Sanjay Gadhavi on why Dhoom is a cult film

January 4th, 2007

By Sanjay Gadhavi, January 4, 2007 - 01:48 IST

Link
Dhoom 2 is heist fiction, which is designed to make your pulse pound and send adrenaline racing through your veins. This caper cocktail has expectedly caught the fancy of the youth; but has surprisingly found a wider base of acceptance too. It has become the biggest hit of 2006, expected to outgross Krishh and Lage Raho Munnabhai.

So does Dhoom 2, with its leather jackets, fast bikes and bikini-ed babes, qualify as a cult film for the young male?

“Around four months after Dhoom had become a huge hit, some young assistants at the Yashraj office were discussing ‘cult’ films.

Their reasoning was that while Dhoom was a hit film, it wasn’t a cult film like a movie made by another young filmmaker. Their definition of a cult film was one that had a niche, selective audience. I beg to differ. I feel a cult film is one that has a huge following and influences a lot of filmmakers and people.

“Hare Rama Hare Krishna was a cult film because the popularity of Zeenat Aman’s character revolutionised the way a Hindi film heroine was perceived. Hum Aapke Hai Kaun is a cult film because today parents hire professional choreographers three months in advance to choreograph dance items (with family members participating) at their sons and daughters weddings.

“I always maintain that while the two Dhoom films are not exactly path breaking, Dhoom is definitely a cult film. On the third day after the release of Dhoom, there were 20 young guys in the audience wearing a bandana like Ali (Uday Chopra). Today, for no rhyme or reason, you see a bike in every film. Forget others, even John Abraham dresses the way he did in Dhoom. I saw him last night in Babul and he was wearing a leather jacket zipped down in a song.

“As far as Dhoom 2 goes, it’s too early to say if it’s a cult film, but it is a very clever sequel. Dhoom 2 is a universal hit; its appeal is not restricted just to the young males. I just got an SMS from Deepak Sehgal, who is head honcho at Star TV and who was the editor of Patthar Ke Phool, a film in which I was one of the director’s assistants.

He wrote: ‘Saw Dhoom 2 last night — what scale, what great chemistry. The kids loved it too, great job.’ Dhoom 2 has become a family-going experience. For Dhoom, my producer Aditya Chopra had told me that the target audience was the age group 16 to 25; but for Dhoom 2 it was everybody because everyone had gone to see Dhoom.

“If I were to analyse what the 16 to 25 group want, I would put my finger on speed, an adrenaline rush, cool behaviour and the idea of living on the edge. In clothes, it’s short skirts, bikinis. In accessories, it’s accessories, tattoos and all that stuff. But the two Dhooms appealed to all age groups because they are typical Hindi film packaged in a distinct new way.

“If you notice, both in Dhoom and Dhoom 2, there are no peripheral characters and all the major characters are in their 20s. My films don’t have a mother, father or sister … and the audience is not disappointed because I have prepared the viewer for what he should not be looking for in the film.

“The first time I felt that we could do away with peripheral characters was when I saw Dil To Pagal Hai. I was like, ‘Why don’t Shah Rukh and Karisma have families? But within half an hour, I was like, ‘Hello, I am better off without them because I am more interested in whether Shah Rukh will realise how much Karisma loves him.’

“I feel that the audience is far more educated about films today. I did away with mundane explanations in my films — and saved on time, money, effort and man power. The two Dhoom films are like fast trains, they hurtle through slower stations.

“I leave a lot in my films to the audience’s imagination. When Mazhar Khan was asked how he wrote so many diverse characters for Gang, he said, ‘I know the background story of all my characters from the time they were born. But in the film, I choose that aspect of their life which I like to highlight.’ Similarly, I may not have showcased this to the audience but when I had conceived Aryan’s (Hrithik’s) character, he was not a thief who steals to become wealthy.

He does it purely for the adrenaline rush. He is a rich boy who has lost his parents at a young age. He has always got A grades in school and has done a course in computer engineering. He is a well-travelled linguist, a connoisseur of wines, a man hugely into adventure sports.

“Why do I think does the audience identify with these larger-than-life characters? I think, my characters may sound larger than life but they don’t sound incredulous and unreachable. Hrithik in my film is not Krrish who is leaping from building to building, he has made a remote-controlled mini-car; he has disguised himself as a statue after coating himself with white paint. His actions are within the realm of reality.

“So, while I did incorporate characters who were young and ideas which were new, I was confident that their appeal would cross all age barriers.

There Are 90 Responses So Far. »

Comment by Qalandar on 4 January 2007:

Gadhvi is simply asserting that the definition of a “cult film” is something other than what the rest of us understand it to be. By his reasoning Sholay, Awaara, Mother India are “cult films”!

Comment by Sameer on 4 January 2007:

I think Dhoom is a CULT FILM!!! Well, if Bluffmaster is considered a CULT movie on NG, then Dhoom is surely a cult film!!!

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

I’d say Dhoom > BM in terms of cult status. But neither would actually be cult IMO. If these two were then we’d have 3 or 4 cult films every yr !

Comment by akshay shah on 5 January 2007:

I agree Jayshah, though BLUFFMASTER is more of a cult movie than DHOOM ANYDAY!

A.Shah

Comment by satyam on 5 January 2007:

A cult movie by definition cannot be huge at the box office. Also a cult movie cannot quite be a ‘universal’ success. Dhoom definitely had some of this element to it but I don’t think it was really a cult movie, just a very popular one. And of course the franchise is now a behemoth so there is no ‘cult’ aspect left to it. But to the extent Dhoom had elements of the cult film, so did Munnabhai.

There would be 3-4 cult movies every year (on Jay’s terms) if ‘cult movie’ were defined more expansively. But this isn’t my understanding of the term. BM fits the bill as it satisfies both of the definitions I’ve just mentioned. It did well in segments, but even where it did well it appealed to certain sets of viewers. Unlike Munnabhai and Dhoom which were eventually loved by everyone whether in the theaters or at home, therefore contributing to the enormous openings the sequels had, if BM were to have a sequel it would open better than the original but still would not be liked by everyone, or wouldn’t be universal, unless the director just made a more commercial film. BM is just not a universal film. This is not at all true for Munnabhai or Dhoom.

What is true however is that a Munnabhai or a Dhoom or a BnB or a Sarkar have had a longer shelf life than most other Bollywood hits in recent years. But this is a different from a cult film! I think DCH was more of a cult film than any of these.

So if one defines ‘cult movie’ somewhat loosely one ends up with a few every year because on these grounds a cult movie is one that becomes unexpectedly popular. On my reading the cult movie is something rare. And BM fits the bill.

Comment by Qalandar on 5 January 2007:

Exactly. Thus on my reading Reservoir Dogs was a cult film, but a mainstream smash hit like Pulp Fiction less so — but certainly PF was WAY more of a cult film than “Gladiator” which wasn’t any kind of “cult” film at all. If Gashvi wants to assert his own definition, that’s fine, but why not just use “influential” or “big” film?

Comment by Rocky on 5 January 2007:

I think “AKS” should qualify as a Cult Film.BTW Rohit, could these avatars be one of the reasons for the slow NaachGaana yesterday ???? I remember reading a comment earlier that avatars can clog the traffic and also make this blog look like a Teenage blog.
I really do love my avatar, but would be willing to let go of it in the interest of faster connection.

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

Sorry guys just don’t agree on BM - there has to be some general consensus on such a thing. For example Reservoir Dogs is WIDELY regarded as a cult film.

The only time I have heard BM to be called cult is on NG.

Satyam - I agree with your reading of a cult film but I think successful films can also be cults. I’d say Pulp Fiction is a cult film. Cult films can also be trend setters or culture changing films.

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

What other films in the last 15 yrs are cult films then by your defintions ?

Comment by Jesse on 5 January 2007:

I thought films like Andaz Apna Apna, Maqbool, and Aks as Rocky said are cult films (ie. didn’t do well at the BO but those who saw it liked it, and eventually did well once it reached DVD). This years “cult” film would be KKG.

Comment by Jesse on 5 January 2007:

Hera Pheri fits the defination of cult film better then Dhoom.

Comment by Qalandar on 5 January 2007:

Jayshah: I think one of the characetristics of the “cult” is that it is niche, which by definition means that it cannot be utterly “mainstream” (I stress that no value judgment is implied; I am merely speaking of this as a definitional matter). Thus the very “middle of the road-ness” of a D1 or a HAHK makes them unlikely candidates for “cult” films (HAHK also flunks the “niche” test in a different way, in that its niche was the entire market, which makes it a popular phenomenon, far broader than a mere “cult” film). As I understand it, the cult would feature elements of the quirky, the out-of-the-ordinary. Thus “Aks” is a good candidate as Rocky suggests; “NAACH” COULD have been, but of course is not a cult film because it lacks even a niche core of dedicated fans; however “Vivaah” cannot be called acult film without doing some violence to the term — the term I might use for Vivaah would be “sleeper hit” or “runaway” or some such thing. Dhoom is simply too “mainstream” to be a cult film IMO (reflected in large part in the D2 initial), as is Parineeta, or Vivaah — i.e. even leaving aside the gross I think these flunk the cult test.

Comment by Qalandar on 5 January 2007:

Jessee: agree completely.

Jay: Pulp Fiction is probably the “biggest” cult film ever, but even this obviously did not make 300 million USD etc. i.e. the cult film BY DEFINITION cannot be a huge event, because there is nothing niche about something that is simply a mainstream success.

I think the disagreement arises because as I read you you appear to hold the view that the culturally significant film or influential film is also part of the definition of “cult”. To be honest, I disagree: I believe the “cult” partakes of the odd and unconventional, and is characterized by niche (sometimes self-congratulatory) fans (the self-congratulation tends to arise because one’s fandom becomes the sign of the initiate, where membership is deemed indicative of superior x or y)…

Comment by Jesse on 5 January 2007:

Add RGV’s Satya to that list, and perhaps to a much lesser extent Company.

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

When a cult film’s not a cult film

By Stephen Dowling
BBC News Online entertainment staff

Tarantino’s film references cult films - but isn’t one itself
Kill Bill Volume 1, which has just gone on release across the UK, has all the hallmarks of 1970s cult films. But is it a cult film itself? BBC News Online delves into the murky world of what makes films cult - or just plain commercial.

Quentin Tarantino arguably became the coolest director of the 1990s, responsible for the iconic failed-heist film Reservoir Dogs and its follow-up, the circuitous Pulp Fiction.

Both were steeped in references to an earlier, less sophisticated era of movie-making - funky, contemporary soundtracks, sudden outbreaks of violence, sharp, hip dialogue - that pointed to the days of 1970s B-movies.

Plus - they were both films that inspired critical adulation, but did not do so well at the box office - only becoming truly popular through video and DVD. It was the stuff cult movies are made of.

Cool and cult

Except - and welcome to the minefield that is delineating cult from just plain cool - they were not themselves cult films. And neither, by association, is Kill Bill.

GREAT CULT FILMS
Robot Monster (1953)
Les Diaboliques (1955)
Day of the Triffids (1962)
Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1966)
The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)
Vanishing Point (1972)
Solaris (1972)
Videodrome (1982)
Meet the Feebles (1989)
Donnie Darko (2001)

Kill Bill: The verdict

Confused? Then welcome to the worryingly complex rules of what makes a film cult. Or not, as the case may be.

Colin Kennedy, editor of UK film magazine Empire, argues that if Kill Bill is considered cult “we’ve moved so far from my understanding of what a cult film to be”.

He says: “Kill Bill is a tribute to cult films, and influenced by cult films. Quentin Tarantino references cult films more than any other acknowledged movie-maker working today.”

Tarantino’s film pays tribute to grindhouse films - the B-movies, Blaxploitation and Hong Kong martial arts films that used to play in scruffy cinemas in rundown areas.

But Mr Kennedy says: “Calling Kill Bill a cult film is like referring to a major band like Radiohead as an ‘indie’ band.”

Indie is a tag which originally denoted a band was signed to an independent record label.

But because the film is produced by Miramax - a major studio - and stars well-known names such as Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu and Daryl Hannah, the film is too high profile for the ‘cult’ label, he argues.

The original Italian Job - a cult in the US, but not in the UK
Michael Bonner, the film editor for music and film magazine Uncut, agrees.

“You can’t count a film if it just happens to be a leftfield movie that has crossover appeal,” he says.

“So you can’t call Usual Suspects a cult film. That’s film noir.”

Word of mouth

Also, the two critics agree, a movie can be called be a cult depending on where you were.

“In the US, the original Italian Job was something that you had to seek out,” Mr Kennedy says.

28 Days Later: Cult, despite its enormous success
“Even in the UK at the start it was a sizeable hit but not huge. And then it became this huge Bank Holiday staple.”

So still a cult, but not in the UK.

But it works the other way around as well.

“Blair Witch was a cult hit in the US because of the way it was built up over the internet, and it had no marketing budget, so it was really word of mouth,” Mr Kennedy says.

“By the time it came to the UK, there was none of that, because it had made $100m and people were going to see it with a different expectation.

“And they were disappointed.”

Successful cults

There are successful films that can still be viewed as cult classics, he says.

Cult of Gyllenhaal: Maggie in sex comedy Secretary
28 Days Later has become one of the biggest British films in the US, but could still be regarded as a cult film, thanks to its slender budget, its gloomy worldview and the fact that in the US it showed a different, bleaker ending after 29 days on release.

These are the things that can help a film go cult.

Mr Kennedy’s vote for the latest cult film is Donnie Darko - a darkly inventive teen drama starring Jake Gyllenhaal and released last year - or Secretary, starring another Gyllenhaal, Maggie.

Maybe the simple formula in years to come to decipher whether a film is cult or not is whether there’s a Gyllenhaal in the credits.

Comment by Qalandar on 5 January 2007:

Jay that’s hilarious, thanks for posting!

Comment by Qalandar on 5 January 2007:

Re: “He does it purely for the adrenaline rush. He is a rich boy who has lost his parents at a young age. He has always got A grades in school and has done a course in computer engineering. He is a well-travelled linguist, a connoisseur of wines, a man hugely into adventure sports.”

Until, that is, the adrenaline rush of serving food on a Pacific Island outweighs all these highs!

Comment by Rocky on 5 January 2007:

Good One Jay !!!

Comment by Qalandar on 5 January 2007:

Aside: I have never bought the farcical claim that if a film is escapist then it need not be psychologically plausible. It need not be plausible in terms of realism (while numerous Indian filmmakers seem to hold “realism” or “grounded in reality” as some kind of badge of honor, I am mystified why this merits any brownie points at all), but it does need to be INTERNALLY consistent and plausible.

Case in point: Jay Dixit is just NOT the kinda guy who would be dancing with Bipasha at a college reunion (as he does in D2), or would let his facial hair just grow out like that; he seems too uptight and buttoned up to do so (even in D1 the only “public” dance/song of his was when he was faking and setting a trap). Similarly, Kabir’s end was fitting, and consistent with his characterization over the course of the film; but Aryan’s end seems strange and incompatible with his persona in the rest of the film (as does Jay Dixit’s just letting him walk). I thought Aishwariya and Rimmi Sen had the most consistent characterizations in this film (Sen only has a scene, but is instantly recognizable as the woman from D1, which is not what one can say about Jay Dixit).

Comment by Qalandar on 5 January 2007:

Re: “But because the film is produced by Miramax - a major studio - and stars well-known names such as Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu and Daryl Hannah, the film is too high profile for the ‘cult’ label, he argues.”

That’s also part of why I feel D1 is not a cult film.

Comment by rajen on 5 January 2007:

Here is what defines cult movie:

Cult movie. A term everyone knows, but only few can define. The
advertising industry promoting Hollywood’s latest blockbuster, or the distant
relative trying to start a conversation on your aunt’s wedding ceremony by
talking about her favorite movie. They all use the word, but none of them can
answer one simple question. What makes a movie a cult movie?
This comes from the fact that nobody really has an idea of what a cult
movie really should be like. Therefore, to analyze whether Pulp Fiction is a
cult movie or not, it is necessary to give a definition of the term and to
establish several criteria which must be fulfilled by the movie. After that, it will
be possible to examine Tarantino’s masterpiece with a focus on these certain
attributes.
1 What is a cult movie?
It is hard to give a proper definition of the term cult movie, because
there are many ideas about what it really is. A lot of movies are actually
considered to be cult, but they are all different.
1.1 Definition
First of all, most cult movies fail to achieve any financial success and
never arouse noteworthy public interest, except for bad criticism. However, “a
small, devoted group of viewers, often «film buffs» or film students, show an
extreme appreciation of the film.”2 This brings us to the conclusion that not a
particular director, actor or producer makes a movie a real cult film and
neither does the advertising industry. Cult movies are rather made by the
fans. Their self-invented rituals, their empathy with the protagonists, their
flaming enthusiasm and their endless interest in little details are the
determing factors. Even the participation of a person in a movie, who is
generally seen as a cult character, does not assure the movie will ever reach
cult status.

Comment by Rocky on 5 January 2007:

I think we all agree that Dhoom series is NOT a cult film. Baki sab to Guru Ghantaal hai !!!!! Bolo Guru !!!

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

Interesting thoughts allround. To be honest a cult film list would vary from person to person because not everyone cares about the BO.

Comment by satyam on 5 January 2007:

I agree with Rocky that Aks is a cult movie. Also agree with Jesse that HP was (now it’s mainstream!) more of a cult than Dhoom. In fact HP always had niche acceptance at the time and was in fact not huge even in Bombay.

Also I agree with everything Qalandar says here in terms of defining a cult film. Reservoir Dogs is assuredly cult. Pulp fiction is one that became big and is now not cult to the degree Reservoir Dogs is if at all.

Jay, in terms of who defines BM as cult I’m not sure if anyone defines anything as cult in India! The term has common currency only in the West and within an Indian audience is restricted precisely to bloggers and suchlike!

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

But if you are using the BO as a factor in judging cult status - how can BM be cult in America when its done excellent business there ?

Comment by Qalandar on 5 January 2007:

Jay: BM made about $750,000 in the US, and that after starting at $160,000 — so it opened modestly, and held rock steady, the hallmark of a film with a small but devoted bunch of followers. I don’t consider that “excellent business”.

[These figures are from memory, doubtless Satyam will correct me here!]

Comment by rajen on 5 January 2007:

I think a cult movie by definition has only a niche group of supporters and so cannot be a universal success.A movie that inspires people to ape and follow is not really a cult movie.
BM in my view is a cult movie and so is DCH and so was Reservior Dogs.Dhoom 2 is not a cult movie in any sense.Aks definitely.I dont think there should be an argument about what is a cult movie,though there is one.

Comment by satyam on 5 January 2007:

Jay, that’s true but the film did very well in Bombay as well. The point is that in either case it is still a limited section of the segment. For example if BnB had done as well as BM it would have made 3m! I’m not exaggerating. Because BM was loved but only by a segment of the movie going population and did not have the kind of universal appeal that say a BnB had (it was not liked by everyone for wholly different reasons). Similarly it did well in Bombay but not stupendously and this performance itself was reflected in more than a few Indian metros. So there was no universal set for this film. By the way Guru can never be a cult film. It is being promoted as a major commercial release. the only way it could now be so is if it were to be a disaster at the box office and then also be rediscovered at a later point.

Comment by satyam on 5 January 2007:

Qalandar you are absolutely right on those figures and in your reading of them.

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

I find the cult status to be one close to a fanatical view point.

So to compare two Aamir movies from the 90’s (being an Aamir fan) AHAT and Andaz Apna Apna - both movies flopped when released. Today these films are probably held in far higher regard then back then BUT I’d consider AHAT to be just a good movie, a good TV movie at that whereas AAA is more of a cult movie.

The difference between the two is probably how the two would be rated in a survey of 100 people. AHAT would probably be rated between 3-7 out of 10 on avergage whereas AAA would probably have a few fans rating it 9-10 out of 10, a few rating it 1-3/10 and the rest in the middle.

In that sense the cult movie has a few select fans who are ‘fanatical’ about the movie - in fact love it completely. I guess what I am getting at is the cult movie has a far bigger range of viewpoint whereas a film like AHAT has a generalised viewpoint - i.e. no love or detest.

I guess in the end Satyam/Qalander/Rajen - you have twisted my arm into thinkin BM is a cult movie !

But I’d probably say the word ‘cult’ or ‘classic’ is banded out far too much aswell. Reading this article again made me laugh - how is HAHK a cult classic LOL

On the subject of movie status; I’d probably say there are 4 Landmark movies in the history of Hindi Films - Mother India, Sholay, HAHK and Lagaan.

This would be an interesting subject to discuss

Landmark by definition would be that the film has far more significance to Hindi Cinema and its importance is unique. Mother India being a massive hit but also pretty much putting Hindi Cinema on the map (also getting an Oscar nomination). Sholay for being the biggest hit ever and still remaining evergreen. (I guess one doesn’t need to have seen these movies to actually know the importance/significance of such an event). HAHK for really opening up the Box Office event for people in India. I believe before this movie - videos etc were the norm but HAHK really was the movie that changed it and then DDLJ, RH etc followed. And Lagaan for not only getting an Oscar nomination but also really paving the way for progressive cinema this decade.

What say guys ? Lets discuss !

Comment by Qalandar on 5 January 2007:

Re: “On the subject of movie status; I’d probably say there are 4 Landmark movies in the history of Hindi Films - Mother India, Sholay, HAHK and Lagaan.”

Jay: This list has to include Awaara, IMO simply the most important B&W Hindi film. Note also that during the days of the Cold War, if non-Indians (especially in China, Russia, and Egypt and Soviet-bloc countries) were likely to have seen ANY Hindi film, it would be Awaara. Finally, for its cultural significance, for its legendary soundtrack and over-the-top performances, for its operatic scale, hard not to include Mughal-e-Azam (can’t stand this film myself, but hey). I would include both of these before HAHK.

Comment by Qalandar on 5 January 2007:

btw, Jay, the funny thing is if you see Awaara it seems like a more “modern” film — to this day — than HAHK. Awaara is one of the least “dated” films around, and despite the great debt Raj Kapoor owes to Chaplin, DiSica et al., there’s enough that’s original there to merit my deeming it one of the very greatest Hindi films ever made (not to mention that it features the “birth” of the “music video” in Ghar Aaya Mera Pardesi)…

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

Interesting. Again I wasn’t aware that Awaara had a huge following in those countries.

BTW I detest HAHK now - but its importance in the numbers game is manifold. Obviously if there was no HAHK, then who knows how the box office aspect of Hindi Cinema would be (obviously DDLJ might have just done the very samething the following yr) In that sense it is an immensely important film but not a great film.

MeA - yea forgot that one.

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

I guess a landmark film is as much a frequent event is like a new Pope is. And whether you like the film or not - its pretty much blatantly obvious its a significant milestone.

Comment by satyam on 5 January 2007:

Awara features the first dream sequence in Indian cinema (Raj Kapoor has a lot to answer for!). I agree with Qalandar that this is easily one of the most influential movies ever made. Of course one would also have to add RK’s Shree 420 here. This films themes reverberate endlessly right down to Guru!

I also agree with the rest of jay’s list though I would also add Deewar. Sholay is considered the greatest Indian commercial film, not without justification, but I think Deewar is the more inlfuential work. And the influence extends into non-Hindi Indian cinemas as well. We’ve been talking a lot about Rathnam recently and his Nayakan (which is surely the most fabled Tamil of our time) also owes a lot to Deewar including some very specific lines at a key moment. So my own list would be Awara, Shree 420, Mother India, Sholay, Deewar, Lagaan. Yet there is a little voice that tells me Amar Akbar Anthony is at least as influential as many of the films on this list if not more in some ways. Similarly there’s Raj Kapoor’s Sangam — all Yashraj romance (beginning with the father) can more or less be traced back to this film.

But if I could limit myself even more here and think about films that brought about paradigm shifts I would have to restrict myself to a smaller set here. Because seminal and influential all the films mentioned here are all of these did not radically alter the course of the industry. Deewar certainly did. If I had to pick just one film for Hindi cinema it would have to be Deewar. For Tamil I would similarly pick Nayakan. But again I am somewhat haunted by AAA. This film changed Bachchan’s ‘angry young man’ trajectory forever and consequently the entire history of bachchan including his influence on all the non-Hindi superstars.

Lagaan brought about a paradigm shift in terms of ‘perception’. After Lagaan the ‘edge’ factor could never be ignored. It is today not enough to simply make a blockbuster but a blockbuster with brains which is why RDB acquired such prestige.

Getting back to Awara one of the recent (and important) Chinese films, Platform, has a nice moment where an audience in a rural theater in the 60s is watching the Awara Hoon song with Chinese subs!

Comment by satyam on 5 January 2007:

Also I tend to regard DDLJ as far more influential than HAHK. It might have borrowed something from HAHK but the paradigm that survived was DDLJ. Similarly Rash Chopra had already introduced Switzerland to Hindi audiencec but it took DDLJ to convert it into an industry fetish! As I always say the 90s paralleled the 60s in profound ways — in each case you basically have passable love stories mixed with the comic and dollops of music. Also common to both is the obsession with a ’scenic’ locale — Kashmir for the 60s, Switzerland for the 90s. And both decades features global romps from Europe to East Asia! And again as I’ve pointed SRK was never more successful than rajendra Kumar though he is a more important figure to the extent that he forms a new ‘beginning’ for the diaspora. The connecting link between the imagined old and the new is once again Amitabh Bachchan! we never quite get ahead of him!

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

Good post Satyam.

Believe it or not I’ve seen AAA and Deewar. I guess my complete detachment from this era doesn’t allow me to fully comment on the significance of these two movies but without doubt I liked them immensely.

I guess a list of 10 odd movies is fair. I guess by importance and landmark I’m referring to films that have not only impacted careers, but also rocked the industry and have been trend setters. In a way I am not even talking about quality here; just merely significant moments in the history of B&W.

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

Satyam - I like DDLJ 100 times more than HAHK - but I’d say HAHK is the more significant movie. DDLJ is better in every aspect of film but the influence HAHK and impact it made at the Box Office is huge. For my generation its probably the first movie we saw in a cinema hall or at least one of the first and it pretty much started a snowball effect at the box office.

Comment by Qalandar on 5 January 2007:

I do agree with satyam that DDLJ is the more influential film: HAHK was a one-off, (on a lesser scale so was Gadar in 2001), whereas DDLJ changed what was made, and how it was made.

Satyam: the interesting thing about the iconic Bachchan films is that — barring Sholay, which is no “Bachchan film” — they have hardly been influential as cinema, but immensely significant as personae. Thus Vijay from Deewar is one of the most seminal “figures” in Hindi film history (as is Anthony), but the visual mediocrity of Yash Chopra’s work (compared to the likes of Raj Kapoor) meant that his films hardly influenced “cinema” — though certainly radically altered what we the public came to expect from our heroes, from “the underworld”, etc. etc. Thus, at the risk of sounding incoherent I would pick Vijay and Anthony as landmark characters, indeed by now they are cultural figures/tropes/myths, but only Amar Akbar Anthony of the two is also a landmark film within the parameters of this discussion…

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

DDLJ did change what was made and how it was made - true that is.

I guess I pick HAHK from a different angle - not so much the impact it had on the film industry but more the social behaviour of people actually going back to the cinema and not faffing around watching videos

Plus the release strategy of HAHK was very unique - that it fluked its box office performance may be true and that if there was no HAHK and DDLJ still would have made the same kind of money is a disticnt possible….but thats merely speculative.

Comment by Sameer on 5 January 2007:

There can be huge grossers now, but the amount of business done by HAHK and DDLJ is not comparable at all. During those times, a 10+ crore movie would be awesome hit and these two did over 60 crores of business. Its like 5 times than the regular hit movies which is simply great. After Sholay(not even MPK)..only HAHK and DDLJ has achieved unanimous acceptance and such business all over!!!

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

Sameer good point. But I ask the question….without a HAHK, would DDLJ have manged the same business ? My answer would be DDLJ would have made alot of money (not nearly as much as it did) but HAHK was an important vehicle to open that door to success.

Comment by Sameer on 5 January 2007:

I would give DDLJ more credit than HAHK for business coz HAHK was released in only ONE cinema per city and was till almost 2 months that way and only then it was distributed to other local theaters. Also, there was no PIRACY involved with HAHK…i.e, there were no pirated copies of HAHK as Rajshri had their guys at every single theater it released for first 2 months. DDLJ was a regular release and also the pirated copies were easily available and moreover in some areas, it was telecast on cable from first week onwards and yet it did that amount of business! Simply great!!!

Comment by Sameer on 5 January 2007:

Someone mentioned Awaara and I agree completely. Raj Kapoor’s movie travelled all over the globe and he was a craze in Russia with Aawara and Shri 420!

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

Business wise it maybe easy to give more credit to DDLJ based on the circumstances you’ve illustrated. But being a regular release DDLJ effectively also has a 2 month headstart on HAHK.

Anyway - I guess I’ve been voted out (again!) so DDLJ wins ! LOL

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

Plus the piracy issue doesnt really wash.

Cos piracy is more rife now then ever before but it doesnt stop people going to the cinema to make D2 get 80 Cr. This is the main point about HAHK. It made people stop watching piracy and actually got them to go to the cinema

Comment by jayshah on 5 January 2007:

Sameer - agree with the other films mentioned ? Want to add others ?

Comment by Sameer on 5 January 2007:

Also, lemme tell you that while DDLJ was releasing, it wasn’t the only choice …coz Madhuri’s Yaarana released the same day and it was hell of a craze. All the posters had the song’ Mere Piya Ghar Aaya’ written over it..people didn’t care about the movie’s name but were reading the title of the movie as ‘mere piya ghar aaya’.. and it was a sin to miss Madhuri’s new movie after HAHK and that too such a phenomenal song & dance!!! Madhuri’s craze was such that she even made a hit with ‘wooden’ Sanjay Kapoor in Raja before Yaarana!!!

Comment by satyam on 5 January 2007:

Sameer, DDLJ is hardly in the same league as HAHK in terms of collections (the latter grossed between 25-40 crores more than DDLJ depending on who you believe!). Secondly to say that these films got the most universal acceptance after Sholay is also factually incorrect. there are a number of Bachchan films that were simply massive grossers like for example MKS (Bachchan’s biggest grosser if you exclude Sholay), AAA, trishul etc. Even into the 80s the Bachchan grossers were usually the biggest relative to the competition. Then there was something like Ram teri Ganga Maili. really there are too many to mention. Even in the 90s Karan Arjun and even more than this Raja Hindustani were massive. Having said this HAHK was definitely a historic moment, DDLJ was pretty special too (though not on the same scale) but let’s not get carried away here! Plus remember that sheer gross does not mean everything. D2 will gross more than LRM, doesn’t mean it’s more universal than LRM. I would by the way argue that in terms of acceptance not just Gadar but even Raja Hindustani is bigger than DDLJ. It’s just that DDLJ made most of its money from A centers where even without the multiplexes the difference could hardly be made up.

Since Sholay there have been a few non-Bachchan historic box office moments and I would include Gadar and HAHK in this list, DDLJ and Ram teri Ganga Maili and some others to a lesser extent. With bachchan the standard is always different, his films grossed more than anyone else’s at every level right through the late 80s. But the idea that DDLJ is the most accepted film since Sholay is outrageous on any number of different levels. By the way in the 70s another film that did a HAHK and became a really massive grosser was jai Santoshi Maa.

DDLJ is a huge success story. One doesn’t have to make it a Sholay or use Madhuri’s yaarana as an example of competition! C’mon!!!

Comment by satyam on 5 January 2007:

Qalandar: I agree with your general point on bachchan’s personas but would disagree on Deewar. This narrative has been replicated far too many times and as I said earlier even Nayakan is a Deewar reading in some ways.

Comment by satyam on 5 January 2007:

Jay: You definitely have a point on HAHK when you correlate it with movie-going habits.

Comment by sandy on 5 January 2007:

I do not believe BM is a cult movie, nor do I think Dhoom is one. I agree with some of the definitions of a cult movie here

a) It cannot be a blockbuster or a hugely successful commercial film
b) It is passionately patronized by a sizeable number of film buffs
c) Is different and breaks the conventional moulds in terms of technique or theme
d) Brings about a wave – makes a massive impact
e) A great representative for its age (In literature, I’d site The Great Gatsby that was a cult novel for its portrayal of the American jazz age in the 20the century)
(All conditions need not be met)

For me, these are recent cult movies in Hindi

1. Dil Chahta Hai
2. Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikander
3. Kabhi Haan Kabhi Na
4. Munnabhai series (I know it’s been commercially very successful but it meets all the other conditions exceptionally well)
5. Rang De Basanti (for the massive wave it brought along and breaking conventional moulds in theme and technique)

BM is NOT a cult film. I live in India and I know there was no particular craze for this film whatsoever.

And I completely agree with Jay that cult is a term that cannot be brandished around cheaply. Only select films get that title. And yes, I also agree that cult films are essentially different from landmark films!

Comment by Khalnayak on 6 January 2007:

completely agree with all the points sandy. BM a “cult film” is something one will only hear on NG!

PS: don’t you think Andaaz Apna Apna is a cult film as well?!

Comment by Sameer on 6 January 2007:

IMO, DCH is the only cult movie of recent years. This is only movie which without being a big hit literally changed industry’s style of film making besides innumerable rip-offs and similar style movies. I don’t know if I’ll include Munnabhai or RDB. I mean, they are great movies but will certainly not create huge rip-off or something. Even the general tone and look of RDB is assigned to DCH. I would replace JJWS with Andaz Apna Apna. It is very lovable but it didn’t create enough impact on the industry or the people that time. But, now everyone loves AAA. But, its not path-breaking movie. I’m not sure of KHKN(though a hero running after a girl throughout the movie and does not end up with her is very novel & path-breaking concept). It is very lovable movie. More than the movie, I feel SRK’s character is cult. He is anything but a hero!

Comment by Sameer on 6 January 2007:

KN: Don’t blame whole NG man! Its hardly 2-3 guys who assume BM as cult movie!

Comment by Khalnayak on 6 January 2007:

i guess you are righy sameer.. my apologies!!

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

I find it very astonishing that any movie becomes a cult or an underrated gem (read MP) on NG! I do feel there needs to be csome kind of consensus in these matters. One cannot make assumptions based on one’s own judgement. I mean, I liked Umrao Jaan but I’m not going around saying that it is a classic and people didn’t understand it.
When nothing works, some NGiets say things like ‘only those who have an idea of the masala genre of the 70s will understand this etc). This is ridiculous now. Either a film is good on its own or it isn’t.

Comment by Sameer on 6 January 2007:

btw, what is the ‘number’ of people’s liking to define a cult movie? Does 2-3 guyz vote enough to call it a cult movie?

Comment by Khalnayak on 6 January 2007:

Sandy, seems you are making up for all the disagreements we had in the past lol :D.. completely agree AGAIN on all the points you raised!

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

Unfortunately, 2-3 people on NG are not enough to call any film a cult movie.

According to me, a cult film has a small but ardent set of admirers who love and patronize the film, inspite of it not achieving much commercially. This does not mean one takes any and every flop and start confering it the cult status.

I also feel a cult film is ‘different’ in its theme and treatment. It HAS to break certain conventional moulds to be called a cult for sure.

Comment by Sameer on 6 January 2007:

I don’t think MP is called Cult movie on NG..its more than that.. some kind of Classic(which no one got..obviously)

Comment by sujith on 6 January 2007:

“a) It cannot be a blockbuster or a hugely successful commercial film
b) It is passionately patronized by a sizeable number of film buffs
c) Is different and breaks the conventional moulds in terms of technique or theme
d) Brings about a wave – makes a massive impact
e) A great representative for its age (In literature, I’d site The Great Gatsby that was a cult novel for its portrayal of the American jazz age in the 20the century)”

IMHO a) b) c) are far closer to cult films than d) e). I dont believe cult films are the same as influential/paradigm-shifty films.

DCH is definetely an influential movie , it was widely accepted in urban areas ,hardly a cult film.

AAA definitely a cult film

Incidently just read something related…I hadnt ever heard of ‘Gunda’ before but from the article and the truly mind blowing first few minutes of the video that i saw …this has got to be a cult film (Be warned that the video is far far away from anything in good taste )

Comment by sujith on 6 January 2007:

…and Shetty if you read this (i have a nagging feeling that you aware of this gem,but if not..) each of the villains seem to be trying to do a “Chandidas Khurana-style” intro line

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

“Sandy, seems you are making up for all the disagreements we had in the past lol .. completely agree AGAIN on all the points you raised!”

Thanks Khalnayak. But then, I have never followed the popular sentiment on the forum, when I don’t agree with it.

Comment by jayshah on 6 January 2007:

I agree that AAA and DCH are cult movies. Also agree with Sameer that JJWS is not a cult movie.

NOW - btw I have personally never labelled MP a Hit, a classic or a cult movie. For me its a personal favourite and I universally accept its pretty much a flop. In saying that I would bracket both Swades/MP the same way; I can only see these movies gaining a little more appreciation with the time.

My feeling on BM een in India was the same as yours Sandy. I find it hard to believe this is a cult movie and it does seem like a term thats originated on here Sorry guys !

Comment by jayshah on 6 January 2007:

Plus there is something universally obvious with such choices.

Reservoir Dogs is universally accepted as a cult classic.

In that sense I’ve heard many people label both DCH and AAA as cult classics. So in a way I bow down to popular thought without really getting into the defintions etc.

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

Jay: I agree with everything else you say but how can MP and Swades be clubbed in the same bracket. Yes, both films flopped but critically, their reception in India was vastly different. While every critic who mattered gave Swades a thumbs up and hailed it as relavant cinema, MP was butchered.

I’m not saying MP is the worst film ever made but I do find it a highly unimaginative and foolish venture.

Swadwes had focus and direction, which MP never had. And unfortunately, what made the film such a disaster was Aamir Khan and Ketan Mehta’s confusing potrayal of Mangal Pandey-the man.

Comment by jayshah on 6 January 2007:

Erm I’m not sure MP was butchered.

Check out this link

http://www.allbollywood.com/v2/bd/stc/mov/m/116.shtml

Here you can see alot of reviews provided by the web.

To put it into context it scored 67% overall and I believe only LRM and RDB have beaten that percentage this year.

I think MP had a diverse array of reviews. In fact on this link the lowest score it got is 3*/5

I think out of 30 odd reviews these scores are MORE than good ! So the view that it was butchered IMO is incorrect. It was butchered at the BO Week 2 onwards ! So the public have butchered the movie - but as reviews go it had alot of good ones !

Comment by jayshah on 6 January 2007:

Swades btw stands at the same % overall of 67%

http://www.allbollywood.com/v2/bd/stc/mov/s/44.shtml

I use this link alot - it has all the reviews of all the key internet filmi sites. Over 30-40 reviews - one can get a feel for critical eye, it doesn’t tell the whole story obviously but its a decent source !

Comment by jayshah on 6 January 2007:

Sorry Dor (71%) and Omkara (68%) are ahead this yr.

Last year - Black (79%), Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi (70%), Parineeta (69%), Sarkar (69%), Iqbal (68%)

Sandy - I know I won’t get you to change your opinion about MP !

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

Nooooo, it was butchered by the media in India. It got one and two stars, something like Don. See, the internation media is always kind to such films since they can relate to it slightly better. Which is why, it did a shade better in that department, where some critics gave it three stars. And yes, you had Taran who gave it four stars! (But we all know what that means)

So Jay, there’s no two ways about it. In popular media, it was indeed butchered. Every big critic, who matters, whether it was Khalid Mohammad or Subhash K Jha ripped it apart. It’s a big myth that it found any kind of critical appreciation. I can post every link of every major newspaper in India for you, if you want.

Now, how can all the critics and all the film going public in the world, who rejected the movie be wrong?

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

Mid-day review has the headline ‘Thanda matlab Mangal pandey’……Rediff, which is also a good source, certainly butchered it. Mumbai Mirror gave it one star, leaving even Aamir Khan flustered. Indian Express and India today ripped it apart. Subhash K Jha, whose reviews gets published in half a douzen newspapers said some of the most humiliating things about the film.
So then, what remains?
The international media position I have already explained to you.

Comment by jayshah on 6 January 2007:

Ok - you have made some excellent points, me being in UK doesn’t help to understand the media position in India !

I still certainly feel its not as bad as your saying but I will stop here !

Maybe I am reading too much into the actual reviews (Rediff review on that link is 4*’s I believe) and should pay more attention to news articles and other sources to gauge a better landscape of media reaction.

The glamsham and mid-day reviews - Subhash J Jha rated it average but on just reading his review he has not been too kind.

Comment by shetty on 6 January 2007:

Thanks Sujith,

Nafrat Ke Aandhi is a cult film as you & me agree with this (going by NG standards 2 votes are enough).

Now you owe me DVD of Gunda.

BTW Gunda starrs Baban, one of my Fav actors!!.

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

“I still certainly feel its not as bad as your saying but I will stop here ! Maybe I am reading too much into the actual reviews (Rediff review on that link is 4*’s I believe)”

Jay: Pls go through this link which I found just for you

http://www.rediff.com/movies/2005/aug/26raja.htm

And now tell me, am I exagerrating?

Comment by jayshah on 6 January 2007:

Sandy please go to this link and tell me you might be exaggerating a little

http://www.rediff.com/movies/2005/aug/12aamir.htm

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

Eggggjhaactly!!!!!! The one I showed you was written by Raja Sen (an Indian reviewer), while the one you showed has been written by a foreign critic!! I’ve already explained my point on international reviewers and their soft spot for historicals and ‘relatable matter’.
The only common factor here is that both have written for rediff but my point is only reiterated, is it not?

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

Foreign critics being kind on Mangal Pandey is very understandable.

It’s 30 per cent in English
It’s based in a period, which the international media perfectly understands.
One of the main leads of the film is a foreign actor

These factors make it easier for international critics to understand (and appreciate?) the film. However, their Indian counterparts did not require any of these factors to recogonise the sheer futility behind this project.

Comment by jayshah on 6 January 2007:

LOL - right you are !

I think you win Sandy. Looking at most the excellent reviews they are international critics. Fair point.

I’ve watched MP twice - to be honest the first time I was slightly disappointed, the second time I watched it at home and loved it. I remember my dad saying ‘this movie was good to watch second time’.

My expectations first time around were so big that they weren’t really met.

Anyhow - I know you detest the movie, I hope oneday you re-visit this one ! I started to watch KANK again last week for the second time (only started) and the first 30mins I found to be slightly better than the first watch in cinema (this isn’t saying much cos I detest this movie with equal dislike as you have for MP) so there you go !

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

Jay: I’ve sincerely tried watching MP again, whenever it plays on television. But what can I do? I fall asleep somewhere in the middle fo it. This has happened umpteen number of times when I just drop to sleep watching it. Now, I’ve realised it’s my ultimate cure for insomnia. So in a way, yes, it’s a priceless film!

Comment by Sameer on 6 January 2007:

JS: Swades was nominated in Best Film & Best Director category at every Award ceremony in India. Actually it was nominated in every category possible…music, lyrics, cinematography, so on. Also, there was quite a good chance of Ashutosh winning couple of them for film. It was nominated for Nationals; it won 2 NA (though not important). Whereas MP was ignored at all the award ceremonies (nevermind 1 or 2 Aamir nominations).

Comment by jayshah on 6 January 2007:

Sameer - to be honest I wouldn’t use the awards system to debate this point. On the whole the awards system is crap in India. That Swades got all the nominations is great (and I 100% agree with it) but its just a coincidence that for once they got it right. They got it right in 2001 for Lagaan but for numerous instances they get it wrong or they are amazingly inconsistent !

BTW I prefer Swades over MP. Both performances by SRK/Aamir are first rate for me; but Swades has a heartening story and IMO the better music score. So it truly deserves all the accolades it gets. MP is a personal like, everyone has there personal likes on here - heck I love Zoolander !

Plus maybe I am looking at it from an international standpoint. Plus all those who do like MP on here (Satyam, Qalander, Akshay) - dare I say we are all internationally based. There maybe lots of truth in the pudding afterall !

I merely bucketed Swades/MP from a different angle - I guess indirectly the international angle. In say 20 years time - dare I say films like Fanaa, MHM etc will be outdated and won’t have the same appeal. They are movies for our times. But a film like Swades or MP will have IMO (this is only my opinion) still a lasting international feel to them and will won’t outdate themselves.

Since the world is becoming a closer place I’d throw MP to my non indian friends over a movie like KANK hence in 20 years when one would think Bollywood would have an even greater impact on international audiences a movie like MP or Swades would perform better than a movie like Fanaa or KANK.

Agree or disagree ? (get the feeling I’m gonna be battered on this point aswell) LOL

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

“On the whole the awards system is crap in India. That Swades got all the nominations is great (and I 100% agree with it) but its just a coincidence that for once, they got it right.”

Correct. But how come every award cerimony ignored MP if it was such an ‘underrated gem’?! I mean 2005 had some dreadful films in general and practically no competition from SRK. Yet, MP didn’t win a single award. Yes, the awards are biased towards Aamir but they are never biased towards his films as such. He’s not the producer of all his films for Christ’s sake!. Which means RDB will win awards by the truckloads this year.

“MP is a personal like, everyone has there personal likes on here - heck I love Zoolander !”

Perfectly understandable. And it should be just
that - a personal favourite. No need to confer it with any divine halo and throw it into a realm of respectibility. As you yourself say, there should be some consensus about these things.

“But a film like Swades or MP will have IMO (this is only my opinion) still a lasting international feel to them and will won’t outdate themselves.”

The international market can view Hindi cinema a tad too broadly and superficially so no need to take them so seriously. At least critically. But agreed, MP has international appeal for many of the reasons I provided earlier. However, that doesn’t make it equal to Swades, which is not just superior but sublime in its content and execution.

“In say 20 years time - dare I say films like Fanaa, MHM etc will be outdated and won’t have the same appeal.”

I don’t think a confused, dull product like MP, that was mostly fiction, (including its main character) can even serve as a histrorical document. So how will it age better? I think it will be worse off, gaining some kind of notoriety.

Comment by jayshah on 6 January 2007:

Ok I feel like a dog thats been pounded so will let this discussion end now !

BTW - how do we get those pics next to our names ?

Comment by sandy on 6 January 2007:

Just email your preffered pic to Rohit. He’ll add it to the avatar and you just need to click it.

Comment by Qalandar on 6 January 2007:

Don’t wanna get into another MP discussion, but do want to respond to Jay:

Re: “Plus all those who do like MP on here (Satyam, Qalander, Akshay) - dare I say we are all internationally based.”

This is a coincidence, given that all three people whom you have mentioned were (as far as I know) not born or raised in the west, and appear to be rather fond of very typical desi/masala films, more so than many others on NG. So I don’t think the “based in West” versus “based in India” categorization will stick here. i.e. if one moved to the West as an adult (even assuming being based here were analytically relevant) surely that is a bit different from having grown up here? I might add that Abzee also loves this film, and he is very much a Mumbaikar; I know SMR does too, and she is also a Mumbaikar who is now in the US…

On the reviews: most of the Indian reviewers trashed the film, but there were some exceptions, such as Deccan Chronicle I believe (it was one of the “Deccan …” newspapers, I always get ‘em confused) which had a thoughtful piece.

As a general matter, the “only on NG” charge does not fly anymore, maybe 1-2 years ago but not today; why? Because by any yardstick — ANY yardstick — NG has the best constellation of writers on Hindi film out there. This might sound pompous, but we all know it’s true; i.e. I ain’t talking about MP or this or that film, but I’m just saying that when it comes to reading a REVIEW as a REVIEW, by any yardstick the likes of Akshay, Abzee, Shahid, Sandy etc. (not to mention the comments section in which all NG-ers will give their takes on movies) are just better than Taran, Khalid Muhammad, Subhash Jha, etc. The only exception is the great Baradwaj Rangan, and of course he is ALSO on NG.

So when someone says x or y is only esteemed on NG, that might well be a compliment!

[And btw, on MP, this Hindi film was ahead of its time; I won't say that about Dil Se, which I have a soft spot for but which will never be big; MP my predcition is is a film that will be rememebered in a good way where aamir is concerned; just my two cents].

Comment by abzee on 6 January 2007:

Agree with you Qalandar. MP is truly a film that is ahead of its times. And I don’t see how being a Mumbaikar or an NRI can influence one’s approximation of the film’s merits.

As I see it, MP throws a challenge to the viewers to decode the subliminal, and at times obvious, codas of masala Bollywood convention. One must in a way look to the movie as an adventure, a treasure hunt if you will.

Of course, Aamir’s decidedly masala turn acts as your guide to this deciphering…but I guess the reason it gets lost on the audiences is becuase they’ve been bred far too long on mushy romances and no-brainers comedies and silly actioners.

In other words, the audience of the 70s was more astute and definitely more aware. Precisely the reason why they could lap up the underlying nationalist theme of a Deewar or Laawaris. It seems to me that the current audience is incapable of reading masala tropes for what they are, and hence the brilliance in employing Indian-English leads in MP is sadly not comprehended.

Hopefully, LRMB will change things for the better.

Comment by jayshah on 6 January 2007:

To endorse Qalanders point about reviewers - I pretty much now look out for NG reviews. I might read Tarans review FIRST but this is for nostalgia and comedy value - I dont take his review seriously at all.

But NG there are at least half a dozen superb reviewers and to be honest that is enough for me.

My comments on international vs indian audience were more tongue in cheek. I’m sure there are plenty of indians who liked MP - plenty who detested aswell !

Comment by cticize on 21 February 2007:

Just to sum up.

CULT is about niche, its about distinctiveness and somethings that have followers across the board.

These movies don’t get a mass following and are segmented rather. A cult figure in spiritual aspect is the one, who has its set of followers and hence i am glad that we agree that Cult is about a SECT, which is aloof from the main segment.

Englightening discussion.

Comment by Tango on 15 March 2007:

Right Cticize ” CULT is about niche, its about distinctiveness and somethings that have followers across the board.”

Post a Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.