This entry was posted on March 27, 2011 at 1:21 PM 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.
106 Responses to “Koffee with Karan (Farhan & Zoya Akhtar)”
KJo has some innate ability of converting everyone like him!
The only sensible bit of this interview is when Farhan talks about how greater experimentation was being done in the 70s and stars did all kinds of stuff. So glad he made this point. I’ve been saying this forever! Farhan comes off better in any case.
agreed completely, she exudes a brashness which is completely disproportionate to anything she’s done so far.. a good moment in this regard was when she talks about how Rani should have done the role she offered her and Karan asks her whether it was LBC and she plays coy at which point Farhan quips the filmography contains one film!
“she exudes a brashness which is completely disproportionate to anything she’s done so far”
Personally, I think she’s a lot more entitled to being brash than other arrogant guests on the show.
John is a terrible, wooden actor and Sajjid makes the worst sort of films possible and they were both so full of themselves.
Zoya’s first films is one of the best films made in Bollywood recently, in my opinion. The critics all went gaga over it, Anurag Kashyap called it the best Bollywood film by a first time director and the LA times compared it to Benjamin Button. I can see where she gets her attitude from.
I thought she was very confident, but it looks a bit arrogant because she’s on the show with Farhan who’s such a sweet, humble guy. If she’d been there with Ranbir/ Sonam/ Ranveer/ Ritiesh or almost any of the previous guests, she would have looked like an angel in comparison.
“I guess I am going to offer a bit of a dissent on the film. Overall the film is engaging enough for the most part but the narrative is nonetheless lethargic at various points and especially towards the end I felt it was simply ‘carrying on’. But to go beyond this I found it a bit of a ‘pointless’ film.
The characters of the story operate on three tracks. There are Farhan and Konkona, their friends and so on, more or less the ordinary characters of the work. The film is best when it deals with them. Because at such points it is really a little film with good dialogue and earned moments and so forth.
But then there are the extremely problematic ‘Bollywood’ representations. For starters let me note that Zoya Akhtar also falls in many ways in the OSO trap by resorting to a lampooning of the industry that often uses cues from the past (dacoits holding up a car, Farhan on a horse.. etc.. when was the last time we saw such scenes in a ‘Hindi’ film?). Note that when she goes the other way she is usually not referring to film situations but ’stars’. In other words the Bollywood setup of the present is never the target of humor the way the older paradigm is. Now in fairness to Zoya Akhtar, ‘lampooning’ is perhaps too strong a word. Certainly she too reveals the ‘catch 22′ of the ‘modern’ reception of masala cinema where on the one hand it really ‘addicts’ the viewer and on the other the ‘upscale’ viewer literally treats it as an ‘addiction’ that has to be somehow explained away. Hence it is always ‘masala’ that must be parodied.. this of course reveals the ‘inescapability’ of this cinema.
The ‘Bollywood’ characters fall into two categories. There are the stars (Rishi, Dimple etc) playing fictitious characters and then there are other stars playing themselves (here again all the ‘dated’ stars play other characters while all the contemporary ones play themselves). Of this group there is a genuine character like Dimple but more often there are caricatures like Rishi Kapoor. At some point the director tries to convert them into proper characters but the ‘caricature’ is never quite washed away.
The contemporary stars appear in self-parodying representations though even here there are inconsistencies. Karan Johar and SRK for example are quite ‘normal’. Hrithik of course because of his role is the best illustration of the self-parodying formula and I would agree that his role works (even if I think this is for reasons less than flattering to the star.. in other words there is not much that separates this ostensible parody from his ’straight’ representations in earlier films).
Lastly there is also one character, the ‘Choudhry’ who promises a break to Konkona for years and then finally dumps here, who is a fictitious film personality but also played by an anonymous actor. I personally found him to be one of the film’s better characters, perhaps one of the few in the film!
so there is the strangeness of seeing movie stars that we must stop believing are such in the course of the film (and these then carry echoes of other figures) and those who are literally ‘themselves’.
What all of this leads to in my view is a very confused potpourri. The ’strugglers’ of the film are in essence in playing with a movie target as is the audience. There isn’t a clearly defined film industry here in any sense that can stand as this great other to the world of the ‘ordinary characters’. I think Zoya should have either had ‘non-stars’ representing the Bollywood panoply or done exactly the opposite. What happens with her ‘mix and match’ approach is that many scenes (and this really becomes the overall problem of the film) work on their own but cannot really add up to anything more.
Nonetheless the film does because of these scenes (that draw the viewer in for all sorts of reasons) remain engaging and perhaps even a bit affecting towards the end. The director’s feminist turn, which comes in rather suddenly, becomes mystifying but is still helped by Konkona’s performance. Ultimately she holds the film together far more than Farhan. The latter isn’t especially wanting but he cannot quite give the film its anchor. Konkona struggled mightily against the haphazard narrative and succeeds to some degree.
The kindest thing one could say about this work is that it betrays the freshman effort it is. Zoya Akhtar does not seem without talent. I am curious to see what she does after this. But this film itself is to my mind far more about missed opportunities than about realized ones.”
and incidentally Zoya Akhtar is confirming my worst fears with her current film. Older comment once more:
[On a related note there’s a distinction to be made between say the Zoya Akhtar sort of film (the earlier title was rather revelatory! One wonders if there is some distributor pressure here.. who goes from ‘Running with the Bulls’ to this current Yashraj-like or whatever.. title?!) and something like Italian Job or even Hrithik’s own Krrish. In the latter instance you have a kind of ‘emancipatory’ move where the increasingly confident newly emergent ‘global Indian’ substitutes himself for the Western colonizer in the latter’s very own landscape. So as opposed to Superman saving the world you have Krrish doing so (interestingly in E Asia.. where the real challenge to the American imperium lies). In a film like Italian Job you basically have Indians doing exactly what Americans do! But all these films (Race etc) are different from the Zoya Akhtar sort of effort or the Johar ones where essential Indian conflicts are resolved on Western terrain. So if you have a story of angst or unresolved relationships or whatever you don’t set it in India, you run to Spain! Not that I am a fan of the Race-like synthetic film either. But no real attempt at self-definition is involved here (barring the obvious ‘we can do it too’ in terms of making a certain genre). These other films however attempt precisely this. And we also see a similar move in properly multiplex ‘little’ cinema where conflicts are staged and resolved in Bandra (more or less!) completely away from the larger social struggles/issues not only nationally but just around the corner even in Bombay itself! I wish I had the power to enforce a course in contemporary Tamil cinema on HIndi multiplex viewers. The sort of ‘sins’ I’m referring to are almost never found in that industry even when the subjects seem like Bollywood equivalents]
Today I’d add that the only other stuff we’ve learnt about the film besides Indians coming of age in Pamplona with a bull running tradition is getting involves in another tomato festival in Spain in place of Holi (as one of the pieces suggested) and so on. This isn’t like Americans coming of age in Paris between the wars or before or after one of the wars. There is no ‘archive’ of Indians in Spain! So this is completely fake and ridiculous. This does not mean that the film cannot be watchable and enjoyable on its own terms but that these choices indicate a basic class/ideological bankruptcy every bit as profound as the kind exhibited by Johar.
John is normally a nice guy, but he comes off as very vain on this show. And him and Karan had a very voyeuristic, off-colour conversation.
And most of the celebrities who came on this show were a badly behaved- Sonam with her spiteful superficiality, Ranbir with his boorish ‘battery low’ , Kareena-Priyanka with their stupid ego issues, Sajjid-Ritesh-Boman with their gay/ bi-sexual jokes, etc.
I think this show brings out the worst in people, and given that I think Zoya did quite well. I think Ranveer Singh would be a better example of somebody who’s brash withotu having done much.
I think the post-colonial mentality is not emancipating but ridiculous, unrealistic and jingoistic.
Presenting a world where foreign countries are ruled by Indians (most characters in films set abroad are Indian, and the few foreign ones are cliched and ridiculous) while demonizing western culture and ‘immoral’ western women (who are shown as willing, disposable sex objects for Indian men) is as narrow-minded and unrealistic as representing only India’s rich elite.I don’t see how this any better than KJo’s NRI rom-coms.
As for Zoya’s film being set in Spain, I think the film is intended to showcase another culture in a way that Indians can relate to it. So there’s a Spanish festival similar to Holi, and a Spanish girl (Ariadna Cabrol) in a relationship with an Indian man(Farhan Akhtar). Zoya’s lived in Spain before and is dating a Spanish man (her D.O.P) and she probably wants to show the Indian audience to a foreign culture that she likes.
While I love rustic films like Ishqiya and hate pretentious, contrived wannabe-westernized stuff like Jootha Hi Sahi, Break Ke Baad, KANK etc I’m not averse to Indian films being set in a foreign country and capturing its culture effectively.
I think a lot of Indian films present a comforting but patently untrue idea that Indians and India alone are the centre of the world, that Indian culture is perfect and western culture is awful and immoral. Such an insular world view is as limiting as a view of India that is limited to Bandra’s urbane and affluent set.
“Presenting a world where foreign countries are ruled by Indians (most characters in films set abroad are Indian, and the few foreign ones are cliched and ridiculous) while demonizing western culture and ‘immoral’ western women (who are shown as willing, disposable sex objects for Indian men) is as narrow-minded and unrealistic as representing only India’s rich elite.I don’t see how this any better than KJo’s NRI rom-coms.”
I wasn’t supporting this perspective. Just describing it. However I wouldn’t agree with your characterization. The first half of it is ‘current’. The second half is more about an older 70s representation than anything else. so you’d have the nice, rooted Indian heading off to London or Europe and being greeting by an assault of immorality and so on. But this is not the view of this current generation. They very much aspire to that lifestyle and all manner of Western consumerism etc.
On the rest I don’t oppose Ishqiya to ‘running in Europe’. But it would be nice to ‘run in Bombay’ for a change (a lot more of this has happened in recent times of course)! On the rest those plot details are merely ‘excuses’ to head to Spain! As for liking the culture YES! that’s the point. Johar too likes a lot of what he sees in London and NY and elsewhere. My criticism isn’t that these directors are fakes but that they have no real connection with their more immediate Indian environment. They live in bubbles in Bombay form which they venture out only to head to Europe or wherever. They live in ‘enclaves’ in India, those enclaves where their aspirations can be replicated. They have no interest in anything else. And I find this irresponsible, even a little disgusting.
So I too am not averse to films being set abroad. It happened a lot in the 60s for example. But that perspective was very different from this one where these directors are just ‘fleeing’ from India. For people in this class (and this represents many in the multiplex audience as well) it’s all about a certain consumerist lifestyle. You become part of a club, you narrow your horizons as opposed to broadening them and then everything else in life then has the structure of an ‘in-joke’. This is why the films produced by such a mindset end up being so hopelessly conformist and uninteresting.
I think SLB is a bit of an outsider these days. Since Saawariya he’s been upset by some in the industry who badmouthed his film. Since then he seems more a reclusive than he’s every been.
I think its ridiculous that Johar includes himself when he’s asking about directors. Would like to see one of these stars have the guts to rate him last. Pretty much where he belongs, imo, in the company of Hirani, AG, SLB
“Luck by Chance by Zoya is by far the best debut film of the last decade by any filmmaker including Dil Chahta Hai. After the film I walked up to farhan and told him that,
” Zoya has outshone you , and this is my number one debut film by anyone, you are now second”
He said,”we decided to keep it in the family”
Well I don’t doubt that. A brutally honest picture about the film industry, about dreams and aspirations in the big bad world of Bollywood. Honest to the point of being ironical. Every actor that plays himself in the film is actually ridiculing himself. ”
I don’t agree with everything he says in his blog post, but I do think that between LBC and DCH, LBC is the superior film. I think it is easy to underestimate it and look at it as a star-studded spoof on the industry, but there was so much of symbolism and subversive meaning.
I love the fabulous ending where Konkana’s character tells Farhan that he shouldn’t blame himself for being selfish and manipulative because you cannot escape your basic personality beyond a point. I really loved how unconventional the ending was and it made the film for me. Why was it mystifyingly feminist for you? I would have hated it if she took him back after everything.
And I think there was a definite sense of irony in a movie about nepotism being peopled with the products of nepotism themselves. I thought she used all the cameos fabulously. There was a hint of meta about most of the characters, and I agree with Anurag that they were mocking themselves. I think OSO is an unfair comparison, all the stars did was come dance together in one song.
DCH was obviously much more influential and successful, but I think that LBC was the more intelligent and better written film. Zoya’s a very talented writer and the humor in her movie was far smarter. And there were just so many lovely details in the movie- the film posters, the magazine covers, the metaphorical songs, the symbolic sub-plots with the fridge and with the clock.
I pity Kashyap for holding these opinions. I suspect that the very things I’ve mentioned in my impressions have pleased Kashyap. But he gives the film far too much credit. And when I ‘pity’ him it’s not meant to be a gesture of condescension on my part but because I think he’s far more intelligent than this piece would suggest. LBC is too ‘easy’ a film to sustain Kashyap’s reading.
The L.A times review, and it compares LBC to two iconic movies- Benjamin Buttons and All about Eve.
“While it is required by the Movie Reviewing Handbook that one must compare “Luck by Chance” in some way to “Slumdog Millionaire” — the set-in-India, top-of-mind Oscar front runner — the film actually bears a stronger resemblance to another Oscar contender, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” Both films are willing to face storytelling cliches head-on and refashion them not by winking irony, but with a clear-eyed sincerity matched by a skillful knowingness of when to ease off just enough to keep things from toppling into inanity.
“Luck” is overlong by Hollywood standards of narrative economy, yet at times, such as when secret off-screen lovers sing a romantic ballad to each other while working on-set, the film attains an emotional richness that is nothing less than startling.
Where “Slumdog,” with its signature “It is written” take on fate, implies that things happen because they must, “Luck by Chance” concludes that we each have a hand in determining our own destiny. As it should be, for in this winningly glitter-spangled variation on “All About Eve,” the freewheeling fun and delicate heart-tugging of “Luck by Chance” is no accident.”
In regards to the behaviour of celebs I was surprised how Boman Irani behaved. I guess staying in the company of morons such as Sajid Khan has an effect.
I found Ranveer Singh extremely annoying. The guy is one film old and was behaving like an established superstar.
Farhan Akhtar seems like a very likeable individual but his sister came across as too full of herself. Oh well.
Now the reason why these two rated Farah and Sajid high was due to their relation with them. They are cousins from what I know?
Now next week Arjun Rampal and his wife are on the show. Let me put it out there and tell you guyz that all there gonna talk about is Arjun and his friendship with SRK. How his so called career is doing and how RAJNEETI was a milestone in his career. Oh there also gonna talk about Ra-1. His wife on the other hand is gonna express her undying love for SRK and HRoshan and say how amazing HR was in GUZAARISH.
This show is sooooo predictable and I still watch it. Arghhhh
P. S I’m in still in two minds whether I want Salman and Amir to come on the show.
No Aamir but Kiran must come on this show. She should not be allowed to talk only about DG. And if Reena also comes? Jokes apart, Kiran and Konkana can come together, make some bengali conversations and rate KJO top director and also the bottom most to make him confused.
Kiran has one directorial debut to her credit, though of course she has been AD in half a dozen films. Aamir has a two decade old career. I think this husband-wife duo would make a great pair on Kw K–but I don’t want them pandering to KJo’s sensibilities, and speaking wildly and stupidly just to play along with KJo. Luckily no such thing happened on the Farhan-Zoya episode; it was all proper, no silly or obscene talk as in the horeendous John Abraham episode.
Actually this latest season of KwK has resulted in a few Bollypeople falling in my estimation, simply becaused they allowed themsleves to be manipulated by KJo. Thus Deepika and Sonam with their immature wild talk, Rani Mukherjee the giggly faker and Vidya Balan the Rani thumb sucker, John Abraham who presented himself as a bisexual stud than a popular decent actor, Anil Kapoor who spoke unchilarously and meanly about poor Shilpa Shetty’s botoxed lips (quite forgetting his own 52 yr age attempts to look young in showbiz) —these people managed to demean themselves in various ways.
I don’t want my favourite actor coming on this show and doing something similar. And kudos to Zoya-Farhan for making this episode an intelligent and stimulating meet, not a shocker party.
Wish Kiran and Aamir do not appear on the show. And hoping that AK holds his tongue and watches his words if he does agree to come on this show. We’ve had too many controversies already due to his blabbermouth attitude.
I agree both of them may make some stupid and wild statements which will be publicised widely. On second thoughts, even Kiran should keep low profile and stick to her work because she has a tendency to shoot of.
Filmstars of bygone era maintained an aura and that made them special in many respects. Nowadays, they behave like collegians and lost their aura. Too much familiarity brings not only contempt but also fatigue. Just imagine a Raj Kapoor or Dilip Kumar indulging in twitters, facebooks and blogs. And endless interviews.
It is ok if Bips or Priyanka or even a John Abraham indulges in all these internet activities. But the stars who have achieved a status must keep off from controversies, pandering to their salliviating fans, inciting them against others and other such impulsive activities which will make them focus less on their work and diminish their standing.
I agree with your views. I haven’t expressed them on, because I didn’t want to get into another controversey along with the other one.
In addition I’d be expressing a somewhat heavily biased view (any part of Europe being my favourite travel destination).
I was skeptical at first about ZMND, because people will even go to London and film shopping centres or clubs/discos.
It’s good to know that Zora is actually shooting in small towns, and showing a celebration.
But as satyam says about the multiplex audience;
>They very much aspire to that lifestyle and all manner of Western consumerism etc.
I’m wondering if they’ll appreciate any showcasing of a culture.
I cringe evrytime I see the hero or any other character walking around with a plastic container of coffee, Saif in Kal aajkal, Akshay khanna in that last scene of aaja nachle etc etc. in LA (?) and in New York.
This showcasing should of course stop IMO.
Personally I don’t like films set in America, Australia, Canada, even Singapore. They all look characterless, one like the other, which they are.
To be clear (because I can often sound quite harsh on multiplex audiences.. not that they don’t deserve it!) I don’t object to the set of aspirations this class has. The Amol Palekar character decided he’d had it with getting pushed around at the bus stop! The problem though is that there are still very many like him who don’t get represented. So the problem with the aspirations of ‘new India’ at an urban level, and among those who’ve been more socially mobile than others over the last two decades, or in other words the beneficiaries of ‘liberalization’, is that these are structured around the ‘vanishing’ of many aspects of Indian life that challenge this new triumphalist narrative. To put it even more expansively these ‘desires’ are premised on an ideological project of social and political disengagement from everything that does not confirm this narrative. What then happens is that a fantasy version of society is presented. So even the world that these ‘classes’ occupy is not adequately represented in even a loose sense. Again things have changed for the better for some years now and this should be noted but there is still far too much of that world-view in evidence.
The older masala films have often incorrectly been defined as ‘escapist’. If these were just that they wouldn’t have had that sort of mass acceptance. Those films involved serious ethico-political stakes and the kind of catharsis that could never be merely ‘escapist’. It was cinema that came at a cost because much that happened in the narrative could not simply be ‘ironed out’. In other words there were properly traumatic events that could not be wished away even with the happy endings. There was a sense of loss that had to be faced head-on. Even in the ‘middle cinema’ of that period and even in somewhat lighter films there were often bitter-sweet elements. The classic example here is Piya Ka Ghar which stands in sharp contrast to the triumphalism of the present. Why? Because here the male lead has aspirations and desires but he will never quite be able to attain them. Once again there are very many like him still around. Some like him have moved ‘upwards’. Some haven’t. And for those in the latter group there is an even greater sense of ‘envy’. Because unlike an older paradigm where one envied the ‘rich’ and so on one also didn’t necessarily have that ‘other half’ constantly in one’s face. But a certain kind of consumerism penetrates all levels of society. So for example multiplexes all over the place. You can hardly not notice them but then a majority still not able to afford them. One could multiply the examples. The ordering of society and the desire emanating from the same thus operates at a very different level and ‘speed’ compared to the older and somewhat less complicated ‘ways’.
But getting back to Piya ka Ghar there was a sense of life’s inherent limitations. Not everyone could fulfill their aspirations. Alongside this you’d have more glamorous films and so on where other possibilities opened up. The larger point is that it was just a wider set in terms of representation. Today however we find that those aspects of Indian life that do not fit into the current dominant urban narrative are wished away. Those who subscribe to this world-view want to pretend everything is possible and so on. A lot more might be possible for them but again Amol Palekar did not stop taking the bus nor did Anil Dhawan stop living in the chawl! In fact note how a certain possibility was always present even in these films. So you had the street-smart Asrani character in Choti Si Baat, the guy with the scooter, who already seemed to be on a faster track than Amol Palekar.
It is not just about representing more classes in a major urban environment. Contemporary cinema rarely ventures out of these cities. once upon a time the ‘rural’ was a very strong category of representation. Even if the subjects seemed cliched and predictable a lot of the time. Those ‘conditions’ still exist in vast parts of India (sure the politics has changed in very many ways but there is still great conflict and great violence) but this too does not serve the ‘interests’ of the present. In an India verging on becoming a great power there ought not to be caste violence and there ought not to be people living in shacks. So on and so forth. Again this very vision (or lack thereof!) is only able to account for the West (and America especially) as a vast consumerist and technological paradise. The underbelly of these societies, a great deal of the squalor is missed (even though this IS represented in Western cinema of all kinds all the time). And I’m not even referring to the usual major cities. The Dardenne brothers for example keep offering portraits of Belgium that seem quite disturbing for more than one reason. Just recently there was a Barcelona represented in Biutiful (Innaritu) that was unbelievably depressing.
and so we come back to Spain. The ‘life is a party’ world-view holds up in efforts like Zoya Akhtar’s. The ‘crisis’ in such films is always completely fake. Look at these Indians have to come of age in Pamplona!
In the 1950s Stalin had these big screens installed in Moscow where he’d show traffic jams in LA. The message was simple: this is how the capitalists live. The message many of the Russians got was somewhat different: at least they have cars!
Going through various disappointments of life while running with the bulls in Pamplona would not seem to be such a bad fate!
A dark side exists everywhere, universally, especially in the cities. Utopia is not to be found anywhere.
Though London is one of my favourite cities, I know it has more than a dark side. Same goes for Barcelona or any other city including Bombay, Delhi etc
My point was that if one *has* to shoot a film in a foreign country then why to shoot shopping centres, clubs, people walking around with plastic mugs, instead of something culturally rich. While the former will pander to their consumerist aspirations, the latter, hopefully, would educate them along with entertainment.
The kind of films that were made (which I watch all the time) will not bring in money. It’s a viscious circle. Films being made to pander tastes, which get enhanced by such films.
But I hope the regional cinema will perhaps succeed in making films representing the ordinary man (Amol Palekar).
…and unlike the Stalin’s showing of traffic jams with a very different reaction to the one expected, I think showing the cultural background would make people aware that ‘we have that too, and perhaps be more careful about India’s own old buildings and stop vandalism there. Perhaps they’ll stop seeing a consumer angle and think differently.
Well to be fair, I think rural cinema is making a comeback both in the Masala Dabangg avatar and in the gritty Ishqiya Avatar. But is Dabanngg really a more accurate representation of rural UP (one of the least developed and most poverty-stricken parts of the country) than ZNMD will be of Spain? And Buitiful, was ridiculously bleak and cynical, I think it was skewered towards the other end of the spectrum: painting everything in shades of sorrow and cruelty and leaving no room for positivity or brightness.
I have no problem with cheery ‘life is a party’ films as long as they don’t pretend to be anything else. ( Zoya has said that ZNMD will be a lighthearted coming-of-age film of three affluent Indian men, along the lines of DCH). Mainstream media of all kinds tends to be aspirational and showcase the lives of the rich and the glamorous. This could be a Bollywood film like DCH, an American TV show like Mad Men, a fashion magazine like Vogue or a period British film like Pride and Prejudice .
What I do have a problem with is ‘cool’ indian films set in India, like Rock On! which use themes like poverty and anti-establishment rage in their storyline, but show idiotically cushy images of poor and angry people, when there is so much crippling, devastating poverty and mob-metality rage in India. Or psuedo-exestentialist films like Wake Up Sid! where two young, naive people effortlessly set up an idyllic life in a city as cruel and ruthless as Bombay.
Whether Dabanng is an authentic portrayal or not (and this is commercial cinema where no representation can be completely ‘realistic’.. of course not that cinema should aspire to such weak notions of realism in any case) it is at least representing something other than Bandra! The Spain of ZNMD might be accurate but it cannot offer any sensible statement on either the ‘native’ Indian or the diaspora kind. There are far better options around the globe if one wants to do the latter. Even Johar for all the ridiculousness of his films at least knew where the ‘desi’ population centers were!
Mainstream cinema can often be quite dark too. Consider Hollywood or Bombay cinema in the 70s! But even today there are filmmakers who are hardly representing the sunny side of American life. Michael Mann for instance, Scorsese’s still very prolific, Chris Nolan, there are very many. But there are also all those gritty docudramas all over the place. On TV there is a great deal that’s quite dark.
Wake Up Sid is a perfect example for me of everything I’m criticizing. Sure enough Johar produced it! Rock On I wouldn’t put in the same category because this is a film (the only one I’ve seen so far) that deals with Gen X and with the overhanging sense of disappointment. These are characters who had the Johar kind of aspirations but who for one reason or another ended up leading disappointed lives. Even the Farhan Akhtar character who is otherwise very successful. Not a great film or anything but still interesting for that turf.
By the way I’m not suggesting that poverty should be represented. That’s another cliche and an extremely simplistic one at that. I am just arguing for more nuance. First off I’d like more ‘kinds’ represented (people, situations, environments, ideological concerns et al) but then within each representation some more nuance than there is. Because this is the other huge problem. We just make very simple and simplistic films these days. Hardly any subplots, hardly any subtexts, so on and so forth. Just ‘one’ basic story-line with very one-dimensional characters that are instantly recognizable types for the target audience. Once upon a time people went to the movies to get a sense of ‘otherness’. Today we just want to see the people we come across in our everyday lives and who also vacation at the same places we do and who also buy more or less the things we do and so on! A certain culture of consumerism is tied in with one of narcissism. People have often critiqued the US on this point and we can see how the narcissism spread as the economies of American consumerism get dispersed around the globe. So we go to the movies to see ‘ourselves’ and our own lifestyles validated. We are simply not interested in anyone or anything else. So yeah let’s check out Spain in the ZNMD. If we like this ‘travel channel’ effort enough we’ll go there the next time the kids have holidays!
All of this doesn’t mean that I don’t prefer Zoya Akhtar’s films to Johar’s and those of some others. But sometimes the bankruptcy seems even more stark with those who pretend otherwise. Zoya Akhtar says on Koffee that she considers 3I overrated and for that matter Bhansali overrated. Don’t think Zoya Akhtar has a leg to stand on with these statements! Not that one cannot have these opinions but there’s a certain complacency reflected in the person enunciating them that is disproportionate to her accomplishments. And I don’t mean number of movies and so on. The problem with this generation of film-makers is that they take themselves too seriously when they have neither the artistic nor the intellectual chops to show for this. In some ways I consider a Zoya Akhtar type even more bankrupt than Johar. Because the latter is just about a shameless kind of consumerism and new Indian aspiration. he more or less wallows in it and is not particularly interested in being more than a ‘with it’ celebrity though in recent years he too has acquired some pretensions (facing the pressure of the prestige film). The Zoya Akhtar kind of person really imagines they’re doing something very important. There is a kind of self-inflation to their entire vocabulary and gesturality that I find not just off-putting but pseudo. And again Zoya Akhtar isn’t going to say ZNMD is just a ‘nothing’ frothy film. Unless of course she’s actually criticized for it.
Which is why Kashyap’s glowing praise is so misplaced (though understandable in one sense.. Kashyap too depends on the general bankruptcy to launch his missiles.. he often makes interesting films but it must be said that he too gets his greatest kicks from just his polemical intents.. and so when he sees something like LBC where there are the usual satirical portraits of stars and so on he’s pleased..).
On Biutiful why is it that this kind of portrait that is increasingly a reality for so many people around the world, not least precisely because of free market depradations, is considered extreme? People live like this. We are for example treated to the horror stories of illegal immigrants all the time. People dying in shipping containers, making hazardous sea-voyages in small boats all the way from China to Europe or the US, people trying cross the desert in impossible circumstances, etc etc. I’d say that the films no matter how harshly these might depict seem still a bit less disturbing than the news stories one comes across all the time.
” In the 1950s Stalin had these big screens installed in Moscow where he’d show traffic jams in LA. The message was simple: this is how the capitalists live. The message many of the Russians got was somewhat different: at least they have cars! “…
Obverse and reverse of the same coin, often we forget that…
Interesting debate on LBC. Not a bad film at all but let down by a predictable story line where everyone knew where this was headed.
Nice treatment in parts but still not above caricaturial portraits.
Anurag Kashayp is given to hyperbole and while his views are interesting, wouldnt put much value to those.
@ oldgold – but seriously who could they bring. I can’t think of any except these two and Farah and Sajid.
What I feel is and if we look through those celebs who behaved well and did not make me cringe were as different as possible. They were not on the same level if I could put it that way.
So, like Mads and Sonakshi, Big B and his daughter, these 2 and even Ajay Devgn. The rest am sorry were way below the belt. Imran Ranbir (age group and started careers same time). Same with Deepika/Sonam and Anuska and Ranveer.
Even the directors one was good coz you had the outspoken Farah but then had two relatively quiet and shy guyz in Raju and Imtiaz Ali.
Now next week an actor and his model wife are coming and I’m pretty sure they will follow in the footsteps of the HRoshan episode and co. They are also friends with Kjo so we all know how that will pan out.
This is why it was inexcusable how John Abraham and even SRK behaved when they came. They allowed KJO to get on top of them (pun not intended). In my opinion only Ajay Devgn did well.
Karan Johar is wooing Salman Khan. And has succeeded to an extent. It is learnt that the actor has agreed to be part of Karan’s TV show in its third season.
The last time KJo asked him to sit on the infamous couch, the actor said he would do it only if he was given Rs 50 lakh for his charity foundation. The My Name Is Khan director told him that the channel wouldn’t pay but he would be happy to shell out the money from his own pocket. However, the talks fizzled out.
Now KJo who is shooting the final few episodes for this season, asked Salman for the last time if he would appear on the show, and the temperamental actor said he would do it, and also gave temporary dates for the shoot, either 30th or 31st March. Apparently, Karan and the channel have donated over Rs 50 lakh to Salman’s charity foundation. Incidentally, no other guest on the show has been paid for making an appearance.
According to sources, the filmmaker has also offered a role to the actor, which he is considering. This is interesting because so far Khan who lives in Galaxy has been wary of Karan because of his friendship to the Khan who lives in Mannat. Now that the director has managed to get Sallu to say yes to the show, and a ‘maybe’ to the film, next step is a patch between the warring Khans? Let’s hope so.
BTW I find it interesting that ZMND stars three Caucasian women – Spanish actress, Kalki and Katrina. Isn’t it irritating that none of the female leads in the movie are played by actresses of Indian origin?
I also found Luck By Chance to be an immensely matured and intelligent piece of work. The theme of how some people are just selfish and simply cannot help it is a rather interesting one.. I don’t know if anybody noticed but I felt the film also related this to the Capricorn personality type (Farhan Akhtar was Capricorn in the movie, and is also in real life). BTW no offence to any Capricorns.
The director is keen to have the Wolverine star appear on an episode of his talk show Koffee With Karan, but Jackman’s time in India is limited. He will, however, show up at Shah Rukh’s Bandra home for a party the Bollywood star is said to be throwing in his honour.
Aishwarya Rai, Bollywood’s go-to-girl for Hollywood star-hospitality, has been roped in to present a memento to Jackman at the seminar earlier in the day. It’s a job they remember her for each time a Hollywood actor descends on our shores. At the GQ awards last year, she was seated at John Travolta’s table and was asked to present him a trophy. At a Bollywood awards show some years ago, she was asked to introduce visiting sensation Will Smith. The scenario is akin to pulling out your finest crockery when important guests visit.
The Khan Market
the newspaper DNA reported that Aamir’s profit-sharing deal with Yash Raj Films would earn him—in fair weather conditions—Rs 30 crore more than Shah Rukh. This did not go unanswered in the press. It was reported that Ra.One’s broadcast rights were sold for much more than the rights of 3 Idiots). But while their income is unverifiable, the balance sheets of their unlisted companies have been made public.
I like confident women and confident, independant indian women…even better. So three cheers for zoya. As far as pushing your product, promoting your own brand, SRK, Kareena are experts. Why not Zoya? In my personal opinion, she sounds very intelligent in the seqment….coherent, composed, well mannered, intelligent. You should probably watch Lara Dutta (Ms beauty queen with fake accent) who has no talent, full of herself and biggest feather in cap during the show was her engagement/marraige. With Zoya, it is only about her work. She did not bring any accesories with her! Kareena, Aish, Lara, Katrina…pretty much all of them are so co-dependant on men. They pretty much were never single and always had the crutches of boyfriend to survive in film industry. Kareena has made it to the show with both her ex-s! In the men, John looked lost without Bipasa (co-dependant). Inspite of steroids and stuff, I liked some of his answers though he did openly flirt with KJo…giving him the eyes. I think Water was his best role and he didn’t even mention it in the show!
Much of what you say I concur with except Kareena Kapoor. Now she could easily survive on her own (without a man). Heck Shahid Kapoor benefited in being her bf. Now when she came KJo hardly asked her anything work related and he will do the same with all the beautiful heroines. With Zoya (not being rude) she’s not the best looker, not well known or is not in the media spotlight. Hence KJo only asked her questions in regards to her work. Now I liked her coz she was no where near as bitchy as the other women but when she said 3 IDIOTS and SLB is over rated am sorry she holds very little credibility in my eyes.
Kareena could easily survive without a man, but I think both her and Saif benefit from the glamorous power couple image they project of themselves, because there are so few couples in Bollywood where both of them are celebrities and are open about their relationship. I think the same thing goes for Abhi-Ash. Ash is quite a strong woman too. And Katrina seems to be doing pretty okay without Salman as well- launching her own production houses, being the most powerful brand endorser etc.
Naveed- But why pick on the fact that Zoya isn’t beautiful? She’s a director, not an actress after all. She might not be drop dead-gorgeous, but she’s hardly ugly either. She looks way more presentable than 90% of the male directors in the industry. And most directors are not in the spotlight, unless they are loud mouthed and fame hungry like K.Jo or Farah Khan or they are actors like Farhan.
I agree that the SLB and 3 Idiots was a bit unnecessary when there are so many Bollywood directors and films that are very highly rated but are absolute trash.
And Dimps- I totally agree, its so nice to see a confident, intelligent and mature woman on the show who doesn’t feel the need to gossip, giggle, pretend to be coy or say stupid spiteful things.
Zoya’s problem is her love for her brother. Just like Ekta tries to push a talentless Tushar, Zoya tries to include her brother in multi starrers hoping he will make a mark as an actor too. But Farhan lacks the charisma of a star. And he is no Amol Palekar. 3 Idiots is not over rated but over reached, Zoya. I find Farhan Akhtar, some others as very limited in their mass appeal and thus they cant go very far in their acting careers.
Only Naseerudin Shah had the balls to say that Sholay wasn’t a great film. Everyone has right to have an opinion. However to give an opinion when 99% of population is not going to agree with you, particularly when the movie was outrageously successful at boxoffice takes LOTS of courage. So hats off to Zoya for saying it. It is her right to opine and have subjective viewing on the movie. Technically the movie was OK. Plot was OK, not all the big deal. For me the idea of the movie’s plot was great (to pursue something because you have passion for it not just to earn money etc). The song and dance and some utterly unbelievable stuff (delivery scene) was all VERY boring/contrived/without much imagination. However the humor, especially the scene where three of them go to visit one of the buddy’s home and mother scratches father’s chest with belan was one of the BEST bollywood/hindi movie scene ever (for me). Bottom line is that movie worked. Joshi/Hirani/Chopra’s have teamed to come up with great movies in mordern times (message with commercial success) and I LOVE vishal bharadwaj movies…he is so *haat kay* from the mob!! In fact Amitabh Bacchan (ABCL corp) should give patronage to such directors and come up with low budget, meaningful cinema which has modicum of commerial success.
As far as being co-dependant: Elizabeth Taylor, Jackie Kennedy Onasis, Ash, Kareena, Katrina: They all cannot live without a partner. They go from partner-to-partner! They all have fear of being alone. Karishma Kapoor was in fact stronger woman than Kareena. No string of co-dependant relationships. Or Madhuri Dixit (though she did have affair with Anil Kapoor, who in turn promoted her, for a while, till she didn’t need to have the affair after becoming successful).
Eventhough a decent one,3 idiots is definitely overrated….It is weakest among Hirani films,with best being 2nd munnabhai film..in 3 idiots there are many scenes which play to the gallery especially targeting woman..One such scene is child birth one..Instead of treating that scene with subtlety,what we see is unnecessary elongation of that scene along with heroism stuff by Aamir…Hero should do something so that then only child will cry and all aunties will shed tears,that was the intention..It was a great scene,but the over melodramatic treatment derails the movie..There are many such moments in the movie….I feel the film was such a mess mainly because of involvement of Aamir which I suspect because,the subtlety which was clearly visible in two Munnabhai films is missing here..That is why i don’t have much hope in next Hirani film with Aamir,because I don’t think unlike Sanju,Aamir will allow Hirani to make a film according to his will…
“…And Katrina seems to be doing pretty okay without Salman…”
Katrina didn’t live Sallu’s side till she became a hit/success. Then suddenly Salman was “difficult” and dumped him! I think Salman doesn’t take breakups well and becomes difficult AFTER women leave/dump him. He was mean to Ash, when latter broke up with him. Same with Katrina. While in relationship, when use him; come up in movie world; once they are up and coming and successful, they dump Salman!
I have watched both Katrina and Ash’s interviews. Katrina is not all that bright/smart/intelligent but she knows what she needs to do to be successful. Same with Ash. Ash has horrendous laughter…very childish and unbecoming. Her husband is so spineless/lacking confidence. It is plainly visible when he is interviewing on red carpet or when he was in the premier of his movie (Khaley hai hum Jee Jaan say). At the end of the day, actors are very insecure people. If a movie is successful, they are at the top of the world (Dhoom)….then string of flops and they lose all confidence. It is a difficult business to be in.
In light of all that Farhan Akthar is really kool dude…he does his own thing….he wanted to direct, he directed (dil chahta hai). Then he wanted to sing/act, he did that (rock on). The commerical success doesn’t guide his decisions. And commerical success follows him. IN fact after DCH, lot of actors were more than willing to work with him or his sister Zoya (Hrithik, aamir etc having rejected the roles he had offered them).
In fact I have seen this trend in a big way with Bigb. Whenever some movie becomes commercial success, AB jumps into that director’s bandwagon. Rest example is Prakash Jha’s Aarakshan!!
Ajay comes across as a nice guy who has no airs abt him
I watched the Shahid & Priyanka episode as well
Shahid came across as funny – wish he did more films with good scripts like Kaminey & Badmaash co. which was good too. He needs to pull his finger out of his ass because his biggest threat Ranbir is steaming ahead of him
Priyanka looked super sexy…more like a porn star than film actress. However she came across as arrogant/fake/pretentious. She’s a good actress no doubt but really disliked her attitude.
Also dnt think Shahid & Priyanka will last long ;-)
LOL. Ajay was very “discreetly” trying to say that he too has had his share of affairs on KWK!!!!
Shahid: He was so hyper active, totally not focussed, playing with pillow-what-not; seemed a bit insecure on KWK but answered the questions very intelligently. Somehow he and Priyanka didn’t match. Priyanka looked like his mother, the way Ash looks Abhi’s mom :-)
I think they already have broken off.
Priyanka: KJo referred to her collagen lips indirectly on the show. I just watched 7-khoon maaf and her face looks terrible with those super collagened lips….YIKES….disgusting instead of sexy. They don’t look natural at all. In closeups, I think, she even has nose job done. Somehow even the nose doesn’t look very natural.
So these days it is more about style-ing the product and marketing rather than real acting. I think Vidya Balan is the only one in present lot that I like. She is natural beauty. Good actress. And roles she chooses are good. She is a method actress and directors are writing roles with her in mind…which is awesome. Really in hindi movies, 80% to 90% of movies (and actors) are kachra. Then there are the remaining 20% or 10%, who come up with movies like Udaan; give break to new talents/fresh faces who are not decorating the movie screen just because they are star kids but because they have passion for the medium.
KWK is kachra show, like his kachra/bekar/faltu movies. It is not a serious cinema discussion/interviews. Even a Vidhya Balan in the interview is incessantly laughting and fooling around. The show is regular street side vad-pav/pav-bhaji and not gourmet restaurant food…..analogy sucks…ya… :-)
Yeh Shahid looked ‘out of place'(?) nxt to Priyanka…..(she’s so hot) ;-)
He was the lesser star when he was with Kareena and its the same with Priyanka hence why i think he feels inferior. I cringed when she was laughing whenever Karan mentioned SRK…imagine how awkward Shahid must have felt?!?
I also found that Karan’s questions lack class…no respect for family audience. There are some things which are obvious without being said but he makes it blatantly obvious by asking stupid question.
Also was Ajay being truthful abt his relations with SRK & Akshay?
Actually I really-really-really like Shahid a lot. He is bit baccha…so playing with pillow. Maybe priyanka fling is more of re-bound affair (?)
He doesn’t have the dad or god father (Abhishek “mere paas baap hai”) and margin for error/flops are so low for him and he STILL made it. Sheer hard work, loads of talent, dedication. His success came much after Kareena dumped him actually! He is a kind of guy you would want to take to your mom! Vegetarian, religious/spiritual and not one of those south-bombay a**H**e like KJo and co. He doesn’t do affairs just to come up in life (like Katrina)…he was really in love with Kareena. He is a good/great actor. Good looks. Good/great dancing. I think Kareena was real loser to dump him and go with already married-fathered-2-kids, horrible-bhajia-nose and was overall loser till recently, Saif. But Saif (Pataudi estate is worth 250 crores) has moolah and Kapoor sisters go for the money/success (Karishma dumped Abhi because his career wasn’t going places…bad decision indeed). In long run Karishma is not happily-married and Kareena too will not find happiness (methinks). Indeed had Karishma had married Abhi, she could have continued as an actress and be part of a sanskari family, continued to live in Mumbai (Delhi sucks royally).
of course all this is gossip. Maybe we shouldn’t judge the stars and star-kids for their personal lives and just discuss merits of their work. Abhishek’s wooden acting…once you try so-so many times, finally you learn acting (like Saif…after gazillion flops he finally learnt acting! Good perseverance).
LBC was a decent effort from Zoya Akhtar..Nothing more than that..No way it was a masterpiece as described by Anurag Kashyap…May be Anurag was just reciprocating since Farhan was a big vocal supporter of Anurag’s Black Friday..The biggest weakness of LBC was Farhan..Not only he is a mediocre actor,he has a horrible voice and weak dialogue delivery..But then again who cares about acting,he is still in the field..
And Farhan Actor was given best debut actor at all award functions because of his clout, totally sidelining the efforts of others like Rajeev Khandelwal and others. LBC is a very clever film drawing all the industry bigwigs and making them play bit parts. Filmgoers just cannot be cheated like this. Farhan is no Salman and Salman can never be as intellectual as Farhan.
Not only Naseeruddin Shah, many people love to criticise highly successful films because that makes them great in their own eyes atleast. No great effort or intellect is required to thrash even a Shakespeare or Rabindranath Tagore.
Why Aamir is blamed for everything including for the boxoffice success of his films? If it fails, he gets the blame and if it succeeds he gets more blame. Is this the price to be paid for success?
“Filmgoers just cannot be cheated like this.” Om Shanti OM (I believe) was like that too….had all the actors/actresses come it. It is not cheating. Film maker can do whatever. Audience decides whether they want to pay and go for the movie or not. We the audience ultimately dictate just like the voters in democracy dictate the politicians. So if we go to see crap, then crap will be produced in loads!
Naseer is true to his self (for most parts) and doesn’t compromise. Similar to Bacchan, he too has survived, doing good cinema. Iqbal. Ishkiya. Etc in his golden years. Where as bacchan hasn’t done any meaningful cinema at all! His goal has always been to make money and do work for the sake of making money. Maybe in his youth, he did do some good work with great directors like Hrishikesh M. But now….no.
Farhan is lambi race ka ghooda…watch him. Not so much as an actor but as a director. If he stays true to himself (like Naseer) he will go down in history for good work/great movies…otherwise….will become laughing stock like bigb.
Well he was/is gay…even if not openly!!! he almost made no bones about it in interview with John Abraham.
And in the interview with John Abraham, he says that parents tell their gay/homo kids “koi baat nahi beta, theek ho jayega”. Meaning that gayness will go away. So KJO told his mom “mummy theek ho gaya”.
At the end of the day, its all about keeping appearances, I guess.
Thats some big news–if true!!!
kJO getting married!
He does seem to have got the “libido workshop” or somethign in new york!
Somehow (jokes apart) one DID feel that he is a closet gay—Maybe the “pressure from all around him got too much to handle now”—pun intended—lol
(With due respects and no malice to gays)
Also feel that the names you have mentioned are also gay…
i am not anti -gay but not pro-gay either–lol
Think it is still a poorly understood psychobehavioral “condition” like many others with disproportionate social consequences. The last bit (consequences) makes it a little bit more than an “innocent” “trivial” anomaly, so to say—know im being politically incorrect here—but thats how i feel.
You should read E.M.Forster’s Howard (I believe that was the name of the book). You either are gay or not. It is the way you are (born). Don’t think, if it has anything to do with “psycho-behavioral”. However there are cases like Rekha. Poor thing. She got disgusted with men…in the end chose to be a lesbian (I think).
u cant get bigger that Sigmund Freud on this and—“Freud believed that all humans were born bisexual in nature, and from this state, as a result of restriction in one direction or the other, both heterosexuality and homosexuality developed”
Do you know E.M Forster was gay?
Was Freud gay?
So I believe what a gay person says and writes. I totally do.
I don’t think a straight person can write books and theorize about gayness/homosexuality, at all!!!
You’re right it’s poorly understood but more importantly it’s been a lot more common in every age and in every society than one would like to believe (and of course in some cultures it was quite the prestige thing to do!). And then of course there’s bisexuality as well. I think in many of these debates it’s bisexuality that offers the greater problem to the heterosexual world-view and not homosexuality. Because the latter can just be presented as ‘perversion’ or the symmetrical opposite to the former. With bisexuality though it becomes much more complicated. I must admit that at a personal level my sense of empathy is most strained when it comes to homosexuals. Not because I do not want to empathize with them (I certainly would support them in any meaningful debate) but because I find it hardest to imagine this kind of ‘otherness’ at a personal level versus many other kinds. Of course there is a gender issue here in a different sense as well. Most heterosexual men for example don’t find the idea of lesbians as ‘distasteful’.
The problem with political correctness in this debate has been that it has tried to make homosexuality an identity just like racial identity and so on. Using genetic arguments for example. This is partly strategic. If you make it a question of behavior and choice you are more easily attacked for choosing something ‘unnatural’. If however you present it as ‘natural’ the debate becomes different. So one can’t help being black, one also can’t help being gay.
Of course deciding what is ‘natural’ is often the hardest thing. The No people in China for example offer a challenge to marriage. Here a woman sleeps with many different men in her tribe. When a child is born no one knows who the father is. So they all look after the child and regard it as their own. Hope genetic testing isn’t introduced here anytime soon! Now this might seem like an aberrational lifestyle but there have been very many groups throughout history with ‘unusual’ practices. But also even when traditional marriage is practiced depending on the society you can often encounter great flexibility. So for example all those aristocracies from East to West throughout history where marriage was just a minimal formality to ensure inheritance, issues of lineage and so on. In France not too long ago in aristocratic setups upper class women has very public affairs and men did the same. No one had much of a problem with it.
Good points satyam.
Find this “forced” political correctness regarding homosexuality a bit irritating.
Find it definitely a bigger “deviation” than bisexuality—the latter is sometimes practised out of frustration and unavailability (a bit disgusing) than actual preference.
Find the inherent hypersensitivity of gays a bit irritating too—Thats y one has to put in disclaimers on eveery statement about “menaing no offence”
Agree about the parallel with racism.
Not entirely convinced that it is purely genetic or congenital till someone discovers the genetic locus for it(if not already)
“…Most heterosexual men for example don’t find the idea of lesbians as ‘distasteful’…”
actually gay men totally make sense to me. They have an appendage to put it in, even though the location is wrong (sorry for the vulgarity of this statement).
However lesbian women totally do not make sense FOR ME. So I guess, as straight people (man or woman), it is confusing for us. Maybe it makes perfect sense to them.
And yhea…we had to have you on this forum to make comment and to take this discussion to a WHOLE NEW LEVEL. Hats off to your intellectualism…you comments still are lost on me (sorry I am not as intellectual as thou art). :-)
“actually gay men totally make sense to me. They have an appendage to put it in, even though the location is wrong(sorry for the vulgarity of this statement).” —HAhahaha
Thats the statement of the day—The “innocence” there just bowled me over–lol
U are definitely the best new entrant here and have invigorated thingz (and satyam)…lol
The other thing is that lately being “gay” has becum sort of a “status symbol” of sorts, in some circles!
I also suspect a few guys who have sort of feigned “gay”ness to be perceived “safe” by the opposite sex and then to “capitalise”—know all this is going a bit far fetched (a la dostana) but have seen a particular colleague in london indulging in these “games” and also advising me to “join in”—hahaha
Satyam: from movies standpoint you should definitely do a piece on Brokeback mountain (what a great movie by Ang Lee and one of the best directors in Hollywood). Even though it was “gay” love, I was crying towards the end….felt like it was most romantic movie I had ever seen and completely forgot the “gay” aspect of it…in that the director could surpass the gender and other sterotype for love. LOVED Heath Ledger in that movie.
Noticed u mentioned rekha and her partner—Didnt think about it earlier but dont think i can disagree from the little ive seen—lol
Also have serious doubts about srk —he is bisexual if not an overt gay..
Kjo also mentioned in an interview somehwere that “he has scarred many actors”—wonder if he meant physically —-Who do u think were the “scarred” ones—hahaha
Salman looks anything but gay while its the opposite with srk.
SRK may also be an Asexual person(if u know what that means)—lol
Nobody can bring u mms or voyeuristic videos to prove/ disprove either of this— we are free to express our perceptions–isnt it!
When a man is sensitive, emotional, in touch with his female side…he is instantly labeled gay or unmanly or unmacho. SRK has family, kids and he is very stable in all that compared to say Tom Cruise (who I think is closet gay and not sure if offspring is his). To me SRK is sensitive/emotional actor but has gotten too much success that he has to go thro’ a rajesh khanna type of phase in his life at some point and I am not sure if he is ready for it! I pray for him…poor thing.
The case of rekha has certainly been a curious one.
Do feel KJO got something in return from john abraham for giving him the role in dostana….lol
“horrible bhajia nose”—hahaha–that was the phrase of the day dimps!!!—agree about the foolish kareena!!
Also slightly strange is the way saif’s open relationship wiht kareena inspite of not been divorced officially and with two grown up kids. Inspite of the excuse of religion, does look a bit inappropriate in the indian setting—obviously would have been a “done” thing in the west
Naah. The role of John Abraham was offered to someone else and that person refused. I don’t think (I terribly am hoping that) John would give something (but of course we don’t know what happens behind closed doors, do we now?). As far as marketing stylized product is concerned, Dhoom series started this new “genre” or new trend where they have this slick product (actors who can’t act but look good on screen like Keanu Reeves in Hollywood) of an actor….so Hrithik, Abhishek, John Abraham etc…all pathetic actors look slick, sexy, terribly marketable in their “roles” in movies such as Dhoom, Dum Maro Dum etc. Welcome to new age of Bollywood/Hindi cinema where actors don’t need to act at all. Just look good. Give poses. Kareena too falls in this category. Give expressions. No need to act!
Off the topic: Who do you think it is? Is it Farhan Akhtar?
“There are murmurs doing the rounds in tinseltown that a much-married film director is allegedly more than just ‘good friends’ with his female assistant. The cat came out of the bag when another assistant director connected the dots after repeatedly spotting the filmmaker visiting his new squeeze at her apartment in the wee hours of the morning.
Incidentally, this isn’t the first time the married director may have strayed. Currently in his late 30s, he’s believed to have romanced at least one heroine off-screen. There were rumors not so long ago that he shared a particularly close relationship with a stunning doe-eyed actress he had acted opposite. Those stories were confirmed by the actress’ now ex-boyfriend, a leading male star who discovered ‘overfriendly’ text messages from the director on his girlfriend’s phone. It had led to a colossal fight between the couple at the time.
Neck deep in production on his latest directorial effort, an epic-sized action movie, the filmmaker has reportedly been seeing very little of his family these days. When he isn’t on set, or in production meetings at his office, assistants say his car can almost always be found parked outside the building of his new girlfriend.”