored 149, and team 2 wins the match batting second and scoring 152 or 153; so I agree with you the rule should be the same for the no-ball situation too.
Since we keep getting these cricket related posts (and sometimes football related ones, too) in threads that have nothing to do with the sport, with the introduction, “I couldn’t find a relevant thread, so I am posting it here,” I have a suggestion to make to Satyam. Just as you have now included a Rerun section in the sidebar, why don’t you include a section for all cricket related posts, and one for all football related ones (if there is enough demand)? Then there would be no confusion on where to post, and the sports fans can also find the articles of interest without too much trouble.
not sure about redux or rerun…
saw tis comment late.
cannot resist a comment.
the level to which sangakarra and dilshan stooped to here is appalling….
cant believe that poor randiv had anything to do with it but to sincerely obey his seniors.
sangakaara is a v good batsman and a good captain, but he often comes across as a guy trying to be oversmart (not only with his put-on english accent)….
The “prompt” response to”discipline” the pplayers from the sri lankan authorities has more to do with the IPL moolah, it seems , than the awakening of “sportsman spirit”
I think that Dharam is one of the most complete actors of the Indian cinema. Back in the 70’s, Amitabh probably was the most complete actor around among the stars of the era, but if there was anyone who could come close to Amitabh in that respect, it was Dharam. Vinod Khanna, Shatrughan Sinha were at their best in action and dramatic roles, Rishi Kapoor and Rajesh Khanna excelled in romantic role but were limited to that genre. But the Amitabh, followed by Dharmendra were the most versatiles ones of that era.
As for Sunny, he is an underrated actor. He had a certain ability to underplay his role extremely convincingly early on in his career. Watch Arjun, Yateem or Dacait. He could play this silent angry young man extremely well while most of the other actors back then would ham iot up. Post-Ghayal, he started platying it to the gallery a bit more. But it was what the audience liked a lot about him back then. I remember in The Hero, he underplayed the role and some critucs pointed out to the fact his fans missed his occasional outburst.
There is one thing where we have to give him his due, though. No one beats Sunny when it comes to raw action scenes. No one in the Indian cinema can convey anger more convincingly. THe main problem is that the genre of movies he excels iq not a multiplw-friendly genre these d
THe main problem for him is that the genre of movies he excels in is not a multiplex friendly kind of genre. These kinds of movies are looked upon as retrograde these days. But it isn’t about a lack of talent. It’s a fact that the critics and fans who marvel at SRK’s act of quivering lips when the latter cries, the same people would say Sunny’s trademark frown is the hallmark of non-acting.
AS for BObby, he had a decent spell towards the end of the 90’s when Soldier, BIchoo and Badal were successful. He was liked for that kind of role back then but the main problem is that when he tried other kinds of roles, he wasn’t good enough or he wasn’t accepted. And then the action and dramatic films stopped doing well and he has found it tough to get going since then.
SATYAMSHOT 
August 16, 2010 at 10:02 AM
i like it..
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 10:22 AM
tough comp for TMK
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Is this same director who brought us “Kyun? Ho Gaya Na!”?
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 10:31 AM
yup.. becoz, same guy made nanahe jailselmer, and vaada i promise with bobby if i remember correctly.. so some deol connection?? leads me to believe hes the same one
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 11:04 AM
amazing, after giving such wonderful DISASTERS, this director keeps getting films 😦 this is torturing the audience. Rooney, koi PENAL CODE hai iske liye? 😉
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 11:22 AM
He was direcotor of “Heroes” in 2008. Apart from average success, movie was good watch.
And No, Vaada was not his directorial. It was from satish kaushik i guess.
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 2:02 PM
yakuza.. m talking of this one.. vaada raha i promise.. bobby and kangana
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1512321/
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 2:37 PM
oops Rooney, is this a movie ever released ? Lolzz
Well i never tracked less than Rs. 100 opener … 🙂
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 10:22 PM
i started watching HEROES once – after initial atrocious 20 minutes (they had lifted one sequence straight out of “FPS” by Bhagat – and who was that guy? arbaaz or sohail or whoever…..the whole thing was so putting off….) – I stopped watching that movie though many reviews said that it was watchable (maybe towards the end?)…..this director doesn’t know the pulse of audience but knows the pulse of some foolhardy producers 😉
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 4:42 PM
ideaunique: if on the strength of Betaab Rahul Rawail could keep getting films for over two decades; and if apoorva lakhia can get films, Karnik can too 🙂
Kyun Ho Gaya Na was not horrible, but it was completely lacking in any grip.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 10:20 PM
🙂 at that rate, anusha rizvi can expect at-least 10 more years in the industry 🙂 just like mathewy mathan, ashu, farhaan, murugadoss et all…. 🙂
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 11:38 AM
in the second pic i initially thought dharam was sunny!
film looks crap…was watching to songs of Anupama the other day – that was Dharmendra’s time!
LikeLike
August 16, 2010 at 3:11 PM
i think samir karnik is not a bad director at all.. kyun ho gaya na wasnt a great film by any means but wasn’t bad either.. nanhe jaisalmer was a fine attempt and heros was also decent though didnt find appreciation at the ticket window
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 2:46 AM
Might be HUGE In the North…..
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 12:07 PM
thank God Abhay isnt in this otherwise aadmi would have called it the next Sholay!
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 12:41 PM
LO,,Pranay. A good one.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 2:14 PM
This film should be an easy success provided the director doesnt screw it up. The film has low cost with all three Deols and Sunny as a sardar should be enough to bring the film to a hit status.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 2:59 PM
What is the evidence to suggest that Sunny as sardar gets more eyeballs than sunny in general? If you are talking about Gadar, is the point also that a Sunny film needs a Muslim love interest or Amrish Puri as an antagonist for the film to do well? Let’s not forget Jo Bole So Nihaal. And two of the three Deols together couldn’t take Yeh Dillagi to hit status.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM
qalandar, i believe jo bole so nihaal had a good opening .. the controversy around the film’s release did affect its collections to a certain point.. the film ultimately went on to become a colossal disaster mainly because it was plain horrible and embarassing to watch..
a good opening in Punjab is a given for this.. BUT what is doubtful is what’ll happen in the rest of the country – i wonder if sunny deol has it in him to still deliver a fine opening even with a genre friendly film
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 5:52 PM
Jo Bole So Nihaal was taken out of theaters after about a week, as I recall, after someone put a bomb in a Delhi theater. It was later proved to have been part of the internal politics of Delhi, but it still impacted the film. At that point it was doing well.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 5:59 PM
But the Sikh extremist anger against the film doesn’t address why the film was doing poorly elsewhere. And by god, it was a wretched film.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 6:12 PM
It may have been a bad film. All I was saying was that, at the point when it was pulled from theaters, it wasn’t doing so badly as you are saying. It was too soon to give a verdict either way. It was certainly doing poorly compared to Gadar (which was the benchmark for every Sunny film in those days), but other than that, i don’t recall any articles that it was doing badly, except in the context of the protests.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM
I was responding to the idea that Sunny playing a sardar proved anything. For instance, at no point was Jo Bole So Nihaal doing comparable business to The Hero — and that shouldn’t surprise anyone: Rahul Rawail’s only hit, as far as I know, was in 1983 with Betaab. Only Deol loyalty kept this guy employed for the last couple of decades, and quite frankly, I wish they were less loyal to this sort of mediocrity. If Dacait was directed by Rawail (I think it was) IMO that was the last watchable film from him — over two decades ago…
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 6:25 PM
I agree with the point that Sunny’s popularity is not predicated on his playing a Sardar role. People like him or not for himself, and not because he is or is not playing a Sardar.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 10:01 AM
The evidence is Border, Gadar, and JBSN. JBSN did get a decent opening but even with or without controversy the film was going to flop as the final product was awful. I grant you Sunny is no longer a relevent star and my point was that in North India I believe Sunny still has a strong following. Now I dont have any hard evidence to prove this outside of speaking to people in the North of India who still mention his name as amongst the biggest stars. I’m sure its mostly the single screen crowd, but the Deols in the right picture can still be successful. Maybe not to the Gadar level anymore, but nowadays only Aamir is able to do that. I wish the Deol’s good luck on this film.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Re: “I grant you Sunny is no longer a relevent star and my point was that in North India I believe Sunny still has a strong following.”
I wasn’t talking about this, only about Sunny-as-Sardar. IMO, Sunny’s fans will come watch him whether or not he is a sardar in the film…
That being said, because of age, I think he looks better as a sardar (e.g. Bachchan in major Saab); the beard + turban flatters an older man.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 10:18 AM
I agree with you becasue of age the turban and beard does look better on the older actors as opposed to their wigs :). But I do have to disagree with you on that Sunny fans will come to see him no matter what. We Deol fans are a loyal bunch, but we are also have been burnt in the past with some awful Deol starrers and films advertised as Sunny starrers only to be a cameos. He did alot of these post Gadar. I think Deol fans will still come out if the product is decent, ie Apne. Anyway good chatting with you. I dont post often here, but I do come here often and enjoy reading your posts.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 10:22 AM
The Deols are not professional.
I mean that as a compliment, btw: I think they adhere to “old school” values of loyalty, who-has-stood-by-me etc., which I find charming in an increasingly “corporatized” environment. But it does leave them open to exploitation, “capture” by mediocrities or has-beens (like, sorry to bring him up again, Rahul Rawail); Sanju was the champion of doing lame films because a yaar was making it. [Conversely, it is easy to decry the ruthlessness of an aamir or whoever, but no-one ever looks at how the “stronger”/more successful party can be exploited by free-riders.]
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Totally agree with you on that point. I think a number of the “old school” actors are in this category. The Deols, Sunju, Salman, and even Amit ji has done crap films for friends as favors. I think that is the charm of the actors I mentioned is that they somehow seem more real and geniune as opposed to always looking out for themselves. I do give Abhay Deol alot of credit for doing his own thing and carving a niche for himself, and not getting caught up in with the Deol families re-tread directors (ie Rahul Raiwail, Guddu Dunoa, Anil Sharma, etc). With that said I do give Sunny credit in giving some pretty good directors a break with his prodcution company ie Santoshi with Ghayal, Imitiaz Ali with Socha Na Tha, and Gurinder Chadha with London eventhough it never got finished and latter became Dillagi directed by Sunny himself. *****Sorry I replied here I could not reply at your post below for some reason***
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Re: “I do give Sunny credit in giving some pretty good directors a break with his prodcution company ie Santoshi with Ghayal, Imitiaz Ali with Socha Na Tha, and Gurinder Chadha…”
That’s a very fair point.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 4:10 PM
Sunny easily looks the worst here..
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Don’t agree. For me it is other way round. Surely, consistent bad back problems has affected physically and career wise but still he can come back with good script and good director.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 4:52 PM
Overall, dharmendra is better than all deols combined and much more.
I feel that he did not get his due–infact, his comedy timing was amongst the best ever in bollywood.
even in the films he did with amitabh (at his peak), he fared v well (maybe better)
infact, amongst all those who costarred with amitabh (at his peak) he was the most effective.
many feel shatru did well but think he was hamming to the core and trying over-hard not to get overshadowed by the bachchan.
shashi, rishi comfortably got relegated to the second hero role.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 5:32 PM
I think he got his due, he’s a genuine Bombay film legend and he was among the top stars for so many years. Yes the absolute peaks always eluded him.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 5:51 PM
True: no other actor who debuted in the late 1950s is even a tenth as well-remembered or loved today I mean by today’s generation), be it a Shammi or a Jubilee Kumar…
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 5:50 PM
Re: “even in the films he did with amitabh (at his peak), he fared v well (maybe better)”
He was at his best in Sholay, but to be honest was far from it in Ram Balram IMO…
no question that dharmendra is better than every otehr deol who has ever been seen on screen, combined!
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 6:27 PM
His best was with Hrishida.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Disagree on Shashi…
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 6:32 PM
What I mean is he certainly had the second fiddle to Bachchan but this didn’t really work against his own “effectiveness” when it came to the films. To be fair Bachchan pretty much relegated everyone in those old films, even if they clocked in with equal or greater screen time.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 4:56 PM
in the current context, the only deol capable of any pulling power is sunny. perhaps , it is a little too late in the day for him. post gadar, h handled his career in the owrst possible way. also had back issues.
But inspiteof it all, given the right maker (like santoshi), subject and script , he still can be quite a handful.
unfortunately, it does not seem he will get those makers scripts…
As fo bobby, nothing neeeds to be said.
surprisingly, abbhay deol seems to be more “happening” than any of these deols….
it was actually good for abhay to have charted an independent career graph (till now)…
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 1:15 AM
abhay connects with youth and he has youtfull appearance and is hjit among multiplex audince
he even pulled the crowd for Aisha
don’t tell me people went to see sonam
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 5:58 PM
feel that dharmendra (at his v peak) was the best looking male lead in indian cinema (notable others–hritik, vinod khanna)
liked sanjay dutt briefly…
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Agree, I would pick Dharam over all comers; certainly above Vinod — this dude was a little too angular. Shashi Kapoor was also very good-looking IMO…the young Rajesh Khanna was also pretty good looking…
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 6:36 PM
Manoj Kumar in his early days
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 6:48 AM
Agree. I think he is/was the best looking Bhagat Singh ever. Quite an Ok actor also until he got caught up in his Bharat avatar.
LikeLike
August 17, 2010 at 6:37 PM
Incidentally this film sounds a tad bit like the Malayalam film Thommanum Makkalum, later remade in Tamil with Vikram as Majaa. Doubt it’s a remake but the basic setup sounds similar.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 12:32 AM
MEGA BLOKBUSTER
remembver i said it first
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 1:16 AM
by the way abhay deol is coming up with Irfaan khan and Mohnlal in BASRA
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 2:05 AM
Interesting — what is the film about?
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 3:59 AM
it is about human traficking
directed by navdeep singh (manorama 6 feet under)
it will take off early next year
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 4:00 AM
abhay and irfan khan are playing agents and mohnlal as govt beuarocrat
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM
Thanks…based on lal’s brief role in Company, I hope he plays a slimy bureaucrat/negative role…
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 4:04 AM
Re: Rahul Rawail, Sunny etc
Rahul Rawail started a fine director. Love Story was a huge film as was Betaab! Arjun was a fine film; not a flop at all. Biwi-O-Biwi was hilarious; Dacait was a good film that didn’t fare well… So, it’s disagreeable.
Sunny as a Sardar does have a following. Gadar was Sunny’s film. He did look good in Border as well.
Dharam was a very good actor actually. I cannot envision anybody else in Chupke Chupke, Sholay, Dharam Veer, Satyakam etc.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 8:30 AM
Chupke Chupke is indeed one of the fine comic performances in Hindi cinema. Dharam was golden here. But the star/superstar point gets illustrated in an interesting way here. Because this film needs a burst of Bachchan oxygen towards the end. Mukherjee smartly realized this and the very last section of the film is more or less given over to Bachchan. There was a danger of things flagging a bit if Bachchan had not been introduced.
But yes I will certainly agree that Dharam was not a ‘replaceable’ star in any sense. Incidentally for those who haven’t seen it his hit from the early 70s, Raja Jani, still comes across as a rather trendy, cool film.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 9:22 AM
Dude, the last film you mention in that list was Dacait, over twenty YEARS ago!
Sunny looked good in Border. He also looked good in Ghayal too.
LikeLike
August 19, 2010 at 4:00 AM
‘Dude, the last film you mention in that list was Dacait, over twenty YEARS ago!’
– I said he started a fine director. And, I said it’s disagreeable. Nothing wrong with that. His primetime was watchable cinema.
Sunny looked good in Ghayal, Yateem, even in Damini – but the point is if he’s a following as playing a turban-beard adorned Sikh, which he does.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 8:24 AM
Yes, Dharam was a very good actor. And this is something overlooked. As Satyam said earlier, he may have got his due but never the recognition that he was a good actor. It was always about the other hero things–looks, physique, acttion, Amitabh’s foil in Sholay. Dharam was a better actor than say Rajesh Khanna who was for a time a superstar. RK made up for lack of acting ability with his charisma,screen presence and good looks. A superstar has to have the personality to carry the title. RK did, Amitabh did. But Dharam didn’t — nor would I like him if he did for it would have also endowed him with a super ego.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 9:58 AM
He-man, Greek god and Garam Dharam-all laughable and stupid labels which he accepted and glorified was surely a mistake by public and him. Public is not always right and myth of Dharmendra’s Greek god body and He-man ship is one of the strongest evidence. Barring few movies he acted in many b-grade movies and acted very badly and cheaply.
Now to move on to completely different topic let me paste very interesting article on no ball to Shewag saga here due to unable to find proper thread to post.
“So it is now open season on Suraj Randiv, who bowled the no-ball that ‘denied’ Virender Sehwag a century he truly deserved (In contrast to those knocks where he blazes away from ball one, on this particular occasion Sehwag absorbed the loss of his colleagues at the other end, battled with the demons of the pitch and atmosphere, revealed an unsuspected ability to do the grind, and fulfilled the fantasies of millions of Indian fans who, ever since the swashbuckler made his debut, have lusted after the possibility that one day, he will bat through an innings). It is also open season on Kumar Sangakkara, the Sri Lankan captain, who if the transcription of words picked up from the stump mike is to believed, reminded Randiv, just as he prepared to bowl the decisive ball, that “If he hits it, he gets the run”.
Digression: Consider Randiv’s brains, or lack thereof. If Kumar was in fact instructing his bowler, was that instruction to bowl a no-ball? Ridiculous – a batsman can and, in this instance did, hit a no-ball. A more canny bowler would have bowled a wide – because it is the wide that, by definition, you cannot hit.
But back to cases: So everyone, from the Sri Lankan cricket board to sundry Indian stars of yesteryear, have been banging on about the Lankans’ lack of sportsmanship (If there is any irony in Mohammad Azharuddin, who was banned from international cricket for match-fixing and related activities, talking of the spirit of the sportsman, ignore it, please – it is also the silly season).
What strikes us is how the public discourse, and wall to wall ‘exclusive’ coverage on television channels, misses the point: Sehwag was denied his century not by the Kumar-Suraj combine, but by scorers and umpires who were clearly asleep and/or ignorant of the rules.
Here is what happened, pure and simple: Randiv bowled. The umpire called ‘no-ball’. There is a reason the umpire calls it as soon as a bowler bowls one – it is to let the batsman know that there are no real penalties attached to having a go. A batsman, on hearing that call, knows he can have a swing without running the risk of being bowled, caught, declared LBW.
So Randiv bowled. The umpire called. Sehwag had a swing, and despatched the ball over the ropes.
That is seven runs added to the total – one to the team total as an extra, the other six to Sehwag, the batsman who was quick to seize on the opportunity. Simple.
This is where the idiocy of umpires comes in: How could the game be over as soon as Randiv over-stepped? A ball, to be deemed bowled, has to be delivered; the batsman has to play/miss it; in the case of the former the ball has to be retrieved while the batsman runs, or not…there is no provision in cricket for declaring a result, and ending a match, at some intermediate stage of this process.
Thus, for umpires to declare that the game was over as soon as Randiv overstepped is plain folly. To understand this, consider a hypothetical situation: Randiv bowls. It is a no-ball. Sehwag decides the game is over, lets the ball go and walks off. Sangakkara collects and whips off the bails.
Is the batsman out? Of course he is. The extra run cannot be counted until the ball in question is officially dead; in our example Sehwag left his crease while the ball was in play, therefore he is out.
So, if his dismissal off a no ball counts, why were the runs he scored off that no ball not counted to his name?
The question, simplified: How could the umpires, or the scorers, or both, consider the match over before the ball had completed its necessary course?
Read Law 24 (No ball)
Runs resulting from a No ball
The one run penalty for a No ball shall be scored as a No ball extra. If other penalty runs have been awarded to either side, these shall be scored as in Law 42.17 (Penalty runs). Any runs completed by the batsmen or a boundary allowance shall be credited to the striker if the ball has been struck by the bat; otherwise they also shall be scored as No ball extras.
Where is the ambiguity? The law clearly says that any runs completed by the batsman, or a boundary allowance, off a no ball shall be credited to the striker.
Sehwag ‘completed’ a sixer. His score – unless the scorer is a congenital idiot – should have been 105. End of story.
The key is to understand that a game is not declared over midway through a cricketing action – which is the space between a ball being ‘live’ and being ‘dead’. Consider this example: India needs one run to win. Sehwag whacks the ball high in the air. While the ball is in the air, the batsman cross over and complete a run. The ball comes down, and is caught.
Is the game over, simply because the batsmen had crossed while the ball was in the air, and had not yet been caught? No, the verdict in this case would be, the batsman is out, the run doesn’t count. So clearly, runs and results are not declared at some arbitrary point while the ball is live – such a determination happens only after the ball is ‘dead’.
The fallacy appears to be in the thinking that any runs accruing to the batsman and/or side after a result is achieved do not count. That is equally a fallacy. Here is an illustrative example:
India needs to get one run to win. Sehwag drives, and the batsman race across for a single. The ball then goes on to cross the boundary. Do you award Sehwag one run, or four? Clearly, the answer is ‘four’ – despite the fact that the first of those runs won the game.
It is not the intention of this post to ‘excuse’ what Randiv did, or what Sangakkara asked him to do. That action was clearly unsporting, childish, petty. Here was one of the great batsman of the modern era, in challenging conditions, digging deep within himself to play a match-winning innings that was contrary to type. A gracious opposition would have admired, applauded; instead, the Lankans appear to have conspired to score a childish ‘victory’.
Fair enough. What beats us, though, is this: Why is there, amidst all this noise, no attempt to question the outcome declared by the scorers? Why is there no debate on the central question? Where were the umpires, the match referee? And where, incidentally, was the Indian team management that it did not think to question the scorers’ declared result?
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Personally, because Randiv is a kid who probably wouldn’t have done it had some senior not asked him to, it’s the senior who should be penalized.
Re: “The ball then goes on to cross the boundary. Do you award Sehwag one run, or four? Clearly, the answer is ‘four’ – despite the fact that the first of those runs won the game.”
In fact, isn’t this done? i.e. there are many matches in the history books where we see that team 1 has scored 149, and team 2 wins the match batting second and scoring 152 or 153; so I agree with you the rule should be the same for the no-ball situation too.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 10:36 AM
Since we keep getting these cricket related posts (and sometimes football related ones, too) in threads that have nothing to do with the sport, with the introduction, “I couldn’t find a relevant thread, so I am posting it here,” I have a suggestion to make to Satyam. Just as you have now included a Rerun section in the sidebar, why don’t you include a section for all cricket related posts, and one for all football related ones (if there is enough demand)? Then there would be no confusion on where to post, and the sports fans can also find the articles of interest without too much trouble.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Sorry, I meant to say the “Redux” section, but couldn’t remember the name when writing the above post.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 10:39 AM
It actually is the Rerun section…the post introducing it is titled Redux.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 10:47 AM
Thanks! I knew I read the word “rerun” somewhere — but then I checked the sidebar, and it says “Redux” there, too.
LikeLike
August 18, 2010 at 12:08 PM
sorry sm — i am one of the biggest offenders on that front…
LikeLike
August 21, 2010 at 1:50 PM
not sure about redux or rerun…
saw tis comment late.
cannot resist a comment.
the level to which sangakarra and dilshan stooped to here is appalling….
cant believe that poor randiv had anything to do with it but to sincerely obey his seniors.
sangakaara is a v good batsman and a good captain, but he often comes across as a guy trying to be oversmart (not only with his put-on english accent)….
The “prompt” response to”discipline” the pplayers from the sri lankan authorities has more to do with the IPL moolah, it seems , than the awakening of “sportsman spirit”
LikeLike
November 23, 2010 at 3:12 AM
I think that Dharam is one of the most complete actors of the Indian cinema. Back in the 70’s, Amitabh probably was the most complete actor around among the stars of the era, but if there was anyone who could come close to Amitabh in that respect, it was Dharam. Vinod Khanna, Shatrughan Sinha were at their best in action and dramatic roles, Rishi Kapoor and Rajesh Khanna excelled in romantic role but were limited to that genre. But the Amitabh, followed by Dharmendra were the most versatiles ones of that era.
As for Sunny, he is an underrated actor. He had a certain ability to underplay his role extremely convincingly early on in his career. Watch Arjun, Yateem or Dacait. He could play this silent angry young man extremely well while most of the other actors back then would ham iot up. Post-Ghayal, he started platying it to the gallery a bit more. But it was what the audience liked a lot about him back then. I remember in The Hero, he underplayed the role and some critucs pointed out to the fact his fans missed his occasional outburst.
There is one thing where we have to give him his due, though. No one beats Sunny when it comes to raw action scenes. No one in the Indian cinema can convey anger more convincingly. THe main problem is that the genre of movies he excels iq not a multiplw-friendly genre these d
LikeLike
November 23, 2010 at 3:22 AM
..continued
THe main problem for him is that the genre of movies he excels in is not a multiplex friendly kind of genre. These kinds of movies are looked upon as retrograde these days. But it isn’t about a lack of talent. It’s a fact that the critics and fans who marvel at SRK’s act of quivering lips when the latter cries, the same people would say Sunny’s trademark frown is the hallmark of non-acting.
AS for BObby, he had a decent spell towards the end of the 90’s when Soldier, BIchoo and Badal were successful. He was liked for that kind of role back then but the main problem is that when he tried other kinds of roles, he wasn’t good enough or he wasn’t accepted. And then the action and dramatic films stopped doing well and he has found it tough to get going since then.
LikeLike