It has been two decades that the three Khans - ShahRukh, Aamir and Salman have been calling the shots at Bollywood. I remember reading an article few years back, which said 1990s belonged to three Khans and Kajol. And, there is no denying this. The three Khans not only provided vibrance to the hindi movies, which failed miserably to produce superstar when Amitabh Bacchhan was not actually young to play the angry young man.
Not only that, the music of their movies was undoubetdly fresh! Remember the 1980s music, when audience used to move out of hall to smoke a cig, grab a cold drink, and returned to the hall only when the song got over. In fact, it was the feeling of 'something new and unseen' which gave SRK his first few hits like Baazigar, Darr, where the villian was bigger than the hero or the hero had villanious touch.
Towards, the end of 1990s, it seemed that it dawned upon Khans that their time was running out and they have to step up their efforts to compete with the young brigade. I remember reading an article wherein SRK had said that he was afraid of his fans forgeting him in his old age. And, there was a precedent to it as well. The 'Jubilee Kumar', Rajendra Kumar used to get so many letters from his fans that he had to appoint a secretary just to read and reply to them. Years later, when Jubilee Kumar was old, he said he was craving for even one letter from a fan. No one had written to him in ages.
It seemed to me that the three Khans knew that post they cross their mid thirties, they have to be extremely careful of their image, the kind of movies they do, the kind of directors they work with. However, all three of them gave more importance to have a certain image in audience's eyes. They even tried to expand their fan club. Take SRK for instance, the youth icon of 90s who had girls drooling over him and who once did bold film like Maya Memsaab, he said he will not kiss the heroine. If this was not for making sure that old ladies treat him like their son, then what was this for? SRK knew it that he was famous only among young people, which he did not afford with his age meter reading one more every year. SRK also made sure that he does movies with same directors like Farah Khan, Karan Johar. All his experiments like Maya Memsaab, Oh Darling Yeh Hai India, Darr, Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman belonged to 1990s. In the current decade, he has done just three different movies - Swades, Chak De. It is strange to know that Swades and Veer Zaara were released at that same time, still SRK went on to win the awards for Veer Zaara.
Aamir Khan, known also as 'The Perfectionist', has done few experiments. There is no denying that Lagaan, Dil Chahta Hai, Rang De Basanti, Taare Zameein Par were experiments considering the kind of repetition prevailing in Hindi Cinema. But, to label Aamir as an actor who does take huge challenges would be over-rating him. If we compare these movies, with the real experimental stuff which happens in other parts of India, we would realise that actors like Kamal Hassan, MohanKumar are far superior than Aamir in acting department and they have done such varying roles that with Aamir's pace, he might end up spending his life and still would not be able to do half as those experiments.
As far as Salman Khan is concerned, the last time he did a serious role, which the audience could digest was Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam in 1999. Post that, it has been an endless series of comedies, which are often cheap comedies, double meaning in nature, which are not even a surrogate for the kind of comedy, the world has seen.
I think the kind of cinema SRK, Aamir and Salman belong to definitely discourages the new breed of film makers, who see their experiments tanking badly because the distributors think the audience can watch Billu Barber, but not movies like Dev D.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Non-Conformism
Few of us love being non-conformist, don't we. Bombay has been a non-conformist city, where women wear clothes of their choice and not dictated by the whims and fancies of the other sex. Kids don’t return to their homes at 10 pm, the deadline in rest of the India, else your dad might well be found waiting for you in front of your colony. Well, this is the social and cultural non-conformism. There are different aspects to this side of human nature. Most often, you would find non-conformism breeding due to reinforcement of its opposite by the majority. In case such happens, the non-conformist must be prepared to be at the receiving end. The existence of God, for instance, has often led to the conflict. Majority of us believe in God, which leaves a small fraction of us non-believers. Those great men, who invented words, called them atheist, am sure this word is a creation of a believer. Isn’t it too striking that the English language does not have an equally well sounding opposite to atheist. Well, the obvious opposite is a 'believer', but the word does not carry the weight, which 'atheist' carries. Am also sure that if you call a non-believer an atheist, he might deny to accept it, which shows that it might not be the case of him not believing in the God, its just that he/she does not even care thinking about it. For a non-believer, the time, which others spend in going to temple, or making rounds around a peepal is better, spent in pursuing a hobby or just doing nothing.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Why I am sad for Federer!
Well, yesterday was again a sad day for me. Federer lost to Nadal in a Aus Open Final in five setter. In the last one and half years, Nadal has gone on to win grand slams on grass and hard courts. With yesterday's win, he also stopped Federer from equalling Pete Sampras's record of 14 grand slams. I have never come across such battles on a tennis court in almost two decades of watching this game. Well, you can always compare Sampras and Becker matches or Sampras and Agassi matches with Fed vs Rafa, but the difference is while the odds were 50-50 for great players in 1990, the odds for Federer against Rafa is 0 today. Rafa has beaten Federer on clay in French Open, which made Federer and his fans say that Rafa is the King of Clay and Fed is King of All but Clay. That was certainly not arrogance from Fed, he is far too superior to show such kind of emotions, it was sheer belief in his game which made him pass that remark.
Yesterday, the belief was broken. For Fed, who stood through that gruelling Wimbeldon Final for five sets after having dropped first two and then trying to maintain the calm for the next six months enroute which, he lost to many unknown players, while doing the important thing of not shying away from loss, there was no surprise that he broke down during the presentation ceremony. It was clear in fifth set, that he had either run out of options against Rafa or run out of energy. The world had started regarding Federer as the greatest player ever on Earth. Even other legends like McEnroe had said that, Fed contemporaries said even if the match is on ice, this man would win it. From those heights, his stature is relegated to a great player who could not pass through the possible greatest players ever. I dont think it would be possible for Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg, Rod Laver or John McEnroe to understand what is going on in Fed'd head. Because to understand that Sampras should have played an equally great player like Borg or Laver in his prime. I feel that the world has never seen two players of this class to come and play in the same era and with little age difference. This is evident as the two players have met each other seven times in a grand slam final more than any other pair of legends in their era. Though, an age difference of five is not insignifcant, still Federer is 27 and he started playing Nadal when he was possibly 23. In no way, can anyone say that Federer was too old to face Nadal, the excuse which Sampras could give when he was beaten by Federer.
Though, am sure that such matches are good for the game of tennis, still they leave an incomprehensible feeling with every match Federer loses to Rafa. Perhaps, this shows that am still a Federer fan and shall remain so. Not that I dont like Rafa, he is simply unstoppable. Sometimes, you like what is not the best at that moment and in this case it is Federer.
Yesterday, the belief was broken. For Fed, who stood through that gruelling Wimbeldon Final for five sets after having dropped first two and then trying to maintain the calm for the next six months enroute which, he lost to many unknown players, while doing the important thing of not shying away from loss, there was no surprise that he broke down during the presentation ceremony. It was clear in fifth set, that he had either run out of options against Rafa or run out of energy. The world had started regarding Federer as the greatest player ever on Earth. Even other legends like McEnroe had said that, Fed contemporaries said even if the match is on ice, this man would win it. From those heights, his stature is relegated to a great player who could not pass through the possible greatest players ever. I dont think it would be possible for Pete Sampras, Bjorn Borg, Rod Laver or John McEnroe to understand what is going on in Fed'd head. Because to understand that Sampras should have played an equally great player like Borg or Laver in his prime. I feel that the world has never seen two players of this class to come and play in the same era and with little age difference. This is evident as the two players have met each other seven times in a grand slam final more than any other pair of legends in their era. Though, an age difference of five is not insignifcant, still Federer is 27 and he started playing Nadal when he was possibly 23. In no way, can anyone say that Federer was too old to face Nadal, the excuse which Sampras could give when he was beaten by Federer.
Though, am sure that such matches are good for the game of tennis, still they leave an incomprehensible feeling with every match Federer loses to Rafa. Perhaps, this shows that am still a Federer fan and shall remain so. Not that I dont like Rafa, he is simply unstoppable. Sometimes, you like what is not the best at that moment and in this case it is Federer.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Something I wrote on Mumbai
The narrow by lanes of Mumbai are in complete contrast to the image of the city, which has space for everyone. Getting out from the Dadar Station, you will come across a deluge of hawkers, vegetable vendors, sweepers, coolies – all are tyring better than their best to make a living. And, they don’t pretend otherwise; for instance if you try to negotiate with the coolie at any station, he would reply back saying that much as you come to Mumbai to become rich, so has he. And, this is the very fact, which makes this city different from hundreds of other cities, or glorified villages, which are trying hard to be called a city. In no story, no novel, would you find mention of man, who went to become rich to any other city in India apart from Mumbai. And as for Mumbai, you can spend your life counting such examples – the legendary actor Dev Anand was once working for the postal department, and then went on to leave his job to become what we know him as, and who can forget Dhirubhai Ambani, the once petrol pump attendant who went on to become the owner of the mighty enterprise called Reliance Industries. Or, Zeenat Aman, who once used to work in the magazine called Filmfare and later went on to become a film star herself. Similarly, growing up in the crowded suburbs of Chembur, Anil Kapoor would never have thought that one day he would be a part of world renown film called Slumdog Millionaire, which revolves around the same city, he has grown up in.
A city of such a great divide and the divide is more mental than physical. In the history of humankind, there would hardly be a more dividing line than the western railway line of Mumbai. On one side of the line is eastern part and on the other western and therefore every suburban area has an eastern and western part of it, like Andheri East, Andheri West. The disparity is to such an extent that you can easily come across people attending their nature calls in morning on the railway track itself for the lack of space and sanitation facilities and a few kilometers from these seemingly third world conditions are the bungalows of Bollywood stars in Bandra suburbs of Mumbai – stars who are the icons of millions of fans across the world. For those stars, they have Carter Road running parallel to sea on one side, and bungalows, luxurious flats, hotels on the other side. For the commoners, the roads on the eastern side of Bandra never fall shy of giving smell of rotten fish, garbage or various kinds of miscellaneous filth. There are numerous such startling differences in the mega metropolis of India. Driving up from Taj Hotel to Malabar Hills on Marine Drive, you could spot a constellation of rising buildings on the hill, before which the Arabian Sea is spread. And, one of the closest railway stations from Malabar Hills is Grant Road, the notorious original red light are of Mumbai, crowded as hell with people as diverse as different animal species in Africa. You can see women with layers of cheap make-up, who want to make a difference by their appearance so that the customers can locate them from a distance and often one among those customers would be a rich businessman, broker or estate agent. That Malabar Hills is costlier than the costly places of New York and Grant Road is filthier than the filthiest red light areas of third world itself shows that there is no dearth of variety in this city.
A city of such a great divide and the divide is more mental than physical. In the history of humankind, there would hardly be a more dividing line than the western railway line of Mumbai. On one side of the line is eastern part and on the other western and therefore every suburban area has an eastern and western part of it, like Andheri East, Andheri West. The disparity is to such an extent that you can easily come across people attending their nature calls in morning on the railway track itself for the lack of space and sanitation facilities and a few kilometers from these seemingly third world conditions are the bungalows of Bollywood stars in Bandra suburbs of Mumbai – stars who are the icons of millions of fans across the world. For those stars, they have Carter Road running parallel to sea on one side, and bungalows, luxurious flats, hotels on the other side. For the commoners, the roads on the eastern side of Bandra never fall shy of giving smell of rotten fish, garbage or various kinds of miscellaneous filth. There are numerous such startling differences in the mega metropolis of India. Driving up from Taj Hotel to Malabar Hills on Marine Drive, you could spot a constellation of rising buildings on the hill, before which the Arabian Sea is spread. And, one of the closest railway stations from Malabar Hills is Grant Road, the notorious original red light are of Mumbai, crowded as hell with people as diverse as different animal species in Africa. You can see women with layers of cheap make-up, who want to make a difference by their appearance so that the customers can locate them from a distance and often one among those customers would be a rich businessman, broker or estate agent. That Malabar Hills is costlier than the costly places of New York and Grant Road is filthier than the filthiest red light areas of third world itself shows that there is no dearth of variety in this city.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Guns, Germs and Steel
Currently, am reading a book called Guns, Germs and Steel. The book gives a history of almost everything for the last 13,000 years. The book contains surprising facts like:
a) None of the big mammals Africa is so much famous for, originated there. Their origins lie in eurasia.
b) The people of Madagascar are similar to those in New Guinea and this has baffled archeaologits. There are theories that all the continents were one land mass, which kep onb drifting apart resulting in creation of continents. However, what is not explained is if New Guienans mixed with natives of Madagascar, what stopped them from mixing with the inhabitants of East Africa.
c) Aborigines of Australia were still hunter gatheres when europeans arrive in Australia.
d) The direction of the spread of continent is an important factor. If the spread is more from north to east, like Africa then climatic conditions will vary significantly making the survival of things in North difficult in South and vice versa. This was the reason that so many plants and animals which thrived in North Africa could not survive in South Africa. On the other hand in eurasia, the spread is more east to west, therefore climatic conditons remain same making the movement of plants and animals much easier.
e) All domesticated crops like wheats, barley, rice have a wild ancestor which could have been posinous. Humans have changed the crops in thousands on years making them suitable for them. The latest fruit to be domesticated is apple because the process of change from wild to domestic was an extremely complex one. Have we ever realised its difficult to trace apple orchards. In India, only Kashmir and Himachal are famous for apples, I dont know of any other place.
f) Surplus food production is the bed rock of all human development. It leads to settlement at one place. Post that a certain section of society thinks that benefits are larger by controlling the production of food grains than by growing them themselves. This section become the rulers and beureaucrats. This is not possible with hunter gatheres, though they too have leaders but those leaders have to find food on their own and have too little time to rule.
g) Fertile Crescent is the name of the place where today we have countries like Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Israel, Palestine and etc. This was the place which had plants and animals of different varities. Hard to imagine today!
a) None of the big mammals Africa is so much famous for, originated there. Their origins lie in eurasia.
b) The people of Madagascar are similar to those in New Guinea and this has baffled archeaologits. There are theories that all the continents were one land mass, which kep onb drifting apart resulting in creation of continents. However, what is not explained is if New Guienans mixed with natives of Madagascar, what stopped them from mixing with the inhabitants of East Africa.
c) Aborigines of Australia were still hunter gatheres when europeans arrive in Australia.
d) The direction of the spread of continent is an important factor. If the spread is more from north to east, like Africa then climatic conditions will vary significantly making the survival of things in North difficult in South and vice versa. This was the reason that so many plants and animals which thrived in North Africa could not survive in South Africa. On the other hand in eurasia, the spread is more east to west, therefore climatic conditons remain same making the movement of plants and animals much easier.
e) All domesticated crops like wheats, barley, rice have a wild ancestor which could have been posinous. Humans have changed the crops in thousands on years making them suitable for them. The latest fruit to be domesticated is apple because the process of change from wild to domestic was an extremely complex one. Have we ever realised its difficult to trace apple orchards. In India, only Kashmir and Himachal are famous for apples, I dont know of any other place.
f) Surplus food production is the bed rock of all human development. It leads to settlement at one place. Post that a certain section of society thinks that benefits are larger by controlling the production of food grains than by growing them themselves. This section become the rulers and beureaucrats. This is not possible with hunter gatheres, though they too have leaders but those leaders have to find food on their own and have too little time to rule.
g) Fertile Crescent is the name of the place where today we have countries like Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Israel, Palestine and etc. This was the place which had plants and animals of different varities. Hard to imagine today!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Khamoshi
Last night, I watched Khamoshi, a movie released in 1968, forty years back. Its a srory of a nurse, Radha, who helps Dev Chatterjee, a patient, in coming back to terms with life after his girl friend ditches him and he is on the verge of being declared mentally retarted. In the course of treatment, Dev sees his mother, wife, girl friend everything in Radha, and is oblivious of the fact that what impression his behaviour is having on Radha. Radha in turn falls in love with Dev. The movie actually starts with Radha standing in the room emptied by Dev, who has just gone back to his home from hospital after recovering fully. Radha says that she was not acting after all, which she was supposed to do. She decides that such kind of care-taking can have lasting impact on her and is unwilling to take up similar case again.
Right then, an identical case of Arun Chowdhury comes, who has been ditched by his girl friend and now hates even the image of a women. Radha's boss pleads her to take care of the new patient, which she turns down. However, when Arun loses the control to an extent of being life threatening to hospital staff, Radha decides to take up the case. She sees Dev in Arun and Arun finds his lost love in Radha. Radha is completely broken as she is always with Dev in her sub conscious mind, however physically with Arun. Arun loves her, but Radha is in her own world. Towards the end, Arun returns to normalcy but Radha falls prey to the very ailment she was helping patients overcome. She loses her mental balance and has to be admitted to the same hospital, where she worked just few days back as a nurse.
It is beyong any words of appreciation that the movie is made in a era - which our elders often claim to be far more innocent and simple, for if this movie is to be re-made today, it will be as complex as it was 40 years back. What the audience of today will find suprising is that the movie is made in black-white and technically seems very old, which makes the real complexity and confusion of the characters much lesser apparent. For instance, an intense scene today, will be with dark shades, deep red color, and heroine shedding tears which damages her make-up and all this is done intentionally to make the scene more realistic. However, in Khamoshi made in 1968, such things are absent, yet the message is far more powerful. Also, for a script writer and a director to think of a character like Radha a full two generations ago is superb. It actually shows that certain sections of society were far more modern then as compared to the Gen X and Gen Y of today. The direction is subtle, as Dharamendra, who plays Dev is not shown facing the camera. The director has clearly made an attempt to show Dharmendra like an impression which Radha carries. So, you can see Dharamendra sitting on a chair with his back to audience, or at best you can only see his profile not his face. Dharamandra in 1968 was at the peak of his career, the director might have foccussed more on him thinking it will help his movie in doing good business. However, the director preferred rakim him for his acting abilities and not for his super stardom. The directors and technicians of today's cine world have a lot to learn from this movie.
Right then, an identical case of Arun Chowdhury comes, who has been ditched by his girl friend and now hates even the image of a women. Radha's boss pleads her to take care of the new patient, which she turns down. However, when Arun loses the control to an extent of being life threatening to hospital staff, Radha decides to take up the case. She sees Dev in Arun and Arun finds his lost love in Radha. Radha is completely broken as she is always with Dev in her sub conscious mind, however physically with Arun. Arun loves her, but Radha is in her own world. Towards the end, Arun returns to normalcy but Radha falls prey to the very ailment she was helping patients overcome. She loses her mental balance and has to be admitted to the same hospital, where she worked just few days back as a nurse.
It is beyong any words of appreciation that the movie is made in a era - which our elders often claim to be far more innocent and simple, for if this movie is to be re-made today, it will be as complex as it was 40 years back. What the audience of today will find suprising is that the movie is made in black-white and technically seems very old, which makes the real complexity and confusion of the characters much lesser apparent. For instance, an intense scene today, will be with dark shades, deep red color, and heroine shedding tears which damages her make-up and all this is done intentionally to make the scene more realistic. However, in Khamoshi made in 1968, such things are absent, yet the message is far more powerful. Also, for a script writer and a director to think of a character like Radha a full two generations ago is superb. It actually shows that certain sections of society were far more modern then as compared to the Gen X and Gen Y of today. The direction is subtle, as Dharamendra, who plays Dev is not shown facing the camera. The director has clearly made an attempt to show Dharmendra like an impression which Radha carries. So, you can see Dharamendra sitting on a chair with his back to audience, or at best you can only see his profile not his face. Dharamandra in 1968 was at the peak of his career, the director might have foccussed more on him thinking it will help his movie in doing good business. However, the director preferred rakim him for his acting abilities and not for his super stardom. The directors and technicians of today's cine world have a lot to learn from this movie.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Beauty and the lack of brains!!!!
Barrack Obama finally becomes the 44th US President. I know, the headline of tomorow's newspapers already as its not everyday that it is so easy to get the front page story idea.
I was wondering for a change why dont a paper comes with a headline saying "The World will Miss Ms Palin". In the last few months of the presidential campaign, she has made news for all wrong and funny reasons. Like, when asked about the concerns of energy deficiency in US, she said we would support Iraq. When asked about the link between the two, she replied everything is connected. Either she is a great economist of the likes of Adam Smith who thinks everything in the world is inter related and without us knowing invisible hand does it trick or she is a complete dumb.
She was also in news for spending few million dollars on her attire after she was nominated as a Vice President campaign. It had its results too. Pakistani PM Asaf Ali Zardari was so much taken in by the beauty that he found it difficult to leave her hand in a handshake. It has surely maligned the reputation of men from Indian Subcontinent, who often forget to "draw a line"
On her Linkelden profile, she has absolutely murdered the english language. Look at what she says “Join our cause and help our country to elect a great man as the next president of the United States. And I thank you, and I - God bless you, I say, and God bless America"
We will surely miss the entertainment!!!
I was wondering for a change why dont a paper comes with a headline saying "The World will Miss Ms Palin". In the last few months of the presidential campaign, she has made news for all wrong and funny reasons. Like, when asked about the concerns of energy deficiency in US, she said we would support Iraq. When asked about the link between the two, she replied everything is connected. Either she is a great economist of the likes of Adam Smith who thinks everything in the world is inter related and without us knowing invisible hand does it trick or she is a complete dumb.
She was also in news for spending few million dollars on her attire after she was nominated as a Vice President campaign. It had its results too. Pakistani PM Asaf Ali Zardari was so much taken in by the beauty that he found it difficult to leave her hand in a handshake. It has surely maligned the reputation of men from Indian Subcontinent, who often forget to "draw a line"
On her Linkelden profile, she has absolutely murdered the english language. Look at what she says “Join our cause and help our country to elect a great man as the next president of the United States. And I thank you, and I - God bless you, I say, and God bless America"
We will surely miss the entertainment!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)