The Social Network: Angry Young Men

The things you own end up owning you - Tyler Durden (David Fincher’s Fight Club)

I started using Facebook like anybody else. Just like that! I never post personal photographs (except my display), or my personal feelings & when someone else put that notorious tag on a personal snap, I delete it. But I also found it a good way to be in touch with ‘friends’ (and a killer of a time pass!). In a span of few days, you get addicted to it & start logging in as many times as you would to check your email, maybe more than that.

One can share pictures & be in touch online without using FB. Though there are two things that immediately come to mind which make Facebook addictive – navigating through other people’s pros & ‘status update’. Afterall, a good business idea is – which is able to ‘generate a need’.

You write your snide bullshit from a dark room because that’s what the angry do nowadays - Erica Albright (David Fincher’s The Social Network)

social network

David Fincher’s The Social Network is more about people & the environment driving them than about the story happening due to them.

Mark Zuckerberg is a Harvard student, obsessed with the idea of exclusivity, which is established right from the opening scene where he is discussing getting into the ‘best’ student club at Harvard – the Final Club, with his girlfriend. What follows is a break up & from there on Zuckerberg uses his latent faculties to get back at people closest to him, emotionally.

Fincher’s Zuckerberg is a genius who’s “trying hard to be an asshole”. Sharp, motivated, focussed, go getter , carefree, agitated, arrogant, obsessed. Genius nonetheless. He is like Hirani’s Rancho, only a twisted one. Perhaps, a flesh & blood Rancho.

Eduardo Saverin – Zuckerberg’s best friend is like most of us – he sees wrong around him & doesn’t want to get engaged with it but, as he too wants to be an achiever, he ignores and moves on with life. Whenever something significant occurs in his college life, Saverin refers to his father – “what would he think?”.

Zuckerberg is the product of environment, Saverin – the result of it.

Sean Parker is a guy who does networking. Using his flamboyant confidence, he establishes connections with the right people. He’d know your pulse rate if you are sitting at the table across him. Parker breezes in & out of business meetings, charging the environment & infecting it by planting seeds of ‘big thinking’ into the fertile minds – “Drop “the”. Just “Facebook”. It’s cleaner” – that’s all he brings to the table as investment. That’s his asset! When he is around you don’t need to sniff to get high, it’s in the air…just breath!! Sean Parker implies the importance of middlemen in the world of private profit. But he is no gangster, he is the guerilla capitalist!!

"I'm the CEO bitch...that's what I want for you"

The difference between Saverin & Sean Parker is – ‘Harvard education’. While commenting generally on the education system in the scene where Winklevoss brothers go to meet their Harvard director, I think, Fincher specifically suggests the outcome of exclusivist education through Eduardo Saverin. He tells Parker – “I like standing next to you, Sean… it makes me look so tough.”

On the other hand, Winklevoss brothers & Divya Narendra are not as brilliant as Zuckerberg or as savvy as Parker, but they are dedicated. They know – a team is important because a leader can’t accomplish on his own, and not vice versa. All wealthy & well resourced people are not first rate assholes. Unlike Saverin, they try to be ethical but the rowing competition proves too much for them.

Winklevoss twins

The whole rowing competiton sequence is very symbolic. Winklevoss brothers finish second in the tournament. The post competition party shows how anyone who is not an achiever (and here achiever means numero uno) is treated by people. Inspite of finishing second in the race, Winklevoss brothers feel humiliated & the mention of Facebook’s success at the party only make them lesser “gentlemen” from then on.

The Social Network is a morality tale – its basically about our obsession with achievement or rather, our fixation with the perception of it. The movie cleverly jumps back and forth between deposition scenes and sequences leading to the invention of Facebook. Aaron Sorkin’s solid & layered screenplay keeps you on the edge & engaged in the drama and, also provides more than a few sharp, biting lines.

Fincher has always used music tastefully. The Social Network is no different. Whether it’s the first meeting between Parker and Zuckerberg-Saverin or the night club scene with Zuckerberg & Parker or, the night scene in the dorm when Zuckerberg first gets the idea of FaceMash. Or the last Beatles song. It’s killer!

In a world where the usage of ‘moral’ in your vocabulary could be LOLed at, and the word ‘practical’ has become most functional – Mark Zuckerberg is a hero, though fallen.

Behind every successful man there is a woman – Zuckerberg comes out as a cold & an obsessively ambitious genius who just couldn’t get Erica Albright out of his mind. And that’s what qualifies him to be a protagonist in this story.

love trigger

PS: the post was originally published on Passion for Cinema on November 15th, 2010 - http://passionforcinema.com/the-social-network-angry-young-men/ )

Ku**e…hum tera khoon pee jayenge…Peepli [Live] – A Reaction

mango people...banana democracy

[SPOILER ALERT]

Most underdog films chart a certain graph, and in the end – victory against all odds leaves you filled with hope. Peepli [Live] sucks blood out of that idea & injects it into the darker side of struggle. It leaves its protagonist, a farmer, defeated. No victory, no hope. Just dark, inescapable reality of lakhs of poor in our country. Here, the dog doesn’t have its day, he remains a dog. You & I probably couldn’t have felt this on an emotional level if a certain Aamir Khan had not decided to put his might & will behind a film whose approach is inclined more towards docudrama than a mainstream Hindi film.

Hence, opening with 500-600 prints is nothing short of an achievement for a film like this.

Peepli [Live] takes a dig almost at everyone it features. Politicians have been lampooned millions of times, to the point of bafflement. Of all the characters, Anusha Rizvi portrays the politicians & bureaucrats in the most cold fashion way and, fairly so. The establishment deserve a strict treatment if it doesn’t deliver. Its the media it hits the most hard though. In an age where all our knowledge, information & opinions are influenced by one form of mass media or other, a reality check is important. Peepli [Live] can be called that reality check. In fact, I’m a little surprised by how well the Indian media have taken the film, across board. Its probably because it comes from a person of their fraternity. Criticism from within the tribe is always taken notice of if its healthy. This is another achievement of the film.

You don’t need to pick up stones for making your point. Anything driven commercially sees the practical side of the business first. You & me contribute to the content we see on television. We make their TRPs. We make DT sell. For news media, advertisers are obviously crucial. If we as the viewers/readers decide to spend Rs.10 or Rs.15 on a news daily instead of a Rs.3 or Rs.5, the editorial would depend less on the advertisers which means more newsworthy stories. Same goes for television. We spend an extra Rs. 50 for a more comfortable seat in a multiplex but not on news magazines & journals. We would spend an extra Rs. 20 on our favorite flavored ice cream but haggle over Rs.5 with a rickshaw puller who exhausts himself day in & day out, on roads, which administration fail to mend and for which, tyre manufacturing companies make specially designed wheels so the ride is less bumpier.

One one hand there is Nandita Malik representing English television news media who is unwilling to go & cover ‘the Natha story’ as she thinks that’s not her forte, but on being prodded by her editor reaches Peepli anyway. Once there, she handles her work professionally to the point of being crude. On other hand, there is Deepak who represents the Hindi television news media who also, is unwilling to cover the story because he doesn’t see enough potential for sensation in it. He promises even more sensational stories to his editor, but goes to Peepli nonetheless. And then there is Rakesh – Peepli’s Jan Morcha’s journalist who originally breaks the story of ‘Natha’s suicide’ & unwittingly sends the whole system in a tizzy.Eventually, getting disillusioned by his profession, and ending up in Natha’s shoes.

The parallel sub plot of Mehto – an extremely under nourished farmer who probably also unable to pay his loans, is always shown digging the ground for mud & taking that mud to sell, is according to me the most hard hitting Bollywood representation of poverty in India since the now much celebrated Swades scene where Shahrukh Khan, returning from a farmer’s house, encounters a 10-12 yrs old boy on a railway station selling water.

digging his own grave

Peepli [Live] is a depressing showcase of our people. It doesn’t uplift the mood by talking of hope. It takes leave of the viewer on a very brutal & cold note.

In its last 10 minutes, the layered humourous dimension of the reality slides away abruptly. First time in the film you don’t find anything funny about Natha’s appearance. Covered in mud, he sits as still as ‘dead’ at a construction site like hundreds others around him. His existence is irrelevant to us – the beneficiaries of the economic opportunities in the post liberalized India. This is nothing particularly sinful as he might be doing the same if he had been on this side of the divide. Take no moral offence. Its not the classical rich VS poor debate. It’s the haves & have nots issue. Same nation, different (or no) opportunities.

Natha’s story is a story that needed to be told. Its not as skilled as one would have liked it to be but it still works hugely because its played straight & sticks to being a human story. And probably that’s the reason why it still lingers on to your mind long after its over. Natha remains silent, almost in the whole film. He doesn’t have any say in affairs concerning his family or even in his ‘suicide’. He is a guy who has given in to the circumstances & readily gets convinced about giving up on his life as well. His brother Budhia on the other hand, driven by circumstances cowardly asks Natha for the sacrifice.

poverty perks

The film rightly doesn’t take a moral high ground. The young man doesn’t have the time to look back in anger anymore. He gets busy making most out of the emerging markets before he can figure out what concerns him. The film makes you feel guilty anyhow but without a smirk. So instead of shrugging away the responsibility at the back of your head, you are able to find an emotional connect with the story & that works, because at least then you react as a participant. We might not come out of Peepli[Live] all changed but I feel that’s not the idea. Its meant to refresh us about the issues of unattended India. We may not stop eating that favorite ice lolly of ours, but we just might not argue with that rickshaw wallah anymore.

a brilliant effort

Anusha Rizvi & her team deserve a pat on their backs for making Peepli [Live] as it has been made. The casting & music of the film is bang on. It’s heartening to see such a film doing good business at the box office. The film owes its commercial success to the brand called Aamir Khan, to a large extent. He and UTV deserve a couple of hundred from your pocket for delivering yet again.

Go, pay a price… & forget the popcorn this time!

P.S : (This post was originally published on PassionForCinema on August 19th, 2010 -

http://passionforcinema.com/kue-hum-tera-khoon-pee-jayenge-peepli-live-a-reaction/ )

Once upon a time in Tarantino occupied cinema

“As a 14-year-old boy I remember saying to myself when I am a director I want to make movies that will make other people want to make movies.” – Quentin Tarantino

(SPOILER ALERT)

I watched Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterd’s for the first time when it came out last year, and I didn’t think very highly of it as a Tarantino fan. I, like any other Tarantino fan went in to be ‘smartly entertained’. The buzz around the film was already strong & when you say buzz these days it means what the net is saying. I had read all kinds of reviews & opinions abt the movie – some said it was Tarantino’s best since Pulp Fiction, some said its not as good (really, ‘reviews’ & opinionated pieces in all kinds of media & esp. the internet before the release of a movie is killing the purpose of watching movies. So much is said abt the film before its release that I feel most of the times we miss what the filmmaker is trying to do, and it has started to put me off as a viewer. I hate the fact that I’ve become compulsive with the practice myself. At times it just sucks the excitement out of the movie).

Anyway couple of months back I got Inglourious Basterds on my system & watched it in patches. Few days later I again did the same, and few days later I ended up watching the whole movie & have been watching it every now & then, since. I realize this only now that with Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino consciously or sub-consciously didn’t try to be an adventurist like he was in Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction or the Kill Bill films. Here he doesn’t show his craft, he shows his control over it.

The first sequence between Colonel Hans Landa & LaPadite which came across as plain though engaging in the first viewing is the sequence which I now end up watching almost everytime I’m on my system & my internet is down.I realize that it was its subtlety that I mistook as ‘plain’. Both the actors in the scene are superb. Hans Landa’s intensity is established through the performance of the guy playing LaPadite.Indesribeable!…the scene cud be an indication of how the film is going to unfold to you as a viewer – gradually.

opening sequence

The Bar scene is my second best in the film – throughout the whole scene you want to shoot the Nazi ‘King Kong’ in his balls but before that you want to see how’d he crack the lie of Lt. Hicox who is in town ,in disguise, on a mission to assassinate Hitler. ‘King Kong ’ is Hans Landa with ideology. He is committed to the policies of Third Reich. He is very sharp & unlike Landa he is not very smart & unlike Landa, he has got character. His confidence is just too unsettling for Lt. Hicox who doesn’t know how to handle him. Tarantino makes you feel the tension without injecting background music throughout the scene. But the tension reaches you as if you are in the bar with them.

And then there is the whole sequence at the film theatre. It just shows Tarantino’s passion for cinema. The cold blooded assassination of Tarantino’s Hitler takes place there. Its symbolic in more ways than one.

Violence is always grand in Tarantino movies but the characters unleashing the violence are intentionally calm. And Tarantino’s violence comes coated in some kind of philosophy – mostly it’s the theory of vengeance that drives his protagonists. In Pulp Fiction, Jules justifies his violence by quoting the Bible everytime he goes for a kill – “And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger…”, only to derive a new meaning of the same biblical passage at the ‘end’ of the film. The Bride in Kill Bill again justifies her violence based on the philosophy of vengeance (“Revenge is a dish best served cold”). Its the Dogs who don’t really justify their violence but they are dogs & they die like one.

Tarantino couldn’t have asked for a better plot than getting back at Nazis. The Basterds’ violence is justified not just by history but also by dozens movies based on the Holocaust & the violence of the Nazis shown in them. I know many people are put off by the violence in Tarantino movies probably coz its too detailed & in your face and they think its there just for the sake of it. Yes, its there for the sake of entertainment. Tarantino is not a preacher, he is like Jules – he speaks with commitment & then pulls the trigger. And he does that smartly without ideating. Tarantino uses violence as a larger-than-life tool. He knows its for an art form whose prime purpose is to engage through entertainment. There is always an element of humour in his films. That’s why his Hitler, no matter as twisted as always, is comical. Those who take films in any other way miss the ‘pulp’ in it. Expecting ‘sensitive treatment’ from his films is foolish coz you are missing the whole point then – hardcore sensory entertainment. He wants you take films as films . Get inspired only if you are a filmmaker!

Inglourious Basterds fictionalises the violence of the Jews thru the Basterds & shows the Nazis being tortured. There are lots of movies made about the cruelities Jews faced under the Nazis & stories related to the Holocaust. Almost all show the the Nazis torturing the Jews, all show violence of the Nazis but unlike the other Holocaust/Nazi films, the audience here cheers the torture while rooting for the Basterds. Violence is used as a strategy by both the Nazis & the Basterds but the violence of the Basterds seem justified. Aldo Raine is almost Hitler-like in his ways. The baseball bat with which the Bear Jew beats his victims to death could have been a Nazi smashing a Jewish head. The ‘bat’ remains the same, the ‘head’ changes. We dont cheer for the Nazis but we do for the Basterds. This is very interesting. On concept level , its just changing the label & turning the idea on its head.

Colonel Hans Landa, the character which has been played with effortless brilliance by actor Christoph Waltz – makes a Nazi accessible & very watchable probably for the first time, on screen. Tarantino treats him as a human being. I feel the thing that gives films of filmmakers like Tarantino & Scorsese so much of repeat value is their treatment of characters. Their inspection of the human mind irrespective of how those characters are slotted conventionally.

Christoph Waltz - brilliant!

The Last Temptation of the Christ is my favourite Scorsese film. I think its his most raw. Based on a book of the same name by Nikos Kazantzakis, the film portrays Jesus Christ unlike in any of the other Jesus Christ movies I have ever seen. It shows him as a complex human being, fighting his desires to achieve what he thinks is his duty towards God. Willem Dafoe as Scorsese’ Jesus Christ is bang on. Its one of my favourite performances of all times. Conventionally, Prophets, God men & especially Jesus Christ are not shown struggling spiritually. How can they? They are supposed to be spiritual, naturally. But in The Last Temptation, Jesus Christ’s main struggle is actually spiritual – ” He used to jump on me like a wild bird and dig His claws into my head”. Jesus struggles against the desires he ‘shudn’t’ succumb to, just like you & me would if we were so spiritually inclined.

Though you don’t really ‘feel’ for Tarantino’s characters. Maybe that’s coz they are always comical in some way. You are just interested in watching them behave the way they do. You don’t care about their story. You just want to see them perform in every circumstance.

That is a tasty burger! - Pulp Fiction(1994)

Colonel Hans Landa is one such creation. He actually doesn’t have an ideology unlike the Nazi in the film who refuses to divulge into any information about the German army on being asked by Aldo Raine & ends up being killed by the Bear Jew. Hans Landa is a man with a taste for finer things in life – he would prefer a glass of dairy milk over some wine, he would tell you to wait for the cream for strudel & ask for the verdict after you have it, his smoking pipe would be bigger than yours. He wants the Congressional medal, property on Nantucket Island. Hans Landa is essentially a bureaucrat in uniform with a mind of a politician, only, he is acutely hypocrite.

Tarantino is known for the lines his characters speak – dialogues. Why these dialogues work so well & become memorable could well be coz they blend so perfectly with the life of the character speaking them, causing sparks in your senses as a viewer – probably a thought that you could connect with but never knew how to express it simply coz you & your life is not as edgy as of the characters in Tarantino films & two, coz you are not a filmmaker.

I’d like to finish with this Ingourious Basterds trailer. I think this is an apt teaser for the film..gives just the right rush…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKPIj5Kk2M0

P.S : (This post was originally published on PassionForCinema on May 4th, 2010 - http://passionforcinema.com/once-upon-a-time-in-tarantino-occupied-cinema/ )

My Name Is O.S. Khan : A Viewer’s Cut

Going Glocal

A lot has been said about My Name Is Khan on TV,newspapers/magazines,internet & almost every possible media platform. Lets clear this at the very outset that I think MNIK is an average film with a very relevant message at its core & SRK giving credibility to that message but, as its been said by many in the media, I don’t think that its Karan Johar’s ‘breakthrough’ film. His treatment of the subject is as similar as his previous bonanzas. He couldn’t resist putting long shots, swaying the camera over to dramatic music. He is as much interested in showing the audience the places he shot at as he is interested in showcasing SRK as saviour. Nothing wrong in that, my grudge as a viewer is that speak about your film honestly – instead of saying “this is my most brave film yet”…”..my most difficult”…”I’ve got out of my comfort zone with MNIK”, tell us that “it’s a Karan Johar film”..”its shot flamboyantly”…”it will have unfaltering moments like Americans suddenly breaking into We Shall Overcome in Hum Honge Kamyab tune”. Don’t be apologetic about your style because, I feel your first movie is still your best film & and you haven't made a film half as accomplished since KKHH.

Coming back to My Name Is Khan…

The Idea

From the day MNIK was announced like many I was curious about it coz of its topicality. SRK had subtly dealt with the issue of Muslim identity in Chak De India & did it quite well so I was hoping this would be a step further, which it is. I think MNIK is the most religious/theological flick in contemporary Bollywood. Also, I don’t remember a film that has dealt with one of the most controversial issues of our times, so directly – religious stereotyping of Muslims post-9/11. But this same factor could work against the film/topic as well coz it simplifies such a complex issue to ‘achche insaan’-‘bure insaan’ philosophy. It doesn’t touch the politics of the issue & instead easily takes shelter in a love story (what else?) to make its point. And whats the point of meeting the President of United States anyway? Why not go & meet a certain Osama Bin Laden & question his twisted ideology of ‘Jihad’? That journey would have been more interesting storywise & hence made the journey of Rizwan Khan more relevant. But Johar & his co-writer seems to be too lazy for research & just few months back one of his productions built around the same topic was just a precursor – ‘Kurbaan’, again was warmly wrapped in a love story & again was set in the United States….

…Welcome to ‘NRI terrorism’!

The credit for this term goes to filmmaker Saeed Mirza who talked about it in one of the December 2009 editions of Tehelka & where Sudhir Misra described the trend as – “..these are soap operas with political backdrop” (http://www.tehelka.com/story_main43.asp?filename=hub121209candles_in.asp) . My only little difference from these observations is that almost all these films – New York, Kurbaan,MNIK or even Fanaa do not touch upon the politics of terrorism despite the problem, which I believe, is driven more by politics than religion. Out of these films I feel New York was the only film that handled the subject only relatively better.

In 2010, the audience is ready to enjoy a love story where a Khalu-Bhanja are gunning for the same woman in Eastern UP (the western Europe is passe) & where the woman is more aggressive, expressive & even suggestive than the rugged Khalu-Bhanja put together (dhichkia..dhichkia..ishqia..ishqia..!) So why try to make love stories out of a topic that, at least, should not be romanticised. And why do almost all Bollywood films made on the topic & issues linked with it have to be in the context of 9/11? Is the US going to be the new UK for Chopras & Johars in the coming decade?? After all, according to reports, MNIK has broken all previous Bollywood records in North America. One can understand if a film on Indians being attacked in Australia is shot in Australia but is terrorism only about the US & 9/11??

So my grouse with filmmakers and broadly – with Karan Johar & Yash Raj is, that there efforts for reinventing themselves in times where now the audience make the success of films like Dev.D & Oye Lucky Lucky Oye possible & make a topical film like 3 Idiots the biggest grosser of all time, maybe genuine, but their approach to filmmaking is same as it was when they were the most powerful in the industry. No matter what the story is, they always go for ‘the big canvas’, always have a love story ready to bail them out & they always take an international flight. Their crew must have covered more miles ‘up in the air’ than ‘Ryan Bingham’.

On one hand Karan Johar says that this time with MNIK he has tried to get out of his comfort zone & attempted something ‘different’ & on the other hand he promotes MNIK as a love story. The way you market your movie tells as much about you as an artist as it says about the movie…

…Welcome to Film Marketing

Karan Johar: It’s my most challenging film…BUT it’s a love story…

zzzzzzzzz

Kajol: …its essentially a love story…

zzzzzzzzz

SRK: IPL…bidding..Pakistani players…

Buzzzzzzzz

Shiv Sena: Apologise..SRK… Mannat..shift…Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad…

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

NO. I don’t mean to say that the team of MNIK along with SRK & Shiv Sena strategised the controversy for marketing the film. That’s a foolish thought.Nobody really can say that for sure but this is how the ‘publicity’ of MNIK took shape & I’m trying to look at it in a fairly objective manner.

With Ghajini & 3 Idiots, Aamir Khan didn’t just up the box office bar but also took film marketing to a new level.The style could well be gimmickry but he remained in the conventional boundaries of marketing for both these films. Dibakar Banerjee speaking to PFC about a year back said something to this effect - “Aamir Khan as a producer, single handedly with his will & marketing skills turned Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na into a monster success…all corporates should take a lesson from it”. No matter how much one has started to dislike the ways Aamir Khan employs to promote his films you got to give the man his due. He remained a silent star all those years when SRK & Co. pulled his leg with tongue-in-cheek humour at almost every award functions, in interviews. Since the beginning to the 90s, and then to Lagaan,Dil Chahta Hai, RDB, Aamir Khan challenged the ways of the mainstream with quiet aggression & the industry never gave him his due. Now was the time – he smelled that ‘small’ is ‘big’ now…he smelled that like him, every actor including SRK has started taking up one film at a time..he smelled that what he invested in all these years is paying rich dividend & he smelled that the clout of the Johars & the Chopras & hence of SRK has somewhat started to wobble in the industry. There were new players now – UTV, Big Pictures, Excel Entertainment,Percept, PVR Pictures,Aamir Khan Productions & more. So now, Aamir Khan decides to change gears & develop himself into a one-man marketing machine by engaging aggressively with the media around the time of his film releases. Fair enough!

The first promo of MNIK was unveiled simultaneously at prime time on all channels of the Star network. Some found the promo as “goose pimple evoking sensation” & many thought its not upto the mark (Courtesy: World Wide Web). Soon the team of MNIK had a press meet where a reporter asked SRK – “aapki marketing strategy kya rahegi film ke liye”? To which SRK aptly replied – “aap film ka intezaar kariye..film ki marketing ka nahi”. But I’m sure the marketing of the film must be playing heavily on the minds of SRK & Karan Johar while 3 Idiots was still breaking records at the box office left, right & centre…

…Welcome the 4^th Idiot: ‘O.S.’ Khan

Yes, his name is ‘O.S.’ Khan & even a Phunsuk Wangdu can’t take that away from him. The only 3 Idiots’ records that has or are likely to be surpassed by My Name Is Khan would be that of the Over Seas territory – according to reports, North America has already been conquered. For Karan Johar & Yash Raj UK is now an alternate territory for Mumbai, and, rarely a story about the religious identity of Muslims in the context of terrorism has been represented as positively as in MNIK. So there is a high possibility that it will (& it already is) capture the imagination of people in the Arab world (where SRK is already big) &, in other Muslim countries. Some people are already calling MNIK a pan-Islamic movie. Now the term ‘pan-Islamic’ has negative connotations to it coz it has mostly been used while discussing ‘pan-Islamic’ terrorism but if Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ can cause flood of people in theatres across Christian nations, what’s wrong with a ‘pan-Islamic’ film? Why cant a success of a ‘religious’ film that isn’t anti other beliefs & pro humanity can be celebrated. Tomorrow if someone decides to make Mahabharat or Ramayana into a series of films with the same conviction as B.R.Chopra & Ramanand Sagar did for television in the late 80s, I’m damn sure it’ll engage as many people even now.

…Welcome Rizwan Khan

MNIK works mostly coz I think SRK’s Rizwan Khan is in the same league as Swades’ Mohan Bhagava & Chak De’s Kabir Khan.Rizwan just got an unfair deal in the form of a lose script & a filmmaker who genuinely or not is trying hard to fit in the new Bollywood where Vishal Bhardwaj, Anurag Kashyap, Imtiaz Ali, Dibakar Banerjee, Zoya Akhtar, Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra, Raju Hirani & many more new cinema voices hold the future.

Rizwan Khan is as straight & honest about his feelings as Mohan Bhargava was with his views about his country. He is as focused to prove his love to Mandira as Kabir Khan was to prove his loyalty to his nation. He sincerely follows his Ammi’s naïve philosophy of black & white throughout his journey. Only a person with ‘special’ characteristic(s) could have retained belief in the basic human goodness inspite of so much of negativity around.

Yes, SRK reminds you of Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man but every actor at some point or another takes a reference from another actor just like every filmmaker/writer takes a reference from another filmmaker/writer which he might have grown up admiring. There is nothing unethical about this ‘practice’. Even SHOLAY wasn’t an original idea…

..Yes, that the story of Rizwan Khan is being altered according to the region its playing at defeats the very ‘spirit of the Khan’ – honesty. That many of the shots we see in the promos on TV channels are missing from the Indian screens but might be added/removed on American screens & the possibility that a third version might be playing in the West Asia or in Pakistan – if true, is hypocritical. Editing out songs for non-NRI audience is understandable but altering the film to engage different audiences I think, is unethical.

After MNIK, Shahrukh Khan might become a cultural icon for a large part of the Muslim world. I don’t see him as an “ambassador of Islam” as he called himself in an interview to Tehelka couple of years back. But SRK can contribute immensely as a cultural icon. If movie stars & sports stars can unite a country why not many countries? Watching a news channel last week, I was amused & surprised to hear some German women at the Berlin Film Festival where MNIK was shown. They were singing songs from SRK’s films in flawless Hindi.

We can disagree with SRK’s views on politics. We can frown upon Amitabh Bachchan for riding on Narendra Modi’s back as ‘Auro’ on one hand & endorsing “Aman ki Aasha” on the other but lets not allow our ill-founded or well-rounded cynicism to pull them down coz they work as catalysts for all the negativity we encounter in our daily lives. Lets not take that privilege away from us.

Long Live Cinema!