Is it fare to be fair? Is it a crime to aspire to be a few tones lighter? While most of us would find it usual, the Union minister for health Dr Anbumani Ramadoss does not. Ramadoss is an angry man these days and has taken offense of manufacturers who advertise 10-second spots promising damsels (even dukes) a fair deal. If Ramadoss is serious about his fight against fairness products, for its lack of “scientific proof” as he reiterated in Delhi recently, he would have to lock horns with Kollywood super star Rajinikanth who in a movie tries fairness creams, among other means, to lighten the tone of his complexion, to win over his love interest.
But going by past instances, where the minister has raised objections against - smoking, junk food and alcohol - it would not be surprising if this new-found aversion is soon forgotten. At the early stages of his tenure as minister his TRPs soared during his much-publicised tiff with the previous AIIMS director Dr Venugopal that went in favour of the latter. His crusade against smoking is an apology to the space it occupied in the national media. The ban imposed on smoking was perhaps stillborn. Later, Ramadoss took up the issue of junk foods and even later was for prohibition. All the above mentioned initiatives taken by Pattali Makkal Katchi founder’s son was abandoned after it lost its charm. The enthusiasm that was shown initially soon lost steam.
While the minister’s intentions, as was in earlier cases, might seem noble, what is intriguing is to see what steps he would take to ensure that such advertisements are stopped? One would expect the minister to have learnt from his previous experiences but that does not seem to be the case.
By asking the information and broadcasting ministry to take action against manufacturers of fairness products, Ramadoss, who is a doctor by education, is treating the symptoms and not the disease. We would want the minister, under the aegis of his or any other ministry which would suit the job, to conduct a study in any renowned laboratory on these fairness products and if they are found to be just promising the stars, cancel their licences. In that way Ramadoss would not just be preaching but practising as well.
But that would be asking too much from the minister who is running the last lap of his tenure. We also forget that the importance of this year and what would be an election year without some clattering. Ramadoss might or might not leave the issue but to get back to Rajinikanth - he does become fairer in the movie and wins the love of the heroine.
Friday, 20 February 2009
It’s always good at Kumars’
Staying alone in a city is fun, especially when the city is peppered with family and friends. There has not been a weekend where I have found it hard to get through. It’s always packed --- If last week it was an office party, this week it was a reunion of old friends and next week I would have to spend with relatives calling on from out of station. But whatever be the case, I never fail to make it to the Kumars’ on Saturdays.
Vijay Kumar and his wife Rekha live in a three-bedroom apartment in Chennai. The best part of being at Kumars’ is the post-lunch chinwag we have that at times goes till dinner. Thankam (Rekha’s mother), Rekha and I are regulars at it. Thankam is in her eighties and is full of life, enthusiasm and is up-to-date on the current affairs.
Of late our pet topic is recession. Last Saturday, while I shared stories picked from my workplace, Rekha gave inputs gathered from different apartments in the colony. Thankam who is mostly confined to the house had her take on it. She went into the flashback mode --- On how life used to be ‘then’.
It was at this time Vijay came out of his study.
“If you miss the bus, you better walk it back. No autorickshaws,” he was shouting at Rohit (their son studying in 12th standard).
“Please be careful,” Thankam cautioned, “make sure you cross the road properly.”
“As a part of cost-cutting, the school bus plies only once in the afternoon for evening classes. And invariably some of the students miss it,” Rekha informed me.
“Look how easy she is about it. I am very scared,” Thankam commented about Rekha’s attitude.
“I still remember,” Thankam reflected, “When we were in Koramangala in the early Seventies. One day, Vijay had to go to for classes. And as though it was conspired, both the drivers did not turn up. The cars were at home but without a driver. I was expecting Maya (Vijay’s sister) and could not drive. Vijay’s father was in a foul mood that morning. He asked Vijay to walk it all the way for classes. I could not protest and Vijay had to go that day walking for the first time. I don’t know how he managed it.”
The expression in Thankam’s eyes said she was reliving that ordeal.
“From the time Vijay left home till he got back I was on tenterhooks. Both the telephones were out-of-order. None of our servants had also turned up. Vijay’s father left for work and I was alone at home. If someone broke into the house I could not even call for help.”
“But I was more worried for Vijay. On his way while walking someone could kidnap him. Those days that were rampant and children were taken away for their vital organs. They were even blinded and sent to Delhi for begging. Out of fear I let loose our four dogs. At least they would protect me from any harm.”
“Finally at around five I heard our dogs bark and knew Vijay had got back.”
With a frown on her face Rekha turned to me and whispered: “Vijay was late as he had to collect the application forms for his M Tech entrance exams.”
“Those were the longest few hours of my life,” Thankam said. After ruminating for some time and taking a long sigh she concluded: “Those were actually the toughest times. No car, no servants and no telephones…”
Vijay Kumar and his wife Rekha live in a three-bedroom apartment in Chennai. The best part of being at Kumars’ is the post-lunch chinwag we have that at times goes till dinner. Thankam (Rekha’s mother), Rekha and I are regulars at it. Thankam is in her eighties and is full of life, enthusiasm and is up-to-date on the current affairs.
Of late our pet topic is recession. Last Saturday, while I shared stories picked from my workplace, Rekha gave inputs gathered from different apartments in the colony. Thankam who is mostly confined to the house had her take on it. She went into the flashback mode --- On how life used to be ‘then’.
It was at this time Vijay came out of his study.
“If you miss the bus, you better walk it back. No autorickshaws,” he was shouting at Rohit (their son studying in 12th standard).
“Please be careful,” Thankam cautioned, “make sure you cross the road properly.”
“As a part of cost-cutting, the school bus plies only once in the afternoon for evening classes. And invariably some of the students miss it,” Rekha informed me.
“Look how easy she is about it. I am very scared,” Thankam commented about Rekha’s attitude.
“I still remember,” Thankam reflected, “When we were in Koramangala in the early Seventies. One day, Vijay had to go to for classes. And as though it was conspired, both the drivers did not turn up. The cars were at home but without a driver. I was expecting Maya (Vijay’s sister) and could not drive. Vijay’s father was in a foul mood that morning. He asked Vijay to walk it all the way for classes. I could not protest and Vijay had to go that day walking for the first time. I don’t know how he managed it.”
The expression in Thankam’s eyes said she was reliving that ordeal.
“From the time Vijay left home till he got back I was on tenterhooks. Both the telephones were out-of-order. None of our servants had also turned up. Vijay’s father left for work and I was alone at home. If someone broke into the house I could not even call for help.”
“But I was more worried for Vijay. On his way while walking someone could kidnap him. Those days that were rampant and children were taken away for their vital organs. They were even blinded and sent to Delhi for begging. Out of fear I let loose our four dogs. At least they would protect me from any harm.”
“Finally at around five I heard our dogs bark and knew Vijay had got back.”
With a frown on her face Rekha turned to me and whispered: “Vijay was late as he had to collect the application forms for his M Tech entrance exams.”
“Those were the longest few hours of my life,” Thankam said. After ruminating for some time and taking a long sigh she concluded: “Those were actually the toughest times. No car, no servants and no telephones…”
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Yet another sign of Talibanisation
Some people believe that invoking God and tradition can sanctify a vile act. That seems true of the Sri Ram Sene thugs who raided a Mangalore pub on January 24, rounded up, groped and beat up the women present. The reason: “because of the attitude of the young women” and for “consuming alcohol, dressing indecently, and mixing with youths of other faiths”. In short, it was done “in the name of God”. Almost as an echo comes a statement from Krishna Palemar, minister in charge of Dakshina Kannada, that “obscene” dances will not be allowed in the district. Such a pronouncement from a government minister implies a worrying degree of support for vigilante hooliganism. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has “categorically” distanced itself from this incident, but this is the same party whose chief minister B S Yeddyurappa only four months ago excused the attacks on churches in the state on the grounds that conversions were the cause. This time he has said, “It is unfortunate”, and nothing more. But the signs are ominous. Three days have passed, and the police still have not arrested the main perpetrators. As for the Sri Rama Sene, it has admitted its responsibility, and its founder Pramod Mutalik is unrepentant, dismissing the public outcry as unnecessary hype. That will be their attitude as long as the Krishna Palemars provide tacit support for their agenda, which is nothing more than a creeping Talibanisation of society, where everything that does not fit a selfserving “tradition” is suspect.
Such incidents in an election year are fodder for political parties and some have grabbed the bait gladly. Women and child development minister Renuka Chowdhury has condemned the attack and so has the National Commission for Women. Chowdhury has gone a step further, saying that if needed she would personally intervene in the case. Unfortunately, the assurance rings a bit hollow, because activists report that the rate of convictions for crimes against women is near zero. It is not just crimes against women, though. It was the Sri Ram Sene that attacked an M F Hussain exhibition in Delhi last August. It has also been mentioned by Lt Col Purohit, a prime suspect in the Malegaon blasts, in a transcript as doing a “good job”. True, judicial custody for the arrested could be extended. Remember the case where 14 youths were granted bail after two NRIs were molested on Juhu beach while celebrating New Year in 2008?
The people in the Amnesia bar were doing nothing illegal. It was the intruders who broke the law and they must be made to pay for it. We cannot allow morality to be used as a cover for barbarism.
Published version of this post can be viewed at (http://epaper.newindpress.com/NE/NE/2009/01/28/ArticleHtmls/28_01_2009_010_001.shtml?Mode=1 or http://epaper.newindpress.com/NE/NE/2009/01/28/index.shtml)
Such incidents in an election year are fodder for political parties and some have grabbed the bait gladly. Women and child development minister Renuka Chowdhury has condemned the attack and so has the National Commission for Women. Chowdhury has gone a step further, saying that if needed she would personally intervene in the case. Unfortunately, the assurance rings a bit hollow, because activists report that the rate of convictions for crimes against women is near zero. It is not just crimes against women, though. It was the Sri Ram Sene that attacked an M F Hussain exhibition in Delhi last August. It has also been mentioned by Lt Col Purohit, a prime suspect in the Malegaon blasts, in a transcript as doing a “good job”. True, judicial custody for the arrested could be extended. Remember the case where 14 youths were granted bail after two NRIs were molested on Juhu beach while celebrating New Year in 2008?
The people in the Amnesia bar were doing nothing illegal. It was the intruders who broke the law and they must be made to pay for it. We cannot allow morality to be used as a cover for barbarism.
Published version of this post can be viewed at (http://epaper.newindpress.com/NE/NE/2009/01/28/ArticleHtmls/28_01_2009_010_001.shtml?Mode=1 or http://epaper.newindpress.com/NE/NE/2009/01/28/index.shtml)
Friday, 23 January 2009
Bollywood denies Boyle’s mirage on Mumbai
I cannot recollect when I first heard about Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire. It caught my attention after I heard Jaya Ho on MTV and saw that the film was creating ripples on the international circuit by winning four Golden Globes, three Chicago Film Critics Award, three Satellite Awards, 10 Academy Award nominations and 11 nominations for the BAFTA Awards among many other laurels. Reviews have praised the treatment of the film as unique and refreshing.
It may be an inane notion to contradict popular choice, but I refused to believe Slumdog was a good film. As though we don’t have enough of them, the promos showed Anil Kapoor as a quizmaster in a TV game show, with slum children running throughout the montage.
In a week’s time Slumdog managed to do what every Bollywood film wants: attract the attention of a billion people. This in itself is an achievement given that most promising Bollywood masala films are received with a yawn. While movie buffs were praising Allah Rakkha Rahman’s music in the film, Indian film industry insiders were trying to work out how an Oliver Twist-meets-Richie Rich film shot by a foreigner had captured the imagination of the nation.
With fame comes foes and Slumdog is no exception. The detractors focus on two aspects. First, that it is being seen as an Indian/Bollywood film. Though the definition of an ‘Indian’ film is vague, Slumdog fails on certain prerequisites such as an Indian director and production house. But the film has other kinds of ‘Indian-ness’, an Indian cast, music director, co-director, milieu, and of course, a love triangle, hero-in search-of-childhood-sweetheart, betrayal and, even a dance sequence in a railway station. In that sense it is more Bollywood than Bollywood.
The second charge is the old whinge that when foreigners make a film on India they choose poverty. A theme that not many would want to associate with, a theme that India would not want to project to an international audience and a theme not many in Bollywood could relate to. As a veteran Bollywood director noted, from Satyajit Ray’s Pather Panchali onwards, filmmakers have eternalised poverty on screen.
Whoever raked up the issue might be unaware that almost all international indices on health, livelihood, maternal mortality, malnutrition and, female foeticide, infanticide and mortality, place India in alarmingly dangerous categories (India’s surplus of hunger, TNIE Jan 15). We can’t deny that.
The tempo of protest and reactions may have been different if the film had been made by Nagesh Kukunoor or Madhur Bhandarkar or Vishal Bharadwaj. The fact that a Briton has highlighted slums and poverty is a bitter pill to swallow.
The chances are that Slumdog, being a foreign production, would not have been noticed if not for the international acclaim. Recall Madhur Bhandarkar’s Traffic Signal released in 2007. It exposed the underbelly of our metropolises, but the cacophony we hear over Slumdog was not heard then. Bhandarkar’s film showed the murky side of city life in greater detail. In contrast, Boyle’s treatment has an almost innocent yet refreshing touch. One sees the joys of living in a slum — an aspect none of the ‘Indian’ films have captured. In that sense, it is about hope and optimism.
In an interview, Boyle said it was not poverty that attracted him to make the film but the ‘rags to rajah’ theme — a universal theme. But what if Boyle had been attracted to poverty and its omnipresence in Indian cities? Mumbaikars know that close to 60 per cent of them live in slums or ghettos alongside 10 of the Top-100 richest in the world, in many cases both sharing the same postal index number.
Maybe Slumdog has come at the wrong time. India as a nation is in denial. We are refusing to accept that our personal security (Mumbai 26/11), economic security (financial meltdown) and much-vaunted corporate growth (Satyam fraud) are like a mirage. Films seem to be the only comfort and Slumdog has invaded even this haven. We deny that the slums and life shown in the film are real and construe them to be a figment of the director’s imagination — a mirage the director has seen.
We surround ourselves with run-of-the-mill stories of love triangles. We prefer dancing jodis, re-incarnation and separated-at-birth tales. We forget that by taking these films internationally we show the world the India we prefer to see, the India we choose to acknowledge. By making films on India, others show the India they see and understand.
And we deny it.
(http://epaper.newindpress.com/NE/NE/2009/01/23/ArticleHtmls/23_01_2009_011_002.shtml?Mode=1)
It may be an inane notion to contradict popular choice, but I refused to believe Slumdog was a good film. As though we don’t have enough of them, the promos showed Anil Kapoor as a quizmaster in a TV game show, with slum children running throughout the montage.
In a week’s time Slumdog managed to do what every Bollywood film wants: attract the attention of a billion people. This in itself is an achievement given that most promising Bollywood masala films are received with a yawn. While movie buffs were praising Allah Rakkha Rahman’s music in the film, Indian film industry insiders were trying to work out how an Oliver Twist-meets-Richie Rich film shot by a foreigner had captured the imagination of the nation.
With fame comes foes and Slumdog is no exception. The detractors focus on two aspects. First, that it is being seen as an Indian/Bollywood film. Though the definition of an ‘Indian’ film is vague, Slumdog fails on certain prerequisites such as an Indian director and production house. But the film has other kinds of ‘Indian-ness’, an Indian cast, music director, co-director, milieu, and of course, a love triangle, hero-in search-of-childhood-sweetheart, betrayal and, even a dance sequence in a railway station. In that sense it is more Bollywood than Bollywood.
The second charge is the old whinge that when foreigners make a film on India they choose poverty. A theme that not many would want to associate with, a theme that India would not want to project to an international audience and a theme not many in Bollywood could relate to. As a veteran Bollywood director noted, from Satyajit Ray’s Pather Panchali onwards, filmmakers have eternalised poverty on screen.
Whoever raked up the issue might be unaware that almost all international indices on health, livelihood, maternal mortality, malnutrition and, female foeticide, infanticide and mortality, place India in alarmingly dangerous categories (India’s surplus of hunger, TNIE Jan 15). We can’t deny that.
The tempo of protest and reactions may have been different if the film had been made by Nagesh Kukunoor or Madhur Bhandarkar or Vishal Bharadwaj. The fact that a Briton has highlighted slums and poverty is a bitter pill to swallow.
The chances are that Slumdog, being a foreign production, would not have been noticed if not for the international acclaim. Recall Madhur Bhandarkar’s Traffic Signal released in 2007. It exposed the underbelly of our metropolises, but the cacophony we hear over Slumdog was not heard then. Bhandarkar’s film showed the murky side of city life in greater detail. In contrast, Boyle’s treatment has an almost innocent yet refreshing touch. One sees the joys of living in a slum — an aspect none of the ‘Indian’ films have captured. In that sense, it is about hope and optimism.
In an interview, Boyle said it was not poverty that attracted him to make the film but the ‘rags to rajah’ theme — a universal theme. But what if Boyle had been attracted to poverty and its omnipresence in Indian cities? Mumbaikars know that close to 60 per cent of them live in slums or ghettos alongside 10 of the Top-100 richest in the world, in many cases both sharing the same postal index number.
Maybe Slumdog has come at the wrong time. India as a nation is in denial. We are refusing to accept that our personal security (Mumbai 26/11), economic security (financial meltdown) and much-vaunted corporate growth (Satyam fraud) are like a mirage. Films seem to be the only comfort and Slumdog has invaded even this haven. We deny that the slums and life shown in the film are real and construe them to be a figment of the director’s imagination — a mirage the director has seen.
We surround ourselves with run-of-the-mill stories of love triangles. We prefer dancing jodis, re-incarnation and separated-at-birth tales. We forget that by taking these films internationally we show the world the India we prefer to see, the India we choose to acknowledge. By making films on India, others show the India they see and understand.
And we deny it.
(http://epaper.newindpress.com/NE/NE/2009/01/23/ArticleHtmls/23_01_2009_011_002.shtml?Mode=1)
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
Bollywood at its shrewdest
PUBLIC memory is short. To see larger than-life characters on 70MM, to forget a harsh reality called life, we willingly suspend disbelief and cherish the action on screen. But public memory is not short as in the case of Sanjay, the protagonist in Aamir Khan’s Gajini, whose memory span is not more than 15 seconds or so. We remember what we consider important and what we are told is important. Similarly we keep a tag on our celebrities — what they do, what they don’t, and what they are believed to have done. No celebrity is immune to this scrutiny.
In a scorching April in 2006 he braved the Delhi summer and extended his support to the Narmada Bachao Andolan and the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The next day was the DVD release of his movie Rang De Basanti. More than appreciation, he received flak from all quarters, so much so that activists asked him to stop promoting a soft drink and his movie Fanaa was not screened in Gujarat.
Two years later, he again braved an unforgiving Delhi April and ran with the Olympic torch. This time (as mentioned in his blog) he ran “with a prayer in my heart for the people of Tibet, and indeed for all the people across the world who are victims of human rights violations”. He might have had little option, as the soft drink giant he was endorsing was an official partner for the games.
This winter he is back, with a new cause. Yes, it is 26/11 — the talk of the town. This time he has expressed a desire to postpone the release of his movie, slated for Christmas day, as he is yet to come out of the ‘shock’ of the attack and is not in a frame of mind to think about movies. A closer scrutiny would reveal the arithmetic behind the thought. The fact is it might not be a good time to release a big budget movie. Post-26/11 around 70 theatres/multiplexes in Mumbai saw less than 25 per cent collection till the second week of December.
Another reason for Aamir Khan’s press conference on Id-ul-Adha could be that Shah Rukh Khan, whose movie Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi released on December 12, has been all over the media speaking about religion, his movie and the terror attack.
Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi is clearly the most anticipated Bollywood film in recent times, and is hogging all the light. While trade pundits bet on the movie for its freshness and the SRK-Aditya Chopra team, the feedback from distributers and moviegoers is that it has the power to bring the audience back to theatres post-26/11 — and the movie seems to be doing that.
Other than the fact that it is an Aamir Khan movie, there’s nothing fresh about Gajini. The heroine is a new face in Bollywood and so is the director. The storyline is known, as it is a remake of a Tamil movie ‘inspired’ by an English one. It might be this fear that has made the actor market his movie in a way best known to him — get hold of a contemporary issue, identify himself and then the movie with it.
Bollywood has been all over the media, expressing shock and making suggestions on the lapses, what needs to be done and how the nation can fight terror. It seems everyone is an expert in terror management except the government and police. Sanjay Dutt was among the first from Bollywood to be interviewed after the attacks — maybe the anchor thought firsthand information on how hard it is to handle an AK-47 would give some perspective on how much training the killers received in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir or wherever they came from. It is not Aamir Khan’s acting skills that are in doubt. It is his concerns that often come across as the conniving shrewdness of a politician who waits for the press before paying floral tributes at a leader’s memorial.
In a scorching April in 2006 he braved the Delhi summer and extended his support to the Narmada Bachao Andolan and the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The next day was the DVD release of his movie Rang De Basanti. More than appreciation, he received flak from all quarters, so much so that activists asked him to stop promoting a soft drink and his movie Fanaa was not screened in Gujarat.
Two years later, he again braved an unforgiving Delhi April and ran with the Olympic torch. This time (as mentioned in his blog) he ran “with a prayer in my heart for the people of Tibet, and indeed for all the people across the world who are victims of human rights violations”. He might have had little option, as the soft drink giant he was endorsing was an official partner for the games.
This winter he is back, with a new cause. Yes, it is 26/11 — the talk of the town. This time he has expressed a desire to postpone the release of his movie, slated for Christmas day, as he is yet to come out of the ‘shock’ of the attack and is not in a frame of mind to think about movies. A closer scrutiny would reveal the arithmetic behind the thought. The fact is it might not be a good time to release a big budget movie. Post-26/11 around 70 theatres/multiplexes in Mumbai saw less than 25 per cent collection till the second week of December.
Another reason for Aamir Khan’s press conference on Id-ul-Adha could be that Shah Rukh Khan, whose movie Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi released on December 12, has been all over the media speaking about religion, his movie and the terror attack.
Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi is clearly the most anticipated Bollywood film in recent times, and is hogging all the light. While trade pundits bet on the movie for its freshness and the SRK-Aditya Chopra team, the feedback from distributers and moviegoers is that it has the power to bring the audience back to theatres post-26/11 — and the movie seems to be doing that.
Other than the fact that it is an Aamir Khan movie, there’s nothing fresh about Gajini. The heroine is a new face in Bollywood and so is the director. The storyline is known, as it is a remake of a Tamil movie ‘inspired’ by an English one. It might be this fear that has made the actor market his movie in a way best known to him — get hold of a contemporary issue, identify himself and then the movie with it.
Bollywood has been all over the media, expressing shock and making suggestions on the lapses, what needs to be done and how the nation can fight terror. It seems everyone is an expert in terror management except the government and police. Sanjay Dutt was among the first from Bollywood to be interviewed after the attacks — maybe the anchor thought firsthand information on how hard it is to handle an AK-47 would give some perspective on how much training the killers received in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir or wherever they came from. It is not Aamir Khan’s acting skills that are in doubt. It is his concerns that often come across as the conniving shrewdness of a politician who waits for the press before paying floral tributes at a leader’s memorial.
Sunday, 14 December 2008
The Show Must Go On
The biggest hit this season seems to be a 62-hour spectacle that was scripted from across the border. None of the actors were known faces until now and its overnight success has send shivers down the spine of many in Bollywood.
The 26/11 Mumbai attack, while an unprecedented and grotesque one, has threatened the country’s biggest movie industry and rightly so because in a holiday season when every teenager should be humming OSTs and copying movie styles, they are trying to gather themselves after 26/11.
TRPs are the highest for news channels while entertainment and sports are forgotten. For an industry that has had a lean year, missing this season is unimaginable. Also sensing this, many in tinsel town reacted openly in a manner that has never been witnessed before. Bollywood was all over the news before the fire in the Taj Hotel was doused.
While the media in a deliberate attempt refrained from communalising the attack, as ‘Hindu’ or ‘Islamic’ terror, in a subtle way it projected how the attack had maligned the Muslims. For reasons best know to the news channels, most of the celebrities who appeared on TV or appealed for unity and peace were Muslims – Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Javed Akhtar, Shabana Azmi, Javed Jaffrey, Farah Khan … . Saif Ali Khan and his latest arm candy Kareena Kapoor dashed a letter on how they were ‘shocked’ by the attack. The exceptions in this could be Amitabh Bachchan on his blog and Sanjay Dutt. But given Sanju’s alleged 1993 blasts links one cannot miss the parallel. How come the media missed the Kapoors, Kumars, Deols…?
What took the industry so long to react while the country, particularly Mumbai, has been reeling under a series of attacks time and again?
This time terror has hit the glitterati in more than one way. The panic the attack has created has stopped people flocking to multiplexes thereby reducing the revenue movies churn.
26/11 has dawned upon them the reality that they could also be hit by terror. An average Mumbaikar does not frequent the Taj or the Trident. He has been hit many times in the past when bombs went off in crowded trains and BEST buses. Bollywood does not frequent the CST terminal, their hangouts were targeted on 26/11. The appeal filmstars have among the public cannot be underscored but one wonders what took them so many years to voice themselves in the chorus they are now?
The 26/11 Mumbai attack, while an unprecedented and grotesque one, has threatened the country’s biggest movie industry and rightly so because in a holiday season when every teenager should be humming OSTs and copying movie styles, they are trying to gather themselves after 26/11.
TRPs are the highest for news channels while entertainment and sports are forgotten. For an industry that has had a lean year, missing this season is unimaginable. Also sensing this, many in tinsel town reacted openly in a manner that has never been witnessed before. Bollywood was all over the news before the fire in the Taj Hotel was doused.
While the media in a deliberate attempt refrained from communalising the attack, as ‘Hindu’ or ‘Islamic’ terror, in a subtle way it projected how the attack had maligned the Muslims. For reasons best know to the news channels, most of the celebrities who appeared on TV or appealed for unity and peace were Muslims – Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, Javed Akhtar, Shabana Azmi, Javed Jaffrey, Farah Khan … . Saif Ali Khan and his latest arm candy Kareena Kapoor dashed a letter on how they were ‘shocked’ by the attack. The exceptions in this could be Amitabh Bachchan on his blog and Sanjay Dutt. But given Sanju’s alleged 1993 blasts links one cannot miss the parallel. How come the media missed the Kapoors, Kumars, Deols…?
What took the industry so long to react while the country, particularly Mumbai, has been reeling under a series of attacks time and again?
This time terror has hit the glitterati in more than one way. The panic the attack has created has stopped people flocking to multiplexes thereby reducing the revenue movies churn.
26/11 has dawned upon them the reality that they could also be hit by terror. An average Mumbaikar does not frequent the Taj or the Trident. He has been hit many times in the past when bombs went off in crowded trains and BEST buses. Bollywood does not frequent the CST terminal, their hangouts were targeted on 26/11. The appeal filmstars have among the public cannot be underscored but one wonders what took them so many years to voice themselves in the chorus they are now?
Friday, 5 December 2008
Jesus Christ Superstar
The Vatican last week pardoned John Lennon for his “more popular than Jesus now” statement made 42 years ago. It said that in all probability the remarks were made by the band members because they could not handle the sudden fame and stardom they had achieved. Given this, it must be an irony that Lennon made that statement, as he met Paul McCartney for the first time at St Peter’s Church in Liverpool.
It might be true that being made a Member of the Order of the British Empire did make them a bit cocky (George Harrison was 22 when he received the MBE).
The Beatles were no strangers to controversies -- be it snubbing the Marcoses in the Philippines or getting arrested in Hamburg for arson. In the US, Elvis Presley asked President Richard Nixon to ban the group from entering the US for their anti-war activism and open drug use.
For the Church, which was relatively unchallenged for the greater part of its existence, the statement by the band was a rabbit punch. In the 1960s and 70s the Church was in crisis. The disillusionment of the two World Wars and the hippy movement saw a sharp decline in church attendance all over the world.
The Church was rocked, perhaps for the first time, when Henry VIII of England decided to separate the Anglican Church from the Roman hierarchy in the 16th century. Until then the Vatican had enjoyed unquestioned power and anyone who was seen as being against its interests got a taste of its tough love. The best example is the case of Joan of Arc, burnt at the stake. Later, the Vatican apologised and Joan was canonised in 1920.
Lennon’s statement was small potatoes considering the damage Henry VIII caused to the Church. But the eighth Henry was a monarch while The Beatles were a ‘working-class group’ who symbolised values unbecoming of Christendom. By taking strong exception, the Church was rebuking not just The Beatles.
But the Church’s biggest knock came from a Cambridge theologian who said that all species of life evolved over time from common ancestors through a process he called natural selection.
Is anyone paying heed to a pardon that has come 28 years after Lennon was shot dead? In 1966, when the Church reacted and Beatles’ LPs’ were burnt in the US and South Africa, Harrison said: “They’ve got to buy them before they can burn them.” So how much would McCartney and Starr heed the pardon now?
It might be true that being made a Member of the Order of the British Empire did make them a bit cocky (George Harrison was 22 when he received the MBE).
The Beatles were no strangers to controversies -- be it snubbing the Marcoses in the Philippines or getting arrested in Hamburg for arson. In the US, Elvis Presley asked President Richard Nixon to ban the group from entering the US for their anti-war activism and open drug use.
For the Church, which was relatively unchallenged for the greater part of its existence, the statement by the band was a rabbit punch. In the 1960s and 70s the Church was in crisis. The disillusionment of the two World Wars and the hippy movement saw a sharp decline in church attendance all over the world.
The Church was rocked, perhaps for the first time, when Henry VIII of England decided to separate the Anglican Church from the Roman hierarchy in the 16th century. Until then the Vatican had enjoyed unquestioned power and anyone who was seen as being against its interests got a taste of its tough love. The best example is the case of Joan of Arc, burnt at the stake. Later, the Vatican apologised and Joan was canonised in 1920.
Lennon’s statement was small potatoes considering the damage Henry VIII caused to the Church. But the eighth Henry was a monarch while The Beatles were a ‘working-class group’ who symbolised values unbecoming of Christendom. By taking strong exception, the Church was rebuking not just The Beatles.
But the Church’s biggest knock came from a Cambridge theologian who said that all species of life evolved over time from common ancestors through a process he called natural selection.
Is anyone paying heed to a pardon that has come 28 years after Lennon was shot dead? In 1966, when the Church reacted and Beatles’ LPs’ were burnt in the US and South Africa, Harrison said: “They’ve got to buy them before they can burn them.” So how much would McCartney and Starr heed the pardon now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)