This entry was posted on June 24, 2012 at 10:44 PM and is filed under the bad. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
50 Responses to “Image from Yeh Jawani Hai Deewani”
“I couldn’t stay awake..”- C’mon Satyam, WUS wasn’t a bad/uninteresting film by any means. it is zillion times better than stuff like Singham (hindi) and RR. the leads had a charming chemistry between them and it was effectively directed. Also had a very good soundtrack. Probably this, alongwith Kurbaan (and Kaal to some extent) is the Johar films i have ever liked.
I haven’t seen RR yet but I vastly preferred Singam to WUS even with its very disturbing ending. I suspect the same will be true with RR and to an even greater degree.
Here’s the thing — I am just not interested in these Bandra existential crises!
Saurabh: to be frank, while Singham had some problematic politics, on balance, I enjoyed it and Rowdy Rathore more than wake Up Sid: the latter was truly boring, and irritatingly slight…at least Singham and Rowdy Rathore have something other than a milktoast personality…
Q, i understand that. I too enjoyed RR a lot.( but not the hindi Singham though i am a bigger fan of Devgn than possibly anyone on this blog). But if we enjoy a film more than some other one, does it always mean that it is a ‘better’ film- putting it simply do u believe Singham and RR are ‘better films’ than WUS? (incidentally imo Ghajini and Dabanng were much better made and enjoyable than WUS)
WUS wasn’t Bombay centric. It has no center. This film could have taken place anywhere on the planet and I don’t mean this as a compliment!
Don’t think Johar has produced a single film I’ve completely liked. Kurbaan was as offensive as it was unintentionally funny. No review of that film was better than the Vigil Idiot’s strip.
GF, i never said that WUS was Bombay centric. But i refuse to believe that WUS is a bad film- actually leave Singham and RR, i found it much better than Wanted too (can’t say about Pokkiri though)- it was certainly better directed, was more engaging and had much better performances than the other ones. Not saying it’s a great film but it’s any day better than the typical Kjo-YRF romances.
Rocky said that Saurabh, I wasn’t addressing you But in any case, I don’t think WUS is a “bad” film but I think it’s a pretty flat and unmemorable one.
GF and Satyam, since we ventured into authenticity and site-centricity, i just remebered 2 films on the issue- ‘Jalwa’ (Naseer) and ‘Banaras’ (urmila, naseer)- incidentally both of them were helmed by Pankaj Parashar (chaalbaaz, karamchand)- now both these films apart from being rooted to their place, tried to say something more than the obvious- jalwa, instead of giving a tourist-like vision of Goa, exposed its dark underbelly. And Banaras made allusions to Dharmic mysticism, orthodoxy, philosophy
Satyam, not trying to be sarcastic here but what did u like so much in Singham? (to be frank, i found Devgn insipid here- incidentally i was cheering for Prakash Raj thruout the film. Also Sonali Kulkarni and her scenes were the best thing abt the film imo)
I didn’t say I liked it a lot. I’ve said before that even the original which I prefer wasn’t anything special. But it’s all about contexts. I just prefer Singham to the WUS kind of film. Doesn’t mean I value the former a great deal independently.
On devgan I’m not even much of a fan but I don’t see how he was insipid here. He’s like this all the time.
Ok got your point. But does it mean that you are slightly biased against a WUS kind of genre? And if this is the case isn’t it unfair on the film(s). And while judging the film, shouldn’t we keep our bias aside and judge it on its own merit (i mean in that way if someone does not like horror films, he/she should be allowed to say that ‘transformers’ is a better film than ‘the exorcist’). i am saying all this because in terms of filmmaking i found WUS a much better film than Singham in every way
I’m not biased against the genre. I just think this Gen X format is very empty in its Bollywood manifestation. If there were a better film at some point (within this genre) I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It would never be my favorite genre but that’s a different thing. It’s like I have nothing against over the top comedies either. But most or even all of the stuff Bollywood makes is pretty poor. Again this will never be my favorite genre but I can at least sort out the better film from the poorer one in Hollywood. Some genres are on the whole done poorly in Bollywood. Are some films nonetheless better? Sure. But the bar is set too low. For what it’s worth I thought Rock On was way better than most others on this terrain.
By the way I am also not overrating masala. I’ve hardly celebrated these Southern or more precisely Telugu remakes. I liked Ghajini a lot, even otherwise I find many of the films enjoyable enough but this isn’t the reason why I support them. If the bar has to be low either way I just believe masala is better than the WUS deal because even if in very debased form there are some stakes in the former. Certain films I support for ideological reasons. I dislike most of Akshay’s comedies, even find them unwatchable, but I want the space to be open where he can do this stuff. The same for some other genres. On this score I think a Singham is way better than most of the over the top comedies. Doesn’t mean it’s great otherwise.
Agreed on Rock On and i know ur opinion abt Gen X.Don’t know whether u have seen it but the best among the genre was Socha Na Tha imo. But what i can’t understand is how u saw nothing of merit in WUS. BTW Satyam do see RR (hope u will write a piece on it)
yes I’ve only heard good things about Socha na Tha but haven’t been able to get my hands on a copy so far.. there’s a transfer on youtube that’s pretty poor. Netflix don’t carry it. My local store doesn’t have it I am not quite inclined to buy a copy!
“Certain films I support for ideological reasons.”- agreed and i to do the same. But while comparing two films (on grounds of filmmaking) should we allow our ideological preferances to come in between!? i mean u urself say that while ‘judging’ a film we should keep our personal likings aside.
Yes but I’m not contradicting myself with Singham. I didn’t mind watching this. In fact as I just said I find the Akshay comedies mostly unwatchable but I still want those films to be made. Similarly I haven’t even seen stuff like Ready and Bodyguard because I doubt it will be up my alley. Again want it to be made. Just don’t think I’ll like it. But Singham isn’t in the Ready category for me. So I’m not supporting it on ideological grounds, in fact I have problems with it on this score.
Ok Satyam, let me shoot it straight at you- Do you believe Singham is a ‘better film’ than WUS (not asking whether u enjoyed it more and so on). whatever ur answer is, would not argue more with u on this topic (also i hope that i have not pissed u off with my repeated statements/questions here, i was not able to understand ur POV regarding the film completely so asked repeatedly).
Saurabh – I know you’re in a discussion with Satyam, but let me just give my two cents if you don’t mind. I feel there is even a worse category of movies than bad movies – inauthentic movies. My ‘dislike’ of typical Karan Johar or Yash chopra brand of cinema is premised more upon them being fake than any ideological ground. IMO reaction against a fake movie is much more visceral than against a bad movie, inauthenticity is a sin in an artistic endeavor.
Matrix, by that ‘YES’ Satyam has put an end to that discussion LOL. Agree with you on inauthentic movies but here is my view- I do not find WUS inauthentic at all, not saying it is firmy rooted or stuff but certainly inauthentic at all (though i do agree with GF that it is not Bombay centric) unlike say IHLS, BKB etc. But anyway the debate was about which film is better and not abt authenticity.
“I feel there is even a worse category of movies than bad movies – inauthentic movies.”
well put! I used to think the 80s was the worst decade for Indian cinema but later I realized it was probably the 90s. For the very reasons you’ve pointed out.
Satyam since u always talk abt films being authentic and rooted, here is something i wanted to ask u- Do u believe if Udaan (a fabulous film) was not set in Jamshedpur, would it make ‘much’ difference to the film?i am not saying Jamshedpur is not important here- incidentally the father (Ronit Roy) wouldn’t have behaved in exactly the same way if had he not hailed from Jamshedpur, and so on.But i still believe this story could have been set anywhere in the world and would evoke similar emotions
Yes it could have ‘authentically’ been set anywhere. I have also never suggested that there is a ‘natural’ link between such human stories and their environments in the sense that the same stories could be as authentically set elsewhere. Udaan could have happened in Coimbatore. However there are two things that one should be careful about. This doesn’t apply to just any story. some stories are much more anchored in their specific histories. But even the more human ones like Udaan that seem more ‘translatable’ can be subtly linked with their contexts in ‘deeper’ ways. In other words it might be that Jamshedpur is simply about providing a local particularity to this story but it could also be that the director set this otherwise ‘generic’ story in this town or in this part of India for a reason. I am not arguing about this one way or the other. The only point here is that it’s not always clear what’s being done even with a very ‘small’ film. The classic contemporary example here is that of Iranian cinema where for all sorts of political reasons the filmmakers in question have had to resort to a certain minimalism to tell their stories. These are in many instances lyrical films, human stories, and without expansive canvases, yet all of these works offer profound political commentary. Now of course one could translate the human elements into other contexts and while these would still be good ‘rooted’ films these could also lack that force and potency that they display within the Iranian context.
But here an even larger question opens up. What is the status of a certain naturalism or even a lyrical naturalism in cinema. what are the assumptions on which it is based? De Sica and Ray sometimes perform similar feats of naturalism but the meaning of these gestures is very different because of their radically different contexts. Or more to the point here you come across a number of very fine lyrical French films that are not really like those Iranian films because in one instance a certain political (and perhaps economic, cultural etc..) stability is assumed while in the other case it is the very opposite. Take the recent remake of the classic red Balloon (flight of the red balloon). Whatever it represented within the world of that film it was not really a politically charged message. But if the very same were done within the Iranian context it could mean something very different. The director of the White Balloon is still in jail in Iran!
When a film is strong enough even the human story isn’t really detachable in that sense. Theoretically always possible of course.
Satyam, thanks much for explaining things (never knew abt red balloon). Another doubt-shouldn’t the first and foremost criteria for judging a film are ‘filmmaking/techincal factors’ (i.e. the acting,direction,screenplay,cinematography etc) and shouldn’t issues like ‘rootedness’, ‘authenticity’ etc come afterwards(not saying these are not important at all but are they of prime importance?)?.Let’s say a film is the most ‘rooted and authentic’ one but badly directed,should it be called a good film?
yes but a good film has all of these elements. A certain basic level of competence is assumed in those other areas. For example one wouldn’t praise a novel as being very interesting for its ideas if the author didn’t even know how to write! In the right film all these elements are part of a singularly focused vision. At the same time and even though cinema is the ultimate collaborative art form it’s often not helpful to split things up this way — acting, cinematography, screenplay and so on. Because a successfully realized film unites a lot of these (even competing) interests. But in any case the film’s ideological aspects or its physical setting are not added later on. Even if a screenplay allows this flexibility a director worth the name will always make certain choices for certain reasons. So for example the Karan Johar view of the world where Indians living in England are just like Indians living in the US who in turn are just like Indians in Australia or in the same sense these places are also completely interchangeable or for that matter even within the cities any site is as good as any other.. isn’t something that a serious director will indulge in. This connects though to my point in the post from yesterday about ‘abstraction’. It seems absurd to pretend that London, NY, Melbourne are the very same. In a similar way all small North Indian towns are not the same either. To nonetheless present them as such means one is relying on a certain set of ‘ideological’ assumptions. Which then must be interrogated.
This genre has become hopelessly stale.
WUS was an okay first attempt but Ayan came across as such an idiot when Ranbir used him in ‘phone-a-friend on KBC.
Ami, i am not very sure but a lot of sites including ‘wikipedia’ are carrying this pic. i checked it on a quite a few sites- i usually believe wikipedia
Oh ok- thanks Saurabh- I’m surprised that the first look would be so amateurish though.
And I really hope that this is not yet another story of a man-child whose intiation into adulthood consists of him learning how to tie his own shoelaces or some such herculean feat.
Ok. do watch it soon and tell us (btw u also have to write abt ishaqzaade remember). and don’t take ur 2 ‘bhatjas/bhanjas’ for the film unless u want to enrich their vocabulary. btw if u get time do watch ‘haasil’ (remember we discusssed it)- a film which is more authentic than GoW and it’s also something on which i would love to know ur thoughts. Another film which is very true to its setting is Urmila and Naseer starrer “Benaras”- a very engaging suspense thriller
The Kapoor lad is all to set to shake a leg with Deepika Padukone on the chartbuster from 1991 film Hum
When Big B arrived on the big screen lisping Jumma chumma to woo the voluptuous Kimi Katkar, the audience went berserk. The year was 1991 and the famous number from Mukul Anand’s film Hum, starring Amitabh Bachchan, Rajinikanth and Govinda, became an instant rage. And now we hear that Ranbir Kapoor is gearing up to create the magic of the original Jumma chumma by giving the song his own charming spin, in Kapoor’s upcoming film Yeh Jawaani Hai Diwani. Ranbir will entice Deepika Padukone, his real life ex-flame, in the new number.
Interestingly, the original song was supposed to be sung by Amitabh Bachchan, but Big B later thought it would be wise to get the number sung by Sudesh Bhosle given Jumma chumma’s high-pitched notes. Sudesh delivered an ultimate hit and his effort was beautifully complimented by Kavita Krishnamurthy.
But unlike Amitabh, Bollywood’s young chocolate boy Ranbir is excited to lend his voice to the song. Will the 29-year-old actor manage to recreate the hysteria of the original song? BollywoodLifers, what do you think?
SATYAMSHOT 
June 24, 2012 at 10:54 PM
“Revisit the madness of love”
Yeah, because it’s been so long.
LikeLike
June 24, 2012 at 10:59 PM
LOL!!!
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Loved Wake up sid
The duo are back……Ranbir was brilliant in BAH
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 10:59 AM
me too loved WUS…..
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 10:59 AM
and I am from Delhi but still liked bombay centric WUS…lol
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:17 AM
I couldn’t stay awake..
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:24 AM
LOL….the main scenes were towards the end, no wonder you did not like it….
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM
will try and check it out again with lots of coffee!
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:31 AM
“I couldn’t stay awake..”- C’mon Satyam, WUS wasn’t a bad/uninteresting film by any means. it is zillion times better than stuff like Singham (hindi) and RR. the leads had a charming chemistry between them and it was effectively directed. Also had a very good soundtrack. Probably this, alongwith Kurbaan (and Kaal to some extent) is the Johar films i have ever liked.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:34 AM
I haven’t seen RR yet but I vastly preferred Singam to WUS even with its very disturbing ending. I suspect the same will be true with RR and to an even greater degree.
Here’s the thing — I am just not interested in these Bandra existential crises!
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Saurabh: to be frank, while Singham had some problematic politics, on balance, I enjoyed it and Rowdy Rathore more than wake Up Sid: the latter was truly boring, and irritatingly slight…at least Singham and Rowdy Rathore have something other than a milktoast personality…
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Q, i understand that. I too enjoyed RR a lot.( but not the hindi Singham though i am a bigger fan of Devgn than possibly anyone on this blog). But if we enjoy a film more than some other one, does it always mean that it is a ‘better’ film- putting it simply do u believe Singham and RR are ‘better films’ than WUS? (incidentally imo Ghajini and Dabanng were much better made and enjoyable than WUS)
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 4:36 PM
Satyam is indifferent to Bandra crises but a silly masala film like Singham can ‘disturb’ him.Very good.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM
WUS wasn’t Bombay centric. It has no center. This film could have taken place anywhere on the planet and I don’t mean this as a compliment!
Don’t think Johar has produced a single film I’ve completely liked. Kurbaan was as offensive as it was unintentionally funny. No review of that film was better than the Vigil Idiot’s strip.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 12:14 PM
GF, i never said that WUS was Bombay centric. But i refuse to believe that WUS is a bad film- actually leave Singham and RR, i found it much better than Wanted too (can’t say about Pokkiri though)- it was certainly better directed, was more engaging and had much better performances than the other ones. Not saying it’s a great film but it’s any day better than the typical Kjo-YRF romances.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Rocky said that Saurabh, I wasn’t addressing you But in any case, I don’t think WUS is a “bad” film but I think it’s a pretty flat and unmemorable one.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 6:38 PM
GF and Satyam, since we ventured into authenticity and site-centricity, i just remebered 2 films on the issue- ‘Jalwa’ (Naseer) and ‘Banaras’ (urmila, naseer)- incidentally both of them were helmed by Pankaj Parashar (chaalbaaz, karamchand)- now both these films apart from being rooted to their place, tried to say something more than the obvious- jalwa, instead of giving a tourist-like vision of Goa, exposed its dark underbelly. And Banaras made allusions to Dharmic mysticism, orthodoxy, philosophy
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Satyam, not trying to be sarcastic here but what did u like so much in Singham? (to be frank, i found Devgn insipid here- incidentally i was cheering for Prakash Raj thruout the film. Also Sonali Kulkarni and her scenes were the best thing abt the film imo)
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM
I didn’t say I liked it a lot. I’ve said before that even the original which I prefer wasn’t anything special. But it’s all about contexts. I just prefer Singham to the WUS kind of film. Doesn’t mean I value the former a great deal independently.
On devgan I’m not even much of a fan but I don’t see how he was insipid here. He’s like this all the time.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Ok got your point. But does it mean that you are slightly biased against a WUS kind of genre? And if this is the case isn’t it unfair on the film(s). And while judging the film, shouldn’t we keep our bias aside and judge it on its own merit (i mean in that way if someone does not like horror films, he/she should be allowed to say that ‘transformers’ is a better film than ‘the exorcist’). i am saying all this because in terms of filmmaking i found WUS a much better film than Singham in every way
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 12:12 PM
I’m not biased against the genre. I just think this Gen X format is very empty in its Bollywood manifestation. If there were a better film at some point (within this genre) I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It would never be my favorite genre but that’s a different thing. It’s like I have nothing against over the top comedies either. But most or even all of the stuff Bollywood makes is pretty poor. Again this will never be my favorite genre but I can at least sort out the better film from the poorer one in Hollywood. Some genres are on the whole done poorly in Bollywood. Are some films nonetheless better? Sure. But the bar is set too low. For what it’s worth I thought Rock On was way better than most others on this terrain.
By the way I am also not overrating masala. I’ve hardly celebrated these Southern or more precisely Telugu remakes. I liked Ghajini a lot, even otherwise I find many of the films enjoyable enough but this isn’t the reason why I support them. If the bar has to be low either way I just believe masala is better than the WUS deal because even if in very debased form there are some stakes in the former. Certain films I support for ideological reasons. I dislike most of Akshay’s comedies, even find them unwatchable, but I want the space to be open where he can do this stuff. The same for some other genres. On this score I think a Singham is way better than most of the over the top comedies. Doesn’t mean it’s great otherwise.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Agreed on Rock On and i know ur opinion abt Gen X.Don’t know whether u have seen it but the best among the genre was Socha Na Tha imo. But what i can’t understand is how u saw nothing of merit in WUS. BTW Satyam do see RR (hope u will write a piece on it)
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 12:58 PM
yes I’ve only heard good things about Socha na Tha but haven’t been able to get my hands on a copy so far.. there’s a transfer on youtube that’s pretty poor. Netflix don’t carry it. My local store doesn’t have it I am not quite inclined to buy a copy!
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 12:28 PM
“Certain films I support for ideological reasons.”- agreed and i to do the same. But while comparing two films (on grounds of filmmaking) should we allow our ideological preferances to come in between!? i mean u urself say that while ‘judging’ a film we should keep our personal likings aside.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 1:01 PM
Yes but I’m not contradicting myself with Singham. I didn’t mind watching this. In fact as I just said I find the Akshay comedies mostly unwatchable but I still want those films to be made. Similarly I haven’t even seen stuff like Ready and Bodyguard because I doubt it will be up my alley. Again want it to be made. Just don’t think I’ll like it. But Singham isn’t in the Ready category for me. So I’m not supporting it on ideological grounds, in fact I have problems with it on this score.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 1:15 PM
Ok Satyam, let me shoot it straight at you- Do you believe Singham is a ‘better film’ than WUS (not asking whether u enjoyed it more and so on). whatever ur answer is, would not argue more with u on this topic (also i hope that i have not pissed u off with my repeated statements/questions here, i was not able to understand ur POV regarding the film completely so asked repeatedly).
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 2:57 PM
YES.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM
Saurabh – I know you’re in a discussion with Satyam, but let me just give my two cents if you don’t mind. I feel there is even a worse category of movies than bad movies – inauthentic movies. My ‘dislike’ of typical Karan Johar or Yash chopra brand of cinema is premised more upon them being fake than any ideological ground. IMO reaction against a fake movie is much more visceral than against a bad movie, inauthenticity is a sin in an artistic endeavor.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 3:23 PM
Matrix, by that ‘YES’ Satyam has put an end to that discussion LOL. Agree with you on inauthentic movies but here is my view- I do not find WUS inauthentic at all, not saying it is firmy rooted or stuff but certainly inauthentic at all (though i do agree with GF that it is not Bombay centric) unlike say IHLS, BKB etc. But anyway the debate was about which film is better and not abt authenticity.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 3:25 PM
“I feel there is even a worse category of movies than bad movies – inauthentic movies.”
well put! I used to think the 80s was the worst decade for Indian cinema but later I realized it was probably the 90s. For the very reasons you’ve pointed out.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 3:48 PM
Satyam since u always talk abt films being authentic and rooted, here is something i wanted to ask u- Do u believe if Udaan (a fabulous film) was not set in Jamshedpur, would it make ‘much’ difference to the film?i am not saying Jamshedpur is not important here- incidentally the father (Ronit Roy) wouldn’t have behaved in exactly the same way if had he not hailed from Jamshedpur, and so on.But i still believe this story could have been set anywhere in the world and would evoke similar emotions
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 4:06 PM
Yes it could have ‘authentically’ been set anywhere. I have also never suggested that there is a ‘natural’ link between such human stories and their environments in the sense that the same stories could be as authentically set elsewhere. Udaan could have happened in Coimbatore. However there are two things that one should be careful about. This doesn’t apply to just any story. some stories are much more anchored in their specific histories. But even the more human ones like Udaan that seem more ‘translatable’ can be subtly linked with their contexts in ‘deeper’ ways. In other words it might be that Jamshedpur is simply about providing a local particularity to this story but it could also be that the director set this otherwise ‘generic’ story in this town or in this part of India for a reason. I am not arguing about this one way or the other. The only point here is that it’s not always clear what’s being done even with a very ‘small’ film. The classic contemporary example here is that of Iranian cinema where for all sorts of political reasons the filmmakers in question have had to resort to a certain minimalism to tell their stories. These are in many instances lyrical films, human stories, and without expansive canvases, yet all of these works offer profound political commentary. Now of course one could translate the human elements into other contexts and while these would still be good ‘rooted’ films these could also lack that force and potency that they display within the Iranian context.
But here an even larger question opens up. What is the status of a certain naturalism or even a lyrical naturalism in cinema. what are the assumptions on which it is based? De Sica and Ray sometimes perform similar feats of naturalism but the meaning of these gestures is very different because of their radically different contexts. Or more to the point here you come across a number of very fine lyrical French films that are not really like those Iranian films because in one instance a certain political (and perhaps economic, cultural etc..) stability is assumed while in the other case it is the very opposite. Take the recent remake of the classic red Balloon (flight of the red balloon). Whatever it represented within the world of that film it was not really a politically charged message. But if the very same were done within the Iranian context it could mean something very different. The director of the White Balloon is still in jail in Iran!
When a film is strong enough even the human story isn’t really detachable in that sense. Theoretically always possible of course.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM
Satyam, thanks much for explaining things (never knew abt red balloon). Another doubt-shouldn’t the first and foremost criteria for judging a film are ‘filmmaking/techincal factors’ (i.e. the acting,direction,screenplay,cinematography etc) and shouldn’t issues like ‘rootedness’, ‘authenticity’ etc come afterwards(not saying these are not important at all but are they of prime importance?)?.Let’s say a film is the most ‘rooted and authentic’ one but badly directed,should it be called a good film?
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 4:40 PM
yes but a good film has all of these elements. A certain basic level of competence is assumed in those other areas. For example one wouldn’t praise a novel as being very interesting for its ideas if the author didn’t even know how to write! In the right film all these elements are part of a singularly focused vision. At the same time and even though cinema is the ultimate collaborative art form it’s often not helpful to split things up this way — acting, cinematography, screenplay and so on. Because a successfully realized film unites a lot of these (even competing) interests. But in any case the film’s ideological aspects or its physical setting are not added later on. Even if a screenplay allows this flexibility a director worth the name will always make certain choices for certain reasons. So for example the Karan Johar view of the world where Indians living in England are just like Indians living in the US who in turn are just like Indians in Australia or in the same sense these places are also completely interchangeable or for that matter even within the cities any site is as good as any other.. isn’t something that a serious director will indulge in. This connects though to my point in the post from yesterday about ‘abstraction’. It seems absurd to pretend that London, NY, Melbourne are the very same. In a similar way all small North Indian towns are not the same either. To nonetheless present them as such means one is relying on a certain set of ‘ideological’ assumptions. Which then must be interrogated.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 5:40 PM
Outstanding set of thoughts in your last two comments Satyam.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Naram Shohar should reinvent himself or become a fashion designer in Paris
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM
This genre has become hopelessly stale.
WUS was an okay first attempt but Ayan came across as such an idiot when Ranbir used him in ‘phone-a-friend on KBC.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 4:47 PM
wonder whats more idotic,ayan or the guy who still watches kbc?
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 5:31 PM
What did he say on KBC?
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 4:40 PM
TERRIBLE first look- are you sure it’s not fan-made?
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 4:42 PM
I was also a bit unsure .. Saurabh probably has a better idea..
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 4:49 PM
Ami, i am not very sure but a lot of sites including ‘wikipedia’ are carrying this pic. i checked it on a quite a few sites- i usually believe wikipedia
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 5:34 PM
Oh ok- thanks Saurabh- I’m surprised that the first look would be so amateurish though.
And I really hope that this is not yet another story of a man-child whose intiation into adulthood consists of him learning how to tie his own shoelaces or some such herculean feat.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 5:37 PM
Ami, LOL u and ur man-children! btw did u see GoW or any other film (hope ur little nephews are not keeping u busy 🙂 )
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 5:45 PM
I haven’t seen any films this week- been travelling a bit.
I will watch GoW soon though- I wasn’t too excited about it but after reading Rangan’s piece I’m really looking forward to it.
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 5:54 PM
Ok. do watch it soon and tell us (btw u also have to write abt ishaqzaade remember). and don’t take ur 2 ‘bhatjas/bhanjas’ for the film unless u want to enrich their vocabulary. btw if u get time do watch ‘haasil’ (remember we discusssed it)- a film which is more authentic than GoW and it’s also something on which i would love to know ur thoughts. Another film which is very true to its setting is Urmila and Naseer starrer “Benaras”- a very engaging suspense thriller
LikeLike
June 25, 2012 at 6:17 PM
Ami, i remember that u once asked whether Naseer starrer Michael has got any review or not- now i dunno whether u have read but this is an excellent one from London Film Festival- http://www.ukasiaonline.com/bollywood/790-naseeruddin-shahs-michael-beautiful-tedium.html – i incidentally posted this on the Gow thread today itself
LikeLike
June 26, 2012 at 7:26 AM
I actually really enjoyed WUS 🙂
LikeLike
June 26, 2012 at 7:24 PM
hmm, this is worse than 50% of the fan-made posters out there!
LikeLike
July 25, 2012 at 9:52 AM
http://www.bollywoodlife.com/news-gossip/will-ranbir-kapoor-beat-amitabh-bachchan-at-jumma-chumma/
The Kapoor lad is all to set to shake a leg with Deepika Padukone on the chartbuster from 1991 film Hum
When Big B arrived on the big screen lisping Jumma chumma to woo the voluptuous Kimi Katkar, the audience went berserk. The year was 1991 and the famous number from Mukul Anand’s film Hum, starring Amitabh Bachchan, Rajinikanth and Govinda, became an instant rage. And now we hear that Ranbir Kapoor is gearing up to create the magic of the original Jumma chumma by giving the song his own charming spin, in Kapoor’s upcoming film Yeh Jawaani Hai Diwani. Ranbir will entice Deepika Padukone, his real life ex-flame, in the new number.
Interestingly, the original song was supposed to be sung by Amitabh Bachchan, but Big B later thought it would be wise to get the number sung by Sudesh Bhosle given Jumma chumma’s high-pitched notes. Sudesh delivered an ultimate hit and his effort was beautifully complimented by Kavita Krishnamurthy.
But unlike Amitabh, Bollywood’s young chocolate boy Ranbir is excited to lend his voice to the song. Will the 29-year-old actor manage to recreate the hysteria of the original song? BollywoodLifers, what do you think?
LikeLike