This entry was posted on June 30, 2012 at 1:51 AM 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.
300 Responses to “Gangs of Wasseypur (ongoing), the rest of the box office”
I am particularly thrilled about the GoW success. This film has done more in one week than Dev D(itself a success) did in its entire run. Inflation is not a very serious factor here given the relative audience of each film but even if so it is more than outweighed by the fact that Dev D was a far more accessible subject than GoW (also had a hit soundtrack).
elements of the trade and impossibly partisan sites like BOI have nonetheless not given the film its due. Saying idiotic stuff like ‘it’s stable at the lower end’ and so on. of course it has been very stable but the point is it was crazy to expect big numbers here any which way. Consider how ‘different’ films do even with big stars, even when these do well. So the game of expectations might always have been rather silly here. The film has excellent numbers or in other words has done as well as possible for this kind of subject and with no major star. On that note, and as I’ve said before, Shanghai too was treated unkindly by the trade. Expectations were again greater but there was also a mismatch here. Admittedly it didn’t do what GoW is doing but nonetheless the ‘failure’ here is a very relative one all factors considered.
[I then added some of the comments from the other link and expanded on it this way…]
And so this is once again not an argument either against the auteurist types or even at the other end a Rohit shetty. My argument with the former always is that if one’s aim is at least partly polemical (as it certainly is in many of these instances) one must then figure out how those polemics can be maximized beyond a point. Audiences sometimes reject mainstream films that get too edgy. So what?! I understand all the obvious issues here in terms of financial viability and so on but people often think that such films are a waste even otherwise. It is not so. First off the rejected can be resurrected one day. Leaving this aside it is perhaps when the audience rejects a film like Raavan as ‘too much’ (however they define ‘too much’) that it becomes become more open to an interesting film that is somewhat less subversive than this but that they might not otherwise have embraced without the bar being raised. This works in a number of ways. RGV made Satya, he then went more mainstream with Company, suddenly a certain kind of filmmaking became much more mainstream. So each film has a history but it can also perform a service within a larger history.
Similarly on the Rohit Shetty side of the equation I don’t have a problem with whatever he makes (even if most of it is not to my taste!) but given that he came upon something more interesting here (note by the way how working with Abhishek makes a lot of these directors more interesting or edgier all of a sudden.. Singham for example was actually a regression from the Tamil original because it had some offensive ethnic politics not to mention the terrifying climax) he might have been a bit more ambitious in certain ways.
And so back to Kashyap. The reason I wish for him to make a somewhat ‘bigger’ film is because I think he’s done everything he can with niche filmmaking. The project should now be taken further. Not that there’s anything wrong in always playing at the film festival level. But his own stated polemics ought to push him further.
Anurags false sense of achievement and satyams BO ignorance are both laughable.GOW will at best manage shanghai collections which the trade has already labelled as flop.satyam doesnt seem to disagree with that.talk about partisanship!
the idiocy of the trade knows no bounds.. so what do people say? ‘should I watch Spidey or GoW? Really tough choice’?!
GoW should hopefully get to 25 crores at this point. It’s done a bit more than 17. More than 18 including this Fri. With somewhat higher numbers on Sat and Sun 25 should be a done deal. Without major competition a bit more might have been a possibility but that is unlikely given that Bol Bachchan is releasing next week and cocktail the following one.
I don’t think it is a bakwaas movie. The genre is inspired from the movies from Hollywood…The movie has some redundant scenes and could be chopped but direction wise it is fine. Other problem I saw was there was mix of Hindi and Bihari (Mixuture of all dialects of Bihar which normally people associate with Bhojpuri). Apart from above nitpicks I liked the movie.
Well, haven’t seen GoW -wanna check it in a good print/sound only…
But anjali: if u say it’s crap, there must be some truth to it 😉
Btw someone gave me ‘kahaani’ -worth checking out folks ?
Some people (even some really smart ones 🙂 ) are ready to go to theatre for ‘teri meri kahaani’ but will be hesitant before watching ‘kahani’- what has the world come to! 🙂
Haha
Well TMK was part of the ‘big’ screen experience and the other stuff…lol
Bollywood big screen releases are v rare near me and hence they are like rare exotic delicacies-i check em out only to maintain a ‘link’ to Bollywood etc -mostly the films are just incidental
Like watching auteur screenings otherwise lol
Btw films like GoW/kahaani didn’t even release …
Ps-is kahani worth a watch on telly/DVD ?
Dude, do not miss Kahani at any cost. easily one of the best thrillers bwood has ever made. it will hook from the 1st scene and will never let u go. everything clicks in the film- super shit!
Hmm..
Ok lemme check out now what the fuss is about
Anyways , when a non Indian maker recommends an Indian film, one should see what’s going on
Let’s see how long it can ‘grip’ me now 🙂
i havent seen kahani so i cant say.
if u wanna watch a really great hindi film…watch “heer ranjha”….directed by the younger brother of dev anand,affectionately called goldie.the same guy who directed guide.this guy goldie was a personal friend of jiddu krishnamurthy and osho….was a philosopher in his own right.
heer raanjha….is a movie that rhymes …both metaphorically and literally.it will transport u into a fabled world….a mythic love story……the same effect a high dose of LSD induces….common things become mythic…a simple banal sentence ..turns into a loaded metaphor……u become a part of a fabled world…..where black is black and white is white…..it hits….
but u can enjoy that movie only if u have a deep familiarity with urdu.becoz the whole movie is done in verse….the dailogues r exquisite urdu verses…..written by the genius kaifi aazmi…..father of shabana aazmi.
the one character i enjoyed the most in that movie was of pran.he is pure evil…like a shakesperean iago of othello.he is lame and ppl make fun of him…and he wants to deform everything ….has an angst against the whole world.he is the villian in the movie…who conspires against the lovers heer ranjha..and finally separates them…for ever.
one dailogue in the movie…mouthed by the evil pran which is my personal favourite is…when in a crowed bazaar…ppl r making fun of his handicap….as his efforts of flirting with a girl falls on its head ..and the girl shoos him away…pran says….
Kuchhal doonga…..
Mashhal doonga…..
Jalaa doonga…….
Mitaa doonga……
Rulayaa mujhko kismat ne……
Main duniya ko rulaa doonga…….
Film:Heer raajha
Well, I adore guide and even 3 Manzil and some other films by dev ananads bro (including prem pujari)
Plus with a recommendation from u, anjali, will definitely try to check it out .
Till then will enjoy this-
“is a movie that rhymes …both metaphorically and literally.it will transport u into a fabled world….a mythic love story……the same effect a high dose of LSD induces….common things become mythic…a simple banal sentence ..turns into a loaded metaphor……u become a part of a fabled world…..where black is black and white is white…..it hits….”
By ‘LSD’, did u mean love sex and dhokha or the real stuff 🙂
We have a real dabang and great gal here on this blog-anjali
Unless locked in a theatre, see most films while ‘mutitasking’ so my attention span can be low
After hearing such sextreme praise, let’s see what kahaani is all about
Anjali:Y don’t u check out kahaani simulataneously @ your end
Let’s see who gets fed up first hahah
Ok-b4 even kahaani started got distracted by this song on telly
Zero authenticity of setting-Salman roaming around what’s apparently supposed to be old London…ha
Salman not even caring to lip sync properly
But he gets my approval -like his style man….and the song
Anjali-check it out 😉
salman is nt a great actor,but a good guy.love him…..in this age(of short attention span…and plastic relations)…. someone as successful as him can go nuts for something as banal as a girl……(aishwarya in the case of salman)…kinda makes him cute to me.
he used to spy on her….go to her home drunk and create tamasha…..flaunt his(non existent)..underworld connection ….in short become a joke …all for the sake of a girl….delicious!very old schoolish
Btw by ‘milk’ meant ‘use’ -no ‘other’ dodgy meaning lol
V Good stuff kahaani -watched 20 min !!
Getting ‘heavy’ and sensitive my tender tired brain -will complete on another day….
No Satyam!
Anjali is right … 🙂
It’s one thing loving a girl etc but Salman went bonkers, self destructive with suicidal tendencies, it seems..which is wrong..
Ustad hotel is a movie about 4stages of life.Beautifully written and directed.This movie is very carefully excecuted and is very much within the frames of a commercial malayalam movie.But luckily doesnt end up being only a commercial movie.Actually it never ends.It just goes on like the waves of the ocean.The movie begins with Feyzee,his quest to breakfree from his businessman father to a life he has setup for himself. A life a young man would love to have but as the story progresses its told to the viewer that it was all a short lived and shortsighted dream. Usthad hotel is Feyzee ‘s journey to understand the real meaning of life. There lies the novelty of the subject. This movie underlines the four stages of life. Dulquer playing the youth,Sidique playing the middle age and thilakan playing vaanaprastham.The movie tells us whatever you have in your life still your life is incomplete. Usthad hotel bridges the gaps between our incomplete life without being preachy teaches you to live.Dulquer shines in a restrained performance never trying too hard or trying to be a comnercial hero.Nithya Menon is good.Thilakan shines in his role,the real hero of the movie.
Kudos to Anjali Menon for such a meaningful story.Anwar rasheeds conviction and brilliance to direct a different topic. A superb movie. Loved it. I think the movie will be a hit,cause Malayalam audience are a thinking audience and they dont need to be spoonfed.
There is a renaissance taking place in the malayalam film industry lot of new actors and directors making really good films.Movies like Traffic, Chappa kurish, Diamond necklace,22FEMALE KOTTAYAM,Manjadikuru,Indian Rupee,Spirit,second show,Salt n pepper have emerged as super hits these movies are not the regular commercial movies which plagued malayalam industry for years neither they are superstar films except for indian rupee and spirit.(both directed by ace director Ranjith who makes movies on social issues in a very commercial format and manages to make hit movies).
Major disappointments none ? what a stupid and completely biased article .Don ,KANK,Ra one,Don2 and MNIK all are avearge/below average in India.May be they collected more in Overseas .How bollywood hungama allowed person like Joginder tuteja to write this completely dishonest article
Opening of 0% ?
Hahahaaha
Is this including the bugger ticket guy, the ‘torch guy’ and the one selling coke n nice cream..?
ROFL @ naseer
Btw that title song isnt bad…
Is this a ‘modern’ take on ‘heer ranjha’ (which anjali told me about)
And how the heck is a r Rahman giving the music to this one ..
If he is, this needs to be seen..
Dabang: the ‘superior’ masala
Till the recent past, was a compulsive Salman hater
As Satyam probably knows-one film changed it..for me somewhat., though still relatively!
Dabang is actually more than a masala film-it’s a persona/ a thought process and I still feel the directors vision hasn’t been credited for enuf..
Maybe it’s personal taste but love the persona and the way it was written/presented…
Also the directors unmodified version was even more kashyapesque and contained some more relatively edgy elements like caste politics etc
The various angles between Salman and his bro and moreover with his dad was a somewhat curious sort for a mere masala film..
To be more specific, this change fructified around the course of one song
Btw something for minor and Satyam -enjoy
Get into the mood…And groove
Ps-minor: drinkresponsibly lol
btw has any1 read the killing joke ..a batman comic..penned by alan moore.absolutely fascinating…mind numbing…..harrowing…. macabre and bizzare ….one of the most interesting read i had in a while
If ‘killing joke’ is the one where Joker strips Gordon naked and ties him to a ride in the amusement park while his paralysed daughter Batgirl is watching, then i clearly remember reading it- one helluva comic. And especially liked the ending. Alan Moore is simply one of the greatest graphic-novel writers of all times. i especially loved his “V for Vendetta”
Tho is supposed to be the best ‘joker’ outing of all times -disturbing apparently..though haven’t read it
Moores ‘the league of extraordinary gentlemen’ is more typical him..
Ps: your graphic description above makes it sound a bit perverted take lol
I’ve been trying to come to terms with two seemingly irreconcilable facts. First, “Men in Black 3” has made more than $550 million worldwide. Second, while a representative from the parent company of Columbia Pictures told me that the movie is now “in the win column,” it seemed until recently as if Columbia might actually lose money on it. How could that be? It’s not so complicated. Its production costs were close to $250 million; worldwide marketing most likely added at least that much; and a big chunk of the ticket sales go to theaters and distributors.
There must be an easier way to make money. For the cost of “Men in Black 3,” for instance, the studio could have become one of the world’s largest venture-capital funds, thereby owning a piece of hundreds of promising start-ups. Instead, it purchased the rights to a piece of intellectual property, paid a fortune for a big star and has no definitive idea why its movie didn’t make a huge profit. Why is anyone in the film industry?
All business requires guessing, but future predilections of moviegoers are especially opaque. If a large company wants to introduce a new car, it can at least base its predictions, in part, on factors like where oil prices are headed. Movie executives, on the other hand, come up with a host of new theories each summer about what audiences want — 3-D tent poles, 2-D tent poles, vampires, comics, board games and so on — then, sometimes over the course of a weekend, ricochet toward a new theory. Will the tepid economics of “Men in Black 3” spell trouble for “The Amazing Spider-Man,” this holiday weekend’s big release? Who knows.
Unlike other decades-old industries, Hollywood not only has a hard time forecasting, but it also has difficulty analyzing past results. Why was “The Hunger Games” such a big hit? Because it had a built-in audience? Because it starred Jennifer Lawrence? Because it was released around spring break? The business is filled with analysts who claim to have predictive powers, but the fact that a vast majority of films fail to break even proves that nobody knows anything for sure.
Making matters more complicated is that the industry is filled with professionals — starting with the lowliest junior agents — adept at explaining why they were responsible for a project’s success. This self-mythologizing has real economic impact. Most major brands spend lots of money ensuring that people have a positive association with them, but most people don’t even notice which studio made which movie. (Disney and its Pixar subsidiary are notable exceptions, “John Carter” notwithstanding.) In fact, movie studios are much better at helping brands they don’t own — certain stars, directors, producers and source material, like “The Hunger Games” — capture a huge chunk of the money.
The reason a majority of movie studios still turn a profit most years is that they have found ways to, as they say, monetize the ancillary stream by selling pay-TV and overseas rights, creating tie-in video games, amusement-park rides and so forth. And the big hits, rare as they may be, pay for a lot of flops. Still, the profits are not huge. Matthew Lieberman, a director at PricewaterhouseCoopers, expects growth over the coming years to be somewhere around 0.6 percent.
Hollywood is, somewhat surprisingly, a remarkably stable industry. Over the past 80 years or so, its basic model — in which financiers in New York lend money to creative people in Los Angeles — has been largely unaltered. Partly as a result, today’s biggest studios — Columbia, Disney, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Universal, 20th Century Fox — have been on top since at least the 1950s. This stability is initially puzzling because movie studios don’t have many assets. Worse, every one of their projects is a short-term collaboration between a bunch of independent agents.
A modern studio’s main asset, however, is its ability to put together these disparate elements. They know how to get Tom Cruise to do a film, how to get it into theaters around the country and whom to call to set up a junket in Doha. They also know the industry’s language of power, with its ever-changing rules about which stars, restaurants and scripts are cool and which are not. It’s the stuff of easy parody, but it’s worth billions.
Another reason these studios remain at the top is that for most entrepreneurs, taking them on isn’t worth the risks. (Even big hits often take years — sometimes a full decade — to break even.) “If I’m sitting on $2 billion, will I invest in a Hollywood studio?” asks Anita Elberse, a Harvard Business School professor who studies the entertainment industry. “Many other industries have a higher return on investment.” Billionaires like Anil Ambani, who is a partner in Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks Studios, presumably invest because the glamour helps them with their other businesses.
People have predicted the demise of the film industry since the dawn of TV and, later, the appearance of VHS, cable and digital piracy. But Fabrizio Perretti, a management professor at the Università Bocconi in Italy, says that Hollywood is now actually destroying itself. Because it’s harder to get financing and audiences, companies are competing to make bigger, costlier films while eliminating risk, which is why ever-more movies are based on existing intellectual property. Eighteen of the all-time 100 top-grossing movies (adjusted for inflation) were sequels, and more than half of those were released since 2000.
Predictability might win the weekend, Perretti says, but it could eventually make people weary. Meanwhile, Lieberman, from PricewaterhouseCoopers, sees significant growth in another entertainment business that’s constantly experimenting with different models, distribution methods and ways of telling stories. Maybe TV is finally going to kill movies after all.
Adam Davidson is co-founder of NPR’s “Planet Money,” a podcast, blog and radio series heard on “Morning Edition,” “All Things Considered” and “This American Life.”
I don’t know where to put this up–but if Satyam can put it up as a separate post–it will help us discuss under-rated and excellent films from the past…such as Saudagar from 1973, an absolute gem of a film.
Often, thanks to tv, one gets access to a film one has long wished to experience–well, this was one film my husband would always rave about–and he saw it in the seventies as a young man in Chennai, with a bare minimum knowledge of Hindi ! He says that he watched it twice, for the graceful Nutan, but liked Amitabh’s performance too. Last week Zee Classic telecast Saudagar–and we both managed to watch it together; missed the opening scenes, but watched most of the film.What agem of amovie; exquisite, minim alist, just right. And yes, I sort of prefer this Amitabh to the more popular angry man character that made him popular.
Here is the imdb page for Saudagar–just 8 viewer reviews–but they have all loved it–
Saudagar is one of my favorite Bachchan roles, and a very good film, even apart from that, the sort of “little film” that becomes increasingly difficult for an actor to do as he/she climbs up the stardom ladder…
“the sort of “little film” that becomes increasingly difficult for an actor to do as he/she climbs up the stardom ladder…”- Q u right on the money here. I quite liked Saudagar and especially liked AB’s body-language of a ‘taadi collector”. also the director showed great courage in keeping a sort of open-ended climax. Actually amongts the early films of Bachchan i also loved him in Bandhe Haath and Parwana
Saudagar is my favourite film of Amitabh. It’s a really good film. Love it. I’m glad it’s being noticed. I just love Amitabh in this song, and the song too. Actually I can go on talking about this film endlessly 😀
wow! saudagar is my favourite film too.the timeless fable …of dramatic conflict between reason(played by nutan)…and passion(played by the other girl in the film)…..inside the mind of man(played by amitabh). indeed…reason and passion are the two wives every single person has…
reason and passion are sautans!
the last scene of the movie…absolute class…..finally the other wife of amitabh comes crying 2 nutan and nutan accepts her…..the implication being…..a man can live happily only when the fight between reason and passion is resolved…and the reason so to say…takes passion in its shelter.
“wow! saudagar is my favourite film too.the timeless fable …of dramatic conflict between reason(played by nutan)…and passion(played by the other girl in the film)…..inside the mind of man(played by amitabh). indeed…reason and passion are the two wives every single person has…
reason and passion are sautans!
the last scene of the movie…absolute class…..finally the other wife of amitabh comes crying 2 nutan and nutan accepts her…..the implication being…..a man can live happily only when the fight between reason and passion is resolved…and the reason so to say…takes passion in its shelter.”
I was in a minority anjali
Have not seen this film and was least interested
But these lines, anjali, may make me watch it-
Hmm..u are brain washing me 🙂
“waajib(proper) hai dil ke saath rahe paasbaan e akl(the guard called mind)
lekin kabhi kabhi usse tanha bhi chorr de”
Wow what poetry: anjali ….
Btw have an inkling u maybe an Austen fan- m I rite?
For u and other austen fans like Oldgold…
A tribute to Austen -enjoy
well i dont like austen or for that matter any female writer alive or dead.i have observed,if a woman has an intellect and the ability to express herself…she immediately becomes a feminist.in the writings of all celebrated female writers one sees an undercurrent of feminism running…..which pisses me off kinda.
i m a big hater of feminism.
women r different from men…i dont like the idea of competing with men.
to give an example……all through history we have seen that all the political scientists were males….be it machiavelli in the west or chanakya in the east(to name a few)……the politics and the political institutions these men envisioned and created are masculine.now men r violent and possessive…that is why there have been so many wars in the political history of mankind…the political institutions created by these male political scientists seems to have endorsed those masculine characteristics.be it communism,autocracy or democracy…all have led to war…..all have been tainted by the masculinity.
with the advent of the 20th century and the talk of political liberation of the female and women emancipation by the vociferous feminists…voting and a host of other civil rights were given to the females.they were made a stakeholder in these political institutions….but the political institutions itself were created by males and they remained masculine in essence and character.so liberated women were forced…politically…. to become male copycats and participate in a system whose semantics are essentially masculine.that has happened because of the feminists who want women to become the imitators of men,a kind of second class males…which is unfortunate.ideally
women should create their own political systems and should not inherit those created by males of the past.but no feminist ever talks about that because feminists r those women who r essentially afraid of their own womanhood…..who want to be like men…compete with men but cannot accept that they r naturally different from men and nature has ordained a separate role for women….vis a vis men.
“well i dont like austen or for that matter any female writer alive or dead.i have observed,if a woman has an intellect and the ability to express herself…she immediately becomes a feminist.in the writings of all celebrated female writers one sees an undercurrent of feminism running…..which pisses me off kinda.i m a big hater of feminism.
women r different from men…i dont like the idea of competing with men.”
Chinta ta Chita Chita
Anjali: wanna personally pat your back for that….lol
Btw since u are not a feminist and sound cool and sensible
Reminds me of-
Question: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer: Two.
One to exclaim that the light-bulb has violated the socket, and the other to secretly wish that she was the socket.
Disclaimer: the above was just a joke to be taken in the spirit 😉
I don’t take offense (!) but quite bluntly I reject the notion that every female writer is a feminist. And in fact note the danger in your position — it could be that a strong female voice for you is almost definitionally susceptible to a feminist charge. What kind of female writer would you accept who would not be a ‘feminist’?
And here I cannot resist a joke — no wonder you’re a fan of Salman!
Haha
The ‘assistance’ is because of my own selfish interest ..
There’s a slight change/addition in the cast of my cocktail spoof..
Anjali joins the cast ( to Oldgold ) 🙂
Ps :That’s the advantage of being the director/actor/etc …one can make changes at any time …
Now don’t be a spoilsport hohoho
“so liberated women were forced…politically…. to become male copycats and participate in a system whose semantics are essentially masculine.that has happened because of the feminists who want women to become the imitators of men,a kind of second class males…which is unfortunate.”
Wow- cant disagree with anything ….ESP the way u put it..
Brillianto…superb
Ps: btw would like your views on a mere mortal movie called ‘cocktail’
Anjali: Know u may not like either deepika or Diana but if forced to choose one- who will u prefer (just as a viewer)..
Austen may be considered a great writer but imo her writings were plain boring. The men in her novels always played second fiddle to women and were almost sissified. in short, i consider Austen vastly inferior to Indian writers like Chandradhar Sharma Guleri or even Mannu Bhandari
That’s a different point altogether.
It’s OK if one doesn’t like her writing.
I find her writing the best I have ever come across – all because of the style of writing. Even on the 10th reading of her books you’ll discover a new aspect.
The layers in her writings are innumerable.
It’s very important to not read her books superficially.
>The men in her novels always played second fiddle to women and were almost sissified.
Again, you have to know the TIMES before forming an opinion.
Jane Austen herself said;
That she writes from experience and only what she knows about. The only place they mixed with men was at assembly dances.
She wrote from what she saw of the life in the small communities.
She described her writings (in one of her letters) as;
“…little bit (two Inches wide) of Ivory on which I work with so fine a Brush, as produces little effect after much labour?”
Anyway, why consider a writing inferior because it doesn’t give importance to men? Sissies, in what way?
…and you should compare her with authors of her own time…. if you’re inclined to compare (which is silly, I think).
The times have a great influence, you know.
Good point Oldgold -Agree that the ‘time one is in’ should always be part of the equation …to get the correct perspective
Whether femininit or not is debatable, but the gender dynamics and the ‘differences’ in realities never missed her or her writings -sometimes even underlined…
For eg-“One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other” -this is a ‘neutral’ statement of hers ..
Thanx for the lovely comments on Austen by anjali, Oldgold, Satyam… Think the Austen tribute I posted above followed by the quality discussion may well deserve a separate thread ..
Btw talkin of austens ‘feminism’ or lack of it -(though I’m not an expert )
And before I get hit by bricks
This is a line from Austens works herself—(not mine)
Found it ROFL
“A lady’s imagination is very rapid; it jumps from admiration to love, from love to matrimony in a moment.”
Disclaimer : if someone has issues with the above statement , plz attack miss Jane Austen not me 🙂
I may have misunderstood you, but I think you mean the two halves to be that of men and women.
Do you REALLY think that she meant the two halves to be that of men and women?
Do you even know the context in which she wrote this?
It’s a profound statement which can be applied to just about anything, not just pleasure – ask the Americans who’ll be voting in almost two halves 😉
In the book she really meant ‘the enjoyment’. There it even involves all men – her father, their neighbour Mr Knightley, and her nepphew.
Oldgold : didn’t put those as examples of austens ‘feminism” or lack of it but some random stray examples of her style and her mention of some gender dynamics
About the rest, am happy to be your ‘student’ on Austen to learn more 😉
“Donwell was famous for its strawberry-beds, which seemed a plea for the invitation: but no plea was necessary; cabbage-beds would have been enough to tempt the lady, who only wanted to be going somewhere.”
Btw another Austen quote:
“Dress is at all times a frivolous distinction, and excessive solicitude about it often destroys its own aim.”
Ps: curious about this Oldgold lol
Ps2:Anjali: where hav u run away…already rehearsing for the role lol? Uve left me alone amongst austen experts 🙂
@oldgold One another BIG problem is that everytime a woman writes and may bring up some aspect of society RE: women – they are branded as feminists.
i agree completely,infact this is also my chief grouse.but we must understand why it happens?it happens because the majority of women writers are in fact feminists…that is the only reason why even those who r not….. get clubbed with them as one…which is unfortunate….and this creates a separate brand of literature….feminist literature…like there r dalit literature…gay literature,etc.majority of women subconsciously think of their life and place in this world vis a vis that of men….the next logical step from this is…..they think of their life in terms of rebellion against the EVIL of patriarchy.they define things and values in society in terms of patriarchy.the effect is….as someone said…if u fight with a monster too long u will end up becoming a monster.that is why feminists become imitators of men….if u come across a hardcore feminist(as i have)…they will appear and sound more masculine than their female counterparts.all this happens becoz of this fight…this rebellion against the patriarchy.this fight makes women clamour for equality of status…but how can yu become equal?…..u r unhappy with what u r…u feel u have been suppressed and exploited by the male hegemony…now u want equality…but how to become the equal of men?u cant become equal by remaining the way yu r(coz the way u r appears as wrong…its made u the inferior sex)…so let us imitate the ways of the superior.that is what the mind concludes…and the result is that women invariably become male copycats.women as a sex r losing their jewel of femininty becoz of this fight.women a hundred years back were more femalish than these modern women….its a perversion. women r not given the freedom and leisure to bloom their womanhood and its different aspects.everything becomes a fight against the dominant male narrative for them…that is my definition of what feminism is….its a deformity of mind…a disease.
No…men and women r not equal….they r different.
Great point Anjali. BTw i am missing our own champion of feminism (kidding) Ami here- i am certain she would have come up with some cracker of a comment (perhaps abt Manic Pixie Dream Girl 🙂 ). But anywhay she does have a ceratin different class in her comments though Anjali is ably filling in for her
Anjali : u write v well and your thoughts are well articulated and original in content. Also u r not ‘filling in’ for anybody …
Btw I’m sure u are aware that my jokes are in good faith, and not intended for any offence -cheers n gud nite 🙂
“so liberated women were forced…politically…. to become male copycats and participate in a system whose semantics are essentially masculine.that has happened because of the feminists who want women to become the imitators of men,a kind of second class males…which is unfortunate.”
Oldgold, actually now when u have mentioned abt the ‘times’, i do get ur point a bit. Btw i was never contesting the fact the she is a great writer (she obviously is), it is just that i don’t find any kind of excitement in her writings (i mean it seems bland to me) apart from her portrayal of men which i don’t agree to.
Well, I frankly find Austen a wonderful writer irrespective of her gender etc!
Her use of irony and a realistic touch (compared to the era) in the passages Ive read border on exquisite british writing..
It depends on what one means by “didn’t do anything to me!”by
What one expected to be done to 🙂
Satyams comments above of ‘didn’t do anything to me’ reminds me of a buddy who loved some female writer…his favourite bedtime reading…
He ACTUALLY felt that she ‘came out of the book’ !! ( though he was aware it was an illusion ie he wasnt mad)
before he slept and …. Him to sleep ROFL
That was just btw and I’m sure Satyam doesn’t have such weird expectations 🙂
I’m not even fighting for her books to be liked. It’s OK if one doesn’t like them.
Not only the times BUT also her age has to be considered. She was very young when she wrote her first three novels, though they were published later.
Well, satyam and you are lucky to find her novels boring.
Ardent readers like me will forever remain unfulfilled with only SIX novels to read and re read. 😦
To understand the ‘times’ she wrote in (as Oldgold pointed out correctly ) if my info is correct, she wrote mostly anonymously (or had to !)
Till now there’s no conclusive photo of Austen..
The reception at that time of her works was somewhat ‘moralistic’ although her writing itself tried to steer away from it-maybe Oldgold can confirm ….
and i must confess jane austen is not a feminist writer..on that score oldgold is correct.but her writings do display strands of feminism..its inevitable in a way.
maybe i used austen as a prop to lambast feminists in general
Satyam, I don’t wish to give any impression of anti americanism, but I’m sorry to say the american critics or writers who go about explaining and offering a critique of classics are what I detest. They have no sense or feeling of the past and tend to judge, interpret with their hearts and minds strongly fixed in NOW.
Look at the picture on the cover of the book! Grrrrr!!!
That picture is selected by publishing houses not the writers (incidentally I quite like that cover.. the image matches Austen’s tone, I’d argue it’s a perfect reference to what some of the current discussion has been about!).
What American critics did you have in mind by the way? Not I suppose the ones who’ve had the most lofty reputations in the Anglo-American world (and often in the entire West) over the last 50-60 years!
It’s just unhelpful to keep thinking in nationalistic terms. Sometimes there are cultural constellations that coincide with national borders (though more precisely with certain universities) but in any case the US has more or less dominated critical theory for very long.
Incidentally here’s another worthwhile ‘general’ book:
Ha -Tony has been forcibly married off by his parents to prevent his mischievous activities -he is now looking after his kids nappies 🙂
As for Amy : those ‘nephews’ were actually her own kids-she was kidding all along haha
Uday Chopra to remake ‘Bunty Aur Babli’ for global audience
Nandini Raghavendra, ET Bureau Jun 29, 2012
MUMBAI: Bunty and Babli, the teenaged con artists of the 2005 Bollywood hit Bunty Aur Babli are headed to Hollywood, with filmmaker Uday Chopra planning to remake the film in Hollywood for a global audience with a re-written script.
Chopra, the youngest son of the This will be the first time an intellectual property of a Bollywood film would be extended to Hollywood and be made into a global film after re-purposing the script. While another successful Bollywood producer, Vidhu Vinod Chopra, has sold the rights of his hugely popular Munnabhai films to Hollywood studios, he will not be remaking the films himself. He has, however, retained the right to clear the re-purposed script.
If this model becomes successful, it could open the floodgates for Chopra who has a bouquet of IPRs of Yash Raj films, right from his father Yash Chopra’s classics such as Kabhie, Kabhie, Kaala Patthar, Silsila, Chandni to Mashaal, Dil Toh Pagal Hai and Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge to several modern day hits that include films made by his brothers and other directors under the Yash Raj banners, like Chak De India, Dhoom and Band Baaja, Baaraat.
YRF today operates in several verticals of the entertainment space-from film production, studios, digital space, music records and film distribution. Film industry sources, who did not want to be named, pegged YRF’s turnover of around Rs 200 crore-Rs 250 crore, depending on the year’s slate of films, as they form the largest chunk of the revenue flow. This year, since they have still not had a big film, the figure seems lower, next year with three big films–Salaman Khan’s Ek Tha Tiger, SRK and Yash Chopra’s next as well as Aamir Khan in Dhoom3, YRF’s turnver could be much higher.
Filmed entertainment in India is expected to sustain the growth momentum witnessed in 2011 according to the KPMG Ficci Frames report of 2012 and the Indian film industry is projected to grow at a CAGR of 10.1% to touch Rs 15,000 crore in 2016.
Many Indian filmmakers have grown in size over the past few years and are now becoming ambitious enough to enter Hollywood. Apart from Chopra, a few privately held companies in production as well as post-production have launched themselves in the US, while big companies have forged joint ventures like Reliance Entertainment has with Steven Spielberg.
Chopra says he has much to gain because of the low cost model he can employ in the business. His idea right now is to make three films a year with an equity investment of $5-7 million (Rs 28 crore-Rs 39 crore, at Rs 56 to a $) in each project. “A small amount goes a long way in the US. It is all so structured and pre-sales can be encashed at banks to get you money. With $4-5 million, you can make a $25 million movie, if you got a good agent and a good script,” he says.
He has employed a bunch of writers in Beverly Hills, who will re-purpose the script to suit Hollywood sensibilities. If he were to employ Writers Guild of America scriptwriters for a new script, he would have to shell out at least $70,000-$80,000 on each script. Re-purposing of course can come at a considerably lower cost, Chopra says.
renowned Bollywood producer-director Yash Chopra, has recently launched his family’s film company Yash Raj Films in the US, with plans to produce Hollywood movies. He has already aligned himself as producer with two projects-Peter Glanz’sThe Longest Weekand Olivier Dahan’sGrace of Monaco. But he says he has also begun work on a Hollywood version of Bunty.
(Reuters) – Adult comedy “Ted,” starring a foul-mouthed teddy bear who comes to life for its owner, grabbed the No. 1 spot on movie box office charts in the United States and Canada with $54.1 million, distributor Universal Pictures said on Sunday.
“Ted,” directed by “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane and starring Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis, beat three other new movies released in domestic theaters over the weekend ahead of the upcoming July 4th holiday in the United States, according to studio estimates compiled by Reuters.
Male stripper movie “Magic Mike,” starring Channing Tatum and Matthew McConaughey, pulled in $39.2 million to notch second place in this weekend’s box office race.
Last week’s No. 1 film, Disney’s animated fairy tale “Brave” about a strong-headed Scottish princess, dropped to third place with $34 million in domestic theaters.
“Ted” was released by Universal Pictures, a unit of Comcast Corp. Time Warner Inc unit Warner Bros released “Magic Mike” and The Walt Disney Co’s movie studio division distributed “Brave.”
(Reporting by Piya Sinha-Roy and Lisa Richwine; Editing by Bob Tourtellotte and Vicki Allen)
Saw ‘Ted’ last night. not that great. some of the jokes fall flat(and some went way over my head). although i can see why it has opened number 1…mostly because of the curiosity factor…also because the movie covers the ‘male-bonding'(or in this case, stuffed animal and male bonding) and also surprisingly, a strong romantic angle.
Prometheus will probably end up in the 130m range. Doubt it can be profitable with that number. Had enough of an audience but it didn’t sustain well enough for the big numbers. Anything less than 200m is underwhelming for this kind of project.
if you take into worldwide number…the total comes to 272 mill and a production budget of $130 mill according to box office mojo. i agree its underwhelming but i think overall it seems to be a small profitable film.
it will probably be profitable everything included (DVD sales and so on) but one can’t just set the worldwide total against the US production costs without also factoring in global distribution costs. so actually even on being ultimately profitable I’m not sure. According to some earlier estimates it needed 300m in the US to be truly profitable (do you know that Avatar needed to be one of the biggest grossers of all time to be profitable?!). There are all kinds of ‘ancillary’ costs as they call them in Hollywood. The worldwide 272m number is not that high either.
Satyam, the thing with Prometheus was that it avoided the pay-off (even though the climax was a bit of a let-down) and was not ur typical big budget extravaganza. the last film in the similar vein was Super 8 which i loved but that also was not a blockbuster- Super 8 reminded me of Spielberg’s sci-fi films- films which depend on their storytelling to thrill u(and not just sfx)- but i guess i am one of the few who liked it (infact found it better than more acclaimed stuff like District 9).
No, the production cost does not include P&P (promotion and print distribution) which for this type of HW movies is usually 50% to 100% of cost. It will be lucky to break even on total cost from theatrical run but will make money from other revenue streams.
See the NYT article in this thread – How Does the Film Industry Actually Make Money?
“I’ve been trying to come to terms with two seemingly irreconcilable facts. First, “Men in Black 3” has made more than $550 million worldwide. Second, while a representative from the parent company of Columbia Pictures told me that the movie is now “in the win column,” it seemed until recently as if Columbia might actually lose money on it. How could that be? It’s not so complicated. Its production costs were close to $250 million; worldwide marketing most likely added at least that much; and a big chunk of the ticket sales go to theaters and distributors…
Now Just like BW, its highly desirable that the movie does well domestically(US Market) for perception purposes( ie at-least recoups the absolute Budget number Domestically).Also HW movies can get as much as 50-55% share domestically vs 40% for overseas gross.
Thus Above holds true most of the time, unless Domestic Gross is highly disproportionate (low or high, leading to similar perception).
With the Overseas Market blooming every year, it provides a good buffer esp for big effects heavy movies….
watched amazing spiderman – lot of fun as expected. We have a better spiderman (in acting dept) now and the chemistry betn. the lead pair is superb – there was nothing amazing although here – but totally paisa-vasool and a very good reboot of the franchisee.
Gangs Of Wasseypur was steady in its second weekend but business was low. The film grossed around 4-4.25 crore nett and the drop is a 55-60% from last week which is pretty good but the film is not really going anywhere in the long term as appreciation is limited to select areas in the metros.
The last few week’s have seen the release of Shanghai, Ferrari Ki Sawaari and Gangs Of Wasseypur which all have similar costs in terms of production budget. The business of the films is also in a similar range, Ferrari Ki Sawaari will emerge the best out of the lot with 30 crore nett business, Shanghai will do around 24 crore nett business and Gangs Of Wasseypur will finish somewhere in between those two films.
Assuming GOW 2 does similar business to GOW 1, we are looking at overall collections of 50 crore + just from India !! To add to that, would be the collections from overseas phase-wise release.
distributors in india and overseas are not same and if movie is re-released part 2 in 1000 print and again another cost of rough 10 cr comes into play much like 1st part not there in budget
its not a winner but neither a loser but in large context decent
what is visible is the tone and commentry right before the number arrived and to be frank they tried to kill all 3 movie
as a genre ferrari can’t be compared to other two(it has feel good factor which other two don’t have) and also audiences for gow is limited but ya such sort of movies should have limited release (1000 screen for gow or 1500 for shanghai is just to much)
how will you bring audiences when in india in the past none of the movies on dark themes have been huge
Gangs of Wasseypur Second Weekend Collection 4.1 cr nett. Total – 21.5 cr nett.
Gangs of Wasseypur has collected around 4.1 crore nett all India in its second weekend. GOW total collection now stands at 21.5 crore nett all India after 10 days. GOW has been steady on lower through the first week and it remain same for the second weekend also. GOW is made on very limited budget and will make profits for the makers. GOW will collect little more in coming days, but how much it is to be seen.
and ya both the movies showed some potential to be accepted as mainstream which itself is laudable(especially gow with no mainstream commercial actor )
both shanghai and gow are the biggest grosser of dibakar and anurag respectively but a ferrari is not of vidhu vinod chopra’s production and ya i doubt their production cost are similar to
“someone as successful as him can go nuts for something as banal as a girl……(aishwarya in the case of salman)…kinda makes him cute to me.
he used to spy on her….go to her home drunk and create tamasha…..flaunt his(non existent)..underworld connection ….in short become a joke …all for the sake of a girl….delicious!very old schoolish”
So- you think that abusive, controlling, obsessive men are attractive- and this is perfectly healthy- and it is only the women who desire equality and non-abusive relationships who are deformed, perverted and diseased!
“women as a sex r losing their jewel of femininty becoz of this fight.women a hundred years back were more femalish than these modern women”
As for modern women being less feminine- it is because the traditional definition of feminity is problematic! Why would an intelligent, liberated woman want to confirm to a brand of heteronormativeness that requires her to be demure, self-sacrificing and without any ambition, opinions, freedom or needs?
And although the women of today might not posess the feminity of the olden days- it’s not like the men today have much of the traditional gentlemanliness of yore either! Men might desire women with Victorian ideals of feminity- but how many of them follow the corresponding code of conduct for men- never swearing or making sexual remarks in female company, always opening the door and pulling out chairs for women, chivalrously protecting women at every instance, being the sole breadwinner of the house etc? Men have also become more ‘feminine’ over time- for example plenty of men today play an active part in taking care of their children, cooking etc- are you going to say that all men who are hands-on fathers or enjoy coooking or whose female partners contrubte equally to the finances of the household are also deformed?
The definitions of feminity and masculinity are not static and set in stone- they must evolve with time- science shows that the very mintue gender differences present in the brains of male and female children are exponentially amplified thanks to consistent social conditioning- there is nothing natural about rigid, traditional ideas of gender.
Do you really believe that the female perspective (in literature, cinema etc) is invalid and that patriarchy is the natural, functional way of things? Because then I can only feel sorry for you.
And I think it is particularly ironic that you slate all female writers for being feminist and not feminine because your own writing displays both these traits! For instance- some of the ideas expressed here could be interpreted as ‘feminist’ and your opinionated tone and abusive language is not exactly within the boundaries of traditional feminity!
“paaro is an escape from this version of reality….an escape into the dream world of an ideal beauty…….dream world of true love and all that nonsense which is simply not possible.the selfish dev cannot fool himself and others by talking about paaro….by talking about an ideal state of genuine love.he has and by implication all men have …long ago murdered that innocence…and made paaro into a chanda becoz of their perverted,selfish nature.”
“he realizes…fuck paaro…and fuck all this dramabaazi abourt my love for paaro.my whole life is at stake here…wat the fuck am i doing?am i bonkers”
@ ami “some of the ideas expressed here could be interpreted as ‘feminist’ and your opinionated tone and abusive language is not exactly within the boundaries of traditional femininity!”
it is sad but u have not understood what i mean by femininity.village rustic women r highly opinionated and their talk is full of sexually provocative proverbs and innuendoes,they even work alongside their menfolk in the fields……but that does not make them any less feminine. ur conception that femininity is something victorian and polite is very superficial and certainly not indian.the village women folk maybe wild or tame..that is something which depends on the woman’s personal idiosyncracy and predilection and has no connection with whether she is being feminine or not.but even these village women do not interfere with their menfolks when there is a panchayat and an important political decision is taken by the menfolks….THEY LET THE MEN PLAY THEIR OWN GAMES!….she may influence the decision of the panchayat from behind the scenes …by persuading their men in the bedroom….in an indirect way….. they maybe the real controllers,but they do not wantonly intrude into the domain of males.they dont demand EQUAL RIGHTS.
now here we come to a very subtle and fundamental aspect of relations between a man and a woman.this relation is essentially playful(meaning both the party lets the other play their own games….play their separate roles…it’s like a role play….the moment u grow up from this role play the whole magic disappears…. they let each other be a hero or a heroine in their own domains and do not clamour for equality of status)……because these relations r based on trust and trust is not logical.trust is a blind force….it runs deeper than the superficial logic of equality of rights.a black may clamour for equality of rights vis a vis a white…a gay may clamour for equality of rights visa vis a non gay…becoz they dont have a relationship based on trust……but when a woman starts piping about equality….this breaks the charade of trust.it is very much like introducing bull in the china shop.introducing notions of laws and rights within the bedroom.it hampers both…..the delusion of masculinity and that of femininity.a man woman relationship is too subtle and personal to be framed in accordance with the vulgar and superficial discourse of political equality.what happens is that…women become less feminine and men become less masculine and the symbiotic subtle relationship …..which subsisted between them(almost subconsciously)…gets hampered.and this is what is happening in the name of modernity.the sexes r losing their polarity….and thus the attraction.their relations r becoming more n more banal and tame and superficial.and thus it becomes easy to opt out of marriage…as if marriage is a contract one can opt out of. Humans r not logical…..we have playful,ridiculous ,mythic urges…we have emotions…if I tell u not to think about monkey…I forbid u to think about monkey…immediately u will think about monkey.mind is not logical…its willful and strange…it wants to be a slave…it wants be a master……. its urges cannot be satisfied by the logical talk of equal rights alone…especially in the case of a man woman relationship which is so personal.
“the sexes r losing their polarity….and thus the attraction.their relations r becoming more n more banal and tame and superficial.and thus it becomes easy to opt out of marriage…as if marriage is a contract one can opt out of. ”
It’s just the other way around IMO! Marraige is not natural in the least- it is an institution human beings created- and puts all kinds of hypocritical regulations on morality and gender roles which cause problems in human relationships- I’m not saying that marraiges cannot be functional- but they are certainly far removed from the primal hormonal urges that cause men and women to be tattracted to each other and instead more associated with our logical, ‘civilized’ side. Marraige is not about primal attraction, sex and primitive ideas of gender- it is about regulating morality, imposing monogamy, providing security and social structure etc- nothing natural or instinctive about it at all!
“.but why do u think these same women wear high heels(a high heel makes u passive…u cannot run fast….the more passive u become….the less functional u become….the more decorative…the more of an object u become)…why do u think women wear lipsticks?”
Why do men wear nice clothes and expensive cologne? A formal suit and dress shoes is not the most conducive outfit for physical exertion! You are confusing the desire to be sexually desirable with the desire to be dominated.
There is absolutely no scientific basis for your claims that women need to be dominated and that if they stop being submissive then primal attraction will sieze- infact it’s the other way around- Europe which is the most gender-empowered continent is also the least sexually repressed- while countries like India which are the most patrairchal societies are the ones where the traditional people have the worst sex lives! Traditional ideas of sexuality deal with repressing female sexual desire and needs and require women to be sexually passive. Read this:
“I found out that the man did not even know where the vaginal opening was. He would simply lie on top of his wife and ejaculate between her thighs. They believed that was intercourse and were hoping to get a child. I had to tell him how to have sex.
…‘Many patients, even the educated ones, since they are not taught the right vocabulary in school or college, use all sorts of colloquial, or wrong words, or slang to explain their problem. One woman, who was the head of the department of economics in a college, came to me because she had pain in the vagina during intercourse. She kept on referring to the vagina as “urinals”. For a long time I did not understand what she was saying.
‘At times, the words they use to describe a condition happen to be related to their profession. For example, one patient who was suffering from premature ejaculation kept on saying “Dispatch, dispatch.” When I asked him about his job, I found out that he was a postal dispatch clerk in a small railway station in Andhra Pradesh…”
“Men who do more housework and child care have better sex lives and happier marriages than others according to noted marital researcher Dr. John Gottman .
Psychologists Claire Rabin and Pepper Schwartz have found when wives and husbands make what they both feel is a successful effort to divide chores fairly, both spouses benefit. Inequities in housework and childcare have profound consequences for the marital satisfaction of women, which in turn affects the quality of the marriage for the man as well.
Women feel more respected and loved by their husbands when they share in the housecleaning and child rearing. Many men are blind to the connection between how little housecleaning he does and how she feels about him. If a woman feels like a servant in the relationship that will affect the more intimate and fragile parts of the relationship. Being the sole person in a marriage to clean the toilet and scrub the floors is definitely not an aphrodisiac! When the woman feels more respected in the relationship, she in turn gives more to her mate and the relationship prospers. The result is a more successful, happier”
BTW- I think that your idea of village women being opinionated and sexually open is an extremely naive, misguided and romanticized notion- no offence but you actually need to interact in depth with women in the villages to know these things- my aunt has a microcredit finance organization where she works with hundreds of thousands of village women to financially empower them and help them start up businesses- and most village women in India (even in the relatively empowered South) have absolutely no capacity to think for themselves and perform even the most basic tasks like organizing into groups of 3 or 4- leave alone being opinionated and sexually frank! The socially conditioning and lack of literacy is so strong that it saps them of all individual intellectual capacity.
Ami you seem to have in-depth knowledge about sex life of people- all this was very informative…LOL-
On a more serious note, now after reading the latest comments of Anjali I completely agree with u- some of the stuff she is saying is completely baseless- Actually i believe she is too intelligent to say all this
Ok Ami, let me bail Anjali out of this ‘spot’. She is telling us to focus on the large picture i.e. women are unnecessarily trying to be like men. They are poking their nose in the business which deals with men primarily…and then they end up becoming a laughing stock. I will tell something- it may give u a fair idea- some days back i was involved in a very intense debate with a friend over an indian cricketer VVS Laxman- suddenly a female friend of mine walked into the discussion and started giving her views on the topic- now there is no problem with this…but then she did not even know the basic facts about Laxman (she got his debut year wrong amongst other things)- the point here is that it was clear that she was trying to show-off. In the same way women sometimes indulge in things about which they have no idea (and even men do the same)
“Are you saying that no woman should be ambitious and aspire for political/ financial/ business success because it makes her ‘masculine’?”- No Ami, i absolutely disagree to this. My mother herself is a working lady (doctor) and i want women to be equal participants not only in professional fields but also in decision making at every level- incidentally years back i had gone to a very famous NGO cum self sufficient village “Tarun Bharat Sangh” (Alwar, Rajasthan) where women were as active as men.
Ami, i absolutely agree with everything u r saying and am i all for gender equality and so on. But we also have to realise that the society has different criteria for judging men and women (fair or unfair it may be) and at times, one has to follow this. For example- i have a younger sister who is still not 18- now suppose i hear her uttering a ‘cuss word’, i will get deeply offended and will admonish her-now had this been my brother instead of sis, i still would have got offended but not as much.
Why should one follow the double standards? I can understand if you are living in some village in the badlands and a Khap Panchayat will kill you if you step outside traditional gender boundaries- but when you have a reasonable amount of freedom and independance- then it’s a shame if a woman does not life her life the way she wants to out of fear of social disapproval.
And it starts with trivial things like not cussing/ not going out too late because people will think badly of a girl and it will ruin her reputation- but then as a woman grows the double-standards deepen and become more dangerous and restricitve to her freedom- the the point that some parents will force their own daughters to stay in the most horrific marraiges or let a rape go unreported fin order to preserve the girl’s reputation. Ofcourse I’m not accusing you of being capable of these things- but the point is that these seemingly innocous double standards lead to much more concerning miscarriages of justice and cultivate a social system where such practises are accpetable and widespread.
Marraige is not natural in the least- it is an institution human beings created- and puts all kinds of hypocritical regulations on morality and gender roles which cause problems in human relationships
. Marraige is not about primal attraction, sex and primitive ideas of gender- it is about regulating morality, imposing monogamy, providing security and social structure etc- nothing natural or instinctive about it at all!
U r wrong.marriage indeed is about putting hypocritical regulations of morality and gender roles.but what do these restrictions end up doing?they end up doing the opposite….they end up actually heightening the sexual need between opposite genders…they end up making the sexes more polar and attracted to eachother.whenever u repress something,the mind immediately starts hankering for the forbidden fruit.for example why did adam and eve ate the apple in the garden of paradise?there must have been many apples in that garden….but why the apple hanging from the tree of knowledge became so attractive?precisely because it was expressely forbidden.there is a law of psychology called the law of reverse effect.for example…suppose there is a 10 weed wide road and there is a big stone boulder lying on the side of the road.now u don’t know how to cycle and u have to cycle on that road.even if u had cycled with ur eyes blinded folded…the probability wud have been that u will hit the stone boulder 1 out of 10.but because u don’t know how to cycle and u have the fear of hitting the stone boulder lying on the side…the fear and forbidden element of the boulder will start hypnotizing and unconsciously attracting yu..and u will end up smashing ur cycle against that boulder.repression in any form ends up heightening the need for the forbidden.this is what marriage has done…this iswhat all the hypocritical notions of morality and gender roles have done…they have ended up making both male and female more sexually charged up….which is a jolly well thing! Animals r not as sexual ..as humans …they have their seasons when they copulate,but man is the only animal who is 24 into 7 into 365…ready for sex….because of the institutions called marriage…because of the imposition of monogamy…it has infact heightened the primal attraction and been like a catalyst to the sexual hormones.these gender roles…and sexual segregation…..which civilization has created r therefore necessary if mankind wants to maintain the intensity of sexual desire highly charged up.we should be thankful to these repressions.but if we fight against them …..then we run the risk of losing that polarity and we cannot go back into the animal state…we cant regress…..we can only deform ourselves…and become a polarity less gender neutral society..which we r actually becoming.so respect these gender roles…they actually do the opposite of what they purport or aim to do…they charge us up.that is why women should nt talk about liberation from the role society has mandated for them
Like I said all evidence points to the contrary- lack of sexual repression leads to a healthy sex life while sexual repression and sex-based seggregation lead to sex-related shame, sexual frustration, sexual harassment and rape.
Equality within a marraige improves the quality of the marraige, patriarchy and rigid gender roles lead to all kinds of abuse and social evils like Sati, feoticide, dowry deaths etc. There is nothing civilized about abusive, oppresive relationships and social patterns that lead to parents killing their children and husbands brutalizing their wives- they are the best indicator of a society that is deformed and regressing!
75 percent of women above the age of 25 in philippines r divorced….and r single moms.this is ur modernity.this is the beauty of metrosexual…modern man who cooks.the relations between man and woman r in a mess…not only in phil…all over europe…in usa….children r born without a father.just like there is a thing called ecological balance…yu disturb it and the environmental adverse consequences follow…similarly there is a thing called marital balance…defined by demarcated gender roles……try to disturb it and the relations between sexes become a mess
Anjali, without getting too much into the weeds I think there’s an essential structural flaw in your argument. You argue against all kinds of feminism and leaving aside whether one can agree with your positions or not you argue against this (feminism) by using very traditional ‘male’ and/or conservative positions. That liberating women destroys family life and children don’t have fathers and women get divorced and so on. The ‘balance’ and ‘demarcation’ you refer to is a very conservative, male-centric construct. I don’t quite see the connections you do between ‘healthy’ family life and feminism but even if I did accept your point for the moment I’d say it’s a price worth paying! Why? Because I am very suspicious of a social ordering which insists on becoming ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’ and so on only by keeping the woman fixed in a certain place and circumscribed by very traditional roles.
Incidentally your ecological balance analogy here is an interesting one but this too supports my claim inasmuch as this whole idea of balance even in nature is largely a myth. There is no such balance. As a certain thinker suggests catastrophe is the norm in nature. The Sahara was a green pastureland thousands of years ago, the Ice Ages were a disaster for many species, a truly apocalyptic event destroyed the dinosaurs who were once the ‘mammals’ of the earth, before this a strange underwater event (which is still being debated) wiped out 70-80% of all marine life. The examples could be multiplied but all this wasn’t happening because of human intervention. Which is not to say that we’re not wrecking the environment. But there is no ‘New Age’ balance even otherwise. Millions and millions of species have become extinct in the history of this planet, not because of humans. Again this doesn’t lessen our current responsibility by any means. But my point here is that your analogy works a different way — much as we as humans can convince ourselves the planet was paradise before we started destroying it similarly it is quite easy to place the strains and stresses of modernity, all those cross-currents that have caused great dislocation in traditional family life, at the doorstep of the woman. In other words ‘feminism’ is one symptom among many of modernity. It is not something ‘total’ on its own. In other words it’s not a question of wondering what would happen if women were less sexually liberated or if they did not have professional careers and so on. One might as well ask how things would be if we weren’t in the 20th or 21st centuries! Much as many factors cause that natural catastrophe similarly feminism isn’t responsible for much less set-in-stone family life. There are many historical and sociological currents already pointing in this direction.
To then locate feminism as the problem is to follow a very ‘male’ narrative and a certain age-old bias where women become the repositories of family honor and values and even a healthy nation (!) and the moment they step out of the house and/or assert themselves sexually everything disintegrates!
I am not arguing that there cannot be a critique of feminism(s) but it cannot come about by trying to put back in place a much more constraining if not repressive network of the past.
50-84% of women in India are being abused in their marraiges! Better single and safe than married and battered. Millions of female babies are killed every year, several thousands of women are murdered for dowry. Millions of women are harassed and abused by sexually frustrated men (Due to sexual repression and seggregation) and their abusers go scot-free due to women fearing to report the crimes out of concern for their ‘honour’ and police officers blaming victims for provoking the men. Millions of women are denied basic literacy. Women and female infants are far more likely to die of malnutriton and lack of medical care than men. India is the fourth most dangerous country to be born a woman in and THE most dangerous country to be born a female infant in- and this is a result of your beloved patriarchy taken to extremes!
To pretend that the toll on women is not far, far greater in a patriarchy than in a more empowered society is absolutely fradulent- as fradulent as your utterly absrd statistic about divorce in Phillipinnes- since Philippines is one of the very few countries in the world that does not allow people to get divorced!
If a country has a very high rate of marital abuse and rape and a very low rate of divorce- it is not a matter of national pride but one of national shame- since women are too oppressed and socially conditioned to get out of abusive marraiges.
“Anjali: u are hitting fours and sixers -masterclass ”
Interesting to note that advocating absolute female submissiveness, abusive relationships and denying women political participation excites you so much
BTW- children growing out without fathers is doubtlessly undesirable- but children growing up in an abusive household filled with inequality, fear, repression and pain is far worse. The family institution might need strengthening in certain socities- but this is because the emaphsis of the induvidual vs. societial needs to be corrected- where both men and women are taught not to place absolute value on the induvidual. It cannot be done by simply instructing women to bear all suffering and sacrifice infinitely in order to keep the family together- the burden of keeping the family intergrated must fall on the shoulders of both partners equally. Any family environment created by the tyranny of one partner and the enslavement of the other will only be a dysfunctional farce.
Ami, u r getting a bit heated up here, chill 🙂 . Alex was not taking abt Anjali’s comments per se (he himself said that he has not read them) but was praising her ‘feisty’ nature and the way she is holding her own in the debate
“She is telling us to focus on the large picture i.e. women are unnecessarily trying to be like men. They are poking their nose in the business which deals with men primarily”
Anali says that women should not be stakeholders in the political system of a society or occupy positions of power- instead they should only exert their influence in the bedroom using their sexuality. Are you saying that no woman should be ambitious and aspire for political/ financial/ business success because it makes her ‘masculine’?
As for women trying to be like men- it is an unfortunate constraint but by no means unnecessary- the problem is that most spheres are traditionaly heavily male-dominated and any woman displaying ‘female charecteristics’ is looked upon as ineffectual, weak, incapable etc. However this has changed greatly over the past few decades- as I said in an earlier comment- when the first wave of women entered the workplace in America and aspiried for positions of power they were forced to emulate men in order to be taken seriously. However as American society has evolved and women are being taken more and more seriously at the workplace- they are also growing more secure of their feminity and do not feel the pressure to act like men in order to be successful.
Ofcourse if you do agree with the logic that women should not even have these career aspirations in the first place since it makes them less sexually desirable- then I can’t really waste my time trying to convince you- but you come across as someone who is more sensible than that.
I mean that comment in a lightly sarcastic manner- but I guess because it’s difficult to comprehend the tone of comments on the internet it comes across as harsher than I meant for it to.
BTW Saraubh- I also think that ‘power women’ becoming masculine is not at all applicable to the Indian scenario- while this might be true in Western countries- India has a legacy of powerful female mythological figures- not to mention the pedestal that the venerable ‘mother figure’ is placed on- and women do not need to make any pretences at masculinity in order to be taken seriously- unlike in Western societies where power and capability is associated with more masculine traits- and women are encouraged to imbibe these traits in order to be successful.
For example- Chanda Kochchar is currently the most powerful femae figure in the international banking industry- and when Forbes reported on her they included a rather condescending snippet about her choice of attire (saris)- since they were mystified by the idea of a power woman who chose to dress in traditionally feminine clothes. Even the female politicans in power gain public vote and approval by using titles such as ‘Amma’ and ‘Didi’- to evoke the reverence that the traditional Indian family structure bestows on the nurturing female presence in a family.
So the idea that female success needs to come at the cost of traditional notions of feminity is a completely false one- atleast as far as India is concerned. I think that this is true for several of the more conservative Asian/ Middle Eastern societies as well- look at women like the Prime Minister of Thailand, the Queen of Jordan etc- they are very powerful women but also very graceful and feminine. Compare this to a society like America where a woman like Sarah Palin comes in for far more criticism than her stupidity warrants simply because the idea of a more feminine woman aspiring for a position of power makes people uncomfortable.
Feminism is not about being gender neutral- It’s just the negative, limiting aspects of feminity and masculinity that need to rejected. Infact I think that forcing women to completely surpress their stereotypically feminine triats in order to be taken more seriously is just as limiting as forcing women to conform to some very regressive and unfair traditional ideal of feminity.
with the advent of the 20th century and the talk of political liberation of the female and women emancipation by the vociferous feminists…voting and a host of other civil rights were given to the females.they were made a stakeholder in these political institutions”
ROFL! So you now want to recede the female right to vote? Even some members of the Taliban might be fazed at your misogyny!
“….but the political institutions itself were created by males and they remained masculine in essence and character.so liberated women were forced…politically…. to become male copycats and participate in a system whose semantics are essentially masculine.that has happened because of the feminists who want women to become the imitators of men,a kind of second class males…which is unfortunate.”
It’s a gradual process- at first women need to imitate men in order to succeed in a male-dominated sphere where the popular belief is that women are inferior to men- and therefore any obviously female charecteristic is viewed as a sign of incapability- however as more and more women succeed in male dominated spheres- feminity becomes less of a burden and women feel more confident to be themselves and not act like men. This difference is pretty apparent when you consider the views of first-wave feminists (the predecessors) vs. third-wave feminists who are living in an environment that already has some ideas of gender equality.
There was a great article in Forbes recently about how now tat women in positions of power are more common and visible- most women at the workplace are less worried about acting like men because they are more secure that they will be accepted and respected even if they display stereotypically female traits.
Ami, u have made some great counter-arguements here (in the manner only u can). loved reading them. but if u don’t mind i will say this- don’t u think u could have been less harsh with ur comment especially when the other person is not making some frivolous arguements but actually putting forth some valid points. one does not need to ridicule someone else’s points to make his own.
BTW I do considermany of Anjali’s arguements to be frivolous to the extreme- when she says that she hates all female writers because they are feminists- and that seeking equality is a diseased perversion- that to me is not a valid point but a crazy, frivolous one.
And I say this especially because her earlier comments were extremely intelligent and perceptive- and I did appreciate them- so I know that she is not some stupid person making these points but a very smart woman making the most blanket and unfair generalizations.
woman has a pathological need to be dominated…..man has a pathological need to dominate. example….. A lot of feminists have a grouse that patriarchy portray women as OBJECTS of desire.but why do u think these same women wear high heels(a high heel makes u passive…u cannot run fast….the more passive u become….the less functional u become….the more decorative…the more of an object u become)…why do u think women wear lipsticks?biologically ..women have a need…a craving…to be objectified…to b viewed as an object of desire and this has its biological reasons.even on bed…..the very sexual act….by nature has been fashioned in a way in which the woman becomes the passive violated and the men become the active violater.woman needs to be dominated.but sadly with the modernity….we r losing the polarity of the sexes….in a thousand year or so we will become a world of gender neutrals…sex will lose its attraction and childbirth will happen by an injection at a lab.
I’ve replied to your points above- BTW sorry if my initial comments on this thread were overtly harsh- I was not attacking you but criticizing these specific views of yours- I can tell from your comments on Dev.D/ Gulaal that you are a very intelligent person and I’m not questioning that- it’s only your views on gender equations that I find very bizarre.
Gangs of Wasseypur: That elusive thing called consistency
f there is a landmark that divides Dhanbad in two parts, most would agree it is Gaya bridge, or as the locals like to call it – Gaya Pull. It is funny, how in north India, overhead bridges are mostly referred to as ‘pull’. Wasseypur sprawls beneath Gaya bridge. Geographically, Wasseypur is a level lower than the rest of Dhanbad. Many a times, while going to school, I would peer my neck outside the bus window to see Wasseypur’s landscape. I wanted to know more about its denizens, their occupations, and what happened to those kids who skittered at the end of the Gaya bridge playfully running beside a solitary bicycle tyre. Halfway into the movie, we see two such Wasseypur kids – cleaning toilets in train. Kashyap makes this scene powerful as he doesn’t dwell on the pathos. They are happy with the twenty rupees they have earned. Clearly, a prized amount.
The movie opens to a family watching Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu thi before they are assaulted by bullets. The year is 2004, and shortly after we are taken back to 1941. That right there, this vast spanning of the movie (from early 1940’s to late 1990’s) is Kashyap’s both boon and bane. Boon because it makes this movie ambitious, telling a story in all its richness can at times be commercially crippling, but Kashyap takes a much-needed leap of faith here. And bane because, this is a movie that takes the passage of time seriously, not like the movies of Bachchan during 1970s where 25 years would pass in just one scene – Bachchan would change form either while drinking water or while running from goons/cops during one of his escapades. Kashyap does not want to indulge in that pulpy metamorphosis. So, in order to give the passage of time some credence, there is a lot of setting up to do, before the main protagonists are introduced. And that interestingly, becomes a vital undoing of the movie. It’s not that the setting up itself is a problem, because it is required here. To tell a story this meaty, and to tell a vengeance saga rippling across generations effectively, you can’t eschew the genesis of character’s motivations. And I think the first 40 minutes of back-story (told in an interesting juxtaposition of voice over and vintage still images – lending it a part documentary feel) would work while watching the entire 5 hour 20 minute version of the movie, but eats a lot of time percentage wise, while just watching the first part. Also because, the back-story is just a summation of events that unfolds in a linear, sterile fashion, and ends up engulfing a lot of dramatic sheen.
Rowdy Rathore collected 4.50 crore nett approx in week four. The four week distributor share is 71.50 crore approx. Below is the fourth week territorial breakdown of the film.
Relax anjali : they will soon be going thru
Let’s take a short ‘break’ 🙂
Btw folks -since this is a GOW thread, the commercial break should also contain a GOW related item
Check out the calypso music here tinged with Bihari rappish elements -indicative of a legacy of mass migration of labour from Bihar to the Caribbean
What stuck me here is not the so called ‘double entrendes’ but the way a certain authenticity was maintained
Note the pronounciation by the singers -‘gaan’ instead of ‘gun’ et al
The music director actually took a trip to the Caribbean for authentic ‘chutney’ music-also some rare elaboration of certain innocent ‘gender dynamics’
In the meanwhile: lemme sort out anjalis ‘laptop’ 🙂
@satyam just as u say that my criticism of feminism is male centric,by the same token I can say that ur criticism of the traditional constructs of patriarchy feminist centric.indeed it is the feminists who have made a trust based play of different gender roles between men and women…into one of antagonism and exploitation of one by the other.
Btw men don’t get pregnant,nature has done this inequity only to women.they r made to bring a family….in the words of simone de beavoir women r subservient to the species….coz they get pregnant and tied down with the family.so they will be in defiance of nature if they do not chose to accept their gender role.so the family responsibily is and must get pinned on women….not becoz society mandates so…but becoz nature itself has made her subservient to the species by getting her pregnant.
Regarding ur ecological example..indeep nature is in a state of catastrophe……but there is a difference between man made and natural catastrophes.the catastrophes in nature r deeply complementary….nature has an inner rhythm which balances negative out…but a man made catastrophe….like a third world war where all the nuclear bombs in the arsenals of nations r consumed may destroy this earth 700 times.feminism is a similar man made catastrophe….in another dimension.
Let me take your last paragraph first. I am not at all suggesting humans aren’t responsible for the ways in which they’re wrecking the planet (though even this is not an uncomplicated picture..) and that they shouldn’t do something to reverse this trend where they can but the idea that natural catastrophes are somehow ‘preservative’ is I think deeply wrong. What balance is there being preserved if 70% of marine life is wiped out?! An asteroid not hitting the earth and destroying everyone on it is purely a matter of chance. What greater ‘harmony’ is being preserved here?! In other words the right asteroid would be worse than than all those nuclear arsenals because realistically the latter will never be deployed and even if they were nature can do the same all on its own! There is no ‘balance’ here. It is a series of catastrophes that frequently causes the vanishing of tons of species. So there is no ‘inner rhythm’ here. This is mystification!
On the other bit I am not apologetic about saying yes I am a feminist. I have a certain critique of this movement (depending on what kind of feminism one follows) and so on but in essence I am in agreement. It is simply about greater equality. One can disagree with certain social results and so forth but once that equality is asserted there is no room to question that basic premise using frankly very dubious ideas about ‘ideal’ families etc. If I might put it so crudely the very fact that you are on a computer now debating this stuff owes something to feminist victories! Otherwise using precisely your logic in an earlier age you would not have been allowed to get educated and might have forced to get married at a very young, etc etc. So even you assume a basic level of liberation to get to this very point! But that wouldn’t have been possible without some degree of feminism!
u further say that feminism is a natural product of the times.in ur words:
“it is quite easy to place the strains and stresses of modernity, all those cross-currents that have caused great dislocation in traditional family life, at the doorstep of the woman. In other words ‘feminism’ is one symptom among many of modernity.”
indeed it is…just as aids is the product of modernity……its dangerous and we must fight against it and quell it.
Interesting arguments.
While I am not sure if males are allowed to opine on this issue that mainly relates to women,I am largely on the side that Ami is espousing. There is something deeply disturbing about gender inequality. Sure, men and women are different physiologically,emotionally and mentally. But, there is no reason for women to be subservient even if they perform different roles.
well said.. often people confuse ‘difference’ with ‘equality’. Of course the genders are very different in various ways. This cannot become the excuse to deny full equality.
Now that was an ace in tennis terms..
I haven’t even entered the discussion but even as a casual observer on the fence-
‘men dont get pregnant unlike females’
Is this an absolute truth or not ?
Why has this been ordained by nature?
Ok let’s throw religiosity, conservatism, progressive strides wtc out of the window?
Does it have a linkage to the evolutionary cycle-
The darwins survival of the fittest can also be faulted but not the reality of centuries!!!!
One just Needs to read between the lines more than on them..
Similar points were made by poor oldgold te other day against manipultation of certain basic human cycles eg childbirth wtc
While one may or may not agree to either ( I have certain issues with each of these to various connotations) but trying to perch on a self created elevated balcony and trying to belittle other posts of view is certainly not progressive from ANY sense…
Ps-being poiitically correct NOT for the sake of it has certain issues but all that I circumvented by the fresh unaltered breath I fresh air it injects into a discourse … No point in having a forum/discourse where fills jus turn up to state already stated positions oft repeated and defended multiple times as nauseum…
Can all the so called liberals and progressives answer one simple point raised by anjali perhaps inadvertently
Why can’t godamm males not get pregnant
Any answers???
Call it a privilege or a calamity or whatever-why is it a preserve only of females ???
Did the ‘creator’ or the ‘natural evolutionary process’ or whatever got us here-
Were they ‘unequal’ or prejudiced in their design??
Who all can own blame..
Yes : one does need to acknowledge the limits of ‘human faculty’ not only to do certai things but to appreciate or perceive the reason for that?
A child having to cram the tables of 3 doesn’t knwong why he is being made to do that!!!kids who don’t do that however do have certain ‘issues’ib future
This is NOT to condone injustices or abuse or misuse of a certain skewed morbid take on certain gender equations..
Darwin’s idea has been greatly misconstrued. His point wasn’t that the ‘fittest’ (strongest) survive in the usual sense of the word but that those species that can adapt best to a given environment are the ‘fittest’. In other words given an Ice Age it might be better to be a polar bear. In certain other environments being a cockroach might be more helpful! Humans for example might be the most ‘intelligent’ species but in the Darwinian paradigm this is irrelevant unless this helps us survive better given any environment which is hardly the case.
Am not sure a woman’s ability to get pregnant and carry a fetus till delivery and man’s inability to do the same really means anything as far gender equality goes.
My dear uncle rajen:
Just to give a taster of this complex ‘accident’ or ‘historical injustice’ there is a ‘NEED’ for the female to be empathetic, have maternal instincts and responsibility IF ONLY to carry the ‘foetus’ from 40 weeks onwards through infancy….
And not having the ‘detachment’ of rushing off to the next show of murder 2 (now jism2) with a jack Daniels in hand & a cigarette in the other!!!
This is just one simplified practical example of how nature ensures that it’s own species survives and perpetuates
Those that don’t /didn’t follow it- perished …
Disclaimer: this is just a simplistic take designed to dovetail a much bigger design into a perspective which can be understood by humans ..
If one can’t understand religiosity, conservatism, etc, one should understand evolutionary principles -spirituality etc spfor another day….
Did the ‘creator’ or the ‘natural evolutionary process’ or whatever got us here-
Were they ‘unequal’ or prejudiced in their design??
u see alex?the creator has no concern with equality.the creator is not bothered the least whether men and women r equal or not.its the feminists who have poisoned the minds of such excellent ppl like ami…into talking about equality.women must be equal with men.arrey?…..they r different……there is no need for equality.but in the name of equality women r unconsciously taught to hate their womanhood…and compete with the superior….the males.imitate the males.
have u observed….if a woman wears a male’s clothes….jeans and shirt…its considered okay….but if a man wears a skirt or saree the whole world laughs…y is that?because the(inferior women)..if they imitate men(wear their clothes)..its progressive…but if a superior man…wears inferior women’s clothes it becomes ridiculous.women r brain washed to become like men….
Beautiful points there anjali
Btw the intention is not to ‘oppose’ Amy’s points , which are v good and infact I personally endorse many of them…
But I never lose the perspective to question ones ‘beliefs’ and don’t mind putting them to the test ,,,
The ‘sturdy’ will stand- the ‘weak’ shall automatically perish -a simple dictum !!!
Ps -anjali : good points about the dress code…
Let’s ask Amy : what dresses does she usually wear (only if she wishes to answer)…I’m sure she looks good in them…
But as an example: even here certain hidden sociopsychocultural codes get embedded -forget concepts like gender equality….
This is only indirectly related but related it is …
C’mon: why /when/ what for are highly ‘revealing’ mini skirts, cleavage exposing dresses worn by emancipated females…
Let’s not even go into ‘padding’ etc…
WHO has forced them towards ‘objectification’ 🙂
Ps–not that I’m complaining–just pointing it out…
Random scenario 1-
One is waiting in a traffic jam…
One sees three gals returning presumably from a party-barely able to walk and at risk of being hit by your car…
They come and ask u for a lift…
It’s freezing cold outside-infact snowing…even your cars ultra strong heating system with jackets etc aren’t enuf for u…
One looks at them-
Trembling and shivering badly like a leaf…
Clad in what can best be called as mini versions of a micro mini skirt !!
Have no issues with micro minis ESP when the pins are good as that and well maintained…
But can’t help but feel sorry for the inhumane plight in near subzero temperatures
And no: they are not poor little beggar types
Carrying Gucci / dolce gabana and having been literally drenched in
Yes st Laurent !!!
And exhibiting all other possible signs of ‘good privilege’
So who has forced them to dress like that in freezing conditions
Now I’m sure NOBODY can blame me for being ‘conservative’ and don’t even mind bikinis at work if I have my way and it is feasible!!!
But it is inhuman in this scenario…
Someone also mentioned ‘high heels’ or ‘lipstick’ etc
Nobody is saying that gals shouldn’t dress up attractively !!
But why this denial… 🙂
Disclaimer: this was just an illustrative random example
Have no issues with either micro mini skirts, lipsticks or high heels…
It’s just the abject denial of their ‘aims’ that needs to cracked on..
It’s like someone gets caught wiht condoms in his/her wallet!!!
He/she says that he/she may have to attend a surprise ‘birthday party’ of his sons/daughters friends and that some ‘balloons’ will be immediately needed !!!
Ps2- have absoultely no intention of picking up about the dressing habits of gals like Amy or even anjali -though details about them won’t be entirely unwelcome ….
Just to clarify–
I’m not in any one ‘side’ or team…
But as always have some pertinent questions…
Amy -not picking on u but since u are very eloquent and bright :
A v v simple question :
A)Why do the very best /emancipated/educated/independent /rich gals dress in mini skirts that are not only ultrashort but ‘impractical’ and in a way negate the reason they have been worn for –no forece, no coercion, no pressure–infact if one even hints at their inappropriateness, one can be called lots of names !!!
In a similar way: saw a colleague dressed in some ultratight ‘figure hugging’ jeans: while I did admire the scene, I did wonder how she got into them and came out of !!
Her ‘struggle’ while walking , bending was more than obvious -one did wonder -why does she have to do this?
This is not a premise to bulldoze a random topic . Thiugh it looks less than obscurely relevant to this topic, if one ‘scratched the surface’ some ‘truths’ emerge -puns also intended
Pray enlighten us
“there is a ‘NEED’ for the female to be empathetic, have maternal instincts and responsibility IF ONLY to carry the ‘foetus’ from 40 weeks onwards through infancy….
And not having the ‘detachment’ of rushing off to the next show of murder 2 (now jism2) with a jack Daniels in hand & a cigarette in the other!!!”
But the whole problem with this arguement is that it reduces a woman to only a child-bearing machine- yes women do get pregnant and men do not. But who says that a pregnant woman cannot enjoy a showing of Magic Mike? And that she shouldn’t enjoy a Jack Daniels when she is not pregnant? There is more to a woman than just her child-bearing abilities- and to reduce her to nothing but a baby-making device is ignoring her very humanity and not recognizing that she also has intelligence, personality, desires, ambitions, emotions, talents and needs in adition to live-giving abilites.
And by the way it takes two people to make a baby- the father also needs paternal instinct and responsiblity to support the family and parent the child! Child-bearing might be the exclusive preserve of the woman- but child-rearing responsiblites lie equally on the shoulders of both parents
To use her life-giving capability as an excuse to subjugate her and kepp her out of positions of power is illogical to the extreme. If anything being able to create and deliver new life to this world- and to propagate the human race- is a great gift and miraculous ability- it follows no logic to make this look like a curse where women need to stay at home, stay out of public live and be submissive and domestic just because they can have children! That is as absurd as saying a man should only be confined to the bedroom because (pardon the graphic language) he can get it up and a woman cannot!
“Someone also mentioned ‘high heels’ or ‘lipstick’ etc
Nobody is saying that gals shouldn’t dress up attractively !!
But why this denial…”
Who says that women do not want to be sexually desirable? Ofcourse they do! But this is true of men as well! Why is my gym full of men working on their abs and bicep/tricep muscles? Why do expensive designer suits and cologne sell so well? Why is every single deodorant ad focussed on presenting the man as a sexually desirable object? Why are there pills to increase the size of a man’s endowment? Why is the size of a man’s endowment such a sensitive issue for most men? Just as women walk around in bikinis on the beach- so do men walk around shirtless in swimming trunks!
Again you are following into the trap of reducing a woman to only one aspect of her personality- just like a woman is more than a baby-bearing machine- she is also more than a person who wants to be sexually desirable. The same woman who dresses sexily whilst clubbing (in order to attract men) will dress somberly in a business suit while at work in order to climb the career ladder and be taken seriously- while playing with her children she will dress in comfortable, casual clothes- and while working out/ playing a sport she will dress in tracksuits and shoes- there are several different facets to any woman’s personality- it’s not like women walk around in miniskirts and high heels 24X7!
would like 2 know how many women r out there who have the best of both the worlds…..family life and professional life.i wonder why has the rate of divorce and suicide increased exponentially among both men and women….just compare the data how many women were alcoholics…..in the beginning of the 20th century and how many r in the beginning of the 21st…..and what the fuck do u mean by saying its all modernity?who brought about this modernity?…its cool coz its modern?….one can look at the rosy side but who will look at the seamy side of things?a woman who has professional responsibilities can sure technically take care of their family…one can site isolated cases too….but what do we see in the general world?……after the divorce…. they jump from one date to another…..ideal family life…has become a joke…children r brought up ….angry and frustrated.why do u think existentialism has become THE main attraction in literature?why is it that even comic books have become dark.from where all these anger and frustration coming from…in every media…every art form…..every expression of man or woman? ……its very easy to paint a rosy picture…about a woman having various avatars…indian cricket team may as well have 11 allrounders…bingo!…perfect situation..aint it?but wonder if it ever really happens.the cruel reality…..
we have disturbed the gender equation….and we r doomed.maybe ..because we r so much in the NOW…we cant see where all this is leading us to….ignorance is bliss…..
Anjali- your arguements are becoming increasingly unreasonable and offensively misogynistic- I don’t think I can continue this debate any further. But as I said earlier- the toll that patriarchy takes on families in the form of all kinds of horrific abuse and dysfunctional, fearful family dynamics is far greater than the toll that induvidualism and high divorce rates take on families. And I have any number of relatives where the women are very successful professionally and they share household duties with their husbands more equally and they are very happy.
As for literature becoming darker these days- you clearly do not have much knowledge about several extremely morbid aritstic movements of the past- the romanticism of the 18th century for instance- when patriarchy was in full force. And existentialism is a function of a society becoming more focussed on the individual and not the collective- it has less to do with gender dynamics- and more to do with certain societies evolving to the extent where the basic levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are fulfilled and they are able to think about the higher levels of needs such as recognition and self-actualization.
But anyway- I find it difficult to argue with you without being highly offended by your views- let’s just agree to disagree- I wish you all the luck in leading a life of patriarchal oppression if that is what makes you happy- I hope you find a mate who is so tyrannical and controlling and abusive that he makes Salman looks like a meek lamb- and that you greatly enjoy not excercising your right to vote and instead living a life of utter subjugation.
As I said earlier- India is one of the most patriarchal societies in the world- you shouldn’t have too much trouble leading this sort of an existance and finding this sort of a man if you so desire- just don’t force all of us women (and men!) to do so.
BTW- as I said earlier- although I do find your views on gender to be abhorrent (to say the least)- I greatly appreciate your views on cinema- I hope that this debate and the aggresive tne that I have taken will not stop you from engaging in discussion about movies with me- as I said earlier I found your interpretation of Gulaal to be most illuminating and I’m sure I can learn a lot of other such things from you.
sure.i will always learn from u.
except ur fiery feminism…..which has always frightened me in women…….i m too much guided by heart..than mind….i like everything about u
“I hope you find a mate who is so tyrannical and controlling and abusive that he makes Salman looks like a meek lamb”……hehe
the darker the blackboard the whiter becomes the white chalked character on it.u just dont understand the poetry of womanhood…do u?
if my husband is tyrannical and controlling…..he has some insecurities inside him.i will address them.if he has a hurt inside him…i will assuage it.i will not talk about rights of the woman….he will be like a part of me….left hand cannot divorce itself from the right hand.if my kid goes in the wrong way…will i stop being his mother?will i talk about the nonsense feminist rights….and tell him to fuck off?its my kid…..no matter what.its my husband no matter what!
i really dont understand what kind of selfish women these feminists r…woman has to learn to bear…and nourish the man.drink his anger and give him love.how long can a man be against a flower…against a smile….against beauty…music…against apnapan….that is the meaning of life dear.these qualities…which modernity and the talk of stupid rights and equality of status make us forget.try to understand what a woman is first…..or u will be left alone with ur independence.franz kafka said….i have all the freedom in the world…and thats y i m going mad!
kabhi zanjeer se choot kar bhi…dum ghootne lagta hai/darro deevar ho jisme wahi jindaan nahi hotaa!
sometimes even after getting liberated from the chains…i start feeling suffocated/freedom can also be a prison of sorts
my words my sound too poetic and impractical…..but all the notions of humanity r poetic.the very idea of good and bad…in the final analysis of things…r ultimately poetic.
will say again..try to discover ur womanhood…..a man discovers his manhood under extremely challenging situations…maybe caught in a war…and so doea a woman ..in her own way.
feminists will not bring joy to mankind….till today they hasnt and they never will
Oh man… U r awesome 😉
Am actually truly getting ‘education’-let the others not get it…
“woman has to learn to bear…and nourish the man.drink his anger and give him love.how long can a man be against a flower…against a smile….against beauty…music…against apnapan….that is the meaning of life dear”
Wow…
Ps: btw wonder y Oldgold is so quiet…
She is actually more ‘experienced’ than either of us and given us practical tips …
The time of ‘foursome’ has arrived –mean in discussions 🙂
As long as I don’t have to tolerate any kind of cruelty or violence from a man and I can be in a relationship with a caring, egalitarian boyfriend whom I love and who respects me as an equal- and I can also pursue professional goals and experience the fulfillment and confidence that a succesful academic/ work life gives me- and live life the way I want, travel where I want, do what I want, wear what I want and have with all the freedom that I desire- then I am more than happy to be accused of being selfish, masculine, a curse to man kind etc.
Being insulted by very few people whose opions on gender I completely disregard is a very small price to pay for not being opressed and abused and ill-treated and disrespected and not having to sacrifice and suffer infinitely. 😛
Man, I’ve been looking everywhere for the meaning of life. I started on Gawker, then The Huffington Post, I think I got pretty close to it at the Vigil Idiot, but lo and behold, it’s right here on SS. Thanks much!
LOL! GF- sadly your sarcasm is preventing you from recieving the education that Anjali has bestowed upon Alex. You should realise that women with ideas of equality or professional goals have never brought any joy to men- and that only by being violent, abusive and controlling will you become attractive to those enlightened females who have understood the poetry of womenhood. 😉
“if my husband is tyrannical and controlling…..he has some insecurities inside him.i will address them.if he has a hurt inside him…i will assuage it.i will not talk about rights of the woman….he will be like a part of me….left hand cannot divorce itself from the right hand.if my kid goes in the wrong way…will i stop being his mother?will i talk about the nonsense feminist rights….and tell him to fuck off?its my kid…..no matter what.its my husband no matter what!”
Anjali–I’m your ‘fan’!
I mean, are you for real-if so, u are a gem….
Didn’t know such folks exist
Anjali:can’t say about others but find your posts excellent …
And I mean it…
In the online world, one doesn’t know : u maybe a female or a male ultimately, for all I care…
But irrespective, find your takes original and unapologetically honest….keep it up and hope u don’t let the ‘big bad world’ affect this quality in u 🙂
Alex- you’re a very tricky guy- you always keep posting articles with disclaimers that you don’t endorse the views or praising somebody’s controversial views without openly admitting your stance on anything. 😛
Let me put it bluntly- do you agree/ disagree with these statements:
Do you think that women should not aspire for professional success and positions of power?
Do you think that gender equality is a negative ideology that is damaging the world?
Do you think that women need to be submissive in order to be attractive?
Do you think that patriarchal society is desirable?
If you are going to participate in this conversation- it’s only fair that we know your views on these topics too! 🙂 Especially considering that you praise Anjali for being unapolgetically honest- perhaphs it’s time you get a little inspired by her! 😉 As I said- I’m not interested in being part of this debate any longer- so I promise I will not try to dispute your opinions on these issues- no matter how much I agree or disagree with them.
The point is not how many men are in love with her- but what kind of men are in love with her- if a man is attracted to a woman because she espouses complete self-sacrifice and lack of ambition in all women- and praises abusive, dominant men as the ideal and decries gender equality- that kind of a man is extremely unattractive and incapable of being a good partner in my opinion!
I would far rather alienate a 1000 misogynistic, selfish, violent thugs and attract one evolved, caring man who is secure enough about his masculinity to not subscrive to regressive, barbaric ideas of machismo! 😛
“I would far rather alienate a 1000 misogynistic, selfish, violent thugs and attract one evolved, caring man who is secure enough about his masculinity to not subscrive to regressive, barbaric ideas of machismo”
Totally agree with you there…me 2…but if there is a women who is willing and happy to go along with above mentioned “misogynistic, selfish, violent thugs”…I have absolutely no objection….to each her own….bus baad may rotey huay maat aana mere pass..!
hey..no man is in love with me ..what r u saying?
i speak my own mind.i dont hitch my wagon to the feminist claptrap i read in a mag or saw on a tv.i discover my own truths….and i dont care whether they sound radical or regressive….i have discovered my truth and that is why they have passion.i havent read about them in a book.
i think womanhood is not about partisanship…..a man and woman r not business partners…..all these selfish notions r on the surface…..the very reason why a woman talks about equality is becoz she is afraid …she feels inferior….she feels exploited……shez imperfect.thankfully i dont.there is a thing called trust…and trust never sets conditions ….it is blind.the moment u say i trust yu…but u have to do this or that…trust disappears….it becomes a business transaction.and then ur lover becomes a business partner…and relationship becomes a transacation of sorts.and frankly speaking…no matter how many conditions u set forth and ur partner fulfills them…u will never be satisfied.there will always remain room for dissatisfaction….becoz damnit….. its not about the man fulfilling all ur conditions…and being ideal.its about yu leaving aside all ur conditions and trusting him blindly.that is the only way to happiness..
or as the widow…dimple met said…..the men will keep exploiting women and women will keep exploiting men…ad infinitum.u keep laying ur conditions and he keeps laying his….play the game.
its not about whether the man has fulfilled all ur conditions….its not about him at all.its about u…..the moment u stop talking about conditions and ur rights and all that feminist claptrap…and simply trust a man.u will realize happiness.coz it was all about u….it was never about him being perfect…it was always about u being perfect.that is womanhood.
and the moment u genuinely blindly trust a man…he HAS to respond with the same trust.trust is fucking infectious…..just like a full throated laugh from someone infects u n makes u smile…..this jokey trust….will infect u both…..and there will be happines.
let the other witches talk about their rights and this n that….u r happyyyyyy
“?……after the divorce…. they jump from one date to another…..ideal family life…has become a joke…”
I have quite a few ‘friends’ who are going thru’ divorce. It brings in bitterness and disillusionment that I am reading randomly in your pieces. Most of my girl-pals in this situation think that marraige is just a transaction, a business relationship and I don’t say anything for they are suffering much as it is.
“if my husband is tyrannical and controlling…..he has some insecurities inside him.i will address them.if he has a hurt inside him…”
I wonder if Katie Holmes too felt like that and still was trapped in the relationship.
If equality (following your arguements) is not the answer then getting exploited and abused it also not the answer.
Each relationship is unique and works differently. There is possiblity that lot of women out there turn blind eye towards a philandering/abusive etc husband (in case of GoW, Sardar khan) for exchange of financial security and not having to go out on streets to work. Yet again there are women who rather have more equality, separate bank balance and is most happiest when husband does chores around the house. In other words, there are no cookie-cutter, sure fire reasons or ways in which a relationship works. And there are single women who are very happy to “jump from one date to another”…why judge them…they are having good time. One time I asked a divorced co-worker in her 50s very innocently “don’t you feel exploited” and she said, “you kidding me…I am the one exploiting them!!”
” Each relationship is unique and works differently….In other words, there are no cookie-cutter, sure fire reasons or ways in which a relationship works.”
But this debate is not one of personal preferences but one of ideological beliefs and social structures- if women were free to chose if they want to be submissive or equal they would be no problem at all. But most women in India do not have the luxury of this choice. They grow up in an atmosphere of subjugation and oppression and this prepares them to accept the same dynamic in their married lives as well- for examples mothers telling their daughters not to bring dishonour on the family and return home no matter how abusive their marraige is- or girls being constantly socially conditioned to be demure, to adjust, to compromise, to have no opinions or ambition etc- or parents giving in to any unreasonable dowry demands which lays the foundation for dowry harassment later in their lives.
If the desire to be subjugated and exploited was apurely personal one it would not be problematic- the problem is the patriarchal system that conditions men and women to subscribe to these gender views and severely punishes those women who desire any sort of freedom or equality.
“If the desire to be subjugated and exploited was apurely personal one it would not be problematic- ”
One man’s subjugation is another man’s seva…I know many women who are happy to clean and cook and do their “dharma” as taught by their parents…and many caring mother-in-law’s/husbands who take good care of their seva-bhavi wives…so who are the “feminists” to say that they are exploited. Basically there are good scenarios on either side.
Though I agree and concurr with most of what you are to say..they are in alignment with my own ideology…but there are many happy marraige cases of “bharatiya naari” in my household from my dadi, naani, maasis etc…some were lawyers and some had high degree and were happy to be housewives…some of course were not that happy…but most of them had good to gr8 marraiges/relationships. I think in India lot of problems are caused by extended families and not necessarily issues with husband/wife.
Di- when I said exploited- I was talking about women who desire to be with violent, controlling men- for example Anjali’s attraction to Salman because of his rumoured abusive behaviour around Aishwarya- not about women who are happy being homemkaers.
If the desire to be domestic and submissive is a purely personal one- then it’s not problematic at all- and yes of course there are certain traditional marraiges which are loving and mutually respectful.
However the problem is that most women in conservative societies do not have the choice to choose any non-traditional kind of relationship dynamic even if they so desire it- and often if a relationship sours they have to bear the most horrific abuse thanks to the way patriarchal society is structured. If a society has a domestic abuse rate of 50-84% as well as all kind of social evils from female foeticide to dowry harassment- it is an obvious symptom that the gender dynamics of that society are fatally diseased!
I think the common mistake is that people interpret feminism as being against any kind of traditional gender norms- be it stereotypically masculine/ feminine traits- or a traditional relationship where the man is the breadwinner and the woman is the housewife.
That goes against the principle of (less radical schools of) feminism which are all about giving women the privilege of choice and opportunity- including the choice to be homemakers if they so desire.
Ofcourse this choice is not limited only to the actual freedom of being able to choose- but also being able to live in an society that does not condition and strongly influence women to conform to patriarchal ideas alone- because if a woman is brainwashed into believing that the only way to live is to be submissive and domesticated then no amount of superficial freedom of choice will make any difference.
“because if a woman is brainwashed into believing that the only way to live is to be submissive and domesticated then no amount of superficial freedom of choice will make any difference.”
I once had household help from deep interior’s andra…upon asking her what her mom’s advice was to her before her impending marraige, her answer was “make sure your husband is in your control” 😉
I know most housewives in my household, as dominating,powerful women. I also know at least a dozen women in my circle here, who are ‘independent’ working women, who do not see their cheque or know how much money they have in bank or what investments are made by their husbands. The horrors of these ‘independent’ women are quite staggering…their husbands scan every dime they spend. One of my co-worker’s husband lashed out at her for spending money frivolously on protein bars; another’s husband regularly nags her because she forgets grocery store coupons at home. My housewife grandmom’s had far more economic power without ever having a paying job than these highly educated independant earning women in U.S.!!
With exception of one, every one of them are from your state Ami….I wonder if there is cultural issue here or just indian subcontinent one…its appalling to see these ‘helpless’ women. I mean can one just leave their husbands and kids?
I feel like we are going around in circles here Di- I’m not condemning housewives in the least. All I’m saying is that it is about choice and equality. IF a woman has other choices available to her and yet she chooses to be a housewive that is perfectly fine- but if she is not given that choice and she is either forced to be a houswife or brought up in an environment where she is conditioned to believe that being a housewife is the only acceptable path for a woman- then I find that problematic.
As for working women being in oppressive marraige- I’m not saying that doesn’t exist either- women can be financially empowered but not culturally empowered- however this does not invalidate the importance of a woman being able to choose if she wants to work or not and being given career opportunities equal to that of any man.
I agree on economic empowerment. In one interesting case: some weeks back my friend was in near death situation but her husband didn’t allow her to quit her job! I wish economic independance also brought about other mental strengths but it is easier said than implemented.
“The same woman who dresses sexily whilst clubbing (in order to attract men) will dress somberly in a business suit while at work in order to climb the career ladder and be taken seriously- while playing with her children she will dress in comfortable, casual clothes- and while working out/ playing a sport she will dress in tracksuits and shoes- there are several different facets to any woman’s personality- ”
To carry on the trend started by anjali- can I have a few pics lol
Ps anjali- thanx for those pics…
Just totally off the point –
Amy: What did u think of the ‘styling’ and ‘look’ of deepika in cocktail purely from an academic /analytical point of view ..
Also pray comment whether u feel that a ‘modern Indian woman’ can carry off that clothing ‘range’ practically
Just as an example-would u personally feel comfortable in that setup( and have the guts to admit it that they look cool …haha)
Ps-just part of a ‘survey’ I’m conducting for a ‘clothing line’
Ps2- anjali : will also want your views on this (serious) topic …
“Also pray comment whether u feel that a ‘modern Indian woman’ can carry off that clothing ‘range’ practically
Just as an example-would u personally feel comfortable in that setup( and have the guts to admit it that they look cool …haha)”
Deepika’s styling in Cocktail is tacky to the extreme. The most basic tenet of good dressing is that you need to dress appropriately for the occasion- for example the very fancy couture gown that she is shown wearing at the nightclub during the Jugni song- if a woman shows up at a nightclub looking like she is going to hit the red carpet she will look like an attention-seeking drama queen.
Most of her outfits would also look quite cheap in real life- take for example the midriff bearing tops paired with shorts/ miniskirts- the rule is that you only highlight one part of your body at a time- either legs or midriff or chest or back- not wear something that shows off both midriff and legs at the same time.
I don’t think that any woman- Indian or European, modern or traditional- can dress everyday in the manner that Deepika does in this film without looking ridiculous.
Ofcourse Deepika carries it off splendidly because she has a supermodel’s body and a gorgeous face and it’s a Bollywood film with a very unrealistic vibe- but I don’t think that any woman should dress like that in real life- it’s great for a blatant sex symbol look- but it’s not chic or elegant or edgy or of any merit in terms of fashionable styling.
Good points there Amy – u are good in ‘looks’ & ‘styling’
“the rule is that you only highlight one part of your body at a time- either legs or midriff or chest or back- not wear something that shows off both midriff and legs at the same time”
ROFL @ ” the rule”
Btw Amy : since the topic is on dressing…to ‘lighten’ the mood..
What’s your personal ‘style’-casual n otherwise–
Same question for anjali and Oldgold -if u wish to tell only
Ps-my suspicion is that Oldgold and amy are v v conservative dressers while anjali is a bit more bold ( in a good dabangesque way!)
Am I right ? 🙂
Ps -I’m collecting ‘data’ for a ‘survey’ lol
Before writing anything I would like to say that I’m no feminist. I just see and feel what is right or wrong. It can be for either gender.
So, in short I’m just a humanist.
There’s an old saying in German also translated to English – to throw the baby with the dirty bath water.
To me that is the situation today – except that in many cases the baby has been thrown and the dirty bath water retained.
Anjali’s view is one extreme and Ami’s another.
It’s not just the feminine qualities (which balance the male qualities) that have been destroyed, but it would seem a whole lot of other destruction has taken place pertaining to many aspects in society, so one cannot talk only of the female angle – it’s just ONE which has been effected.
It’s just the modern way of life- which is more and more SELF and has taken over everything, and feminism is also more and more about self rather than any woman oriented issues (which is actually only a guise).
“It’s just the modern way of life- which is more and more SELF and has taken over everything, and feminism is also more and more about self rather than any woman oriented issues (which is actually only a guise).”
But this is exactly what I’ve been saying to Anjali! If there is any problem with the modern idea of society- it’s not the idea of gender equality but the absolute value of the individual over the collective- it’s this balance of self vs. society that needs to be corrected in BOTH men and women.
Historically the burden was on women to keep societies together by sacrificing endlessly and never having any needs and goals of their own- on the other hand men were expected to prize self above all else- which is why they were never expected to be nuturing to their children etc. And now that women are growing fed up of being the only ones who give in a relationship and demanding that attention needs to be paid to their individual needs as well- there is a lot of fricition and familial disintergration.
The solution is not to go on oppressing women but to condition both men and women to be aware that they are a part of a larger social framework and that they need to be considerate to their partners and mindful of the larger implications of their actions.
Anjali’s view is that woman need to completely sacrifice themselves to please their men, tolerate all kinds of abuse and never entertain any career aspirations or play any role in public life- the opposite extreme to that would be to say that men need to sacrifice and tolerate anything and play no role in public life- which is not even remotely close to what I am saying.
You’re only partially right RE:women wanting to be men, and a few other points. I haven’t read all the comments, but if your comments are mostly like this one, then hardly;
>woman has to learn to bear…and nourish the man.drink his anger and give him love.
….those who matter to you in your life, and are important, one has definitely to learn to bear each other, drink anger, and give love – be it ones children, husband, wife, parents, friends etc etc.
“one has definitely to learn to bear each other, drink anger, and give love ”
Btw I must confess -the idea of a woman drinking my ‘anger’–sounds pretty interesting
How is it achieved-wondering 🙂
The sequel to Anurag Kashyap’s Gangs of Wasseypur (GOW) will release on August 10, confirms Vikram Malhotra, COO Viacom18 Motion Pictures. The production house has apparently decided to release the second part earlier than planned, to cash in on part one’s box office acceptance. Despite
an ‘A’ certificate, GOW received a positive response from the audience and critical acclaim as well. It has already collected a net total of R14.75 crore.
During the weekend, it saw 100 per cent occupancy in theatres, while on weekdays it was between 80 per cent and 90 per cent.
“The film, despite its blood and gore, grips you because it focuses on an important emotion – revenge. People are waiting to see how the drama enfolds,” says trade analyst Tarun Adarsh.
With a viewing time of five hours (part 1 and 2 together), Wasseypur is Anurag’s most ambitious project yet.
He says, “We took gamchas to Cannes and it became a style statement there with people wearing it over their Armanis. These innovative strategies helped us get away with such a long film.”
Here is a little essay written by the favourite author of ami…schopenhaur.i m sure ami will enjoy this immensely.this man was considered a genius.
The nature of the female
One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man’s without being essentially happier or unhappier.
Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.
Natural weapons
In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.
Female truth
The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.
Feminine charms
Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.
Absence of genius
Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.
Insipid women-veneration
This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.
Monogamy and ‘filles de joie’
In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second.
No argument about polygamy
There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.
btw i do not subscribe to this opinion.i only thought that all kinds of ideas should be brought to the fore..to make the discussions more comprehensive..
Hahaha anjali-even I don’t subscribe to this.
An example of female intellect is modern gals like u, amy and oldgold.
Female capability is never in question!
He was born more than two hundred years ago.
It may have been true – then.
Society at that time was a different thing altogether with childbirth **really being a thing to suffer that killed many women**.
Hardly any job opportunities, for men AND especially women. Most men suffered as the sole breadwinners.
Some men took advantage of this(here character of the person is important). It seems money ALWAYS played an important role in judging ones position.
Women’s health due to childbirth and lack of postnatal care suffered heavily, making them seem delicate and weak.
This had several implications.
The mind did not develop. Books, teachers and education weren’t easily available to everyone, which was anyway very expensive. Men, due to having to earn, at least got the opportunity to develop their brains. They had to be sharp to survive.
So if a man living at that time considers a woman to be;
>she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor.
– he can be excused.
BUT there is no excuse for anyone living today to think in this fashion!!
I’m sorry to say Anjali, but you sound …errr ‘different’ and not like any woman.
I’m not a modern aggressive feminist, yet even to me the opinion expressed is clearly outdated and any man or woman still having it has no place in society – only in a museum.
Think one may agree or disagree but can’t ridicule another persons view eg ‘being in a museum’ etc..
I defend oldgold similarly fe different perspective when others feel the same ..
So cool it folks and give ‘space’ to all views
No to talibanisation
Yes to free speech (&sex!)
🙂
@ alex…why dont yu introduce some of the major characters who inhabit this tower of babel.since i am new and u guys seem 2 know each other.from my reading and interactions… i have come to vague character sketches.
satyam: he sounds like a fortyish… rather venerable intellectual who cannot be easily made to lose his temper.has a wry sense of humor and is more or less democratic.has a penchant for writing really long sentences…but very enlightening.
saurabh: he must b younger…twenty something. open minded….but flatters ppl a lot.
oldgold: another fortyish well rounded lady who has experienced life..and cannot b easily swayed.a great fan of austen.sympathetic and sweet.
ami: now she is very similar to me in an inverted kind of way….a romantic at heart.headstrong.someone who can launch a crusade..kill or get killed for something as ethereal an an IDEA or an ism.must be my age…24 something.
GF: a rather strange lady…must be between 25 and 30.often sarcastic and full of self congratulation. i may again be called an anti feminist but dont think sarcasm or (2 give a stray example) loud laughter sits well on women.
DI: now di i find a very sharp,practical and womanly wise woman.someone who is ingenious and quick to spot if something wrong is going on…its not possible to fool her..she will catch ya.she is one lady i wud like to date if i was man.must be between 30 to 35.
“GF: a rather strange lady…must be between 25 and 30.often sarcastic and full of self congratulation. i may again be called an anti feminist but dont think sarcasm or (2 give a stray example) loud laughter sits well on women.”
Hahahah anjali:
Just read your summaries on the major characters here–
Spot on !!!
Not one thing out of place…
I was in the minority when I picked up and congratulated your brilliance from the priest post—
The others will /are seeing it now….
Ps: though some may feel that gf is a ‘male’ bit have no confirmation of it. Besides gf and Satyam share an ‘unconventional’ relationship–have yet to seee them differ on even a stray random minor point…
U got satyam, di , oldgold, Amy , and minor right as well
Ps: oh I see that Oldgold is saying she is twenty ish -hmmm…
Ps2–yes Satyam is very democratic …only then I can get away with pulling his leg most of the time..
Basically he is a true gentleman in the real sense of the word-no cynicism there….
He is a guy with whom even a Megan fox (without clothes) trapped in an elevator for hours is safe 🙂
Btw that Megan fox comment about Satyam underlines his gentlemanly behaviour: NOT anything about capability /performance (just to clarify as an afterthought ) lol
Basically Satyam is a ‘model’ guy …
Q. How much does Spiderman 4 have to do to be biggest Hollywood film in India?
A. Over 60 crore nett.
Syed Shah
Q. How much should films like Shanghai and Gangs Of Wasseypur gross for decent acceptance, around 50 crore?
A. No that’s Super Hit for these films. They should be targeting a 30 crore nett minimum for decent results.
M Mishra
Q. Will Bol Bachchan cross the 100 crore mark?
A. It will depend on the content. Its not like a Rowdy Rathore or Agneepath where the opening almost ensures a 100 plus total. It has the potential to be a universally accepted film and if so 100 will be done pretty easily.
A Bhane
Q. Is Akshay Kumar who was written off back to the top after Housefull 2 and Rowdy Rathore.
A. Big stars remain big stars, if his films don’t do as expected in the future then he will be written off again and then a few hits and back to the top. Star power does not go away with a few under performers and does not suddenly came back with a few hits.
LOL on the Bol Bachchan response. They would never have been so cautious had it been a Devgan only deal. Even now of course they will attribute any success all to Devgan much like Nahta. But the point is that they’ve even hedging here for the obvious reason. As I said before Abhishek has so dominated the advertising here and Rohit Shetty has been beating everyone on the head so much with the ‘Bol Bachchan’ deal including in the most recent longer trailer that it’s very hard even for the total partisans to say the usual stuff here. Some still will but blindness and madness are by no means extinct in this world!
And so BOI are right in a way. To the extent that it seems more about Abhishek it might make certain audiences skeptical who have good reason to be so with Abhishek. On the other hand this film is so ‘obvious’ in terms of what it’s trying to do that no one could really be in doubt as to what to expect here! And so the initial will probably not be affected on Abhishek grounds. Remember that Devgan has never had even a 60 crore initial on his own. He could have with Singham but didn’t get it (though he’d get a big one for a Singham sequel). But in any case if you have Abhishek on the mind as BOI do you answer the question this way!
Interesting! This project is going to be the ‘biggest Chinese’ film of all times- and it has a certain “Indian connection”
The film here is a IMAX 3D one “THE MONKEY KING”- It is based on the 4 Great Classical Chinese novels “JOURNEY TO THE WEST” (written by Wu Cheng’en) written during the’ Ming Dynasty’ which talks about the legend of the Monkey King and how he rebels against the Jade Emperor of Heaven-
* Donnie Yen as Sun Wukong, the Monkey King
* Chow Yun-fat as the Jade Emperor
* Aaron Kwok as Bull Demon King
The novel is a fictionalised account of the legendary pilgrimage to India of the Buddhist monk Xuanzang, and loosely based its source from the historic text Great Tang Records on the Western Regions and traditional folk tales. The monk travelled to the “Western Regions” during the Tang Dynasty, to obtain sacred texts (sūtras). The bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin), on instruction from the Buddha, gives this task to the monk and his three protectors in the form of disciples — namely Sun Wukong, Zhu Bajie and Sha Wujing — together with a dragon prince who acts as Xuanzang’s steed, a white horse. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey_King_%28film%29
“The Assassins”- based on famous Chancellor of the Han Empire, “Cao Cao”
In the year 198 BC, Cao Cao (CHOW YUN FAT), the Prime Minister of Han Dynasty, ventured to the east and defeated China’s greatest warrior Lv Bu, terrifying every ambitious warlord across the country. Several years later, after taking the Han Emperor under his wing Cao crowned himself King of Wei. He built a magnificent Bronze Sparrow Island to symbolize his power and rumors spread that he would replace the Emperor.
Meanwhile, young lovers Mu Shun (TAMAKI HIROSHI) and Ling Jv (CRYSTAL LIU YI FEI) were taken from a prison camp to a hidden tomb where they spent five cruel years together being trained as assassins for a secret mission. In the year 220 BC astronomical signs predict dramatic change. As a result, Cao’s son Cao Pi (QIU XIN ZHI) and Cao’s followers urge Cao to become the new Emperor. However opposing forces plot against him.- http://www.arclightfilms.com/NewTitles.aspx?ProjectId=0e9689fd-4107-49e2-0f9a-a5c8b4a5ce08&bu=Easternlight
Also, another Chinese Film which was selected for Cannes 2012, starring Zhang Ziyi and Cecilia Cheung and directed by Hur Jin-Ho (Christmas in August, One Fine Spring Day (2001), April Snow (2005), Happiness (2007) and A Good Rain Knows) titled ‘DANGEROUS LIAISONS” (adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses) –
As war looms in Shanghai, glamorous libertine MO JIEYU (Cecilia Cheung) runs into playboy XIE YIFAN (Jang Dong-Gun), an ex boyfriend who’s never stopped loving her, and
persuades him to play a treacherous game. Xie must seduce the innocent and naïve DU. FENYU (Zhang Ziyi) and then dump her. But the game becomes increasingly dangerous as Xie falls in love with Du, and it will lead them all towards tragic and shocking
consequences.
Jatt And Juliet Is Biggest All Time Blockbuster Of Punjabi Cinema
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 12.00 IST
Boxofficeindia.Com Trade Network
Jatt And Juliet has emerged the biggest Punjabi blockbuster ever and has smashed all records for Punjabi films by a distance.
The film held up extremely well on Monday with multiplexes going housefull across Punjab after a bumper weekend. The advances are super strong at all multiplexes for the weekdays and the unprecedented craze of the film is likely to dent collections of Bol Bachchan in Punjab.
Jatt and Juliet will collected around 4.25 crore nett in Punjab in week one which beats the previous record of 2.80 crore by a huge margin and in two weeks it will most probably be the highest grossing Punjabi film of all time.
While channel hopping came across ‘how to lose friends and Alienate people’
Megan fox can be damn…
Nominated for he best supporting dress lol
Anyhow-is it worth a watch ?
OT but big news!- For all J.K. Rowling fans, her next novel “THE CASUAL VACANCY” is releasing on Sep 27, 2012. It is Rowling’s 1st ‘adult novel’ Plot deals with “a veritable war over an empty seat on the council of the small fictional town of Pagford” – http://collider.com/j-k-rowling-the-casual-vacancy/177294/
Will agree with u. not a naysayer exactly but not a fan. After Lord of the rings, the fantasy novel i really enjoyed was Christopher Paolini’s “Eragon” (actually the entire Inheritence trilogy- the film is pathetic)- not sure whether u have read them. Also loved Amulet of Samarkand (Bartimaeus trilogy) by Jonathon Stroud. A very intereseting indian fantasy novel is “Simoqin Prophecies” by Samit Basu
i will say this that whether one is a fan of the series or not, one has to concede that all the HP films (and esp the last one) were extremely well-made and acted. Fiennes as Voldemort was particularly a treat to watch (somewhere reminded me of his Schindler’s List performance)
“How to lose friends and alienate people”
Watched bits of this film
Nothing great but does the job it says on the tin
A light comedy with a bit of romance on the sides with some trademark satire?..
Simon Pegg shows flashes of brilliance …
Kirsten dunst is good
And Megan fox: well, she doesn’t need to do anything but be around…
Simon Pegg actually is my fav comic actor currently- he has a very different style of comedy which is not over-the-top.he is also a very talented script-writer. 3 of his films are really top class- Shaun of The Dead, Hot Fuzz and Paul- and he thankfully stays away from the raunchy/sex comedies. Other guy whom i like is Seth Rogen.i can’t stand Adam Sandler.Ben Stiller,on the other hand, can be effective at times (Meet the parents, There’s something abt Mary).But no one is like the great Jim Carrey.
Rowdy Rowdy hit the 50 crore nett mark in Mumbai circuit in its fifth weekend. It is the third film history to hit the magical 50 crore mark after Three Idiots and Golmaal 3. Films like Dabangg, Bodyguard, Agneepath and Ready have failed to achieve this feat.
Golmaal 3 grossed nearly 51 crore nett in Mumbai and Rowdy Rathore will just edge past that film to become the second highest grossing film ever in Mumbai after Three Idiots which grossed 79 crore nett approx. Even if the nett business falls short of Golmaal 3 by a few lakhs in the circuit, the distributor share will be bigger.
Rowdy Rathore has been phenomenal in Gujarat as it has grossed over 25 crore nett in the state of Gujarat (inc Gujarat and Saurashtra). The business is just 10% lower than Three Idiots in Gujarat.
Rowdy Rathore Shows The Huge Importance Of Single Screens Yet Again
Wednesday 5th July 2012 11.30 IST
Boxofficeindia.Com Trade Network
Rowdy Rathore has again shown the importance of single screen business which are neglected as the general perception is that business today is all about multiplexes which is false and only true for smaller budget films and for big city films which hardly get a single screen release. There are always reports that 70% or 80% of the revenue today is from multiplexes but it seems actual numbers are not added up correctly.
The huge importance of single screens has been proved by practically every blockbuster hit since multiplexes came to India 12-13 years back and Rowdy Rathore is no different.
Rowdy Rathore will give a distributor share of around 31 crore from multiplexes while single screens will be around 41 crore which is a 57-43 ratio in favour of single screens. With Rowdy Rathore the nett business will almost be in the 50-50 ratio let alone the revenue.
This has been the case with practically every blockbuster film over the last decade where single screens give same revenue or more. It can be said its due to action films but even with a film like Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi it was 21 crore revenue each from multiplexes and single screens.
In the last couple of years the conversion of single screens to perform with digital prints has probably outpaced the multiplex growth which was at a peak in the 2006-2009 period.
It is pretty weird that it is always reported that its all about multiplexes today when the films that actually make good money have a larger chunk of the all India theatrical revenue coming from single screens.
1)The differential in ticket rates is so enormous between multiplexes and single screens that you can’t even get around to equalizing this disparity. Specially as you move away from some huge (and historic) single/double screens in some cities.
2)The reason many single screens seem to be contributing a lot to these masala films is precisely because these films are not that big in the multiplexes. They do well enough, mostly these films open hugely and then more or less collapse and/or do a quick fade in the multiplexes. It’s really the smaller centers supporting these films or providing them enough cushion beyond a point. These films are too ‘lowbrow’ to engage a multiplex audience in the major metros for too long, at least across the board. Now lowbrow because they’re masala but because they can be pretty crass a lot of times. Hardly anyone is making ‘intelligent’ masala. These films are entertaining enough but hardly great examples of the genre even by today’s standards. There’s a reason why not one of these films has matched Ghajini in trending terms or even in terms of the overall gross when adjusted for inflation.
3)the other thing I suspect here is that BOI is using smaller centers interchangeably with single screens. First off in the major half dozen or more metros of India single screen rates are way higher than those elsewhere though these are still lower than multiplexes. So a single/double screen gross in Bombay is one thing, the same from Amritsar quite another! Let alone even smaller centers. Similarly there is now a sea of multiplexes also operating in smaller centers that changes the whole economy of that center. Suddenly the gross from that center gets jacked up, becomes more significant than it otherwise has been. I find it impossible to believe that BOI have really been sifting through all of this. Even if they wanted to they couldn’t because there’s no such precise data available in India. Just the multiplexes can be tracked. Even this info isn’t commonly available.
4)You can’t make up for a Rs 150 or 250 or 350 or whatever ticket in Bombay with Rs 30 in a small center! It’s even less in many places. Plus the multiplexes are taxed at negligible rates, often close to zero. The single/double screens play regularly entertainment tax, in many of the Northern/Central Indian states this can be extraordinarily high. So the idea that despite all this imbalance somehow the single screens can provide as much of the gross as the multiplexes is patently absurd. Even a half decent multiplex performance cannot really be matched by a very good single screen one. Small centers, factoring in all the multiplexes, are a different deal.
All in all this entire set of claims is bunk. I wish it were so but it isn’t. Certainly the smaller centers are a much bigger part of the game today but multiplexes mushrooming in many of these centers are a big part of the story. Without these some of the masala films would gross far less. Still things are better to some degree than they used to be but it is important to remember how the things are being reordered. So you might have a multiplex or two in Kanpur which jacks up the gross of this center compared to what it was without one. At the same time you are also introducing the same high/low economic divide here that is already prevalent in Bombay or Delhi. Not arguing for social justice here (!) but the point is that a film that does half-decently in Kanpur can now register more significantly than a superhit in past years without the advantage of a multiplex or two. It’s good to have Kanpur become more significant however it’s done but it’s not necessarily the single screen here that’s becoming so. with films like RR you have a few days of good opening business in the major metros. then the film starts operating at a very low level. But it stays stronger in the Kanpurs of India, here helped by multiplex business, to an extent single screens. You would need a historic performance in the latter to make up for middling business in the multiplexes. It’s highly improbable if not impossible. And again this assumes average multiplex business. If you on the other hand had huge multiplex business there would be no chance of the single/double screens catching up in any sense. Which is what happened with 3I. The film did very well everywhere but it was a monster in multiplexes everywhere across India with repeat viewings and so on. And sure enough the other films weren’t even close. This has been one of my points for very long. Most of these so called 100 crore hits are not doing that well at all. Most of the gross is really about the first five days or so!
By the way note how ZNMD offers a good example here. A multiplex-only film if ever there was one. It did good business, was stable, it got to 90 crores or so. It’s impossible for a comparable single/double screen only film to get to half this number with a comparable performance or even a much better one! And ZNMD was hardly shattering records. Imagine what a truly very strong multiplex film would today be capable of. We haven’t seen one for ages. Because the Yahsraj paradigm has died out and doesn’t excite the multiplexes in the same way. The masala/comedy deal is usually about big initial numbers and not much more. So both ways we’re not getting a very big multiplex moment. yet ZNMD on its own got to 90 crores. Rockstar opened better than ZNMD, then slipped, it still got to 65-70 crores or whatever. and no one thought this was a great performance. Once again think about what a RDB kind of deal would do today!
Masters of cinema : David lean
Passage to india
>Prelude
Rome wasn’t built in a day and nor do reputations get constructed in a day-takes a career, a lifetime!
Here one is talking about David lean -his last film!
Perhaps not exactly in the same scale as lawrence of Arabia, but one can sense a similar sense of ambition and visual splendour.
>Setting/ ambience
1920s Karnataka -pre independence India. And the interplay between animosity and admiration towards the British way of life with stirrings of patriotism and the feeling of being wronged!
Captures the uncertainty and ambivalence of that historical era.
> messages/ vibes
It tackles a few complex issues tactfully without getting caught up in either
*racial prejudice
*societal taboos
*sexual repression
*class divide
> cast
Is uniformly adept and accomplished
Peggy Ashcroft wins an academy award (think there were more than ten nominations!)
Again one senses that this was too much a film and a maker to be ignored but the choice of award was more of a consolation..
The other award for music also seemed to compensate for the lack of awards in other categories (as happens usually)
One of the best Indian set of actors
Victor banerjee is brilliant and peerless.
Saeed Jeffrey in a small role is effectively
And roshan Seth again shows why I love his cameos as in guru
>James foxs character and performance was endearing
> Alec Guinness as an Indian brahmin!! Well, many will criticise this but didn’t find it a wrong choice overall-at the cost of authenticity the guy did add something worthwhile to proceedings.
>standout act
Judy davis in the complexed role stood out by being the only internalised implosive performer in the crowd of demonstrative expressive stalwarts.
She just mesmerised the camera, the viewer and also dr aziz apparently ?
A performance and role to remember!
> Style
Screenplay was simple and elegant
Visual scenery was rich with compellling use of landscape, local life and visual signals
Though this is an adaption of Forsters book, certain value additions were made-like addition of the temple meeting scene!
> what started as another ‘multitasking’ viewing of a merchant ivoryesque film, increasingly drew me in
This is the strength of lean -there are certainly flaws as one would expect from a westerners skewed view of the east , but these are simply transcended by his vision and grasp of the overall medium!
So whilst lean is not at the too of his game, even that is good enough.
> the unanswered question!
What happened in the cave in that scene filled with nervous anxiety laced with sexual tension !
If anyone has rad the book/ seen the film, may plz opine.
^ Passage to India -addendum
Don’t usually write reviews, and neither is this,but felt it prudent to be a bit more structured when dealing with such efforts.
Even the posters and covers are memorabilia worthy
A passage to India -contd–
The movie made me sit up somewhat
Am still waiting for anyone to tell me the ‘unanswered question’
-but the silence is somewhat symptomatic of the current tastes being corrupted by houseful2 and penchant for Imran khan cinema lol
Anjali–have u seen this one?
Btw made me visit some David lean
Ok anjali -specially for u and any others with good taste –wouldn’t call it pathbreaking or even David leans best but bcos of the ‘Indian connection’ makes it relevant
I saw it on DVD but since u asked found that it is also available on YouTube
This is part 1of 16-other parts available as well on YouTube …
Let me know your thoughts angeli
Satyam : unfortunately folks like me and anjali are mere cinematic ‘learners’ and probably may not reach your stage but we are trying slowly and with time 🙂
Ps: thanx rockstar for the info about the full movie–and about that info on ray
Well, have absolutely no qualms to say that haven’t read this book and have seen this movie for the first time!!
Btw I have No egos of being anything more than a ‘learner’ on this 🙂
Good that everyone has already seen this movie/read this book–
What is your interpretation on what actually happened in that goddam cave?
Any ideas angeli
‘Amazing Spider-Man’ Nets $7.5 Million at Midnight
by Ray Subers
July 3, 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man earned an estimated $7.5 million from midnight shows last night. Among comic book movies, that’s much lower than The Avengers ($18.7 million) and The Dark Knight, but about on par with Iron Man 2 ($7.5 million). Sony is also reporting that the figure is identical to Spider-Man 3’s midnight haul from the first weekend of May 2007. IMAX showings at 300 locations accounted for $1.2 million, or 16 percent of the gross.
While the Spider-Man 3 comparison is a flattering one (that movie wound up earning $151.1 million through its first three days), it isn’t really an apples-to-apples one. With kids still in school, the first weekend of May rarely turns out strong midnight numbers, while all kids and many adults are off leading in to the Fourth of July holiday. Also, the way in which audiences attend midnight movies has changed noticeably in the past few years: the top eight midnight openings ever have taken place since 2009 (only five of the top eight opening weekends are in that same time frame). Finally, with the addition of 3D and the drastically increased number of IMAX venues, tickets for The Amazing Spider-Man are much more expensive than those for Spider-Man 3.
Still, The Amazing Spider-Man and Spider-Man 3 are very different movies. The Amazing Spider-Man is a reboot with a completely fresh cast and some weird baggage associated with the previous franchise, while Spider-Man 3 was the highly-anticipated follow-up to the first two entries in Sam Raimi’s franchise. For The Amazing Spider-Man to have the same midnight haul, even with inflated ticket prices and a more hospitable release date, is a minor accomplishment for sure.
It’s hard to predict exactly how The Amazing Spider-Man will fare through its first six days, given the lack of comparable Tuesday releases. It is clear now that $100 million is a guarantee, while $150 million also appears to be a very reachable figure.
Big news! 1st Official Poster from Sam Raimi’s big budget film “Oz : The Great And The Powerful” (prequel to The Wizard of Oz) starring James Franco as the titular wizard and Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams as the ‘3 witches’ – releases March 8, 2013- http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/Oz-The-Great-and-Powerful-poster.jpg
LOL. C’mon, inspite of its faulty jingoism i thought Border was well directed and entertaining. Had great songs (Sandese and Mere Dushman Mere Bhai) and some crackling chemistry between Akshaye and Shetty
I didn’t like it at all.. leaving aside the jingoism just didn’t think it was gripping enough for a war film. On the other hand I liked LoC a lot and still think the film hasn’t been given its due.
SATYAMSHOT 
June 30, 2012 at 12:58 PM
reproducing this discussion here:
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 1:01 PM
Satyam @Satyamk
congrats to @ankash1009 for the success of GoW..
Satyam @Satyamk
I am particularly thrilled about the GoW success. This film has done more in one week than Dev D(itself a success) did in its entire run. Inflation is not a very serious factor here given the relative audience of each film but even if so it is more than outweighed by the fact that Dev D was a far more accessible subject than GoW (also had a hit soundtrack).
elements of the trade and impossibly partisan sites like BOI have nonetheless not given the film its due. Saying idiotic stuff like ‘it’s stable at the lower end’ and so on. of course it has been very stable but the point is it was crazy to expect big numbers here any which way. Consider how ‘different’ films do even with big stars, even when these do well. So the game of expectations might always have been rather silly here. The film has excellent numbers or in other words has done as well as possible for this kind of subject and with no major star. On that note, and as I’ve said before, Shanghai too was treated unkindly by the trade. Expectations were again greater but there was also a mismatch here. Admittedly it didn’t do what GoW is doing but nonetheless the ‘failure’ here is a very relative one all factors considered.
[I then added some of the comments from the other link and expanded on it this way…]
And so this is once again not an argument either against the auteurist types or even at the other end a Rohit shetty. My argument with the former always is that if one’s aim is at least partly polemical (as it certainly is in many of these instances) one must then figure out how those polemics can be maximized beyond a point. Audiences sometimes reject mainstream films that get too edgy. So what?! I understand all the obvious issues here in terms of financial viability and so on but people often think that such films are a waste even otherwise. It is not so. First off the rejected can be resurrected one day. Leaving this aside it is perhaps when the audience rejects a film like Raavan as ‘too much’ (however they define ‘too much’) that it becomes become more open to an interesting film that is somewhat less subversive than this but that they might not otherwise have embraced without the bar being raised. This works in a number of ways. RGV made Satya, he then went more mainstream with Company, suddenly a certain kind of filmmaking became much more mainstream. So each film has a history but it can also perform a service within a larger history.
Similarly on the Rohit Shetty side of the equation I don’t have a problem with whatever he makes (even if most of it is not to my taste!) but given that he came upon something more interesting here (note by the way how working with Abhishek makes a lot of these directors more interesting or edgier all of a sudden.. Singham for example was actually a regression from the Tamil original because it had some offensive ethnic politics not to mention the terrifying climax) he might have been a bit more ambitious in certain ways.
And so back to Kashyap. The reason I wish for him to make a somewhat ‘bigger’ film is because I think he’s done everything he can with niche filmmaking. The project should now be taken further. Not that there’s anything wrong in always playing at the film festival level. But his own stated polemics ought to push him further.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Anurags false sense of achievement and satyams BO ignorance are both laughable.GOW will at best manage shanghai collections which the trade has already labelled as flop.satyam doesnt seem to disagree with that.talk about partisanship!
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 1:03 PM
taran adarsh @taran_adarsh
#GOW [Week 2] Friday *estimates* 1 cr +. Affected due to Spidey wave.
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 1:05 PM
the idiocy of the trade knows no bounds.. so what do people say? ‘should I watch Spidey or GoW? Really tough choice’?!
GoW should hopefully get to 25 crores at this point. It’s done a bit more than 17. More than 18 including this Fri. With somewhat higher numbers on Sat and Sun 25 should be a done deal. Without major competition a bit more might have been a possibility but that is unlikely given that Bol Bachchan is releasing next week and cocktail the following one.
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Hav been at a corporate ‘event’ all day long:some bOllywood (pseudo) ‘celebrities’ around as well ..ha
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM
GOW is bakwaas film.no story.i hope it flops,so that kashyap wake up and make the kind of films he used to make.
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 2:49 PM
I don’t think it is a bakwaas movie. The genre is inspired from the movies from Hollywood…The movie has some redundant scenes and could be chopped but direction wise it is fine. Other problem I saw was there was mix of Hindi and Bihari (Mixuture of all dialects of Bihar which normally people associate with Bhojpuri). Apart from above nitpicks I liked the movie.
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM
Well, haven’t seen GoW -wanna check it in a good print/sound only…
But anjali: if u say it’s crap, there must be some truth to it 😉
Btw someone gave me ‘kahaani’ -worth checking out folks ?
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 2:59 PM
Some people (even some really smart ones 🙂 ) are ready to go to theatre for ‘teri meri kahaani’ but will be hesitant before watching ‘kahani’- what has the world come to! 🙂
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 3:07 PM
Haha
Well TMK was part of the ‘big’ screen experience and the other stuff…lol
Bollywood big screen releases are v rare near me and hence they are like rare exotic delicacies-i check em out only to maintain a ‘link’ to Bollywood etc -mostly the films are just incidental
Like watching auteur screenings otherwise lol
Btw films like GoW/kahaani didn’t even release …
Ps-is kahani worth a watch on telly/DVD ?
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 3:10 PM
Certainly..
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 3:12 PM
Dude, do not miss Kahani at any cost. easily one of the best thrillers bwood has ever made. it will hook from the 1st scene and will never let u go. everything clicks in the film- super shit!
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM
Hmm..
Ok lemme check out now what the fuss is about
Anyways , when a non Indian maker recommends an Indian film, one should see what’s going on
Let’s see how long it can ‘grip’ me now 🙂
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 3:37 PM
i havent seen kahani so i cant say.
if u wanna watch a really great hindi film…watch “heer ranjha”….directed by the younger brother of dev anand,affectionately called goldie.the same guy who directed guide.this guy goldie was a personal friend of jiddu krishnamurthy and osho….was a philosopher in his own right.
heer raanjha….is a movie that rhymes …both metaphorically and literally.it will transport u into a fabled world….a mythic love story……the same effect a high dose of LSD induces….common things become mythic…a simple banal sentence ..turns into a loaded metaphor……u become a part of a fabled world…..where black is black and white is white…..it hits….
but u can enjoy that movie only if u have a deep familiarity with urdu.becoz the whole movie is done in verse….the dailogues r exquisite urdu verses…..written by the genius kaifi aazmi…..father of shabana aazmi.
the one character i enjoyed the most in that movie was of pran.he is pure evil…like a shakesperean iago of othello.he is lame and ppl make fun of him…and he wants to deform everything ….has an angst against the whole world.he is the villian in the movie…who conspires against the lovers heer ranjha..and finally separates them…for ever.
one dailogue in the movie…mouthed by the evil pran which is my personal favourite is…when in a crowed bazaar…ppl r making fun of his handicap….as his efforts of flirting with a girl falls on its head ..and the girl shoos him away…pran says….
Kuchhal doonga…..
Mashhal doonga…..
Jalaa doonga…….
Mitaa doonga……
Rulayaa mujhko kismat ne……
Main duniya ko rulaa doonga…….
Film:Heer raajha
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 3:46 PM
Well, I adore guide and even 3 Manzil and some other films by dev ananads bro (including prem pujari)
Plus with a recommendation from u, anjali, will definitely try to check it out .
Till then will enjoy this-
“is a movie that rhymes …both metaphorically and literally.it will transport u into a fabled world….a mythic love story……the same effect a high dose of LSD induces….common things become mythic…a simple banal sentence ..turns into a loaded metaphor……u become a part of a fabled world…..where black is black and white is white…..it hits….”
By ‘LSD’, did u mean love sex and dhokha or the real stuff 🙂
We have a real dabang and great gal here on this blog-anjali
Unless locked in a theatre, see most films while ‘mutitasking’ so my attention span can be low
After hearing such sextreme praise, let’s see what kahaani is all about
Anjali:Y don’t u check out kahaani simulataneously @ your end
Let’s see who gets fed up first hahah
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 3:59 PM
Ok-b4 even kahaani started got distracted by this song on telly
Zero authenticity of setting-Salman roaming around what’s apparently supposed to be old London…ha
Salman not even caring to lip sync properly
But he gets my approval -like his style man….and the song
Anjali-check it out 😉
hope I do reach ‘kahaani’ tonite haha
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 4:10 PM
salman is nt a great actor,but a good guy.love him…..in this age(of short attention span…and plastic relations)…. someone as successful as him can go nuts for something as banal as a girl……(aishwarya in the case of salman)…kinda makes him cute to me.
he used to spy on her….go to her home drunk and create tamasha…..flaunt his(non existent)..underworld connection ….in short become a joke …all for the sake of a girl….delicious!very old schoolish
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 5:22 PM
“someone as successful as him can go nuts for something as banal as a girl”
that’s a pretty bizarre thing to say!
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 4:16 PM
Ya some people go mad over a girl -so stupid lol
Btw think katrina has really milked Salman badly- what dya think..
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 4:56 PM
Btw by ‘milk’ meant ‘use’ -no ‘other’ dodgy meaning lol
V Good stuff kahaani -watched 20 min !!
Getting ‘heavy’ and sensitive my tender tired brain -will complete on another day….
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 5:26 PM
No Satyam!
Anjali is right … 🙂
It’s one thing loving a girl etc but Salman went bonkers, self destructive with suicidal tendencies, it seems..which is wrong..
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 8:13 PM
@satyam…i was just joking about salman.
waajib(proper) hai dil ke saath rahe paasbaan e akl(the guard called mind)
lekin kabhi kabhi usse tanha bhi chorr de
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM
Ustad hotel is a movie about 4stages of life.Beautifully written and directed.This movie is very carefully excecuted and is very much within the frames of a commercial malayalam movie.But luckily doesnt end up being only a commercial movie.Actually it never ends.It just goes on like the waves of the ocean.The movie begins with Feyzee,his quest to breakfree from his businessman father to a life he has setup for himself. A life a young man would love to have but as the story progresses its told to the viewer that it was all a short lived and shortsighted dream. Usthad hotel is Feyzee ‘s journey to understand the real meaning of life. There lies the novelty of the subject. This movie underlines the four stages of life. Dulquer playing the youth,Sidique playing the middle age and thilakan playing vaanaprastham.The movie tells us whatever you have in your life still your life is incomplete. Usthad hotel bridges the gaps between our incomplete life without being preachy teaches you to live.Dulquer shines in a restrained performance never trying too hard or trying to be a comnercial hero.Nithya Menon is good.Thilakan shines in his role,the real hero of the movie.
Kudos to Anjali Menon for such a meaningful story.Anwar rasheeds conviction and brilliance to direct a different topic. A superb movie. Loved it. I think the movie will be a hit,cause Malayalam audience are a thinking audience and they dont need to be spoonfed.
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 5:07 PM
That’s an interesting story idea Varun-4 stages…
Which language is this movie in though?
Ps:Btw magic mikes a hit-some girls like oldgold and Amy are living IN the cinema hall so they can catch all shows hahah
Similar to kahaani, tried revisiting veer Zara recently
Found the opening credits /poetry /song v good
Anjali: check this out ..
Ps: unfortunately, this is ALL I saw in that viewing lol
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 2:38 PM
There is a renaissance taking place in the malayalam film industry lot of new actors and directors making really good films.Movies like Traffic, Chappa kurish, Diamond necklace,22FEMALE KOTTAYAM,Manjadikuru,Indian Rupee,Spirit,second show,Salt n pepper have emerged as super hits these movies are not the regular commercial movies which plagued malayalam industry for years neither they are superstar films except for indian rupee and spirit.(both directed by ace director Ranjith who makes movies on social issues in a very commercial format and manages to make hit movies).
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 2:48 PM
http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/movies/features/type/view/id/3635
Major disappointments none ? what a stupid and completely biased article .Don ,KANK,Ra one,Don2 and MNIK all are avearge/below average in India.May be they collected more in Overseas .How bollywood hungama allowed person like Joginder tuteja to write this completely dishonest article
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 4:43 PM
OT- 1st Look pics- Dhanush(Kolaveri Di), Sonam Kapoor and Abhay Deol (in a cameo) are currently shooting for their next Hindi film titled “RAANJHNAA” which is helmed by Tanu Weds Manu director Anand L. Rai- The film is a romantic set in the campus of JNU, Delhi.Music- A.R. Rahman- Dhanush plays a Hindi speaking Brahmin boy from Varanasi-Sonam plays a Delhi student- http://keralapals.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/dhanush-raanjhnaa.jpg and http://www.zorsebol.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Sonam-Kapoor.jpg
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 5:09 PM
Satyam!the trailer,posters of Akshay Kumar(producer and in a cameo) and Paresh Rawal starrer film “OMG! Oh My God”- director-Ashwini Yardi- http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DESaarS0SYR8&sa=U&ei=M2nvT9fxGonE2gXPzLC_Cg&ved=0CCUQtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNF3nDaFs1D9Ao6sGfHYsiHByykRnQ -posters- http://datastore02.rediff.com/h450-w670/thumb/69586A645B6D2A2E3131/76756t9s0aog99pb.D.0.Paresh-Rawal-OMG–Oh-My-God-Movie-Latest-Poster.jpg http://i.bollywoodmantra.com/albums/first-look/omg-oh-my-god-1/paresh-rawal__461943.jpg
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 5:23 PM
BOI- Maximum gets a dull opening- it took a dull opening of 0-3% and has little chance at the box office.- http://www.boxofficeindia.com/boxdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=4615&nCat=
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 5:29 PM
Opening of 0% ?
Hahahaaha
Is this including the bugger ticket guy, the ‘torch guy’ and the one selling coke n nice cream..?
ROFL @ naseer
Btw that title song isnt bad…
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 5:23 PM
Is this a ‘modern’ take on ‘heer ranjha’ (which anjali told me about)
And how the heck is a r Rahman giving the music to this one ..
If he is, this needs to be seen..
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Trailer of comedy Tusshar Kapoor, Riteish Deshmukh, Neha Sharma, Sarah Jane Dias starrer “Kyaa Super Kool Hai Hum”- sequel to hit KKHH- http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DRLGfNqSEY-Y&sa=U&ei=SXDvT6KsHImw2QXMrcmnCg&ved=0CC0QtwIwBA&usg=AFQjCNEc3-AJzJdVTi9zC3oSSugRBVcvaA -songs- http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DK3eAkgottC0&sa=U&ei=qnDvT8D0BcLQ2AWK4eCEAg&ved=0CCIQtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFUqHHmvy_QQokx1LFVTJAmmig8Vw
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM
Came across this-cute
Some stars at kids…
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 6:19 PM
Dabang: the ‘superior’ masala
Till the recent past, was a compulsive Salman hater
As Satyam probably knows-one film changed it..for me somewhat., though still relatively!
Dabang is actually more than a masala film-it’s a persona/ a thought process and I still feel the directors vision hasn’t been credited for enuf..
Maybe it’s personal taste but love the persona and the way it was written/presented…
Also the directors unmodified version was even more kashyapesque and contained some more relatively edgy elements like caste politics etc
The various angles between Salman and his bro and moreover with his dad was a somewhat curious sort for a mere masala film..
To be more specific, this change fructified around the course of one song
Btw something for minor and Satyam -enjoy
Get into the mood…And groove
Ps-minor: drinkresponsibly lol
Love some of the moves..
To heck with ‘taste’
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 7:52 PM
btw has any1 read the killing joke ..a batman comic..penned by alan moore.absolutely fascinating…mind numbing…..harrowing…. macabre and bizzare ….one of the most interesting read i had in a while
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:16 AM
If ‘killing joke’ is the one where Joker strips Gordon naked and ties him to a ride in the amusement park while his paralysed daughter Batgirl is watching, then i clearly remember reading it- one helluva comic. And especially liked the ending. Alan Moore is simply one of the greatest graphic-novel writers of all times. i especially loved his “V for Vendetta”
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:23 AM
Tho is supposed to be the best ‘joker’ outing of all times -disturbing apparently..though haven’t read it
Moores ‘the league of extraordinary gentlemen’ is more typical him..
Ps: your graphic description above makes it sound a bit perverted take lol
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 10:44 PM
How Does the Film Industry Actually Make Money?
By ADAM DAVIDSON
Published: June 26, 2012
I’ve been trying to come to terms with two seemingly irreconcilable facts. First, “Men in Black 3” has made more than $550 million worldwide. Second, while a representative from the parent company of Columbia Pictures told me that the movie is now “in the win column,” it seemed until recently as if Columbia might actually lose money on it. How could that be? It’s not so complicated. Its production costs were close to $250 million; worldwide marketing most likely added at least that much; and a big chunk of the ticket sales go to theaters and distributors.
There must be an easier way to make money. For the cost of “Men in Black 3,” for instance, the studio could have become one of the world’s largest venture-capital funds, thereby owning a piece of hundreds of promising start-ups. Instead, it purchased the rights to a piece of intellectual property, paid a fortune for a big star and has no definitive idea why its movie didn’t make a huge profit. Why is anyone in the film industry?
All business requires guessing, but future predilections of moviegoers are especially opaque. If a large company wants to introduce a new car, it can at least base its predictions, in part, on factors like where oil prices are headed. Movie executives, on the other hand, come up with a host of new theories each summer about what audiences want — 3-D tent poles, 2-D tent poles, vampires, comics, board games and so on — then, sometimes over the course of a weekend, ricochet toward a new theory. Will the tepid economics of “Men in Black 3” spell trouble for “The Amazing Spider-Man,” this holiday weekend’s big release? Who knows.
Unlike other decades-old industries, Hollywood not only has a hard time forecasting, but it also has difficulty analyzing past results. Why was “The Hunger Games” such a big hit? Because it had a built-in audience? Because it starred Jennifer Lawrence? Because it was released around spring break? The business is filled with analysts who claim to have predictive powers, but the fact that a vast majority of films fail to break even proves that nobody knows anything for sure.
Making matters more complicated is that the industry is filled with professionals — starting with the lowliest junior agents — adept at explaining why they were responsible for a project’s success. This self-mythologizing has real economic impact. Most major brands spend lots of money ensuring that people have a positive association with them, but most people don’t even notice which studio made which movie. (Disney and its Pixar subsidiary are notable exceptions, “John Carter” notwithstanding.) In fact, movie studios are much better at helping brands they don’t own — certain stars, directors, producers and source material, like “The Hunger Games” — capture a huge chunk of the money.
The reason a majority of movie studios still turn a profit most years is that they have found ways to, as they say, monetize the ancillary stream by selling pay-TV and overseas rights, creating tie-in video games, amusement-park rides and so forth. And the big hits, rare as they may be, pay for a lot of flops. Still, the profits are not huge. Matthew Lieberman, a director at PricewaterhouseCoopers, expects growth over the coming years to be somewhere around 0.6 percent.
Hollywood is, somewhat surprisingly, a remarkably stable industry. Over the past 80 years or so, its basic model — in which financiers in New York lend money to creative people in Los Angeles — has been largely unaltered. Partly as a result, today’s biggest studios — Columbia, Disney, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Universal, 20th Century Fox — have been on top since at least the 1950s. This stability is initially puzzling because movie studios don’t have many assets. Worse, every one of their projects is a short-term collaboration between a bunch of independent agents.
A modern studio’s main asset, however, is its ability to put together these disparate elements. They know how to get Tom Cruise to do a film, how to get it into theaters around the country and whom to call to set up a junket in Doha. They also know the industry’s language of power, with its ever-changing rules about which stars, restaurants and scripts are cool and which are not. It’s the stuff of easy parody, but it’s worth billions.
Another reason these studios remain at the top is that for most entrepreneurs, taking them on isn’t worth the risks. (Even big hits often take years — sometimes a full decade — to break even.) “If I’m sitting on $2 billion, will I invest in a Hollywood studio?” asks Anita Elberse, a Harvard Business School professor who studies the entertainment industry. “Many other industries have a higher return on investment.” Billionaires like Anil Ambani, who is a partner in Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks Studios, presumably invest because the glamour helps them with their other businesses.
People have predicted the demise of the film industry since the dawn of TV and, later, the appearance of VHS, cable and digital piracy. But Fabrizio Perretti, a management professor at the Università Bocconi in Italy, says that Hollywood is now actually destroying itself. Because it’s harder to get financing and audiences, companies are competing to make bigger, costlier films while eliminating risk, which is why ever-more movies are based on existing intellectual property. Eighteen of the all-time 100 top-grossing movies (adjusted for inflation) were sequels, and more than half of those were released since 2000.
Predictability might win the weekend, Perretti says, but it could eventually make people weary. Meanwhile, Lieberman, from PricewaterhouseCoopers, sees significant growth in another entertainment business that’s constantly experimenting with different models, distribution methods and ways of telling stories. Maybe TV is finally going to kill movies after all.
Adam Davidson is co-founder of NPR’s “Planet Money,” a podcast, blog and radio series heard on “Morning Edition,” “All Things Considered” and “This American Life.”
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 1:57 AM
I don’t know where to put this up–but if Satyam can put it up as a separate post–it will help us discuss under-rated and excellent films from the past…such as Saudagar from 1973, an absolute gem of a film.
Often, thanks to tv, one gets access to a film one has long wished to experience–well, this was one film my husband would always rave about–and he saw it in the seventies as a young man in Chennai, with a bare minimum knowledge of Hindi ! He says that he watched it twice, for the graceful Nutan, but liked Amitabh’s performance too. Last week Zee Classic telecast Saudagar–and we both managed to watch it together; missed the opening scenes, but watched most of the film.What agem of amovie; exquisite, minim alist, just right. And yes, I sort of prefer this Amitabh to the more popular angry man character that made him popular.
Here is the imdb page for Saudagar–just 8 viewer reviews–but they have all loved it–
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070637/reviews
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 2:04 AM
Saudagar is one of my favorite Bachchan roles, and a very good film, even apart from that, the sort of “little film” that becomes increasingly difficult for an actor to do as he/she climbs up the stardom ladder…
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:25 AM
“the sort of “little film” that becomes increasingly difficult for an actor to do as he/she climbs up the stardom ladder…”- Q u right on the money here. I quite liked Saudagar and especially liked AB’s body-language of a ‘taadi collector”. also the director showed great courage in keeping a sort of open-ended climax. Actually amongts the early films of Bachchan i also loved him in Bandhe Haath and Parwana
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:56 AM
BH is in my to watch pile. I saw Dostana (original last weekend)
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 8:13 AM
Saudagar is my favourite film of Amitabh. It’s a really good film. Love it. I’m glad it’s being noticed. I just love Amitabh in this song, and the song too. Actually I can go on talking about this film endlessly 😀
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 2:52 AM
wow! saudagar is my favourite film too.the timeless fable …of dramatic conflict between reason(played by nutan)…and passion(played by the other girl in the film)…..inside the mind of man(played by amitabh). indeed…reason and passion are the two wives every single person has…
reason and passion are sautans!
the last scene of the movie…absolute class…..finally the other wife of amitabh comes crying 2 nutan and nutan accepts her…..the implication being…..a man can live happily only when the fight between reason and passion is resolved…and the reason so to say…takes passion in its shelter.
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 2:53 AM
the reason forgives the follies of passion and teaches it how to go about its ways
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 5:27 AM
“wow! saudagar is my favourite film too.the timeless fable …of dramatic conflict between reason(played by nutan)…and passion(played by the other girl in the film)…..inside the mind of man(played by amitabh). indeed…reason and passion are the two wives every single person has…
reason and passion are sautans!
the last scene of the movie…absolute class…..finally the other wife of amitabh comes crying 2 nutan and nutan accepts her…..the implication being…..a man can live happily only when the fight between reason and passion is resolved…and the reason so to say…takes passion in its shelter.”
I was in a minority anjali
Have not seen this film and was least interested
But these lines, anjali, may make me watch it-
Hmm..u are brain washing me 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 8:15 AM
The song is for LS since she missed watching the beginning.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 12:57 PM
@ Oldgold. Thanks. Finally something we can agree on!
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM
🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:25 AM
@alex adams its a malayalam movie which released this weekens
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:28 AM
Thanx Varun ashok- so I can’t see it …
Btw aamir announces Satyamev jayate season 2!!!
http://www.indiatimes.com/tv/aamir-announces-satyamev-jayate-season-2_-30094.html
Any ideas of today’s topic anyone?
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:33 AM
“waajib(proper) hai dil ke saath rahe paasbaan e akl(the guard called mind)
lekin kabhi kabhi usse tanha bhi chorr de”
Wow what poetry: anjali ….
Btw have an inkling u maybe an Austen fan- m I rite?
For u and other austen fans like Oldgold…
A tribute to Austen -enjoy
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 3:37 PM
well i dont like austen or for that matter any female writer alive or dead.i have observed,if a woman has an intellect and the ability to express herself…she immediately becomes a feminist.in the writings of all celebrated female writers one sees an undercurrent of feminism running…..which pisses me off kinda.
i m a big hater of feminism.
women r different from men…i dont like the idea of competing with men.
to give an example……all through history we have seen that all the political scientists were males….be it machiavelli in the west or chanakya in the east(to name a few)……the politics and the political institutions these men envisioned and created are masculine.now men r violent and possessive…that is why there have been so many wars in the political history of mankind…the political institutions created by these male political scientists seems to have endorsed those masculine characteristics.be it communism,autocracy or democracy…all have led to war…..all have been tainted by the masculinity.
with the advent of the 20th century and the talk of political liberation of the female and women emancipation by the vociferous feminists…voting and a host of other civil rights were given to the females.they were made a stakeholder in these political institutions….but the political institutions itself were created by males and they remained masculine in essence and character.so liberated women were forced…politically…. to become male copycats and participate in a system whose semantics are essentially masculine.that has happened because of the feminists who want women to become the imitators of men,a kind of second class males…which is unfortunate.ideally
women should create their own political systems and should not inherit those created by males of the past.but no feminist ever talks about that because feminists r those women who r essentially afraid of their own womanhood…..who want to be like men…compete with men but cannot accept that they r naturally different from men and nature has ordained a separate role for women….vis a vis men.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 3:49 PM
“well i dont like austen or for that matter any female writer alive or dead.i have observed,if a woman has an intellect and the ability to express herself…she immediately becomes a feminist.in the writings of all celebrated female writers one sees an undercurrent of feminism running…..which pisses me off kinda.i m a big hater of feminism.
women r different from men…i dont like the idea of competing with men.”
Chinta ta Chita Chita
Anjali: wanna personally pat your back for that….lol
Btw since u are not a feminist and sound cool and sensible
Reminds me of-
Question: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
Answer: Two.
One to exclaim that the light-bulb has violated the socket, and the other to secretly wish that she was the socket.
Disclaimer: the above was just a joke to be taken in the spirit 😉
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 3:56 PM
hehe..i dont know about feminists but satyam is gonna take offence lol
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:03 PM
Ha: Don’t worry about Satyam- he is my mate and loves me unconditionally-
Ps:not in the ‘dostana’ way -hopefully (& as far as I know)
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:33 PM
I don’t take offense (!) but quite bluntly I reject the notion that every female writer is a feminist. And in fact note the danger in your position — it could be that a strong female voice for you is almost definitionally susceptible to a feminist charge. What kind of female writer would you accept who would not be a ‘feminist’?
And here I cannot resist a joke — no wonder you’re a fan of Salman!
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:40 PM
Don’t think anjali meant that every female writer is a feminist!
One shouldn’t twist her comment lol
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:47 PM
and you shouldn’t cynically defend every ‘female’ writer here either! They can do just fine without the ‘assist’!
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Haha
The ‘assistance’ is because of my own selfish interest ..
There’s a slight change/addition in the cast of my cocktail spoof..
Anjali joins the cast ( to Oldgold ) 🙂
Ps :That’s the advantage of being the director/actor/etc …one can make changes at any time …
Now don’t be a spoilsport hohoho
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:53 PM
And i will let anjali and Oldgold to decide which role they want to play -don’t wanna get beaten up 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:01 PM
“so liberated women were forced…politically…. to become male copycats and participate in a system whose semantics are essentially masculine.that has happened because of the feminists who want women to become the imitators of men,a kind of second class males…which is unfortunate.”
Wow- cant disagree with anything ….ESP the way u put it..
Brillianto…superb
Ps: btw would like your views on a mere mortal movie called ‘cocktail’
Anjali: Know u may not like either deepika or Diana but if forced to choose one- who will u prefer (just as a viewer)..
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:09 PM
One another BIG problem is that everytime a woman writes and may bring up some aspect of society RE: women – they are branded as feminists.
What is your definition of a feminist BTW?
There are a whole lot of Austenites who’ll argue down this theory that she was a feminist.
Give me one example where you think she shows her feminism in any writing of hers.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:19 PM
Hmmm
Good point and a worthy question by Oldgold as well…
I will hide behind anjali and let her answer this one 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:29 PM
Austen may be considered a great writer but imo her writings were plain boring. The men in her novels always played second fiddle to women and were almost sissified. in short, i consider Austen vastly inferior to Indian writers like Chandradhar Sharma Guleri or even Mannu Bhandari
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:38 PM
“The men in her novels always played second fiddle to women and were almost sissified.”
The first part of the ‘problem’ you have is less Austen’s and more yours!
The second part is in a way the point of those books. That men from the intimate ‘indoors’ perspectives of a woman’s vantage point appeared as such!
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM
That’s a different point altogether.
It’s OK if one doesn’t like her writing.
I find her writing the best I have ever come across – all because of the style of writing. Even on the 10th reading of her books you’ll discover a new aspect.
The layers in her writings are innumerable.
It’s very important to not read her books superficially.
>The men in her novels always played second fiddle to women and were almost sissified.
Again, you have to know the TIMES before forming an opinion.
Jane Austen herself said;
That she writes from experience and only what she knows about. The only place they mixed with men was at assembly dances.
She wrote from what she saw of the life in the small communities.
She described her writings (in one of her letters) as;
“…little bit (two Inches wide) of Ivory on which I work with so fine a Brush, as produces little effect after much labour?”
Anyway, why consider a writing inferior because it doesn’t give importance to men? Sissies, in what way?
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:03 PM
…and you should compare her with authors of her own time…. if you’re inclined to compare (which is silly, I think).
The times have a great influence, you know.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Good point Oldgold -Agree that the ‘time one is in’ should always be part of the equation …to get the correct perspective
Whether femininit or not is debatable, but the gender dynamics and the ‘differences’ in realities never missed her or her writings -sometimes even underlined…
For eg-“One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other” -this is a ‘neutral’ statement of hers ..
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:19 PM
Thanx for the lovely comments on Austen by anjali, Oldgold, Satyam… Think the Austen tribute I posted above followed by the quality discussion may well deserve a separate thread ..
Btw talkin of austens ‘feminism’ or lack of it -(though I’m not an expert )
And before I get hit by bricks
This is a line from Austens works herself—(not mine)
Found it ROFL
“A lady’s imagination is very rapid; it jumps from admiration to love, from love to matrimony in a moment.”
Disclaimer : if someone has issues with the above statement , plz attack miss Jane Austen not me 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:22 PM
I may have misunderstood you, but I think you mean the two halves to be that of men and women.
Do you REALLY think that she meant the two halves to be that of men and women?
Do you even know the context in which she wrote this?
It’s a profound statement which can be applied to just about anything, not just pleasure – ask the Americans who’ll be voting in almost two halves 😉
In the book she really meant ‘the enjoyment’. There it even involves all men – her father, their neighbour Mr Knightley, and her nepphew.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:26 PM
How does that sentence from her book Pride and Prejudice make her a feminist? It’s a statement. She isn’t even speaking against it.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:29 PM
Oldgold : didn’t put those as examples of austens ‘feminism” or lack of it but some random stray examples of her style and her mention of some gender dynamics
About the rest, am happy to be your ‘student’ on Austen to learn more 😉
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:42 PM
Then you should have quoted something like;
“Donwell was famous for its strawberry-beds, which seemed a plea for the invitation: but no plea was necessary; cabbage-beds would have been enough to tempt the lady, who only wanted to be going somewhere.”
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM
Haha thanx Oldgold- ya that’s a better one , it seems
Though I get the drift, can u plz elaborate what I means in simpler ‘English’ lol
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:53 PM
OK, here’s a simpler one;
“Mr. Knightley seemed to be trying not to smile; and succeeded without difficulty, upon Mrs. Elton’s beginning to talk to him. “
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:59 PM
Yo Oldgold -pat on the back lol
How about -“I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal.” 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 6:08 PM
Btw another Austen quote:
“Dress is at all times a frivolous distinction, and excessive solicitude about it often destroys its own aim.”
Ps: curious about this Oldgold lol
Ps2:Anjali: where hav u run away…already rehearsing for the role lol? Uve left me alone amongst austen experts 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 6:09 PM
Haha, wow Alex. From where are you getting these quotes. 😀
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM
Haha Oldgold I’m a quick learner,…
I’m learning from you n anjali …. 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 6:07 PM
@oldgold One another BIG problem is that everytime a woman writes and may bring up some aspect of society RE: women – they are branded as feminists.
i agree completely,infact this is also my chief grouse.but we must understand why it happens?it happens because the majority of women writers are in fact feminists…that is the only reason why even those who r not….. get clubbed with them as one…which is unfortunate….and this creates a separate brand of literature….feminist literature…like there r dalit literature…gay literature,etc.majority of women subconsciously think of their life and place in this world vis a vis that of men….the next logical step from this is…..they think of their life in terms of rebellion against the EVIL of patriarchy.they define things and values in society in terms of patriarchy.the effect is….as someone said…if u fight with a monster too long u will end up becoming a monster.that is why feminists become imitators of men….if u come across a hardcore feminist(as i have)…they will appear and sound more masculine than their female counterparts.all this happens becoz of this fight…this rebellion against the patriarchy.this fight makes women clamour for equality of status…but how can yu become equal?…..u r unhappy with what u r…u feel u have been suppressed and exploited by the male hegemony…now u want equality…but how to become the equal of men?u cant become equal by remaining the way yu r(coz the way u r appears as wrong…its made u the inferior sex)…so let us imitate the ways of the superior.that is what the mind concludes…and the result is that women invariably become male copycats.women as a sex r losing their jewel of femininty becoz of this fight.women a hundred years back were more femalish than these modern women….its a perversion. women r not given the freedom and leisure to bloom their womanhood and its different aspects.everything becomes a fight against the dominant male narrative for them…that is my definition of what feminism is….its a deformity of mind…a disease.
No…men and women r not equal….they r different.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 6:14 PM
I agree with your definition, but Jane Austen NEVER tried any of these things.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 6:17 PM
Wow
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 6:35 PM
“leisure to bloom….No…men and women r not equal….they r different.”
Wonderful points anjali
Are u into writing or something creative anjali ?
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 6:44 PM
Great point Anjali. BTw i am missing our own champion of feminism (kidding) Ami here- i am certain she would have come up with some cracker of a comment (perhaps abt Manic Pixie Dream Girl 🙂 ). But anywhay she does have a ceratin different class in her comments though Anjali is ably filling in for her
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM
Anjali : u write v well and your thoughts are well articulated and original in content. Also u r not ‘filling in’ for anybody …
Btw I’m sure u are aware that my jokes are in good faith, and not intended for any offence -cheers n gud nite 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:12 PM
thnx alex….i m not related to any creative field at all.i am a commerce student..sitting for CA exams…banal!
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:21 PM
Believe me -you (your views) are anything but banal-keep it up
🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:25 PM
I agree with this;
“so liberated women were forced…politically…. to become male copycats and participate in a system whose semantics are essentially masculine.that has happened because of the feminists who want women to become the imitators of men,a kind of second class males…which is unfortunate.”
And THIS Jane Austen NEVER propogated at all.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 4:34 PM
agreed..
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:12 PM
Oldgold, actually now when u have mentioned abt the ‘times’, i do get ur point a bit. Btw i was never contesting the fact the she is a great writer (she obviously is), it is just that i don’t find any kind of excitement in her writings (i mean it seems bland to me) apart from her portrayal of men which i don’t agree to.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:18 PM
Here I am in agreement with you. Though I could critically defend her in very many ways her writings don’t do anything for me at a personal level.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Well, I frankly find Austen a wonderful writer irrespective of her gender etc!
Her use of irony and a realistic touch (compared to the era) in the passages Ive read border on exquisite british writing..
It depends on what one means by “didn’t do anything to me!”by
What one expected to be done to 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:33 PM
Satyams comments above of ‘didn’t do anything to me’ reminds me of a buddy who loved some female writer…his favourite bedtime reading…
He ACTUALLY felt that she ‘came out of the book’ !! ( though he was aware it was an illusion ie he wasnt mad)
before he slept and …. Him to sleep ROFL
That was just btw and I’m sure Satyam doesn’t have such weird expectations 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:34 PM
I’m not even fighting for her books to be liked. It’s OK if one doesn’t like them.
Not only the times BUT also her age has to be considered. She was very young when she wrote her first three novels, though they were published later.
Well, satyam and you are lucky to find her novels boring.
Ardent readers like me will forever remain unfulfilled with only SIX novels to read and re read. 😦
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:51 PM
a recent work on her that is worthwhile:
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:52 PM
didn’t say I found her ‘boring’.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:44 PM
To understand the ‘times’ she wrote in (as Oldgold pointed out correctly ) if my info is correct, she wrote mostly anonymously (or had to !)
Till now there’s no conclusive photo of Austen..
The reception at that time of her works was somewhat ‘moralistic’ although her writing itself tried to steer away from it-maybe Oldgold can confirm ….
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 5:59 PM
Satyam, are you suggesting that book for me 😉
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 6:12 PM
No..! I just like this author a lot.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 6:19 PM
and i must confess jane austen is not a feminist writer..on that score oldgold is correct.but her writings do display strands of feminism..its inevitable in a way.
maybe i used austen as a prop to lambast feminists in general
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 6:22 PM
Satyam, I don’t wish to give any impression of anti americanism, but I’m sorry to say the american critics or writers who go about explaining and offering a critique of classics are what I detest. They have no sense or feeling of the past and tend to judge, interpret with their hearts and minds strongly fixed in NOW.
Look at the picture on the cover of the book! Grrrrr!!!
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:49 PM
That picture is selected by publishing houses not the writers (incidentally I quite like that cover.. the image matches Austen’s tone, I’d argue it’s a perfect reference to what some of the current discussion has been about!).
What American critics did you have in mind by the way? Not I suppose the ones who’ve had the most lofty reputations in the Anglo-American world (and often in the entire West) over the last 50-60 years!
It’s just unhelpful to keep thinking in nationalistic terms. Sometimes there are cultural constellations that coincide with national borders (though more precisely with certain universities) but in any case the US has more or less dominated critical theory for very long.
Incidentally here’s another worthwhile ‘general’ book:
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:01 AM
BTW, where has Tony disappeared? And i guess Ami is still being kept occupied by her nephews.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:14 AM
Ha -Tony has been forcibly married off by his parents to prevent his mischievous activities -he is now looking after his kids nappies 🙂
As for Amy : those ‘nephews’ were actually her own kids-she was kidding all along haha
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 9:19 AM
Revisited Wasseypur again…can’t get enough of this film…and more so the part 2 trailer !
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM
Do write a piece on it Shubh…what worked for you in the movie? I am sitting on fence for the cinematorgrapghy, the narration, some characters…
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Uday Chopra to remake ‘Bunty Aur Babli’ for global audience
Nandini Raghavendra, ET Bureau Jun 29, 2012
MUMBAI: Bunty and Babli, the teenaged con artists of the 2005 Bollywood hit Bunty Aur Babli are headed to Hollywood, with filmmaker Uday Chopra planning to remake the film in Hollywood for a global audience with a re-written script.
Chopra, the youngest son of the This will be the first time an intellectual property of a Bollywood film would be extended to Hollywood and be made into a global film after re-purposing the script. While another successful Bollywood producer, Vidhu Vinod Chopra, has sold the rights of his hugely popular Munnabhai films to Hollywood studios, he will not be remaking the films himself. He has, however, retained the right to clear the re-purposed script.
If this model becomes successful, it could open the floodgates for Chopra who has a bouquet of IPRs of Yash Raj films, right from his father Yash Chopra’s classics such as Kabhie, Kabhie, Kaala Patthar, Silsila, Chandni to Mashaal, Dil Toh Pagal Hai and Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge to several modern day hits that include films made by his brothers and other directors under the Yash Raj banners, like Chak De India, Dhoom and Band Baaja, Baaraat.
YRF today operates in several verticals of the entertainment space-from film production, studios, digital space, music records and film distribution. Film industry sources, who did not want to be named, pegged YRF’s turnover of around Rs 200 crore-Rs 250 crore, depending on the year’s slate of films, as they form the largest chunk of the revenue flow. This year, since they have still not had a big film, the figure seems lower, next year with three big films–Salaman Khan’s Ek Tha Tiger, SRK and Yash Chopra’s next as well as Aamir Khan in Dhoom3, YRF’s turnver could be much higher.
Filmed entertainment in India is expected to sustain the growth momentum witnessed in 2011 according to the KPMG Ficci Frames report of 2012 and the Indian film industry is projected to grow at a CAGR of 10.1% to touch Rs 15,000 crore in 2016.
Many Indian filmmakers have grown in size over the past few years and are now becoming ambitious enough to enter Hollywood. Apart from Chopra, a few privately held companies in production as well as post-production have launched themselves in the US, while big companies have forged joint ventures like Reliance Entertainment has with Steven Spielberg.
Chopra says he has much to gain because of the low cost model he can employ in the business. His idea right now is to make three films a year with an equity investment of $5-7 million (Rs 28 crore-Rs 39 crore, at Rs 56 to a $) in each project. “A small amount goes a long way in the US. It is all so structured and pre-sales can be encashed at banks to get you money. With $4-5 million, you can make a $25 million movie, if you got a good agent and a good script,” he says.
He has employed a bunch of writers in Beverly Hills, who will re-purpose the script to suit Hollywood sensibilities. If he were to employ Writers Guild of America scriptwriters for a new script, he would have to shell out at least $70,000-$80,000 on each script. Re-purposing of course can come at a considerably lower cost, Chopra says.
renowned Bollywood producer-director Yash Chopra, has recently launched his family’s film company Yash Raj Films in the US, with plans to produce Hollywood movies. He has already aligned himself as producer with two projects-Peter Glanz’sThe Longest Weekand Olivier Dahan’sGrace of Monaco. But he says he has also begun work on a Hollywood version of Bunty.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-06-29/news/32472827_1_yash-raj-films-global-film-bollywood-film
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Foul-mouthed “Ted” takes movie box office crown
(Reuters) – Adult comedy “Ted,” starring a foul-mouthed teddy bear who comes to life for its owner, grabbed the No. 1 spot on movie box office charts in the United States and Canada with $54.1 million, distributor Universal Pictures said on Sunday.
“Ted,” directed by “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane and starring Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis, beat three other new movies released in domestic theaters over the weekend ahead of the upcoming July 4th holiday in the United States, according to studio estimates compiled by Reuters.
Male stripper movie “Magic Mike,” starring Channing Tatum and Matthew McConaughey, pulled in $39.2 million to notch second place in this weekend’s box office race.
Last week’s No. 1 film, Disney’s animated fairy tale “Brave” about a strong-headed Scottish princess, dropped to third place with $34 million in domestic theaters.
“Ted” was released by Universal Pictures, a unit of Comcast Corp. Time Warner Inc unit Warner Bros released “Magic Mike” and The Walt Disney Co’s movie studio division distributed “Brave.”
(Reporting by Piya Sinha-Roy and Lisa Richwine; Editing by Bob Tourtellotte and Vicki Allen)
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/entertainment-us-boxoffice-idINBRE8600CK20120701
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Saw ‘Ted’ last night. not that great. some of the jokes fall flat(and some went way over my head). although i can see why it has opened number 1…mostly because of the curiosity factor…also because the movie covers the ‘male-bonding'(or in this case, stuffed animal and male bonding) and also surprisingly, a strong romantic angle.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 12:46 PM
Prometheus will probably end up in the 130m range. Doubt it can be profitable with that number. Had enough of an audience but it didn’t sustain well enough for the big numbers. Anything less than 200m is underwhelming for this kind of project.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 1:12 PM
if you take into worldwide number…the total comes to 272 mill and a production budget of $130 mill according to box office mojo. i agree its underwhelming but i think overall it seems to be a small profitable film.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 1:18 PM
it will probably be profitable everything included (DVD sales and so on) but one can’t just set the worldwide total against the US production costs without also factoring in global distribution costs. so actually even on being ultimately profitable I’m not sure. According to some earlier estimates it needed 300m in the US to be truly profitable (do you know that Avatar needed to be one of the biggest grossers of all time to be profitable?!). There are all kinds of ‘ancillary’ costs as they call them in Hollywood. The worldwide 272m number is not that high either.
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 1:19 PM
Satyam, the thing with Prometheus was that it avoided the pay-off (even though the climax was a bit of a let-down) and was not ur typical big budget extravaganza. the last film in the similar vein was Super 8 which i loved but that also was not a blockbuster- Super 8 reminded me of Spielberg’s sci-fi films- films which depend on their storytelling to thrill u(and not just sfx)- but i guess i am one of the few who liked it (infact found it better than more acclaimed stuff like District 9).
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM
No, the production cost does not include P&P (promotion and print distribution) which for this type of HW movies is usually 50% to 100% of cost. It will be lucky to break even on total cost from theatrical run but will make money from other revenue streams.
See the NYT article in this thread – How Does the Film Industry Actually Make Money?
“I’ve been trying to come to terms with two seemingly irreconcilable facts. First, “Men in Black 3” has made more than $550 million worldwide. Second, while a representative from the parent company of Columbia Pictures told me that the movie is now “in the win column,” it seemed until recently as if Columbia might actually lose money on it. How could that be? It’s not so complicated. Its production costs were close to $250 million; worldwide marketing most likely added at least that much; and a big chunk of the ticket sales go to theaters and distributors…
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:29 PM
Rule of Thumb for HW movies goes something like this:
1. Worldwide Gross < 2 * Budget = Flop
2. Worldwide Gross = 2 * Budget = Average
3. Worldwide Gross = 3 * Budget = Hit+
Now Just like BW, its highly desirable that the movie does well domestically(US Market) for perception purposes( ie at-least recoups the absolute Budget number Domestically).Also HW movies can get as much as 50-55% share domestically vs 40% for overseas gross.
Thus Above holds true most of the time, unless Domestic Gross is highly disproportionate (low or high, leading to similar perception).
With the Overseas Market blooming every year, it provides a good buffer esp for big effects heavy movies….
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Doga and Satyam Bhai, thanks for the insights.
@ Tyler thanks for the informative article!
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 7:30 PM
Prometheus thus is a Average….
LikeLike
July 1, 2012 at 10:48 PM
watched amazing spiderman – lot of fun as expected. We have a better spiderman (in acting dept) now and the chemistry betn. the lead pair is superb – there was nothing amazing although here – but totally paisa-vasool and a very good reboot of the franchisee.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 1:29 AM
Gangs Of Wasseypur Second Weekend Business
Monday 2nd July 2012 10.00 IST
Boxofficeindia.Com Trade Network
Gangs Of Wasseypur was steady in its second weekend but business was low. The film grossed around 4-4.25 crore nett and the drop is a 55-60% from last week which is pretty good but the film is not really going anywhere in the long term as appreciation is limited to select areas in the metros.
The last few week’s have seen the release of Shanghai, Ferrari Ki Sawaari and Gangs Of Wasseypur which all have similar costs in terms of production budget. The business of the films is also in a similar range, Ferrari Ki Sawaari will emerge the best out of the lot with 30 crore nett business, Shanghai will do around 24 crore nett business and Gangs Of Wasseypur will finish somewhere in between those two films.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 1:29 AM
LOL, not quite sure what they have against GoW!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:43 AM
Assuming GOW 2 does similar business to GOW 1, we are looking at overall collections of 50 crore + just from India !! To add to that, would be the collections from overseas phase-wise release.
The film is a winner in the long run, period !
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:28 AM
distributors in india and overseas are not same and if movie is re-released part 2 in 1000 print and again another cost of rough 10 cr comes into play much like 1st part not there in budget
its not a winner but neither a loser but in large context decent
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:02 AM
what is visible is the tone and commentry right before the number arrived and to be frank they tried to kill all 3 movie
as a genre ferrari can’t be compared to other two(it has feel good factor which other two don’t have) and also audiences for gow is limited but ya such sort of movies should have limited release (1000 screen for gow or 1500 for shanghai is just to much)
how will you bring audiences when in india in the past none of the movies on dark themes have been huge
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:46 AM
http://www.addatoday.com/2012/07/gangs-of-wasseypur-second-weekend.html
Gangs of Wasseypur Second Weekend Collection 4.1 cr nett. Total – 21.5 cr nett.
Gangs of Wasseypur has collected around 4.1 crore nett all India in its second weekend. GOW total collection now stands at 21.5 crore nett all India after 10 days. GOW has been steady on lower through the first week and it remain same for the second weekend also. GOW is made on very limited budget and will make profits for the makers. GOW will collect little more in coming days, but how much it is to be seen.
Collection Breakup –
1st Week – 17.4 cr nett.
2nd Weekend – 4.1 cr nett.
Total – 21.5 cr nett.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:13 AM
and ya both the movies showed some potential to be accepted as mainstream which itself is laudable(especially gow with no mainstream commercial actor )
both shanghai and gow are the biggest grosser of dibakar and anurag respectively but a ferrari is not of vidhu vinod chopra’s production and ya i doubt their production cost are similar to
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:03 AM
“someone as successful as him can go nuts for something as banal as a girl……(aishwarya in the case of salman)…kinda makes him cute to me.
he used to spy on her….go to her home drunk and create tamasha…..flaunt his(non existent)..underworld connection ….in short become a joke …all for the sake of a girl….delicious!very old schoolish”
So- you think that abusive, controlling, obsessive men are attractive- and this is perfectly healthy- and it is only the women who desire equality and non-abusive relationships who are deformed, perverted and diseased!
“women as a sex r losing their jewel of femininty becoz of this fight.women a hundred years back were more femalish than these modern women”
As for modern women being less feminine- it is because the traditional definition of feminity is problematic! Why would an intelligent, liberated woman want to confirm to a brand of heteronormativeness that requires her to be demure, self-sacrificing and without any ambition, opinions, freedom or needs?
And although the women of today might not posess the feminity of the olden days- it’s not like the men today have much of the traditional gentlemanliness of yore either! Men might desire women with Victorian ideals of feminity- but how many of them follow the corresponding code of conduct for men- never swearing or making sexual remarks in female company, always opening the door and pulling out chairs for women, chivalrously protecting women at every instance, being the sole breadwinner of the house etc? Men have also become more ‘feminine’ over time- for example plenty of men today play an active part in taking care of their children, cooking etc- are you going to say that all men who are hands-on fathers or enjoy coooking or whose female partners contrubte equally to the finances of the household are also deformed?
The definitions of feminity and masculinity are not static and set in stone- they must evolve with time- science shows that the very mintue gender differences present in the brains of male and female children are exponentially amplified thanks to consistent social conditioning- there is nothing natural about rigid, traditional ideas of gender.
Do you really believe that the female perspective (in literature, cinema etc) is invalid and that patriarchy is the natural, functional way of things? Because then I can only feel sorry for you.
And I think it is particularly ironic that you slate all female writers for being feminist and not feminine because your own writing displays both these traits! For instance- some of the ideas expressed here could be interpreted as ‘feminist’ and your opinionated tone and abusive language is not exactly within the boundaries of traditional feminity!
“paaro is an escape from this version of reality….an escape into the dream world of an ideal beauty…….dream world of true love and all that nonsense which is simply not possible.the selfish dev cannot fool himself and others by talking about paaro….by talking about an ideal state of genuine love.he has and by implication all men have …long ago murdered that innocence…and made paaro into a chanda becoz of their perverted,selfish nature.”
“he realizes…fuck paaro…and fuck all this dramabaazi abourt my love for paaro.my whole life is at stake here…wat the fuck am i doing?am i bonkers”
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 9:31 AM
@ ami “some of the ideas expressed here could be interpreted as ‘feminist’ and your opinionated tone and abusive language is not exactly within the boundaries of traditional femininity!”
it is sad but u have not understood what i mean by femininity.village rustic women r highly opinionated and their talk is full of sexually provocative proverbs and innuendoes,they even work alongside their menfolk in the fields……but that does not make them any less feminine. ur conception that femininity is something victorian and polite is very superficial and certainly not indian.the village women folk maybe wild or tame..that is something which depends on the woman’s personal idiosyncracy and predilection and has no connection with whether she is being feminine or not.but even these village women do not interfere with their menfolks when there is a panchayat and an important political decision is taken by the menfolks….THEY LET THE MEN PLAY THEIR OWN GAMES!….she may influence the decision of the panchayat from behind the scenes …by persuading their men in the bedroom….in an indirect way….. they maybe the real controllers,but they do not wantonly intrude into the domain of males.they dont demand EQUAL RIGHTS.
now here we come to a very subtle and fundamental aspect of relations between a man and a woman.this relation is essentially playful(meaning both the party lets the other play their own games….play their separate roles…it’s like a role play….the moment u grow up from this role play the whole magic disappears…. they let each other be a hero or a heroine in their own domains and do not clamour for equality of status)……because these relations r based on trust and trust is not logical.trust is a blind force….it runs deeper than the superficial logic of equality of rights.a black may clamour for equality of rights vis a vis a white…a gay may clamour for equality of rights visa vis a non gay…becoz they dont have a relationship based on trust……but when a woman starts piping about equality….this breaks the charade of trust.it is very much like introducing bull in the china shop.introducing notions of laws and rights within the bedroom.it hampers both…..the delusion of masculinity and that of femininity.a man woman relationship is too subtle and personal to be framed in accordance with the vulgar and superficial discourse of political equality.what happens is that…women become less feminine and men become less masculine and the symbiotic subtle relationship …..which subsisted between them(almost subconsciously)…gets hampered.and this is what is happening in the name of modernity.the sexes r losing their polarity….and thus the attraction.their relations r becoming more n more banal and tame and superficial.and thus it becomes easy to opt out of marriage…as if marriage is a contract one can opt out of. Humans r not logical…..we have playful,ridiculous ,mythic urges…we have emotions…if I tell u not to think about monkey…I forbid u to think about monkey…immediately u will think about monkey.mind is not logical…its willful and strange…it wants to be a slave…it wants be a master……. its urges cannot be satisfied by the logical talk of equal rights alone…especially in the case of a man woman relationship which is so personal.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 9:56 AM
“the sexes r losing their polarity….and thus the attraction.their relations r becoming more n more banal and tame and superficial.and thus it becomes easy to opt out of marriage…as if marriage is a contract one can opt out of. ”
It’s just the other way around IMO! Marraige is not natural in the least- it is an institution human beings created- and puts all kinds of hypocritical regulations on morality and gender roles which cause problems in human relationships- I’m not saying that marraiges cannot be functional- but they are certainly far removed from the primal hormonal urges that cause men and women to be tattracted to each other and instead more associated with our logical, ‘civilized’ side. Marraige is not about primal attraction, sex and primitive ideas of gender- it is about regulating morality, imposing monogamy, providing security and social structure etc- nothing natural or instinctive about it at all!
“.but why do u think these same women wear high heels(a high heel makes u passive…u cannot run fast….the more passive u become….the less functional u become….the more decorative…the more of an object u become)…why do u think women wear lipsticks?”
Why do men wear nice clothes and expensive cologne? A formal suit and dress shoes is not the most conducive outfit for physical exertion! You are confusing the desire to be sexually desirable with the desire to be dominated.
There is absolutely no scientific basis for your claims that women need to be dominated and that if they stop being submissive then primal attraction will sieze- infact it’s the other way around- Europe which is the most gender-empowered continent is also the least sexually repressed- while countries like India which are the most patrairchal societies are the ones where the traditional people have the worst sex lives! Traditional ideas of sexuality deal with repressing female sexual desire and needs and require women to be sexually passive. Read this:
“I found out that the man did not even know where the vaginal opening was. He would simply lie on top of his wife and ejaculate between her thighs. They believed that was intercourse and were hoping to get a child. I had to tell him how to have sex.
…‘Many patients, even the educated ones, since they are not taught the right vocabulary in school or college, use all sorts of colloquial, or wrong words, or slang to explain their problem. One woman, who was the head of the department of economics in a college, came to me because she had pain in the vagina during intercourse. She kept on referring to the vagina as “urinals”. For a long time I did not understand what she was saying.
‘At times, the words they use to describe a condition happen to be related to their profession. For example, one patient who was suffering from premature ejaculation kept on saying “Dispatch, dispatch.” When I asked him about his job, I found out that he was a postal dispatch clerk in a small railway station in Andhra Pradesh…”
http://www.firstpost.com/living/sex-in-the-city-meeting-indias-no-2-sexologist-322008.html
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Here is another study that shows that men who do more housework have better sex lives and happier marraiges-
http://www.positive-way.com/men,.htm
“Men who do more housework and child care have better sex lives and happier marriages than others according to noted marital researcher Dr. John Gottman .
Psychologists Claire Rabin and Pepper Schwartz have found when wives and husbands make what they both feel is a successful effort to divide chores fairly, both spouses benefit. Inequities in housework and childcare have profound consequences for the marital satisfaction of women, which in turn affects the quality of the marriage for the man as well.
Women feel more respected and loved by their husbands when they share in the housecleaning and child rearing. Many men are blind to the connection between how little housecleaning he does and how she feels about him. If a woman feels like a servant in the relationship that will affect the more intimate and fragile parts of the relationship. Being the sole person in a marriage to clean the toilet and scrub the floors is definitely not an aphrodisiac! When the woman feels more respected in the relationship, she in turn gives more to her mate and the relationship prospers. The result is a more successful, happier”
BTW- I think that your idea of village women being opinionated and sexually open is an extremely naive, misguided and romanticized notion- no offence but you actually need to interact in depth with women in the villages to know these things- my aunt has a microcredit finance organization where she works with hundreds of thousands of village women to financially empower them and help them start up businesses- and most village women in India (even in the relatively empowered South) have absolutely no capacity to think for themselves and perform even the most basic tasks like organizing into groups of 3 or 4- leave alone being opinionated and sexually frank! The socially conditioning and lack of literacy is so strong that it saps them of all individual intellectual capacity.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Ami you seem to have in-depth knowledge about sex life of people- all this was very informative…LOL-
On a more serious note, now after reading the latest comments of Anjali I completely agree with u- some of the stuff she is saying is completely baseless- Actually i believe she is too intelligent to say all this
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 11:30 AM
Ok Ami, let me bail Anjali out of this ‘spot’. She is telling us to focus on the large picture i.e. women are unnecessarily trying to be like men. They are poking their nose in the business which deals with men primarily…and then they end up becoming a laughing stock. I will tell something- it may give u a fair idea- some days back i was involved in a very intense debate with a friend over an indian cricketer VVS Laxman- suddenly a female friend of mine walked into the discussion and started giving her views on the topic- now there is no problem with this…but then she did not even know the basic facts about Laxman (she got his debut year wrong amongst other things)- the point here is that it was clear that she was trying to show-off. In the same way women sometimes indulge in things about which they have no idea (and even men do the same)
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:32 PM
“Are you saying that no woman should be ambitious and aspire for political/ financial/ business success because it makes her ‘masculine’?”- No Ami, i absolutely disagree to this. My mother herself is a working lady (doctor) and i want women to be equal participants not only in professional fields but also in decision making at every level- incidentally years back i had gone to a very famous NGO cum self sufficient village “Tarun Bharat Sangh” (Alwar, Rajasthan) where women were as active as men.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Ami, i absolutely agree with everything u r saying and am i all for gender equality and so on. But we also have to realise that the society has different criteria for judging men and women (fair or unfair it may be) and at times, one has to follow this. For example- i have a younger sister who is still not 18- now suppose i hear her uttering a ‘cuss word’, i will get deeply offended and will admonish her-now had this been my brother instead of sis, i still would have got offended but not as much.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 1:07 PM
“and at times, one has to follow this”
Why should one follow the double standards? I can understand if you are living in some village in the badlands and a Khap Panchayat will kill you if you step outside traditional gender boundaries- but when you have a reasonable amount of freedom and independance- then it’s a shame if a woman does not life her life the way she wants to out of fear of social disapproval.
And it starts with trivial things like not cussing/ not going out too late because people will think badly of a girl and it will ruin her reputation- but then as a woman grows the double-standards deepen and become more dangerous and restricitve to her freedom- the the point that some parents will force their own daughters to stay in the most horrific marraiges or let a rape go unreported fin order to preserve the girl’s reputation. Ofcourse I’m not accusing you of being capable of these things- but the point is that these seemingly innocous double standards lead to much more concerning miscarriages of justice and cultivate a social system where such practises are accpetable and widespread.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Marraige is not natural in the least- it is an institution human beings created- and puts all kinds of hypocritical regulations on morality and gender roles which cause problems in human relationships
. Marraige is not about primal attraction, sex and primitive ideas of gender- it is about regulating morality, imposing monogamy, providing security and social structure etc- nothing natural or instinctive about it at all!
U r wrong.marriage indeed is about putting hypocritical regulations of morality and gender roles.but what do these restrictions end up doing?they end up doing the opposite….they end up actually heightening the sexual need between opposite genders…they end up making the sexes more polar and attracted to eachother.whenever u repress something,the mind immediately starts hankering for the forbidden fruit.for example why did adam and eve ate the apple in the garden of paradise?there must have been many apples in that garden….but why the apple hanging from the tree of knowledge became so attractive?precisely because it was expressely forbidden.there is a law of psychology called the law of reverse effect.for example…suppose there is a 10 weed wide road and there is a big stone boulder lying on the side of the road.now u don’t know how to cycle and u have to cycle on that road.even if u had cycled with ur eyes blinded folded…the probability wud have been that u will hit the stone boulder 1 out of 10.but because u don’t know how to cycle and u have the fear of hitting the stone boulder lying on the side…the fear and forbidden element of the boulder will start hypnotizing and unconsciously attracting yu..and u will end up smashing ur cycle against that boulder.repression in any form ends up heightening the need for the forbidden.this is what marriage has done…this iswhat all the hypocritical notions of morality and gender roles have done…they have ended up making both male and female more sexually charged up….which is a jolly well thing! Animals r not as sexual ..as humans …they have their seasons when they copulate,but man is the only animal who is 24 into 7 into 365…ready for sex….because of the institutions called marriage…because of the imposition of monogamy…it has infact heightened the primal attraction and been like a catalyst to the sexual hormones.these gender roles…and sexual segregation…..which civilization has created r therefore necessary if mankind wants to maintain the intensity of sexual desire highly charged up.we should be thankful to these repressions.but if we fight against them …..then we run the risk of losing that polarity and we cannot go back into the animal state…we cant regress…..we can only deform ourselves…and become a polarity less gender neutral society..which we r actually becoming.so respect these gender roles…they actually do the opposite of what they purport or aim to do…they charge us up.that is why women should nt talk about liberation from the role society has mandated for them
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Like I said all evidence points to the contrary- lack of sexual repression leads to a healthy sex life while sexual repression and sex-based seggregation lead to sex-related shame, sexual frustration, sexual harassment and rape.
Equality within a marraige improves the quality of the marraige, patriarchy and rigid gender roles lead to all kinds of abuse and social evils like Sati, feoticide, dowry deaths etc. There is nothing civilized about abusive, oppresive relationships and social patterns that lead to parents killing their children and husbands brutalizing their wives- they are the best indicator of a society that is deformed and regressing!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 11:30 AM
75 percent of women above the age of 25 in philippines r divorced….and r single moms.this is ur modernity.this is the beauty of metrosexual…modern man who cooks.the relations between man and woman r in a mess…not only in phil…all over europe…in usa….children r born without a father.just like there is a thing called ecological balance…yu disturb it and the environmental adverse consequences follow…similarly there is a thing called marital balance…defined by demarcated gender roles……try to disturb it and the relations between sexes become a mess
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Anjali, without getting too much into the weeds I think there’s an essential structural flaw in your argument. You argue against all kinds of feminism and leaving aside whether one can agree with your positions or not you argue against this (feminism) by using very traditional ‘male’ and/or conservative positions. That liberating women destroys family life and children don’t have fathers and women get divorced and so on. The ‘balance’ and ‘demarcation’ you refer to is a very conservative, male-centric construct. I don’t quite see the connections you do between ‘healthy’ family life and feminism but even if I did accept your point for the moment I’d say it’s a price worth paying! Why? Because I am very suspicious of a social ordering which insists on becoming ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’ and so on only by keeping the woman fixed in a certain place and circumscribed by very traditional roles.
Incidentally your ecological balance analogy here is an interesting one but this too supports my claim inasmuch as this whole idea of balance even in nature is largely a myth. There is no such balance. As a certain thinker suggests catastrophe is the norm in nature. The Sahara was a green pastureland thousands of years ago, the Ice Ages were a disaster for many species, a truly apocalyptic event destroyed the dinosaurs who were once the ‘mammals’ of the earth, before this a strange underwater event (which is still being debated) wiped out 70-80% of all marine life. The examples could be multiplied but all this wasn’t happening because of human intervention. Which is not to say that we’re not wrecking the environment. But there is no ‘New Age’ balance even otherwise. Millions and millions of species have become extinct in the history of this planet, not because of humans. Again this doesn’t lessen our current responsibility by any means. But my point here is that your analogy works a different way — much as we as humans can convince ourselves the planet was paradise before we started destroying it similarly it is quite easy to place the strains and stresses of modernity, all those cross-currents that have caused great dislocation in traditional family life, at the doorstep of the woman. In other words ‘feminism’ is one symptom among many of modernity. It is not something ‘total’ on its own. In other words it’s not a question of wondering what would happen if women were less sexually liberated or if they did not have professional careers and so on. One might as well ask how things would be if we weren’t in the 20th or 21st centuries! Much as many factors cause that natural catastrophe similarly feminism isn’t responsible for much less set-in-stone family life. There are many historical and sociological currents already pointing in this direction.
To then locate feminism as the problem is to follow a very ‘male’ narrative and a certain age-old bias where women become the repositories of family honor and values and even a healthy nation (!) and the moment they step out of the house and/or assert themselves sexually everything disintegrates!
I am not arguing that there cannot be a critique of feminism(s) but it cannot come about by trying to put back in place a much more constraining if not repressive network of the past.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM
BTW Anjali, nice pic 🙂 . And i love the way u r debating against the other stalwart Ami. Ami has finally met her match..LOL
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Will catch up later-but caught snippets –
Anjali: u are hitting fours and sixers -masterclass 🙂
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:02 PM
50-84% of women in India are being abused in their marraiges! Better single and safe than married and battered. Millions of female babies are killed every year, several thousands of women are murdered for dowry. Millions of women are harassed and abused by sexually frustrated men (Due to sexual repression and seggregation) and their abusers go scot-free due to women fearing to report the crimes out of concern for their ‘honour’ and police officers blaming victims for provoking the men. Millions of women are denied basic literacy. Women and female infants are far more likely to die of malnutriton and lack of medical care than men. India is the fourth most dangerous country to be born a woman in and THE most dangerous country to be born a female infant in- and this is a result of your beloved patriarchy taken to extremes!
To pretend that the toll on women is not far, far greater in a patriarchy than in a more empowered society is absolutely fradulent- as fradulent as your utterly absrd statistic about divorce in Phillipinnes- since Philippines is one of the very few countries in the world that does not allow people to get divorced!
If a country has a very high rate of marital abuse and rape and a very low rate of divorce- it is not a matter of national pride but one of national shame- since women are too oppressed and socially conditioned to get out of abusive marraiges.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM
“Anjali: u are hitting fours and sixers -masterclass ”
Interesting to note that advocating absolute female submissiveness, abusive relationships and denying women political participation excites you so much
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:09 PM
BTW- children growing out without fathers is doubtlessly undesirable- but children growing up in an abusive household filled with inequality, fear, repression and pain is far worse. The family institution might need strengthening in certain socities- but this is because the emaphsis of the induvidual vs. societial needs to be corrected- where both men and women are taught not to place absolute value on the induvidual. It cannot be done by simply instructing women to bear all suffering and sacrifice infinitely in order to keep the family together- the burden of keeping the family intergrated must fall on the shoulders of both partners equally. Any family environment created by the tyranny of one partner and the enslavement of the other will only be a dysfunctional farce.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Ami, u r getting a bit heated up here, chill 🙂 . Alex was not taking abt Anjali’s comments per se (he himself said that he has not read them) but was praising her ‘feisty’ nature and the way she is holding her own in the debate
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM
Saurabh-
“She is telling us to focus on the large picture i.e. women are unnecessarily trying to be like men. They are poking their nose in the business which deals with men primarily”
Anali says that women should not be stakeholders in the political system of a society or occupy positions of power- instead they should only exert their influence in the bedroom using their sexuality. Are you saying that no woman should be ambitious and aspire for political/ financial/ business success because it makes her ‘masculine’?
As for women trying to be like men- it is an unfortunate constraint but by no means unnecessary- the problem is that most spheres are traditionaly heavily male-dominated and any woman displaying ‘female charecteristics’ is looked upon as ineffectual, weak, incapable etc. However this has changed greatly over the past few decades- as I said in an earlier comment- when the first wave of women entered the workplace in America and aspiried for positions of power they were forced to emulate men in order to be taken seriously. However as American society has evolved and women are being taken more and more seriously at the workplace- they are also growing more secure of their feminity and do not feel the pressure to act like men in order to be successful.
Ofcourse if you do agree with the logic that women should not even have these career aspirations in the first place since it makes them less sexually desirable- then I can’t really waste my time trying to convince you- but you come across as someone who is more sensible than that.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:20 PM
“Ami, u r getting a bit heated up here, chill”
I mean that comment in a lightly sarcastic manner- but I guess because it’s difficult to comprehend the tone of comments on the internet it comes across as harsher than I meant for it to.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:42 PM
BTW Saraubh- I also think that ‘power women’ becoming masculine is not at all applicable to the Indian scenario- while this might be true in Western countries- India has a legacy of powerful female mythological figures- not to mention the pedestal that the venerable ‘mother figure’ is placed on- and women do not need to make any pretences at masculinity in order to be taken seriously- unlike in Western societies where power and capability is associated with more masculine traits- and women are encouraged to imbibe these traits in order to be successful.
For example- Chanda Kochchar is currently the most powerful femae figure in the international banking industry- and when Forbes reported on her they included a rather condescending snippet about her choice of attire (saris)- since they were mystified by the idea of a power woman who chose to dress in traditionally feminine clothes. Even the female politicans in power gain public vote and approval by using titles such as ‘Amma’ and ‘Didi’- to evoke the reverence that the traditional Indian family structure bestows on the nurturing female presence in a family.
So the idea that female success needs to come at the cost of traditional notions of feminity is a completely false one- atleast as far as India is concerned. I think that this is true for several of the more conservative Asian/ Middle Eastern societies as well- look at women like the Prime Minister of Thailand, the Queen of Jordan etc- they are very powerful women but also very graceful and feminine. Compare this to a society like America where a woman like Sarah Palin comes in for far more criticism than her stupidity warrants simply because the idea of a more feminine woman aspiring for a position of power makes people uncomfortable.
Feminism is not about being gender neutral- It’s just the negative, limiting aspects of feminity and masculinity that need to rejected. Infact I think that forcing women to completely surpress their stereotypically feminine triats in order to be taken more seriously is just as limiting as forcing women to conform to some very regressive and unfair traditional ideal of feminity.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:16 AM
with the advent of the 20th century and the talk of political liberation of the female and women emancipation by the vociferous feminists…voting and a host of other civil rights were given to the females.they were made a stakeholder in these political institutions”
ROFL! So you now want to recede the female right to vote? Even some members of the Taliban might be fazed at your misogyny!
“….but the political institutions itself were created by males and they remained masculine in essence and character.so liberated women were forced…politically…. to become male copycats and participate in a system whose semantics are essentially masculine.that has happened because of the feminists who want women to become the imitators of men,a kind of second class males…which is unfortunate.”
It’s a gradual process- at first women need to imitate men in order to succeed in a male-dominated sphere where the popular belief is that women are inferior to men- and therefore any obviously female charecteristic is viewed as a sign of incapability- however as more and more women succeed in male dominated spheres- feminity becomes less of a burden and women feel more confident to be themselves and not act like men. This difference is pretty apparent when you consider the views of first-wave feminists (the predecessors) vs. third-wave feminists who are living in an environment that already has some ideas of gender equality.
There was a great article in Forbes recently about how now tat women in positions of power are more common and visible- most women at the workplace are less worried about acting like men because they are more secure that they will be accepted and respected even if they display stereotypically female traits.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 7:12 AM
Ami, u have made some great counter-arguements here (in the manner only u can). loved reading them. but if u don’t mind i will say this- don’t u think u could have been less harsh with ur comment especially when the other person is not making some frivolous arguements but actually putting forth some valid points. one does not need to ridicule someone else’s points to make his own.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 9:01 AM
“one does not need to ridicule someone else’s points to make his own.”
But calling feminists diseased, deformed and perverted is also ridiculing them- is it not? And feminism is hardly a frivolous arguement either.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 9:04 AM
BTW I do considermany of Anjali’s arguements to be frivolous to the extreme- when she says that she hates all female writers because they are feminists- and that seeking equality is a diseased perversion- that to me is not a valid point but a crazy, frivolous one.
And I say this especially because her earlier comments were extremely intelligent and perceptive- and I did appreciate them- so I know that she is not some stupid person making these points but a very smart woman making the most blanket and unfair generalizations.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 9:37 AM
woman has a pathological need to be dominated…..man has a pathological need to dominate. example….. A lot of feminists have a grouse that patriarchy portray women as OBJECTS of desire.but why do u think these same women wear high heels(a high heel makes u passive…u cannot run fast….the more passive u become….the less functional u become….the more decorative…the more of an object u become)…why do u think women wear lipsticks?biologically ..women have a need…a craving…to be objectified…to b viewed as an object of desire and this has its biological reasons.even on bed…..the very sexual act….by nature has been fashioned in a way in which the woman becomes the passive violated and the men become the active violater.woman needs to be dominated.but sadly with the modernity….we r losing the polarity of the sexes….in a thousand year or so we will become a world of gender neutrals…sex will lose its attraction and childbirth will happen by an injection at a lab.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 10:00 AM
I’ve replied to your points above- BTW sorry if my initial comments on this thread were overtly harsh- I was not attacking you but criticizing these specific views of yours- I can tell from your comments on Dev.D/ Gulaal that you are a very intelligent person and I’m not questioning that- it’s only your views on gender equations that I find very bizarre.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 10:14 AM
Wow anjali 😉
Busy but will catch later…
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:01 AM
http://thew14.com/2012/07/01/gangs-of-wasseypur-that-elusive-thing-called-consistency/
Gangs of Wasseypur: That elusive thing called consistency
f there is a landmark that divides Dhanbad in two parts, most would agree it is Gaya bridge, or as the locals like to call it – Gaya Pull. It is funny, how in north India, overhead bridges are mostly referred to as ‘pull’. Wasseypur sprawls beneath Gaya bridge. Geographically, Wasseypur is a level lower than the rest of Dhanbad. Many a times, while going to school, I would peer my neck outside the bus window to see Wasseypur’s landscape. I wanted to know more about its denizens, their occupations, and what happened to those kids who skittered at the end of the Gaya bridge playfully running beside a solitary bicycle tyre. Halfway into the movie, we see two such Wasseypur kids – cleaning toilets in train. Kashyap makes this scene powerful as he doesn’t dwell on the pathos. They are happy with the twenty rupees they have earned. Clearly, a prized amount.
The movie opens to a family watching Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu thi before they are assaulted by bullets. The year is 2004, and shortly after we are taken back to 1941. That right there, this vast spanning of the movie (from early 1940’s to late 1990’s) is Kashyap’s both boon and bane. Boon because it makes this movie ambitious, telling a story in all its richness can at times be commercially crippling, but Kashyap takes a much-needed leap of faith here. And bane because, this is a movie that takes the passage of time seriously, not like the movies of Bachchan during 1970s where 25 years would pass in just one scene – Bachchan would change form either while drinking water or while running from goons/cops during one of his escapades. Kashyap does not want to indulge in that pulpy metamorphosis. So, in order to give the passage of time some credence, there is a lot of setting up to do, before the main protagonists are introduced. And that interestingly, becomes a vital undoing of the movie. It’s not that the setting up itself is a problem, because it is required here. To tell a story this meaty, and to tell a vengeance saga rippling across generations effectively, you can’t eschew the genesis of character’s motivations. And I think the first 40 minutes of back-story (told in an interesting juxtaposition of voice over and vintage still images – lending it a part documentary feel) would work while watching the entire 5 hour 20 minute version of the movie, but eats a lot of time percentage wise, while just watching the first part. Also because, the back-story is just a summation of events that unfolds in a linear, sterile fashion, and ends up engulfing a lot of dramatic sheen.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:03 AM
Although I don’t concur with some of the views expressed, this is an extremely well analysed piece…the best I have read after Rangan’s.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:16 AM
ridiculously absurd and defensive for research part
as for detailing in small time the ladies don’t go around in strapless choli’s and what is the language of the landscape
nearby dhanbad is home to 70-80% of coal electricity in india and the detailing of the mafia which is left out was absurd
a trishul was shown in theatre in 1985
writer here was excited by scavengers AND USE OF WORD PAKHANA….one can go on and on
while the writer disses commercial cinema but forgets how much thing is commercialized
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Shahid and Katrina to star in Prabhu Deva’s next massy action film based on drug-trade titled “NAMAK”
http://www.sawfnews.com/Bollywood/69022.aspx
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Rowdy Rathore Week Four Territorial Breakdown
Monday 2nd July 2011 15.00 IST
Boxofficeindia.Com Trade Network
Rowdy Rathore collected 4.50 crore nett approx in week four. The four week distributor share is 71.50 crore approx. Below is the fourth week territorial breakdown of the film.
Mumbai Circuit – 1.52 crore
Delhi/UP – 83 lakhs
East Punjab – 36 lakhs
West Bengal – 8 lakhs
Bihar – 21 lakhs
CP Berar – 42 lakhs
CI – 27 lakhs
Rajasthan – 48 lakhs
Nizam/Andhra – 23 lakhs
Mysore – 11 lakhs
Others – 10 lakhs
TOTAL – 4.61 crore
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM
taran adarsh @taran_adarsh
#GOW Weekend 2 *actuals* Fri 1.08 cr, Sat 1.70 cr, Sun 1.92 cr. 10-day total: Rs 22 cr nett.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:10 PM
http://www.boxofficeindia.co.in/trade-trac-30th-june-2012/
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 12:58 PM
my comments r nt going
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Relax anjali : they will soon be going thru
Let’s take a short ‘break’ 🙂
Btw folks -since this is a GOW thread, the commercial break should also contain a GOW related item
Check out the calypso music here tinged with Bihari rappish elements -indicative of a legacy of mass migration of labour from Bihar to the Caribbean
What stuck me here is not the so called ‘double entrendes’ but the way a certain authenticity was maintained
Note the pronounciation by the singers -‘gaan’ instead of ‘gun’ et al
The music director actually took a trip to the Caribbean for authentic ‘chutney’ music-also some rare elaboration of certain innocent ‘gender dynamics’
In the meanwhile: lemme sort out anjalis ‘laptop’ 🙂
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM
@satyam just as u say that my criticism of feminism is male centric,by the same token I can say that ur criticism of the traditional constructs of patriarchy feminist centric.indeed it is the feminists who have made a trust based play of different gender roles between men and women…into one of antagonism and exploitation of one by the other.
Btw men don’t get pregnant,nature has done this inequity only to women.they r made to bring a family….in the words of simone de beavoir women r subservient to the species….coz they get pregnant and tied down with the family.so they will be in defiance of nature if they do not chose to accept their gender role.so the family responsibily is and must get pinned on women….not becoz society mandates so…but becoz nature itself has made her subservient to the species by getting her pregnant.
Regarding ur ecological example..indeep nature is in a state of catastrophe……but there is a difference between man made and natural catastrophes.the catastrophes in nature r deeply complementary….nature has an inner rhythm which balances negative out…but a man made catastrophe….like a third world war where all the nuclear bombs in the arsenals of nations r consumed may destroy this earth 700 times.feminism is a similar man made catastrophe….in another dimension.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:27 PM
Let me take your last paragraph first. I am not at all suggesting humans aren’t responsible for the ways in which they’re wrecking the planet (though even this is not an uncomplicated picture..) and that they shouldn’t do something to reverse this trend where they can but the idea that natural catastrophes are somehow ‘preservative’ is I think deeply wrong. What balance is there being preserved if 70% of marine life is wiped out?! An asteroid not hitting the earth and destroying everyone on it is purely a matter of chance. What greater ‘harmony’ is being preserved here?! In other words the right asteroid would be worse than than all those nuclear arsenals because realistically the latter will never be deployed and even if they were nature can do the same all on its own! There is no ‘balance’ here. It is a series of catastrophes that frequently causes the vanishing of tons of species. So there is no ‘inner rhythm’ here. This is mystification!
On the other bit I am not apologetic about saying yes I am a feminist. I have a certain critique of this movement (depending on what kind of feminism one follows) and so on but in essence I am in agreement. It is simply about greater equality. One can disagree with certain social results and so forth but once that equality is asserted there is no room to question that basic premise using frankly very dubious ideas about ‘ideal’ families etc. If I might put it so crudely the very fact that you are on a computer now debating this stuff owes something to feminist victories! Otherwise using precisely your logic in an earlier age you would not have been allowed to get educated and might have forced to get married at a very young, etc etc. So even you assume a basic level of liberation to get to this very point! But that wouldn’t have been possible without some degree of feminism!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 1:20 PM
u further say that feminism is a natural product of the times.in ur words:
“it is quite easy to place the strains and stresses of modernity, all those cross-currents that have caused great dislocation in traditional family life, at the doorstep of the woman. In other words ‘feminism’ is one symptom among many of modernity.”
indeed it is…just as aids is the product of modernity……its dangerous and we must fight against it and quell it.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:28 PM
Anjali, you’ve lost me with that last comment!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:30 PM
But She hasn’t lost me lol
Satyam grow up mate 🙂
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:40 PM
“But She hasn’t lost me lol”
yes I know.. the idea that you would ever forget gender is too much to expect! It’s ok to sometimes just talk to women seriously!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Interesting arguments.
While I am not sure if males are allowed to opine on this issue that mainly relates to women,I am largely on the side that Ami is espousing. There is something deeply disturbing about gender inequality. Sure, men and women are different physiologically,emotionally and mentally. But, there is no reason for women to be subservient even if they perform different roles.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:29 PM
well said.. often people confuse ‘difference’ with ‘equality’. Of course the genders are very different in various ways. This cannot become the excuse to deny full equality.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Now that was an ace in tennis terms..
I haven’t even entered the discussion but even as a casual observer on the fence-
‘men dont get pregnant unlike females’
Is this an absolute truth or not ?
Why has this been ordained by nature?
Ok let’s throw religiosity, conservatism, progressive strides wtc out of the window?
Does it have a linkage to the evolutionary cycle-
The darwins survival of the fittest can also be faulted but not the reality of centuries!!!!
One just Needs to read between the lines more than on them..
Similar points were made by poor oldgold te other day against manipultation of certain basic human cycles eg childbirth wtc
While one may or may not agree to either ( I have certain issues with each of these to various connotations) but trying to perch on a self created elevated balcony and trying to belittle other posts of view is certainly not progressive from ANY sense…
Ps-being poiitically correct NOT for the sake of it has certain issues but all that I circumvented by the fresh unaltered breath I fresh air it injects into a discourse … No point in having a forum/discourse where fills jus turn up to state already stated positions oft repeated and defended multiple times as nauseum…
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 1:40 PM
Can all the so called liberals and progressives answer one simple point raised by anjali perhaps inadvertently
Why can’t godamm males not get pregnant
Any answers???
Call it a privilege or a calamity or whatever-why is it a preserve only of females ???
Did the ‘creator’ or the ‘natural evolutionary process’ or whatever got us here-
Were they ‘unequal’ or prejudiced in their design??
Who all can own blame..
Yes : one does need to acknowledge the limits of ‘human faculty’ not only to do certai things but to appreciate or perceive the reason for that?
A child having to cram the tables of 3 doesn’t knwong why he is being made to do that!!!kids who don’t do that however do have certain ‘issues’ib future
This is NOT to condone injustices or abuse or misuse of a certain skewed morbid take on certain gender equations..
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:32 PM
Darwin’s idea has been greatly misconstrued. His point wasn’t that the ‘fittest’ (strongest) survive in the usual sense of the word but that those species that can adapt best to a given environment are the ‘fittest’. In other words given an Ice Age it might be better to be a polar bear. In certain other environments being a cockroach might be more helpful! Humans for example might be the most ‘intelligent’ species but in the Darwinian paradigm this is irrelevant unless this helps us survive better given any environment which is hardly the case.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 1:51 PM
Am not sure a woman’s ability to get pregnant and carry a fetus till delivery and man’s inability to do the same really means anything as far gender equality goes.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:19 PM
My dear uncle rajen:
Just to give a taster of this complex ‘accident’ or ‘historical injustice’ there is a ‘NEED’ for the female to be empathetic, have maternal instincts and responsibility IF ONLY to carry the ‘foetus’ from 40 weeks onwards through infancy….
And not having the ‘detachment’ of rushing off to the next show of murder 2 (now jism2) with a jack Daniels in hand & a cigarette in the other!!!
This is just one simplified practical example of how nature ensures that it’s own species survives and perpetuates
Those that don’t /didn’t follow it- perished …
Disclaimer: this is just a simplistic take designed to dovetail a much bigger design into a perspective which can be understood by humans ..
If one can’t understand religiosity, conservatism, etc, one should understand evolutionary principles -spirituality etc spfor another day….
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 1:52 PM
Did the ‘creator’ or the ‘natural evolutionary process’ or whatever got us here-
Were they ‘unequal’ or prejudiced in their design??
u see alex?the creator has no concern with equality.the creator is not bothered the least whether men and women r equal or not.its the feminists who have poisoned the minds of such excellent ppl like ami…into talking about equality.women must be equal with men.arrey?…..they r different……there is no need for equality.but in the name of equality women r unconsciously taught to hate their womanhood…and compete with the superior….the males.imitate the males.
have u observed….if a woman wears a male’s clothes….jeans and shirt…its considered okay….but if a man wears a skirt or saree the whole world laughs…y is that?because the(inferior women)..if they imitate men(wear their clothes)..its progressive…but if a superior man…wears inferior women’s clothes it becomes ridiculous.women r brain washed to become like men….
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:08 PM
Beautiful points there anjali
Btw the intention is not to ‘oppose’ Amy’s points , which are v good and infact I personally endorse many of them…
But I never lose the perspective to question ones ‘beliefs’ and don’t mind putting them to the test ,,,
The ‘sturdy’ will stand- the ‘weak’ shall automatically perish -a simple dictum !!!
Ps -anjali : good points about the dress code…
Let’s ask Amy : what dresses does she usually wear (only if she wishes to answer)…I’m sure she looks good in them…
But as an example: even here certain hidden sociopsychocultural codes get embedded -forget concepts like gender equality….
This is only indirectly related but related it is …
C’mon: why /when/ what for are highly ‘revealing’ mini skirts, cleavage exposing dresses worn by emancipated females…
Let’s not even go into ‘padding’ etc…
WHO has forced them towards ‘objectification’ 🙂
Ps–not that I’m complaining–just pointing it out…
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:00 PM
Random scenario 1-
One is waiting in a traffic jam…
One sees three gals returning presumably from a party-barely able to walk and at risk of being hit by your car…
They come and ask u for a lift…
It’s freezing cold outside-infact snowing…even your cars ultra strong heating system with jackets etc aren’t enuf for u…
One looks at them-
Trembling and shivering badly like a leaf…
Clad in what can best be called as mini versions of a micro mini skirt !!
Have no issues with micro minis ESP when the pins are good as that and well maintained…
But can’t help but feel sorry for the inhumane plight in near subzero temperatures
And no: they are not poor little beggar types
Carrying Gucci / dolce gabana and having been literally drenched in
Yes st Laurent !!!
And exhibiting all other possible signs of ‘good privilege’
So who has forced them to dress like that in freezing conditions
Now I’m sure NOBODY can blame me for being ‘conservative’ and don’t even mind bikinis at work if I have my way and it is feasible!!!
But it is inhuman in this scenario…
Someone also mentioned ‘high heels’ or ‘lipstick’ etc
Nobody is saying that gals shouldn’t dress up attractively !!
But why this denial… 🙂
Disclaimer: this was just an illustrative random example
Have no issues with either micro mini skirts, lipsticks or high heels…
It’s just the abject denial of their ‘aims’ that needs to cracked on..
It’s like someone gets caught wiht condoms in his/her wallet!!!
He/she says that he/she may have to attend a surprise ‘birthday party’ of his sons/daughters friends and that some ‘balloons’ will be immediately needed !!!
Ps2- have absoultely no intention of picking up about the dressing habits of gals like Amy or even anjali -though details about them won’t be entirely unwelcome ….
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:03 PM
hahahahahaha
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:29 PM
Just to clarify–
I’m not in any one ‘side’ or team…
But as always have some pertinent questions…
Amy -not picking on u but since u are very eloquent and bright :
A v v simple question :
A)Why do the very best /emancipated/educated/independent /rich gals dress in mini skirts that are not only ultrashort but ‘impractical’ and in a way negate the reason they have been worn for –no forece, no coercion, no pressure–infact if one even hints at their inappropriateness, one can be called lots of names !!!
In a similar way: saw a colleague dressed in some ultratight ‘figure hugging’ jeans: while I did admire the scene, I did wonder how she got into them and came out of !!
Her ‘struggle’ while walking , bending was more than obvious -one did wonder -why does she have to do this?
This is not a premise to bulldoze a random topic . Thiugh it looks less than obscurely relevant to this topic, if one ‘scratched the surface’ some ‘truths’ emerge -puns also intended
Pray enlighten us
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:41 PM
Alex-
“there is a ‘NEED’ for the female to be empathetic, have maternal instincts and responsibility IF ONLY to carry the ‘foetus’ from 40 weeks onwards through infancy….
And not having the ‘detachment’ of rushing off to the next show of murder 2 (now jism2) with a jack Daniels in hand & a cigarette in the other!!!”
But the whole problem with this arguement is that it reduces a woman to only a child-bearing machine- yes women do get pregnant and men do not. But who says that a pregnant woman cannot enjoy a showing of Magic Mike? And that she shouldn’t enjoy a Jack Daniels when she is not pregnant? There is more to a woman than just her child-bearing abilities- and to reduce her to nothing but a baby-making device is ignoring her very humanity and not recognizing that she also has intelligence, personality, desires, ambitions, emotions, talents and needs in adition to live-giving abilites.
And by the way it takes two people to make a baby- the father also needs paternal instinct and responsiblity to support the family and parent the child! Child-bearing might be the exclusive preserve of the woman- but child-rearing responsiblites lie equally on the shoulders of both parents
To use her life-giving capability as an excuse to subjugate her and kepp her out of positions of power is illogical to the extreme. If anything being able to create and deliver new life to this world- and to propagate the human race- is a great gift and miraculous ability- it follows no logic to make this look like a curse where women need to stay at home, stay out of public live and be submissive and domestic just because they can have children! That is as absurd as saying a man should only be confined to the bedroom because (pardon the graphic language) he can get it up and a woman cannot!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:44 PM
Alex-
“Someone also mentioned ‘high heels’ or ‘lipstick’ etc
Nobody is saying that gals shouldn’t dress up attractively !!
But why this denial…”
Who says that women do not want to be sexually desirable? Ofcourse they do! But this is true of men as well! Why is my gym full of men working on their abs and bicep/tricep muscles? Why do expensive designer suits and cologne sell so well? Why is every single deodorant ad focussed on presenting the man as a sexually desirable object? Why are there pills to increase the size of a man’s endowment? Why is the size of a man’s endowment such a sensitive issue for most men? Just as women walk around in bikinis on the beach- so do men walk around shirtless in swimming trunks!
Again you are following into the trap of reducing a woman to only one aspect of her personality- just like a woman is more than a baby-bearing machine- she is also more than a person who wants to be sexually desirable. The same woman who dresses sexily whilst clubbing (in order to attract men) will dress somberly in a business suit while at work in order to climb the career ladder and be taken seriously- while playing with her children she will dress in comfortable, casual clothes- and while working out/ playing a sport she will dress in tracksuits and shoes- there are several different facets to any woman’s personality- it’s not like women walk around in miniskirts and high heels 24X7!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:29 PM
would like 2 know how many women r out there who have the best of both the worlds…..family life and professional life.i wonder why has the rate of divorce and suicide increased exponentially among both men and women….just compare the data how many women were alcoholics…..in the beginning of the 20th century and how many r in the beginning of the 21st…..and what the fuck do u mean by saying its all modernity?who brought about this modernity?…its cool coz its modern?….one can look at the rosy side but who will look at the seamy side of things?a woman who has professional responsibilities can sure technically take care of their family…one can site isolated cases too….but what do we see in the general world?……after the divorce…. they jump from one date to another…..ideal family life…has become a joke…children r brought up ….angry and frustrated.why do u think existentialism has become THE main attraction in literature?why is it that even comic books have become dark.from where all these anger and frustration coming from…in every media…every art form…..every expression of man or woman? ……its very easy to paint a rosy picture…about a woman having various avatars…indian cricket team may as well have 11 allrounders…bingo!…perfect situation..aint it?but wonder if it ever really happens.the cruel reality…..
we have disturbed the gender equation….and we r doomed.maybe ..because we r so much in the NOW…we cant see where all this is leading us to….ignorance is bliss…..
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:37 PM
do you like the Mahabharata? Just wondering.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Anjali- your arguements are becoming increasingly unreasonable and offensively misogynistic- I don’t think I can continue this debate any further. But as I said earlier- the toll that patriarchy takes on families in the form of all kinds of horrific abuse and dysfunctional, fearful family dynamics is far greater than the toll that induvidualism and high divorce rates take on families. And I have any number of relatives where the women are very successful professionally and they share household duties with their husbands more equally and they are very happy.
As for literature becoming darker these days- you clearly do not have much knowledge about several extremely morbid aritstic movements of the past- the romanticism of the 18th century for instance- when patriarchy was in full force. And existentialism is a function of a society becoming more focussed on the individual and not the collective- it has less to do with gender dynamics- and more to do with certain societies evolving to the extent where the basic levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are fulfilled and they are able to think about the higher levels of needs such as recognition and self-actualization.
But anyway- I find it difficult to argue with you without being highly offended by your views- let’s just agree to disagree- I wish you all the luck in leading a life of patriarchal oppression if that is what makes you happy- I hope you find a mate who is so tyrannical and controlling and abusive that he makes Salman looks like a meek lamb- and that you greatly enjoy not excercising your right to vote and instead living a life of utter subjugation.
As I said earlier- India is one of the most patriarchal societies in the world- you shouldn’t have too much trouble leading this sort of an existance and finding this sort of a man if you so desire- just don’t force all of us women (and men!) to do so.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:49 PM
BTW- as I said earlier- although I do find your views on gender to be abhorrent (to say the least)- I greatly appreciate your views on cinema- I hope that this debate and the aggresive tne that I have taken will not stop you from engaging in discussion about movies with me- as I said earlier I found your interpretation of Gulaal to be most illuminating and I’m sure I can learn a lot of other such things from you.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 6:52 PM
sure.i will always learn from u.
except ur fiery feminism…..which has always frightened me in women…….i m too much guided by heart..than mind….i like everything about u
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 6:57 PM
one more thing…pls dnt make fun of salman…he is not that bad.he is a man of heart.not like the polite bores who r insufferable
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:35 PM
It just takes away your argument vis a vis quality of movies..but in any case we don’t make good quality movies any way!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:08 PM
“I hope you find a mate who is so tyrannical and controlling and abusive that he makes Salman looks like a meek lamb”……hehe
the darker the blackboard the whiter becomes the white chalked character on it.u just dont understand the poetry of womanhood…do u?
if my husband is tyrannical and controlling…..he has some insecurities inside him.i will address them.if he has a hurt inside him…i will assuage it.i will not talk about rights of the woman….he will be like a part of me….left hand cannot divorce itself from the right hand.if my kid goes in the wrong way…will i stop being his mother?will i talk about the nonsense feminist rights….and tell him to fuck off?its my kid…..no matter what.its my husband no matter what!
i really dont understand what kind of selfish women these feminists r…woman has to learn to bear…and nourish the man.drink his anger and give him love.how long can a man be against a flower…against a smile….against beauty…music…against apnapan….that is the meaning of life dear.these qualities…which modernity and the talk of stupid rights and equality of status make us forget.try to understand what a woman is first…..or u will be left alone with ur independence.franz kafka said….i have all the freedom in the world…and thats y i m going mad!
kabhi zanjeer se choot kar bhi…dum ghootne lagta hai/darro deevar ho jisme wahi jindaan nahi hotaa!
sometimes even after getting liberated from the chains…i start feeling suffocated/freedom can also be a prison of sorts
my words my sound too poetic and impractical…..but all the notions of humanity r poetic.the very idea of good and bad…in the final analysis of things…r ultimately poetic.
will say again..try to discover ur womanhood…..a man discovers his manhood under extremely challenging situations…maybe caught in a war…and so doea a woman ..in her own way.
feminists will not bring joy to mankind….till today they hasnt and they never will
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:15 PM
Oh man… U r awesome 😉
Am actually truly getting ‘education’-let the others not get it…
“woman has to learn to bear…and nourish the man.drink his anger and give him love.how long can a man be against a flower…against a smile….against beauty…music…against apnapan….that is the meaning of life dear”
Wow…
Ps: btw wonder y Oldgold is so quiet…
She is actually more ‘experienced’ than either of us and given us practical tips …
The time of ‘foursome’ has arrived –mean in discussions 🙂
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:15 PM
As long as I don’t have to tolerate any kind of cruelty or violence from a man and I can be in a relationship with a caring, egalitarian boyfriend whom I love and who respects me as an equal- and I can also pursue professional goals and experience the fulfillment and confidence that a succesful academic/ work life gives me- and live life the way I want, travel where I want, do what I want, wear what I want and have with all the freedom that I desire- then I am more than happy to be accused of being selfish, masculine, a curse to man kind etc.
Being insulted by very few people whose opions on gender I completely disregard is a very small price to pay for not being opressed and abused and ill-treated and disrespected and not having to sacrifice and suffer infinitely. 😛
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:18 PM
Man, I’ve been looking everywhere for the meaning of life. I started on Gawker, then The Huffington Post, I think I got pretty close to it at the Vigil Idiot, but lo and behold, it’s right here on SS. Thanks much!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:26 PM
LOL! GF- sadly your sarcasm is preventing you from recieving the education that Anjali has bestowed upon Alex. You should realise that women with ideas of equality or professional goals have never brought any joy to men- and that only by being violent, abusive and controlling will you become attractive to those enlightened females who have understood the poetry of womenhood. 😉
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:26 PM
GF: Why do you think I (and rest of us here) come to SS 😉
SS is instant nirvana, gateway to heaven.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM
“if my husband is tyrannical and controlling…..he has some insecurities inside him.i will address them.if he has a hurt inside him…i will assuage it.i will not talk about rights of the woman….he will be like a part of me….left hand cannot divorce itself from the right hand.if my kid goes in the wrong way…will i stop being his mother?will i talk about the nonsense feminist rights….and tell him to fuck off?its my kid…..no matter what.its my husband no matter what!”
Anjali–I’m your ‘fan’!
I mean, are you for real-if so, u are a gem….
Didn’t know such folks exist
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:35 PM
Welcome dimple into this show…
What are your views on this ‘serious’ topic and on anjalis smash hits ….
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:59 PM
Anjali:can’t say about others but find your posts excellent …
And I mean it…
In the online world, one doesn’t know : u maybe a female or a male ultimately, for all I care…
But irrespective, find your takes original and unapologetically honest….keep it up and hope u don’t let the ‘big bad world’ affect this quality in u 🙂
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:08 PM
Alex- you’re a very tricky guy- you always keep posting articles with disclaimers that you don’t endorse the views or praising somebody’s controversial views without openly admitting your stance on anything. 😛
Let me put it bluntly- do you agree/ disagree with these statements:
Do you think that women should not aspire for professional success and positions of power?
Do you think that gender equality is a negative ideology that is damaging the world?
Do you think that women need to be submissive in order to be attractive?
Do you think that patriarchal society is desirable?
If you are going to participate in this conversation- it’s only fair that we know your views on these topics too! 🙂 Especially considering that you praise Anjali for being unapolgetically honest- perhaphs it’s time you get a little inspired by her! 😉 As I said- I’m not interested in being part of this debate any longer- so I promise I will not try to dispute your opinions on these issues- no matter how much I agree or disagree with them.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:46 PM
@Ami: girl…I can tell you…secretly lot of men are in love with Anjali right now….dream girl….dream girl.
lolz
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:54 PM
The point is not how many men are in love with her- but what kind of men are in love with her- if a man is attracted to a woman because she espouses complete self-sacrifice and lack of ambition in all women- and praises abusive, dominant men as the ideal and decries gender equality- that kind of a man is extremely unattractive and incapable of being a good partner in my opinion!
I would far rather alienate a 1000 misogynistic, selfish, violent thugs and attract one evolved, caring man who is secure enough about his masculinity to not subscrive to regressive, barbaric ideas of machismo! 😛
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:18 PM
“I would far rather alienate a 1000 misogynistic, selfish, violent thugs and attract one evolved, caring man who is secure enough about his masculinity to not subscrive to regressive, barbaric ideas of machismo”
Totally agree with you there…me 2…but if there is a women who is willing and happy to go along with above mentioned “misogynistic, selfish, violent thugs”…I have absolutely no objection….to each her own….bus baad may rotey huay maat aana mere pass..!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM
Haha
“….are in love with Anjali right now….dream girl….dream girl.”
Disclaimer : am not posting this for anyone in particular….
Just that dimples comment reminded of this song…lol
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM
hey..no man is in love with me ..what r u saying?
i speak my own mind.i dont hitch my wagon to the feminist claptrap i read in a mag or saw on a tv.i discover my own truths….and i dont care whether they sound radical or regressive….i have discovered my truth and that is why they have passion.i havent read about them in a book.
i think womanhood is not about partisanship…..a man and woman r not business partners…..all these selfish notions r on the surface…..the very reason why a woman talks about equality is becoz she is afraid …she feels inferior….she feels exploited……shez imperfect.thankfully i dont.there is a thing called trust…and trust never sets conditions ….it is blind.the moment u say i trust yu…but u have to do this or that…trust disappears….it becomes a business transaction.and then ur lover becomes a business partner…and relationship becomes a transacation of sorts.and frankly speaking…no matter how many conditions u set forth and ur partner fulfills them…u will never be satisfied.there will always remain room for dissatisfaction….becoz damnit….. its not about the man fulfilling all ur conditions…and being ideal.its about yu leaving aside all ur conditions and trusting him blindly.that is the only way to happiness..
or as the widow…dimple met said…..the men will keep exploiting women and women will keep exploiting men…ad infinitum.u keep laying ur conditions and he keeps laying his….play the game.
its not about whether the man has fulfilled all ur conditions….its not about him at all.its about u…..the moment u stop talking about conditions and ur rights and all that feminist claptrap…and simply trust a man.u will realize happiness.coz it was all about u….it was never about him being perfect…it was always about u being perfect.that is womanhood.
and the moment u genuinely blindly trust a man…he HAS to respond with the same trust.trust is fucking infectious…..just like a full throated laugh from someone infects u n makes u smile…..this jokey trust….will infect u both…..and there will be happines.
let the other witches talk about their rights and this n that….u r happyyyyyy
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 6:00 PM
🙂
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:40 PM
“?……after the divorce…. they jump from one date to another…..ideal family life…has become a joke…”
I have quite a few ‘friends’ who are going thru’ divorce. It brings in bitterness and disillusionment that I am reading randomly in your pieces. Most of my girl-pals in this situation think that marraige is just a transaction, a business relationship and I don’t say anything for they are suffering much as it is.
“if my husband is tyrannical and controlling…..he has some insecurities inside him.i will address them.if he has a hurt inside him…”
I wonder if Katie Holmes too felt like that and still was trapped in the relationship.
If equality (following your arguements) is not the answer then getting exploited and abused it also not the answer.
Each relationship is unique and works differently. There is possiblity that lot of women out there turn blind eye towards a philandering/abusive etc husband (in case of GoW, Sardar khan) for exchange of financial security and not having to go out on streets to work. Yet again there are women who rather have more equality, separate bank balance and is most happiest when husband does chores around the house. In other words, there are no cookie-cutter, sure fire reasons or ways in which a relationship works. And there are single women who are very happy to “jump from one date to another”…why judge them…they are having good time. One time I asked a divorced co-worker in her 50s very innocently “don’t you feel exploited” and she said, “you kidding me…I am the one exploiting them!!”
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:50 PM
” Each relationship is unique and works differently….In other words, there are no cookie-cutter, sure fire reasons or ways in which a relationship works.”
But this debate is not one of personal preferences but one of ideological beliefs and social structures- if women were free to chose if they want to be submissive or equal they would be no problem at all. But most women in India do not have the luxury of this choice. They grow up in an atmosphere of subjugation and oppression and this prepares them to accept the same dynamic in their married lives as well- for examples mothers telling their daughters not to bring dishonour on the family and return home no matter how abusive their marraige is- or girls being constantly socially conditioned to be demure, to adjust, to compromise, to have no opinions or ambition etc- or parents giving in to any unreasonable dowry demands which lays the foundation for dowry harassment later in their lives.
If the desire to be subjugated and exploited was apurely personal one it would not be problematic- the problem is the patriarchal system that conditions men and women to subscribe to these gender views and severely punishes those women who desire any sort of freedom or equality.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM
“If the desire to be subjugated and exploited was apurely personal one it would not be problematic- ”
One man’s subjugation is another man’s seva…I know many women who are happy to clean and cook and do their “dharma” as taught by their parents…and many caring mother-in-law’s/husbands who take good care of their seva-bhavi wives…so who are the “feminists” to say that they are exploited. Basically there are good scenarios on either side.
Though I agree and concurr with most of what you are to say..they are in alignment with my own ideology…but there are many happy marraige cases of “bharatiya naari” in my household from my dadi, naani, maasis etc…some were lawyers and some had high degree and were happy to be housewives…some of course were not that happy…but most of them had good to gr8 marraiges/relationships. I think in India lot of problems are caused by extended families and not necessarily issues with husband/wife.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:33 PM
Di- when I said exploited- I was talking about women who desire to be with violent, controlling men- for example Anjali’s attraction to Salman because of his rumoured abusive behaviour around Aishwarya- not about women who are happy being homemkaers.
If the desire to be domestic and submissive is a purely personal one- then it’s not problematic at all- and yes of course there are certain traditional marraiges which are loving and mutually respectful.
However the problem is that most women in conservative societies do not have the choice to choose any non-traditional kind of relationship dynamic even if they so desire it- and often if a relationship sours they have to bear the most horrific abuse thanks to the way patriarchal society is structured. If a society has a domestic abuse rate of 50-84% as well as all kind of social evils from female foeticide to dowry harassment- it is an obvious symptom that the gender dynamics of that society are fatally diseased!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:40 PM
I think the common mistake is that people interpret feminism as being against any kind of traditional gender norms- be it stereotypically masculine/ feminine traits- or a traditional relationship where the man is the breadwinner and the woman is the housewife.
That goes against the principle of (less radical schools of) feminism which are all about giving women the privilege of choice and opportunity- including the choice to be homemakers if they so desire.
Ofcourse this choice is not limited only to the actual freedom of being able to choose- but also being able to live in an society that does not condition and strongly influence women to conform to patriarchal ideas alone- because if a woman is brainwashed into believing that the only way to live is to be submissive and domesticated then no amount of superficial freedom of choice will make any difference.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM
“because if a woman is brainwashed into believing that the only way to live is to be submissive and domesticated then no amount of superficial freedom of choice will make any difference.”
I once had household help from deep interior’s andra…upon asking her what her mom’s advice was to her before her impending marraige, her answer was “make sure your husband is in your control” 😉
I know most housewives in my household, as dominating,powerful women. I also know at least a dozen women in my circle here, who are ‘independent’ working women, who do not see their cheque or know how much money they have in bank or what investments are made by their husbands. The horrors of these ‘independent’ women are quite staggering…their husbands scan every dime they spend. One of my co-worker’s husband lashed out at her for spending money frivolously on protein bars; another’s husband regularly nags her because she forgets grocery store coupons at home. My housewife grandmom’s had far more economic power without ever having a paying job than these highly educated independant earning women in U.S.!!
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM
With exception of one, every one of them are from your state Ami….I wonder if there is cultural issue here or just indian subcontinent one…its appalling to see these ‘helpless’ women. I mean can one just leave their husbands and kids?
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 6:27 PM
I feel like we are going around in circles here Di- I’m not condemning housewives in the least. All I’m saying is that it is about choice and equality. IF a woman has other choices available to her and yet she chooses to be a housewive that is perfectly fine- but if she is not given that choice and she is either forced to be a houswife or brought up in an environment where she is conditioned to believe that being a housewife is the only acceptable path for a woman- then I find that problematic.
As for working women being in oppressive marraige- I’m not saying that doesn’t exist either- women can be financially empowered but not culturally empowered- however this does not invalidate the importance of a woman being able to choose if she wants to work or not and being given career opportunities equal to that of any man.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 6:42 PM
I agree on economic empowerment. In one interesting case: some weeks back my friend was in near death situation but her husband didn’t allow her to quit her job! I wish economic independance also brought about other mental strengths but it is easier said than implemented.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM
“The same woman who dresses sexily whilst clubbing (in order to attract men) will dress somberly in a business suit while at work in order to climb the career ladder and be taken seriously- while playing with her children she will dress in comfortable, casual clothes- and while working out/ playing a sport she will dress in tracksuits and shoes- there are several different facets to any woman’s personality- ”
To carry on the trend started by anjali- can I have a few pics lol
Ps anjali- thanx for those pics…
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:52 PM
Just totally off the point –
Amy: What did u think of the ‘styling’ and ‘look’ of deepika in cocktail purely from an academic /analytical point of view ..
Also pray comment whether u feel that a ‘modern Indian woman’ can carry off that clothing ‘range’ practically
Just as an example-would u personally feel comfortable in that setup( and have the guts to admit it that they look cool …haha)
Ps-just part of a ‘survey’ I’m conducting for a ‘clothing line’
Ps2- anjali : will also want your views on this (serious) topic …
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM
“Also pray comment whether u feel that a ‘modern Indian woman’ can carry off that clothing ‘range’ practically
Just as an example-would u personally feel comfortable in that setup( and have the guts to admit it that they look cool …haha)”
Deepika’s styling in Cocktail is tacky to the extreme. The most basic tenet of good dressing is that you need to dress appropriately for the occasion- for example the very fancy couture gown that she is shown wearing at the nightclub during the Jugni song- if a woman shows up at a nightclub looking like she is going to hit the red carpet she will look like an attention-seeking drama queen.
Most of her outfits would also look quite cheap in real life- take for example the midriff bearing tops paired with shorts/ miniskirts- the rule is that you only highlight one part of your body at a time- either legs or midriff or chest or back- not wear something that shows off both midriff and legs at the same time.
I don’t think that any woman- Indian or European, modern or traditional- can dress everyday in the manner that Deepika does in this film without looking ridiculous.
Ofcourse Deepika carries it off splendidly because she has a supermodel’s body and a gorgeous face and it’s a Bollywood film with a very unrealistic vibe- but I don’t think that any woman should dress like that in real life- it’s great for a blatant sex symbol look- but it’s not chic or elegant or edgy or of any merit in terms of fashionable styling.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:15 PM
Good points there Amy – u are good in ‘looks’ & ‘styling’
“the rule is that you only highlight one part of your body at a time- either legs or midriff or chest or back- not wear something that shows off both midriff and legs at the same time”
ROFL @ ” the rule”
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Btw Amy : since the topic is on dressing…to ‘lighten’ the mood..
What’s your personal ‘style’-casual n otherwise–
Same question for anjali and Oldgold -if u wish to tell only
Ps-my suspicion is that Oldgold and amy are v v conservative dressers while anjali is a bit more bold ( in a good dabangesque way!)
Am I right ? 🙂
Ps -I’m collecting ‘data’ for a ‘survey’ lol
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:00 PM
🙂 🙂
Check m8!! Yaiy
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:33 PM
Before writing anything I would like to say that I’m no feminist. I just see and feel what is right or wrong. It can be for either gender.
So, in short I’m just a humanist.
There’s an old saying in German also translated to English – to throw the baby with the dirty bath water.
To me that is the situation today – except that in many cases the baby has been thrown and the dirty bath water retained.
Anjali’s view is one extreme and Ami’s another.
It’s not just the feminine qualities (which balance the male qualities) that have been destroyed, but it would seem a whole lot of other destruction has taken place pertaining to many aspects in society, so one cannot talk only of the female angle – it’s just ONE which has been effected.
It’s just the modern way of life- which is more and more SELF and has taken over everything, and feminism is also more and more about self rather than any woman oriented issues (which is actually only a guise).
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:48 PM
“It’s just the modern way of life- which is more and more SELF and has taken over everything, and feminism is also more and more about self rather than any woman oriented issues (which is actually only a guise).”
But this is exactly what I’ve been saying to Anjali! If there is any problem with the modern idea of society- it’s not the idea of gender equality but the absolute value of the individual over the collective- it’s this balance of self vs. society that needs to be corrected in BOTH men and women.
Historically the burden was on women to keep societies together by sacrificing endlessly and never having any needs and goals of their own- on the other hand men were expected to prize self above all else- which is why they were never expected to be nuturing to their children etc. And now that women are growing fed up of being the only ones who give in a relationship and demanding that attention needs to be paid to their individual needs as well- there is a lot of fricition and familial disintergration.
The solution is not to go on oppressing women but to condition both men and women to be aware that they are a part of a larger social framework and that they need to be considerate to their partners and mindful of the larger implications of their actions.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:52 PM
“Anjali’s view is one extreme and Ami’s another.”
Anjali’s view is that woman need to completely sacrifice themselves to please their men, tolerate all kinds of abuse and never entertain any career aspirations or play any role in public life- the opposite extreme to that would be to say that men need to sacrifice and tolerate anything and play no role in public life- which is not even remotely close to what I am saying.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 6:17 PM
brilliant …though u began by calling my and ami’s views as two extremes.u ended up supporting me.mwaaaaah
thanku
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM
‘mwah’ oops I mean : gud nite
Ps: hope u all stay safe n sound ….lol
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:16 AM
>u ended up supporting me.
You’re only partially right RE:women wanting to be men, and a few other points. I haven’t read all the comments, but if your comments are mostly like this one, then hardly;
>woman has to learn to bear…and nourish the man.drink his anger and give him love.
errrr….duh!!!
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:19 AM
Well I could rephrase it as;
….those who matter to you in your life, and are important, one has definitely to learn to bear each other, drink anger, and give love – be it ones children, husband, wife, parents, friends etc etc.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 4:49 PM
“one has definitely to learn to bear each other, drink anger, and give love ”
Btw I must confess -the idea of a woman drinking my ‘anger’–sounds pretty interesting
How is it achieved-wondering 🙂
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Gud balanced view by Oldgold
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:51 AM
Gangs of Wasseypur sequel out on August 10
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertainment/Bollywood/Gangs-of-Wasseypur-sequel-out-on-August-10/Article1-880319.aspx
The sequel to Anurag Kashyap’s Gangs of Wasseypur (GOW) will release on August 10, confirms Vikram Malhotra, COO Viacom18 Motion Pictures. The production house has apparently decided to release the second part earlier than planned, to cash in on part one’s box office acceptance. Despite
an ‘A’ certificate, GOW received a positive response from the audience and critical acclaim as well. It has already collected a net total of R14.75 crore.
During the weekend, it saw 100 per cent occupancy in theatres, while on weekdays it was between 80 per cent and 90 per cent.
“The film, despite its blood and gore, grips you because it focuses on an important emotion – revenge. People are waiting to see how the drama enfolds,” says trade analyst Tarun Adarsh.
With a viewing time of five hours (part 1 and 2 together), Wasseypur is Anurag’s most ambitious project yet.
He says, “We took gamchas to Cannes and it became a style statement there with people wearing it over their Armanis. These innovative strategies helped us get away with such a long film.”
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:58 AM
Here is a little essay written by the favourite author of ami…schopenhaur.i m sure ami will enjoy this immensely.this man was considered a genius.
The nature of the female
One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man’s without being essentially happier or unhappier.
Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.
Natural weapons
In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.
Female truth
The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.
Feminine charms
Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.
Absence of genius
Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.
Insipid women-veneration
This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.
Monogamy and ‘filles de joie’
In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one’s rights and double one’s duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second.
No argument about polygamy
There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 7:06 AM
btw i do not subscribe to this opinion.i only thought that all kinds of ideas should be brought to the fore..to make the discussions more comprehensive..
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM
Hahaha anjali-even I don’t subscribe to this.
An example of female intellect is modern gals like u, amy and oldgold.
Female capability is never in question!
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 8:05 AM
He was born more than two hundred years ago.
It may have been true – then.
Society at that time was a different thing altogether with childbirth **really being a thing to suffer that killed many women**.
Hardly any job opportunities, for men AND especially women. Most men suffered as the sole breadwinners.
Some men took advantage of this(here character of the person is important). It seems money ALWAYS played an important role in judging ones position.
Women’s health due to childbirth and lack of postnatal care suffered heavily, making them seem delicate and weak.
This had several implications.
The mind did not develop. Books, teachers and education weren’t easily available to everyone, which was anyway very expensive. Men, due to having to earn, at least got the opportunity to develop their brains. They had to be sharp to survive.
So if a man living at that time considers a woman to be;
>she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor.
– he can be excused.
BUT there is no excuse for anyone living today to think in this fashion!!
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 8:12 AM
I’m sorry to say Anjali, but you sound …errr ‘different’ and not like any woman.
I’m not a modern aggressive feminist, yet even to me the opinion expressed is clearly outdated and any man or woman still having it has no place in society – only in a museum.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM
Think one may agree or disagree but can’t ridicule another persons view eg ‘being in a museum’ etc..
I defend oldgold similarly fe different perspective when others feel the same ..
So cool it folks and give ‘space’ to all views
No to talibanisation
Yes to free speech (&sex!)
🙂
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 5:44 PM
@ alex…why dont yu introduce some of the major characters who inhabit this tower of babel.since i am new and u guys seem 2 know each other.from my reading and interactions… i have come to vague character sketches.
satyam: he sounds like a fortyish… rather venerable intellectual who cannot be easily made to lose his temper.has a wry sense of humor and is more or less democratic.has a penchant for writing really long sentences…but very enlightening.
saurabh: he must b younger…twenty something. open minded….but flatters ppl a lot.
oldgold: another fortyish well rounded lady who has experienced life..and cannot b easily swayed.a great fan of austen.sympathetic and sweet.
ami: now she is very similar to me in an inverted kind of way….a romantic at heart.headstrong.someone who can launch a crusade..kill or get killed for something as ethereal an an IDEA or an ism.must be my age…24 something.
GF: a rather strange lady…must be between 25 and 30.often sarcastic and full of self congratulation. i may again be called an anti feminist but dont think sarcasm or (2 give a stray example) loud laughter sits well on women.
DI: now di i find a very sharp,practical and womanly wise woman.someone who is ingenious and quick to spot if something wrong is going on…its not possible to fool her..she will catch ya.she is one lady i wud like to date if i was man.must be between 30 to 35.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM
“GF: a rather strange lady…must be between 25 and 30.often sarcastic and full of self congratulation. i may again be called an anti feminist but dont think sarcasm or (2 give a stray example) loud laughter sits well on women.”
Ha!!! Hope GF reads this!
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 4:52 AM
I’m also twentyish.
LOL!
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 6:07 AM
Hahahah anjali:
Just read your summaries on the major characters here–
Spot on !!!
Not one thing out of place…
I was in the minority when I picked up and congratulated your brilliance from the priest post—
The others will /are seeing it now….
Ps: though some may feel that gf is a ‘male’ bit have no confirmation of it. Besides gf and Satyam share an ‘unconventional’ relationship–have yet to seee them differ on even a stray random minor point…
U got satyam, di , oldgold, Amy , and minor right as well
Ps: oh I see that Oldgold is saying she is twenty ish -hmmm…
Ps2–yes Satyam is very democratic …only then I can get away with pulling his leg most of the time..
Basically he is a true gentleman in the real sense of the word-no cynicism there….
He is a guy with whom even a Megan fox (without clothes) trapped in an elevator for hours is safe 🙂
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 8:56 AM
“He is a guy with whom even a Megan fox (without clothes) trapped in an elevator for hours is safe :-)”
Yes. Such is my fondest hope.
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 6:11 AM
Btw that Megan fox comment about Satyam underlines his gentlemanly behaviour: NOT anything about capability /performance (just to clarify as an afterthought ) lol
Basically Satyam is a ‘model’ guy …
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 7:23 AM
Re: “GF: a rather strange lady…”
Yes. A very strange lady indeed.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 8:59 AM
Ok guys I think we’ve had enough of the feminism debates here.. let’s move on to other cinema-related stuff!
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Oh dear. I should have abstained. The moment I join (having been busy earlier) you declare the end.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 9:20 AM
Please comment if you haven’t so far…
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM
Satyam, First Look of Part 2 GoW- http://content.hungama.com/image/display%20image/585xdynamic%20jpeg/53381931.jpg
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 9:52 AM
Saurabh: the first look was the trailer for Part II after the end credits of Part I 🙂
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 9:57 AM
LOL yes. They still have not released the trailer officially though
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:40 PM
Don’t try to stop or you will be at receiving end of wrath!
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 10:59 AM
http://www.boxofficeindia.com/youdetail.php?page=shownews&articleid=4627&nCat=
Q. How much does Spiderman 4 have to do to be biggest Hollywood film in India?
A. Over 60 crore nett.
Syed Shah
Q. How much should films like Shanghai and Gangs Of Wasseypur gross for decent acceptance, around 50 crore?
A. No that’s Super Hit for these films. They should be targeting a 30 crore nett minimum for decent results.
M Mishra
Q. Will Bol Bachchan cross the 100 crore mark?
A. It will depend on the content. Its not like a Rowdy Rathore or Agneepath where the opening almost ensures a 100 plus total. It has the potential to be a universally accepted film and if so 100 will be done pretty easily.
A Bhane
Q. Is Akshay Kumar who was written off back to the top after Housefull 2 and Rowdy Rathore.
A. Big stars remain big stars, if his films don’t do as expected in the future then he will be written off again and then a few hits and back to the top. Star power does not go away with a few under performers and does not suddenly came back with a few hits.
Aritya Moodla
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM
LOL on the Bol Bachchan response. They would never have been so cautious had it been a Devgan only deal. Even now of course they will attribute any success all to Devgan much like Nahta. But the point is that they’ve even hedging here for the obvious reason. As I said before Abhishek has so dominated the advertising here and Rohit Shetty has been beating everyone on the head so much with the ‘Bol Bachchan’ deal including in the most recent longer trailer that it’s very hard even for the total partisans to say the usual stuff here. Some still will but blindness and madness are by no means extinct in this world!
And so BOI are right in a way. To the extent that it seems more about Abhishek it might make certain audiences skeptical who have good reason to be so with Abhishek. On the other hand this film is so ‘obvious’ in terms of what it’s trying to do that no one could really be in doubt as to what to expect here! And so the initial will probably not be affected on Abhishek grounds. Remember that Devgan has never had even a 60 crore initial on his own. He could have with Singham but didn’t get it (though he’d get a big one for a Singham sequel). But in any case if you have Abhishek on the mind as BOI do you answer the question this way!
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM
LOL !!! So according to BOI, if both parts of GOW do 50 crore ( quite likely on the cards ) we have a Super-hit on hand !!
Wonder what the commentary would be post release of Part 2 !!!
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Interesting! This project is going to be the ‘biggest Chinese’ film of all times- and it has a certain “Indian connection”
The film here is a IMAX 3D one “THE MONKEY KING”- It is based on the 4 Great Classical Chinese novels “JOURNEY TO THE WEST” (written by Wu Cheng’en) written during the’ Ming Dynasty’ which talks about the legend of the Monkey King and how he rebels against the Jade Emperor of Heaven-
http://themonkeykingmovie.com/
Cast- Main cast
* Donnie Yen as Sun Wukong, the Monkey King
* Chow Yun-fat as the Jade Emperor
* Aaron Kwok as Bull Demon King
The novel is a fictionalised account of the legendary pilgrimage to India of the Buddhist monk Xuanzang, and loosely based its source from the historic text Great Tang Records on the Western Regions and traditional folk tales. The monk travelled to the “Western Regions” during the Tang Dynasty, to obtain sacred texts (sūtras). The bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin), on instruction from the Buddha, gives this task to the monk and his three protectors in the form of disciples — namely Sun Wukong, Zhu Bajie and Sha Wujing — together with a dragon prince who acts as Xuanzang’s steed, a white horse. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey_King_%28film%29
Amazing 1st look Posters- http://shanghaiist.com/attachments/anneberry/the_monkey_king_donnie_yen.jpg ,
http://www.oneinchpunch.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/chow-yun-fat-monkey-king.jpg,
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Great! Another Hong-Kong epic film coming out-
“The Assassins”- based on famous Chancellor of the Han Empire, “Cao Cao”
In the year 198 BC, Cao Cao (CHOW YUN FAT), the Prime Minister of Han Dynasty, ventured to the east and defeated China’s greatest warrior Lv Bu, terrifying every ambitious warlord across the country. Several years later, after taking the Han Emperor under his wing Cao crowned himself King of Wei. He built a magnificent Bronze Sparrow Island to symbolize his power and rumors spread that he would replace the Emperor.
Meanwhile, young lovers Mu Shun (TAMAKI HIROSHI) and Ling Jv (CRYSTAL LIU YI FEI) were taken from a prison camp to a hidden tomb where they spent five cruel years together being trained as assassins for a secret mission. In the year 220 BC astronomical signs predict dramatic change. As a result, Cao’s son Cao Pi (QIU XIN ZHI) and Cao’s followers urge Cao to become the new Emperor. However opposing forces plot against him.- http://www.arclightfilms.com/NewTitles.aspx?ProjectId=0e9689fd-4107-49e2-0f9a-a5c8b4a5ce08&bu=Easternlight
Poster- http://www.arclightfilms.com/images/%7B0e9689fd-4107-49e2-0f9a-a5c8b4a5ce08%7D/assassinsweb_%7Bbdd9708d-379a-e111-ba52-5296b839ed91%7D.jpg
Also, another Chinese Film which was selected for Cannes 2012, starring Zhang Ziyi and Cecilia Cheung and directed by Hur Jin-Ho (Christmas in August, One Fine Spring Day (2001), April Snow (2005), Happiness (2007) and A Good Rain Knows) titled ‘DANGEROUS LIAISONS” (adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses) –
As war looms in Shanghai, glamorous libertine MO JIEYU (Cecilia Cheung) runs into playboy XIE YIFAN (Jang Dong-Gun), an ex boyfriend who’s never stopped loving her, and
persuades him to play a treacherous game. Xie must seduce the innocent and naïve DU. FENYU (Zhang Ziyi) and then dump her. But the game becomes increasingly dangerous as Xie falls in love with Du, and it will lead them all towards tragic and shocking
consequences.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Jatt And Juliet Is Biggest All Time Blockbuster Of Punjabi Cinema
Tuesday 3rd July 2012 12.00 IST
Boxofficeindia.Com Trade Network
Jatt And Juliet has emerged the biggest Punjabi blockbuster ever and has smashed all records for Punjabi films by a distance.
The film held up extremely well on Monday with multiplexes going housefull across Punjab after a bumper weekend. The advances are super strong at all multiplexes for the weekdays and the unprecedented craze of the film is likely to dent collections of Bol Bachchan in Punjab.
Jatt and Juliet will collected around 4.25 crore nett in Punjab in week one which beats the previous record of 2.80 crore by a huge margin and in two weeks it will most probably be the highest grossing Punjabi film of all time.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 3:40 PM
1st Look image from “IRON MAN 3”- http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/iron-man-3-concept-art.jpg http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/iron-man-3-movie-image-set-photo1.jpg
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 5:41 PM
While channel hopping came across ‘how to lose friends and Alienate people’
Megan fox can be damn…
Nominated for he best supporting dress lol
Anyhow-is it worth a watch ?
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM
OT but big news!- For all J.K. Rowling fans, her next novel “THE CASUAL VACANCY” is releasing on Sep 27, 2012. It is Rowling’s 1st ‘adult novel’ Plot deals with “a veritable war over an empty seat on the council of the small fictional town of Pagford” – http://collider.com/j-k-rowling-the-casual-vacancy/177294/
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM
I’m a naysayer on Harry Potter!
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM
Will agree with u. not a naysayer exactly but not a fan. After Lord of the rings, the fantasy novel i really enjoyed was Christopher Paolini’s “Eragon” (actually the entire Inheritence trilogy- the film is pathetic)- not sure whether u have read them. Also loved Amulet of Samarkand (Bartimaeus trilogy) by Jonathon Stroud. A very intereseting indian fantasy novel is “Simoqin Prophecies” by Samit Basu
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:20 PM
not a fan of LOTR either. In fact the movies bored me to death!
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM
Ha! i am assuming u must have even hated The Hobbit and Silmarillion. Which are the fantasy novels you have liked (if u have liked any)
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM
Not a fan of HP series (though I have seen all )but last one was well made..
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM
What the…Gangs of Womanhood?
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 4:43 AM
LOL!
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 6:34 PM
i will say this that whether one is a fan of the series or not, one has to concede that all the HP films (and esp the last one) were extremely well-made and acted. Fiennes as Voldemort was particularly a treat to watch (somewhere reminded me of his Schindler’s List performance)
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 6:20 AM
“How to lose friends and alienate people”
Watched bits of this film
Nothing great but does the job it says on the tin
A light comedy with a bit of romance on the sides with some trademark satire?..
Simon Pegg shows flashes of brilliance …
Kirsten dunst is good
And Megan fox: well, she doesn’t need to do anything but be around…
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 7:02 AM
Simon Pegg actually is my fav comic actor currently- he has a very different style of comedy which is not over-the-top.he is also a very talented script-writer. 3 of his films are really top class- Shaun of The Dead, Hot Fuzz and Paul- and he thankfully stays away from the raunchy/sex comedies. Other guy whom i like is Seth Rogen.i can’t stand Adam Sandler.Ben Stiller,on the other hand, can be effective at times (Meet the parents, There’s something abt Mary).But no one is like the great Jim Carrey.
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 6:33 AM
A spoof on “how to lose friends and alienate people”
A Funny take (unrelated to anyone)
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 6:40 AM
Something for the guys
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM
Rowdy Rathore Hits Half Century In Mumbai
Wednesday 4th July 2012 09.30 IST
Boxofficeindia.Com Trade Network
Rowdy Rowdy hit the 50 crore nett mark in Mumbai circuit in its fifth weekend. It is the third film history to hit the magical 50 crore mark after Three Idiots and Golmaal 3. Films like Dabangg, Bodyguard, Agneepath and Ready have failed to achieve this feat.
Golmaal 3 grossed nearly 51 crore nett in Mumbai and Rowdy Rathore will just edge past that film to become the second highest grossing film ever in Mumbai after Three Idiots which grossed 79 crore nett approx. Even if the nett business falls short of Golmaal 3 by a few lakhs in the circuit, the distributor share will be bigger.
Rowdy Rathore has been phenomenal in Gujarat as it has grossed over 25 crore nett in the state of Gujarat (inc Gujarat and Saurashtra). The business is just 10% lower than Three Idiots in Gujarat.
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 9:00 AM
Rowdy Rathore Shows The Huge Importance Of Single Screens Yet Again
Wednesday 5th July 2012 11.30 IST
Boxofficeindia.Com Trade Network
Rowdy Rathore has again shown the importance of single screen business which are neglected as the general perception is that business today is all about multiplexes which is false and only true for smaller budget films and for big city films which hardly get a single screen release. There are always reports that 70% or 80% of the revenue today is from multiplexes but it seems actual numbers are not added up correctly.
The huge importance of single screens has been proved by practically every blockbuster hit since multiplexes came to India 12-13 years back and Rowdy Rathore is no different.
Rowdy Rathore will give a distributor share of around 31 crore from multiplexes while single screens will be around 41 crore which is a 57-43 ratio in favour of single screens. With Rowdy Rathore the nett business will almost be in the 50-50 ratio let alone the revenue.
This has been the case with practically every blockbuster film over the last decade where single screens give same revenue or more. It can be said its due to action films but even with a film like Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi it was 21 crore revenue each from multiplexes and single screens.
In the last couple of years the conversion of single screens to perform with digital prints has probably outpaced the multiplex growth which was at a peak in the 2006-2009 period.
It is pretty weird that it is always reported that its all about multiplexes today when the films that actually make good money have a larger chunk of the all India theatrical revenue coming from single screens.
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 9:20 AM
this is quite false for a number of reasons:
1)The differential in ticket rates is so enormous between multiplexes and single screens that you can’t even get around to equalizing this disparity. Specially as you move away from some huge (and historic) single/double screens in some cities.
2)The reason many single screens seem to be contributing a lot to these masala films is precisely because these films are not that big in the multiplexes. They do well enough, mostly these films open hugely and then more or less collapse and/or do a quick fade in the multiplexes. It’s really the smaller centers supporting these films or providing them enough cushion beyond a point. These films are too ‘lowbrow’ to engage a multiplex audience in the major metros for too long, at least across the board. Now lowbrow because they’re masala but because they can be pretty crass a lot of times. Hardly anyone is making ‘intelligent’ masala. These films are entertaining enough but hardly great examples of the genre even by today’s standards. There’s a reason why not one of these films has matched Ghajini in trending terms or even in terms of the overall gross when adjusted for inflation.
3)the other thing I suspect here is that BOI is using smaller centers interchangeably with single screens. First off in the major half dozen or more metros of India single screen rates are way higher than those elsewhere though these are still lower than multiplexes. So a single/double screen gross in Bombay is one thing, the same from Amritsar quite another! Let alone even smaller centers. Similarly there is now a sea of multiplexes also operating in smaller centers that changes the whole economy of that center. Suddenly the gross from that center gets jacked up, becomes more significant than it otherwise has been. I find it impossible to believe that BOI have really been sifting through all of this. Even if they wanted to they couldn’t because there’s no such precise data available in India. Just the multiplexes can be tracked. Even this info isn’t commonly available.
4)You can’t make up for a Rs 150 or 250 or 350 or whatever ticket in Bombay with Rs 30 in a small center! It’s even less in many places. Plus the multiplexes are taxed at negligible rates, often close to zero. The single/double screens play regularly entertainment tax, in many of the Northern/Central Indian states this can be extraordinarily high. So the idea that despite all this imbalance somehow the single screens can provide as much of the gross as the multiplexes is patently absurd. Even a half decent multiplex performance cannot really be matched by a very good single screen one. Small centers, factoring in all the multiplexes, are a different deal.
All in all this entire set of claims is bunk. I wish it were so but it isn’t. Certainly the smaller centers are a much bigger part of the game today but multiplexes mushrooming in many of these centers are a big part of the story. Without these some of the masala films would gross far less. Still things are better to some degree than they used to be but it is important to remember how the things are being reordered. So you might have a multiplex or two in Kanpur which jacks up the gross of this center compared to what it was without one. At the same time you are also introducing the same high/low economic divide here that is already prevalent in Bombay or Delhi. Not arguing for social justice here (!) but the point is that a film that does half-decently in Kanpur can now register more significantly than a superhit in past years without the advantage of a multiplex or two. It’s good to have Kanpur become more significant however it’s done but it’s not necessarily the single screen here that’s becoming so. with films like RR you have a few days of good opening business in the major metros. then the film starts operating at a very low level. But it stays stronger in the Kanpurs of India, here helped by multiplex business, to an extent single screens. You would need a historic performance in the latter to make up for middling business in the multiplexes. It’s highly improbable if not impossible. And again this assumes average multiplex business. If you on the other hand had huge multiplex business there would be no chance of the single/double screens catching up in any sense. Which is what happened with 3I. The film did very well everywhere but it was a monster in multiplexes everywhere across India with repeat viewings and so on. And sure enough the other films weren’t even close. This has been one of my points for very long. Most of these so called 100 crore hits are not doing that well at all. Most of the gross is really about the first five days or so!
By the way note how ZNMD offers a good example here. A multiplex-only film if ever there was one. It did good business, was stable, it got to 90 crores or so. It’s impossible for a comparable single/double screen only film to get to half this number with a comparable performance or even a much better one! And ZNMD was hardly shattering records. Imagine what a truly very strong multiplex film would today be capable of. We haven’t seen one for ages. Because the Yahsraj paradigm has died out and doesn’t excite the multiplexes in the same way. The masala/comedy deal is usually about big initial numbers and not much more. So both ways we’re not getting a very big multiplex moment. yet ZNMD on its own got to 90 crores. Rockstar opened better than ZNMD, then slipped, it still got to 65-70 crores or whatever. and no one thought this was a great performance. Once again think about what a RDB kind of deal would do today!
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 9:31 AM
it was a treat o read those interesting discussions by Anjali, oldgold, satyam, saurabh, and ami.. glad to be a part of this blog!
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 9:49 AM
glad you are part of the blog..
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Masters of cinema : David lean
Passage to india
>Prelude
Rome wasn’t built in a day and nor do reputations get constructed in a day-takes a career, a lifetime!
Here one is talking about David lean -his last film!
Perhaps not exactly in the same scale as lawrence of Arabia, but one can sense a similar sense of ambition and visual splendour.
>Setting/ ambience
1920s Karnataka -pre independence India. And the interplay between animosity and admiration towards the British way of life with stirrings of patriotism and the feeling of being wronged!
Captures the uncertainty and ambivalence of that historical era.
> messages/ vibes
It tackles a few complex issues tactfully without getting caught up in either
*racial prejudice
*societal taboos
*sexual repression
*class divide
> cast
Is uniformly adept and accomplished
Peggy Ashcroft wins an academy award (think there were more than ten nominations!)
Again one senses that this was too much a film and a maker to be ignored but the choice of award was more of a consolation..
The other award for music also seemed to compensate for the lack of awards in other categories (as happens usually)
One of the best Indian set of actors
Victor banerjee is brilliant and peerless.
Saeed Jeffrey in a small role is effectively
And roshan Seth again shows why I love his cameos as in guru
>James foxs character and performance was endearing
> Alec Guinness as an Indian brahmin!! Well, many will criticise this but didn’t find it a wrong choice overall-at the cost of authenticity the guy did add something worthwhile to proceedings.
>standout act
Judy davis in the complexed role stood out by being the only internalised implosive performer in the crowd of demonstrative expressive stalwarts.
She just mesmerised the camera, the viewer and also dr aziz apparently ?
A performance and role to remember!
> Style
Screenplay was simple and elegant
Visual scenery was rich with compellling use of landscape, local life and visual signals
Though this is an adaption of Forsters book, certain value additions were made-like addition of the temple meeting scene!
> what started as another ‘multitasking’ viewing of a merchant ivoryesque film, increasingly drew me in
This is the strength of lean -there are certainly flaws as one would expect from a westerners skewed view of the east , but these are simply transcended by his vision and grasp of the overall medium!
So whilst lean is not at the too of his game, even that is good enough.
> the unanswered question!
What happened in the cave in that scene filled with nervous anxiety laced with sexual tension !
If anyone has rad the book/ seen the film, may plz opine.
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 1:04 PM
^ Passage to India -addendum
Don’t usually write reviews, and neither is this,but felt it prudent to be a bit more structured when dealing with such efforts.
Even the posters and covers are memorabilia worthy
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM
A passage to India -contd–
The movie made me sit up somewhat
Am still waiting for anyone to tell me the ‘unanswered question’
-but the silence is somewhat symptomatic of the current tastes being corrupted by houseful2 and penchant for Imran khan cinema lol
Anjali–have u seen this one?
Btw made me visit some David lean
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 4:01 PM
no i havent but really want to see…the th movie good?
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Ok anjali -specially for u and any others with good taste –wouldn’t call it pathbreaking or even David leans best but bcos of the ‘Indian connection’ makes it relevant
I saw it on DVD but since u asked found that it is also available on YouTube
This is part 1of 16-other parts available as well on YouTube …
Let me know your thoughts angeli
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM
You’ve just discovered Passage to India?! What next? Casablanca?!
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM
whole part is available under 1 part(try searching a passage to india: full movie)
friends have told me satyajit ray was interested on its cinematic adaptation but leans was the first to run away with it
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 4:50 PM
Satyam : unfortunately folks like me and anjali are mere cinematic ‘learners’ and probably may not reach your stage but we are trying slowly and with time 🙂
Ps: thanx rockstar for the info about the full movie–and about that info on ray
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM
“unfortunately folks like me and anjali are mere cinematic ‘learners’”
my remark wasn’t addressed to Anjali!
by the way I like this film a lot.
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 5:19 PM
thnx a lot…gonna see
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM
@satyam…i have seen casablanca…seen other films by lean..read forsters book…just this one film was missing
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 5:23 PM
just pulling Alex’s leg! He was presenting this film with a certain earnestness!
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 5:32 PM
Well, have absolutely no qualms to say that haven’t read this book and have seen this movie for the first time!!
Btw I have No egos of being anything more than a ‘learner’ on this 🙂
Good that everyone has already seen this movie/read this book–
What is your interpretation on what actually happened in that goddam cave?
Any ideas angeli
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 2:50 PM
‘Amazing Spider-Man’ Nets $7.5 Million at Midnight
by Ray Subers
July 3, 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man earned an estimated $7.5 million from midnight shows last night. Among comic book movies, that’s much lower than The Avengers ($18.7 million) and The Dark Knight, but about on par with Iron Man 2 ($7.5 million). Sony is also reporting that the figure is identical to Spider-Man 3’s midnight haul from the first weekend of May 2007. IMAX showings at 300 locations accounted for $1.2 million, or 16 percent of the gross.
While the Spider-Man 3 comparison is a flattering one (that movie wound up earning $151.1 million through its first three days), it isn’t really an apples-to-apples one. With kids still in school, the first weekend of May rarely turns out strong midnight numbers, while all kids and many adults are off leading in to the Fourth of July holiday. Also, the way in which audiences attend midnight movies has changed noticeably in the past few years: the top eight midnight openings ever have taken place since 2009 (only five of the top eight opening weekends are in that same time frame). Finally, with the addition of 3D and the drastically increased number of IMAX venues, tickets for The Amazing Spider-Man are much more expensive than those for Spider-Man 3.
Still, The Amazing Spider-Man and Spider-Man 3 are very different movies. The Amazing Spider-Man is a reboot with a completely fresh cast and some weird baggage associated with the previous franchise, while Spider-Man 3 was the highly-anticipated follow-up to the first two entries in Sam Raimi’s franchise. For The Amazing Spider-Man to have the same midnight haul, even with inflated ticket prices and a more hospitable release date, is a minor accomplishment for sure.
It’s hard to predict exactly how The Amazing Spider-Man will fare through its first six days, given the lack of comparable Tuesday releases. It is clear now that $100 million is a guarantee, while $150 million also appears to be a very reachable figure.
http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3478&p=.htm
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 3:00 PM
‘god particle’found -99.9% certainty !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/9374758/Higgs-boson-scientists-99.999-sure-God-Particle-has-been-found.html
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 4:54 PM
Big news! 1st Official Poster from Sam Raimi’s big budget film “Oz : The Great And The Powerful” (prequel to The Wizard of Oz) starring James Franco as the titular wizard and Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams as the ‘3 witches’ – releases March 8, 2013- http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/Oz-The-Great-and-Powerful-poster.jpg
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 6:26 PM
WTF! J.P. Dutta directing “Border 2”- Suniel Shetty and Muzammil Ibrahim (Dhokha, Will You Marry Me)- No other actor from the original will be retained. here is Shetty confirming- “I’m playing an army officer in Border 2,” says Suniel.- http://india.nydailynews.com/article/15c7ac9eb3635c2f8f8b19c7e907d6e3/back-to-border&site=news&usg=AFQjCNE-Ty84Jn0jQ5TEamC_VzZHb_XPjA
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 6:41 PM
Yawn. and half a yawn for the original.
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 6:47 PM
LOL. C’mon, inspite of its faulty jingoism i thought Border was well directed and entertaining. Had great songs (Sandese and Mere Dushman Mere Bhai) and some crackling chemistry between Akshaye and Shetty
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 7:12 PM
I didn’t like it at all.. leaving aside the jingoism just didn’t think it was gripping enough for a war film. On the other hand I liked LoC a lot and still think the film hasn’t been given its due.
LikeLike
July 4, 2012 at 6:28 PM
Here is an earlier article from February this year confirming the same- http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-22/news-interviews/31083501_1_muzammil-ibrahim-jp-dutta-film&sa=U&ei=rML0T-q9GKnk2wWY_pCFBw&ved=0CBcQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNE1roy4ScbGjLSs7uZl26KLtqUZUg
LikeLike