TOI - Superhero ya superzero? It’s like deja vu. Remember Dhoom 2, in which Hrithik Roshan and Abhishek Bachchan shared screen space and Roshan Jr stole the show?
It’s happened again. Only this time it’s the roles the two actors have donned that are being compared. The abilities of Hrithik and Abhishek as actors and the box office results of their respective films notwithstanding, Bollywood now has its own two superheroes. BT asks movie buffs who their fave is — Krrish or Drona .
The making
Krrish’s intellectual brilliance and athletic prowess are acquired from an alien factor — he is the son of Rohit Mehra (also Hrithik Roshan), blessed by the alien Jadoo of Koi… Mil Gaya . Aditya aka Drona , meanwhile, has descended from the Drona clan and that’s what makes him powerful. “I like Krrish better because he has a history and explanation for what he is or what he sets out to do,” says media analyst Sneha Rao. “ Drona comes out of nowhere, travels back and forth in time and has a hard time believing he has all these powers. Krrish is more convincing. For an audience that has grown up on Superman and Spiderman, the tale of a desi superhero must have that local touch and history,” she says.
The styling
It’s a black, long, leather cape and sleek mask versus an off-white, embroidered robe, a stole and a sword. “In Krrish , there’s only one superhero and the rest are normal human beings. In that aspect, I thought Drona’s styling was much better. Priyanka Chopra and Kay Kay’s characters looked classy as well,” says fashion coordinator Rahul Dev Shetty. “Comparing the two superheroes individually, Krrish looks very sleek. The personality, the cape, it all looks good,” he says.
“In today’s context, Krrish works better,” says photographer Sheetal J. “The world is loaded with superheroes and they are supposed to be larger than life. Something that we cannot be but get inspiration from. Drona hardly looks that with the sherwani and sword,” Sheetal says.
The powers
Krrish can run like the wind; swim like a fish; leap from one building to another; see through a wall; and fight like a true superhero. “ Drona is just strong. He comes from a royal Rajput family and so is a very powerful human being,” says interior designer Sahana K.
“Superman can fly, Spiderman can spin a web, Batman has his bat-mobile. So, when a sequel is released, you expect these guys to save the world from another super-evil. Drona will probably fight another villain, which all our Bollywood heroes do anyway. Superheroes must have some supernatural quality that makes them special.” adds techie Rahul C.
There Are 47 Responses So Far. »
Post a Response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks Satyam.
I saw Hellboy 2 and liked it. A comic book fan would probably like it more. I loved the ...
All three of these are very interesting pieces-- Ferguson's is of course the most comprehensive and useful in terms of ...
and yet another good one:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2008/11/10/081110crat_atlarge_lanchester?printable=true 
I'm glad you liked Sunshine. It's one of the more compelling sci-fi flicks I've seen in recent years, and certainly ...
Kyun Satyam, chabi de rahe ho? :) 
Comment by Som on 6 October 2008:
To be honest when an article starts like this “It’s like deja vu. Remember Dhoom 2, in which Hrithik Roshan and Abhishek Bachchan shared screen space and Roshan Jr stole the show?”,the author has lost a sense of objectivity at the first place.That was pretty unnecessary so to speak, this one looks like being written by someone who either adores “Krrish” or “Hrithik Roshan”.
Comment by neelu on 6 October 2008:
schadenfreude
“malicious joy in the misfortunes of others,” 1922, from Ger., lit. “damage-joy,” from schaden “damage, harm, injury” (see scathe) + freude, from O.H.G. frewida “joy,” from fro “happy,” lit. “hopping for joy,” from P.Gmc. *frawa- (see frolic).
“What a fearful thing is it that any language should have a word expressive of the pleasure which men feel at the calamities of others; for the existence of the word bears testimony to the existence of the thing. And yet in more than one such a word is found. … In the Greek epikhairekakia, in the Germa
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/schadenfreude
Comment by Kunal27 on 6 October 2008:
Just because I am a big time fantasy genre freak, a geek and have read many more comics this author can ever in his whole life and beyond, let me give a break up of 2 superheroes.
Krrish: A dude who has inherited the powers given to his father by an alien.
Drona: Actually has been blessed by gods themselves.
Krrish: Can jump across building.
Drona: Can use magic, power, weapons, brain and physical strength at same time.
Krrish: Will fight out with scientists who are wants to be godlike, but are humans in the end. Or maximum an alien who would be having more or less similar powers.
Drona: He will actually be up against asuras, who just don’t have the ability to show cheap magic tricks and puppets dance, but also can destroy the world and can actually challenge gods. All in all, Asuras are infact godlike. If you are reading those Durga stories, as navratras are going on, you would be reading how gods had to come together to beat asuras.
Krrish: looks more like some wannabe, cape wearing masked guy, who is too scared to show his identity.
Drona: Actually has very authentic Indian feel.
Now, I don’t say that movie Drona was better than Krrish, though both sucked for me, but Krrish was definitely sucked a bit less. But capability of superhero Drona is way beyond imagination of anyone. Its scope is more than that of LOTR and Harry Potter series. Only thing is, if there is a better director and script out there which can exploit the potential of this immaculate superhero.
BTW, if anyone responds to me, will be deemed as a geek, as I am, so reply at the risk of your repo
And on a side note, author of this piece suck.
Thanks for such a beautiful quote Neelu. How true and sad.
Comment by neelu on 6 October 2008:
Let me just say that I avoided Krrish like the plague and was curious enough to see Drona. No offense to Hritik fans, but after Koi Mil Gaya, where within the first 5 minutes 3 favorite sci-fi films were blatantly ripped off and there was trauma inducing Jadoo, I had no desire to see the follow-up. If the makers of Drona have the courage to follow up with Drona 2 (but please - not with Goldie at the helm), I would be interested in seeing the venture. So Abhi had a big film, which turned into a big flop - but it was still a step that needed to be taken if we are to ever make homegrown superhero films and not just copies of caped crusaders from the west.
Comment by Kunal27 on 6 October 2008:
Neelu: but after Koi Mil Gaya, where within the first 5 minutes 3 favorite sci-fi films were blatantly ripped off
Ditto happened with Drona Neelu, the whole HP sequence, Gandalf, Mummy, it pains to see such obvious lift up. And even they suck.
I liked KMG that atleast Rakesh Roshan copied well. Changed to Indian storyline well.
As far as originality goes, all superhero movies sucked IMO.
Drona, KMG or Krrish.
If I am interested in Drona2, then its purely because this concept has amazing potential. Much more than anyone can fathom.
I agree about No Goldie part.
Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 6 October 2008:
““What a fearful thing is it that any language should have a word expressive of the pleasure which men feel at the calamities of others;”
Exactly my thoughts when a labor of love fares badly at the BO, often even prior to a fair chance at mass approval/disapproval. The gleeful alacrity with which a film is declared a disaster and alternately a grudging acceptance of a hit, speaks of us as a people who revel in calamitous ‘breaking news’, whether it is an issue as serious as a heinous crime or then the fate of a movie. Thanks to the ‘chosen 21-25′ who have anointed themselves as messiahs, showering their inspired declarations on what ought to be a ‘watchable film’. I have not seen the film as yet,despite the best intentions, but I am sure worse films have been declared hits with clever PRO. Imho, reviews should be barred from appearing till after a week of a films release.
Let the paying audience decide its fate..not a paid reviewer, who ironically often gets to watch the film for free and remorselessly proceeds to tear it apart on trivial or rather peripheral grounds, least qualified to offer a legitimate critique. No wonder the era of 60s and 70s offered hits. Audiences decided its fate. There were fewer reviewers and they analysed films with almost as much passion as the maker.
Comment by Kunal27 on 6 October 2008:
Kaveetaa Kaul:Imho, reviews should be barred from appearing till after a week of a films release. Let the paying audience decide its fate..not a paid reviewer.
I don’t think its a good idea Kaveetaa. I seriously don’t want to pay the sky high costs of watching a movie in the theater, only to ask “WHY THE HECK?”
I think there are a few reviewers honest enough, I find Masand an honest reviewer and his opinions resonates mine. But yeah people like Khalid are just hacks who should be looking at what they have made before cracking a cheap joke which isn’t even funny.
I guess online we get better reviews than in print and electronic media. NG is a better place to make up your mind that TOI and HT, anyday of the week.
Honesty is something which is lacking, and hence so many poorly written, useless reviews, but this is a price we are paying to actually save ourselves from subjecting to an atrocity.
Comment by A C H I L L E S on 6 October 2008:
Kunal - this article is not written by a fantasy geek or a comics worshipper … its just an average Times of India Reporter who has tried to make an assessment of the general audience perception of the two movies.
Comics is hardly something thats being read by indian masses (and classes may i add … otherwise gotham comics or even virgin comics wud be at least profitable with their indian ventures!) … the writer here is as ignorant as the indian masses about graphic art and even what exactly is the superhero genre. The guys who flocked to the theater to make Krrish a stupendous hit at the box-office are hardly the ones who had read even a single superman or batman comics from what i have seen.
So leaving aside the geekiness of this discussion, the common man or kid actually shares the same perception about Krrish and Drona that TOI has published here. The BO disaster of Drona has made the matter worst.
I may as well add that in the indian subcontinent, none of such movies is judged for what it is, but just how good the stars are in it, whether it entertains or bores. Sadly thats how it is.
In such a context, abhi has to pay the price for his miscalculations.
Som - Going by the reviews that Krrish recieved, the reviews that Drona has now recieved and the articles like this one (that the media is producing by dozens), i must say that everyone in the media (reviewers and reporters) are all hrithik fanboys or fangirls and abhishek haters too. Sounds very logical to me.
Comment by A C H I L L E S on 6 October 2008:
Now reviews shud be banned?
Unfortunately, even those who had watched the great drona has bashed it … and that has come from abhi fans! What wrong did reviewers do?
Comment by Kunal27 on 6 October 2008:
Achillies, very well said man, very well said.
People in general have no idea of superheroes and actually go by which movie entertained and which didn’t. And I have no problem with that, but this guy/girl wrote as some superhero expert who is comparing two superheroes, Drona and Krrish.
TBH, Drona’s scope was more than that of Krrish, though Krrish was much better in execution.
Drona bores, and no doubts about it.
And thats my regret is, even with such possibilities director made Drona a wimp. I would be glad if both Krrish and Drona turns out to be some great franchises, and that can be done only with better directors and better vision.
When Hulk 2 can have success despite failings of Hulk 1, why can’t Drona. Hulk 2 succeeded because it had good potential, just the execution sucked first time, and similar can happen for Drona.
Comment by beld on 6 October 2008:
Cmon kaveeta. Why shoot the messenger if the news is bad! The same few media folks make stars of the very same film personalities - so they have all the right to throw brickbats. As kunal says - the viewer should be discerning not the presenter.
As far as scifi movies go - I am a big fan of krrish - liked it much better than the new superman - which was a colossal drag.
Comment by rks on 6 October 2008:
“reviews should be barred from appearing till after a week of a films release.”
I am not sure about above line. But agree with most part of statement.
ps:There are similar machinations done on larger scale by our political parties( to fool gullible voters) and we let it happen.
Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 6 October 2008:
Kunal: “I guess online we get better reviews than in print and electronic media. NG is a better place to make up your mind that TOI and HT, anyday of the week.”
That is my inference Kunal. If we look at numbers, majority of the audience, which translates into BO crunch consists of those who read reviews, in the vernacular press or TOI or HT whatever. The internet audience is a small percentage. This works conversely too. Havent you felt often that the film just did not match up to the hyperbolic reviews, splattered across media and print , internet included. the audience got gypped there as well.
Achilles.. My comment was more macro in denotation. I do not dispute one bit that Drona may have been disappointing. But frankly Id rather go by my own opinion.. will see the film and then pass judgement.Even if it is a couple of tickets, well it is a drop in the ocean
Comment by Kunal27 on 6 October 2008:
Very true Beld, as an audience member we should do a bit of hard work in selecting the source to trust.
Very well said Rks, we let it happen in political scenario ever so gladly.
I would like to quote a great man, which actually echoes my sentiments on this thing
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn.
Kaveetaa: Havent you felt often that the film just did not match up to the hyperbolic reviews, splattered across media and print , internet included. the audience got gypped there as well.
I saw and hated JA for this reason alone
But still I would like to get an idea in advance about what to expect and if anything to except at all. Because actors are too busy saying “Expect the world”.
Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 6 October 2008:
Beld: “The same few media folks make stars of the very same film personalities - so they have all the right to throw brickbats. As kunal says - the viewer should be discerning not the presenter.”
Thats unfair you know beld. A film is more than just the actors. It is a team sometimes of highly involved makers and technicians. So why target them to get at a star. A film should be assessed independent of any other diversions. Otherwise it would be like Punishing Peter to get at Paul.
As for ‘discerning viewer’.. if he is in fact so, which I agree he is, then why not leave the discerning to him?If he is capable of sifting out a credible review then he can do the same for a film. Todays cinegoer is intuitive and savvy. Adding to that however is the fact that he is also ‘impressionable’. This gets exploited through the media’s screeching headlines and bold print titles. Leave the audience to their own devices the first week is all I say.. not eternally.
RKS : “:There are similar machinations done on larger scale by our political parties( to fool gullible voters) and we let it happen.”
You know there is a slight but crucial difference here. When pol parties campaign they blow their own trumpet which can always be ignored/doubted/looked askance since the sub text is that its-only-normal-to-exaggerate-in-love-and-politics
But in the case of film reviewing, sadly the person by virtue of him being a third person,wielding a pen, placed on a pedestal, credibility is automatically attributed where there ought to be none.
Comment by Kunal27 on 6 October 2008:
I guess that maximum anxiety of the film is when it releases, in the first week. And people generally plan their weekends around these movies, hence reviews start hitting on Friday night.
If you take out first week, then dumb audience members like me would go all the way to catch Drona and end up absolutely LOATHING everyone involved with the movie, atleast this way after watching it online, I managed to have a soft corner for it.
And as such, whether that be Drona or Sarkar Raj or any such movie, reviewers are not off by a lot of margin. Its the articles like at the top which are nothing but bull.
Reviewers I have seen say pretty much the same thing in different vocabulary and are more often than not, right. They just try to exaggerate things so as to spice it up.
Like Khalid is right that Drona sucks, but his disco putli bai??? I saw the whole movie twice to see the scene but never found it
These are the “jokes” which irk me, as such I guess reviewers most of the time, get it right. And if audience feels that they have gotten it wrong, they flock the theaters no matter, like what happened with Fanaa, and all.
Comment by jayshah on 6 October 2008:
I think reviewers have become like the popular media over time, more dramatic and sensationalised. This is what sells I guess. I like reviews, but NG one’s now. You just don’t get reviews like the one’s Saket, sandy, neelu or Abzee did here in the public domain. Even Saket’s was a scathing review, no less scathing then others out there, but there was an inherent passion through that review that a reader can identify with. An annoyance or frustration can be seen in Saket’s review, not plain down right snideyness that one see’s throughout the popular media.
Reviewers in the popular media just have a disproportionate gap between what they know about films (and what they write) and what they think about themselves i.e. they think too much of themselves and that comes through in their writing.
Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 6 October 2008:
Kunal..for the very same reason that you think the first week is crucial, I urge for a barring of print, press reviews( not so much internet.. especially not NG since it is the most credible) We must allow for word-of-mouth to be an alternative source of reviewing alongside the other paid reviews. Its only fair that the film be watched in an unbiased frame of mind. Hidden agendas/motives can and do create havoc. The BOI thread has some interesting comments that more or less echo this thought. I think it is Som and Rockstars comments.
Reviewers not being off the mark. I dont agree Kunal. Sholay was universally trashed by reviewers . I cite this example since the film is historic in its unprecedented acclaim.
Jay..agree in toto.
Comment by rudresh on 6 October 2008:
Reviews are must and early reviews are most welcome one.
As a reader, over a long time, we become aware that whose review we can consider and whose review we should avoid totally.
Not only the print media these days but electronic media also has started giving reviews frequently.NDTV gives its reviews on friday itself and in every news addition they carry a report apart from full half an hour program on bollywood activites that week.
Reviews save lot of money and time of public as they get an fare idea about the movie.
If by chance all reviwers goes wrong then also good movie works as WOM.As said earlier in case of sholay(though quite back when we donot have that much reviwers).
another example is drona,as taran said open with bang in UP, if it has been accepted by public then it would not had fallen drastically there also.
One more example is JA ,which carry more negative than positive report on basis of its length on electronic media(ndtv hindi,aaj tak all gave -ve reviews) but still movie worked.
Comment by beld on 6 October 2008:
Not sure kaveeta whether I agree with your thought process on this. None of the screaming headlines have targeted the technicians and spot boys. Yes - there is always collateral damage whenever something fails so badly - tough world! When oso worked - the spot boys got the acclaim too - tho many can claim that the only reason for the movie to work is srk.
Wrt banning reviews in the first week - no way! I don’t want to waste my time and money on movies like tashan and drona. I don’t think there is any movie that I wanted to watch and didn’t watch bcoz of reviews and then regretted not watching it. To me - there are 3 kinds of movies. A. Universally acclaimed - rock on, wednesday, tzp, cdi fall in that category
B - run of the mill - some may like it, or may be disliked but not trashed - probably majority of akshay kumar movies fall here
C - movies that are trashed - rgv ki aag, tashan, jbj, drona - we all owe our gratitude to the reviewers for not watching these.
I am all game for this. Movies are an art and reviewing is an art too. I would take imperfection anyday - it adds to the lure. I mean, cmon. Look at br’s review of drona - it smacks of positive bias. So shd I say that he is a bad reviewer?
Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 6 October 2008:
Something crucial is being overlooked imo, which I had clarified earlier as well to Kunal. My contention is towards reviews that appear in popular print and electronic media channels who have as their target the single theater cinegoers. The ‘internet browser’ audience constitutes to fractional minority and bears little consequence to the BO figures. So we have to view this from a larger perspective on a broader canvas. Its not really about you and me and other NG readers Beld.
I couldnt quite get your reference :None of the screaming headlines have targeted the technicians and spot boys”
To your earlier comment ” The same few media folks make stars of the very same film personalities - so they have all the right to throw brickbats. As kunal says - the viewer should be discerning not the presenter.”
I responded with:
Thats unfair you know beld. A film is more than just the actors. It is a team sometimes of highly involved makers and technicians. So why target them to get at a star. A film should be assessed independent of any other diversions. Otherwise it would be like Punishing Peter to get at Paul.”
So where was the mention of screaming headlines targeted at technicians? The fallout of irresponsible reviewing victimises innocents who were out to make a sincere film was my point.
Further “Wrt banning reviews in the first week - no way! I don’t want to waste my time and money on movies like tashan and drona. I don’t think there is any movie that I wanted to watch and didn’t watch bcoz of reviews and then regretted not watching it.”
So in fact reviews are redundant as far as you are concerned.Which is why I wonder how does it matter if reviews appear later than a week? I am sure you had already decided not to watch tashan and Drona and the negative reviews merely served to underline your intention. Which is how it goes for a majority of us beld.
You have so hit it on the head when you say “Movies are an art and reviewing is an art too”. The paradox is that while there are a zillion institutes that teach the art of making films there is none that grooms reviewers!! Resultantly, just anybody with a working knowledge of English can apply for the post. How can you possibly appraise any art form without a thorough knowledge of the art? Its downright unjust that such reviews are then bandied around to millions of readers. I wouldnt dare to try and analyse a Renoir. I know little of the art except perhaps seeing the detail, a few strokes or the colors, which is shamefully rudimentary.
Tear a film apart but first know whys and hows that went into the making. Reviewers should denounce the CGs but first ought to demonstrate that they know the process. I have read reviews of films where the reviewer has trashed a film because of the lipstick that fell out of a purse, which she felt, in all her wisdom, should not have been carried by the heroine, because the sister had died six months earlier!! And mind you this was a renowned site. If such is the grade, what possible justification can there be for giving out verdicts the first day of the release?
In any case, my opinion that reviews should be barred is hardly of any consequence. Its only an ‘if wishes were horses….’ kind of situation.Asking for the moon..I’d say.. or aspiring for the potholes from our roads to vanish.Its never gonna happen.. so relax.
Comment by beld on 6 October 2008:
Just a clarification kaveeta - I do read reviews. Tashan and drona were theater watches for me until I saw the review. But what I said is I didn’t regret not seeing movies like that bcoz the reviews pushed me not to see them.
Your points are well made but let’s just say I love the reviews as they are. Honestly speaking I have viewed reviews as an entertainement source - the better the review - I’d rather not read it coz I prefer to see the movie directly. That’s wierd logic I know
Comment by rudresh on 6 October 2008:
out of context:
A Hindu suffered a heart attack on the road in America and was picked up by an ambulance.
He kept repeating - Hari Om Hari Om Hari Om.
When the ambulance pulled into his home drive-way, his wife came out and screamed out to the paramedics:
“Why didn’t you take him straight to the hospital?”,
they replied “Because he kept saying hurry home! Hurry home!”
Comment by nithi_s on 6 October 2008:
Borrowing a line from Ratattouille … “Criticism thrives on negativity” … People who rip apart Drona are those who can’t make something even 1% decent as it …
The way ahead is to set standards on how criticism needs to be done. I don’t think its possible to go backwards.
These nasty reviews written by random pop journalist mostly follow the trend … These stuff come out after the audience decision is made.
Even today, not many people take the advice from famous reviewers. Most decide based on quality of promos and best friend’s opinion. That applies even to SIK.
Comment by rks on 6 October 2008:
I think movie reviews are fine by any outlet. But we should be careful in interpreting the ratings. So if you go and check movies based on couple of reviews, you might end of watching a movie which you never wanted to see.
Even though Allbollywood ratings are no perfect but they give good indications, and generally cancel positive and negative biases.
Comment by satyam on 6 October 2008:
A number of good comments here. The crux of the problems — besides the fact that the film media in India is really an arm of the industry and therefore compromised and/or corrupt and certainly ideological less neutral — is the fact that those who review films or write pieces on cinema in any related sense are fundamentally not trained for the job. Therefore what one routinely witnesses is the tyranny of the less literate or the illiterate pontificating on a subject they know nothing about.
On the specific Drona point it is not about being ‘negative’ on the film that matters but how one is negative. As I have never tired of pointing out here when a piece is intelligently done whether it is positive or negative on its subject becomes irrelevant. Why? Because such a piece gives the reader something ‘to think’ about. I should go no further than reference Goodfella’s current piece on a Wednesday. It’s brief of course but is more illuminating on this film than ANY piece I’ve come across on the film in the Indian media (Rangan is probably the exception though I missed his piece on this). Again one might choose to disagree with Goodfella. What matters though is the way in which he approaches the film. Even if he were to do a very negative writeup on the same film it would be as illuminating for similar reasons.
This is the kind of writing one typically gets in Western contexts from major voices. One often disagrees but one always learns. This sort of criticism is a crucial part of a healthy film culture, barring which one is left prey to the tyrannies of the box office. And similarly one gets an audience that finds it completely impossible for the most part to decouple the idea of a good film from a successful film.
Even allbollywood which on the whole does not give one a completely misleading picture in that ‘aggregate’ sense is nonetheless (and not a little ironically) most useful if one tries to correlate their percentages with the box office outcome! Why? Because most Indian reviewers would never give too much to a major commercial film that didn’t look like a box office success to them. Hence when we see good reviews for significant films we are really getting box office predictions in code. of course the trade does so openly.
I would make one final point in this context. Film culture in the subcontinent also suffers from another deficiency. we are unable to see films except as falling in the good/bad dichotomy. Nothing can be redeemed from a supposedly ‘bad’ film and nothing negative should be mentioned in the context of a ‘good’ one. So there are all sorts of limiting assumptions in play not to mention all the other issues I’ve been referring to.
Comment by jayshah on 6 October 2008:
“Because most Indian reviewers would never give too much to a major commercial film that didn’t look like a box office success to them. Hence when we see good reviews for significant films we are really getting box office predictions in code. of course the trade does so openly.”
I was going to say this earlier but forgot too LOL! Most reviews are definitely written indirectly wrt to box office. Which is always the wrong way to do things. It is the same way people are “rewarded” in awards ceremonies. Films which are flops are neglected, and those participating in those movies even if they put in sterling efforts seldom get anything out of it.
When success is deemed as getting the biggest grosser or being the biggest star you know there is a different kind of system in place.
The idea that a flop is a bad film and a hit is a good film is definitely a limited one and all it does is manifests itself down to the big stars who then tend to play in the medium of making hits rather than really trying to do exceptional work and really improve.
Always said if smaller films and pure actors were given their due then more stars would want a share of that pie. And the reviewers and media too play a role in promoting this current system.
Comment by rks on 6 October 2008:
Good post Satyam. Especially “Nothing can be redeemed from a supposedly ‘bad’ film and nothing negative should be mentioned in the context of a ‘good’ one. “. I think it is a cultural/social thing and 24×7 media has made it more tangible. I attribute this to our increasing “impatience” levels.
Comment by satyam on 6 October 2008:
Thanks much Rks..
Comment by neelu on 6 October 2008:
Kaveetaa: the Saturday morning jitters while newspaper reviews come out is not limited to BW cinema. Broadway, HW etc. are all on tenterhooks waiting for the newspapers Saturday morning. I have no problem with reviews, good or nasty. But it is the ghoulish ‘rubbernecking at the freeway crash’ that makes me uncomfortable. I always read reviews before seeing a film and sometimes see it regardless - as I did Drona. And I keep in mind that most of these guys are trade analysts turned revewiers - now trying to act intellectual! Agree with Satyam that not all hit films are good and not al flop films are bad. But Drona sadly was lacking in elements that would make it interesting to the viewer and it was not a good film either.
Comment by satyam on 6 October 2008:
To add to what Neelu just said (and I have been as negative on Drona as anyone else if not more) there is a certain apparatus of film criticism in the West. But even going beyond some of the more general characteristics not everyone is considered equal. A critic writing for the Dallas Morning News is not given the kind of weight that his or her counterpart at the NY Times is. This is because the Times like some others is considered to have better standards. Of course sometimes good voices can come out of unlikely outlets but they often end up at the Times or some such source. the point is that not everyone is taken as seriously.
But this gets to an even larger issue we often see in the subcontinent. The simple lack of a critical culture in most matters. It does not take intellect to just question things a bit or to not always rely on the most obvious or most simplistic explanations. It is a way of thinking about things.
We have ‘consumer reports’ over here. Why? Because people have the idea that if someone is being asked to review a new Jaguar model and if he or she is given that car to drive in the English countryside and is also put up for that duration in a wonderful hotel with meals taken care of and so forth the reviewer in question might not have the most ‘impartial’ view on that vehicle! This without any direct ‘corruption’ involved. And what do we have in India? reviewers who belong to camps, trade figures who get camcorders and farmhouse stays as gifts and what not! No one questions this stuff. We are not ‘hard wired’ so far to think too much about questions of compromise or conflict of interest or so forth. At the most we just throw out the worst shenanigans at politicians and convince ourselves that these are the only bad apples in our society.
Let’s take a quick example on this very forum. And I’m only using this because this is the most convenient example by sheer virtue of the fact that it shows up so often. Abhishek is often attacked here for being Bachchan’s son and hence somehow having it easy. Now I won’t get into the actual motivations of those who use this line of attack. They’re not relevant to the point I’m making principally because a line of attack to be minimally comprehensible has to rely on a set of prejudices that others can subscribe to. Equally irrelevant is the the question of whether he has indeed had it easy or not. What’s significant however is the fact that barring a very few no one ever brings up the point that in a country where nepotism is operative in every facet of life it might be a little bizarre to begin with Abhishek Bachchan. We’ve had PMs who got there because they were someone’s son or daughter! One does even need to get into nepotism in other walks of life! But no one ever talks about this.
Let’s focus on the film industry. The people who currently do not have film backgrounds are rather few. Yet Abhishek is singled out. On what principle? That he has the biggest brandname? In other words nepotism is ok as long as one does not gain too much of an advantage?! There can be a free market of nepotism but having too big a brandname gives one something of a monopoly?! This entire logic is so ridiculous and again no one questions it. Now again I am not very interested in motivations here. Obviously if you’re a Hrithik Roshan fan (for example!) you might have a problem condemning nepotism per se so you come up with some rather seemingly ingenious logic. Hey it’s ok to have nepotism but the one who gains advantage this way must somehow deserve it! in other words if you’re Hrithik Roshan and have a hit right away the nepotism that got you there is perfectly justified but if you’re Abhishek Bachchan and you don’t get that hit you should simply quit! Somehow one of these candidates is so deserving that he should be the beneficiary of every kind of nepotism while the other should simply leave the field to those more deserving of that kind of ‘family help’.
The lapses in logic are positively disturbing. Now it’s clear why one goes about things this way. It’s also clear that often one leaves one’s motivations rather bare in doing so. But whether people agree or disagree with this kind of politics they almost never ask the obvious questions. Just the ones I raised. This example is a useful one because it relates to something much more operative on this forum than many other issues.
One can keep jumping from example to example and the critical questioning never really comes about. People might begin these things out of malice or anxiety or whatever. But it is upto others to take them to task for it. In a similar fashion the same structures get repeated in the media. What one can always rely on is precisely the ‘uncritical’ nature of the audience and the readers.
Comment by A C H I L L E S on 6 October 2008:
Dont worry satyam. We all know how big a supporter of nepotism you are. And trust me Abhi darling will suvive another 100 disasters like Drona because he is a ‘Bachchan’ after all.
And as for all your anguish about Roshans, history will remember Rakesh Roshan as Hrithik’s father. And we all wait for the day when abhi can at least be in the same footing as his father.
When your father is considered to be the greatest in a profession, then its a professional harakiri for a son to enter the same profession unless he is equally good or even better. If not, then he just ends up having a sad career, cause the burden of expectations needs a worthy son.
Abhi is just one in a bundle, u have satyajit ray’s son, kishore kumar’s son and all that are born in that gandhi clan - surviving (or disappearing!) in their respective lines only to be a caricature.
Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 7 October 2008:
Basically we need to clearly differentiate between ‘reviewers’ and ‘critics’. Truffaut was a critic for most part of his career before he ventured into film making and left us scores of memorable films. How many such, or for that matter can we boast of a single such in BW?
“The word critic comes from the Greek kritikos “able to discern” which in turn derives from the word (krités), meaning a person who offers reasoned judgment or analysis, value judgment, interpretation, or observation ”
Needless to add that a critical statement bereft of intensive knowledge in the field, matched with expertise in evaluation is reduced to an ‘opinion’ which may be personal subjective and biased. The sorry state of present reviewing in India conforms strongly to this interpretation.
A definition of ‘constructive criticism which ideally should form the basis of an analysis. “Constructive criticism, or constructive analysis, is a compassionate attitude towards the person qualified for criticism. Having higher experience, gifts, respect, knowledge in specific field and being able to verbally convince at the same time, this person is intending to uplift the other person materially, morally, emotionally or spiritually’.
What is rampant however is Destructive criticism which” is intended to harm someone, derogate and destroy someone’s creation, prestige, reputation and self-esteem on whatever level it might be. This may be done intentionally or out of sheer ignorance and foolishness.”
I am all for reviews if fashioned in the scope and normative process of a peer review. A critical judgment by a fellow maker, which is informed, without being didactic, evaluative without being derogatory. Credibility of such a piece will never be doubted.
There is also this unique prevalence of cronyism, where ‘friends’ manage to procure authoritative positions to further the cause of their pals. Loyalty for a price at a price. Sans meritocracy, soon films which can never pass muster are catapulted into limitless stardom.
There are various levels and layers to the issue. Some genres or lets say mass marketed films of films would do great regardless of the reviews. Niche films or prestige movies require positive reviews which play an influential role in focussing the gaze of the viewer or then suffer by descending into oblivion.
This holds true in HW as well. Alexander was at the receiving end of harsh criticism despite is humungous budget and associated fanfare.The film bombarded at the BO. A lesser known Pulp fiction got acclaimed , thanks to sincere reviewing. Recent examples of small budget decent Indian films too can be quoted. But not without underlining the contribution of the Production house and the superb marketing strategy in place. It definitely purely wasnt a critiquing success.
By and large, HW films and reviewers are a class apart. It would be unfair to bring in comparison. A Paccino would gladly do ” Scent of a Woman’ and Hoffman would ” Rainman”. Critics appreciate the efforts as does the average viewer.HW stars achieve success and translate that to playing an innings which would mean creating masterpieces of movie art, appreciated across the board. Indian stars are enamored with creating HITS, irrespective of the bucks coming in from the LCD, which means catering to an audience to who ‘entertainment’ takes on frightening connotations , from buffoonery, to puerile gimmickry and not to forget, sizzling item songs. And ‘paid reviewers ‘ then find justifications and rationalised arguments to attribute four stars to such films. Consequently such movies gallop on to success, paving the path for 50 more such films to get giddily enthused into production. Come oscar and we are biting off our fingers in frustration at the limited choice we have short listed. Not that Oscar is the be all and end all.Yet if it is the parameter of quality then the analogy holds.
If gullible Indian audiences are going to continue to get swayed by sub standard reviewing, which is nowhere close to critiquing, then a bunch of us can go hoarse on the dismal state of Indian films but change will be a far way off. Corruption, loosely translated, filters down at every level. Corrupt reviewers are a reflection of its routine customariness.
Comment by jayshah on 7 October 2008:
Haha! Brilliant Kaveetaa, good points on destructive critisism vs constructive critisism. And the penultimate paragraph is spot on and 100% correct IMO. Stars in BW are pressured and ushered into delivering box office hits.
Its basically a viscious cycle. Its hard to know where this cycle starts but as I see it this is the cycle: Awards functions tend to award popular successes as opposed to professional performances in art (small films and “actors” are sidelined for glitz/glamour/celebrities/stars) >>>>> industry, and mainly top producers, directors and actors see this and pave the way for more such movies because they want to be “rewarded” and feeling pressure to deliver such hits >>>>> reviewers/media support such movies at a canter, a “good film” is a successful one, a “bad film” is a flop etc >>>>> audiences continue to turn up and watch such movies and they gallop to success like you say >>>>> more movies continue to be made >>>>> circle starts again.
It only really takes a change in mentality at one point in this change to really change the whole system. Or at least change the direction significantly. Example, if the film faternity started to recognise the likes of Irfan or Kay Kay etc…and actually reward and award them, started to support genuinely good films etc…then the industries top brass of producers/directors/actors would venture into this field. Its a different kind of pressure they would feel, more based on quality and performance then delivering hits. Then the media/reviewers will change, audience mind set would change…all this taking some time though. Anyone can drive this - be it audience, reviewers/media, the industry or those rewarding the industries contributions. And generally speaking this decade has been better than 90’s overall, so its not all gloomy, but could move alot faster.
Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 7 October 2008:
Thanx Jay.
when you say ‘change in mentality’ you have hit the bulls eye. However to achieve that end a major overhaul will have to take place on every front. The fraternity as a whole is guilty of having reduced BW to a circus. Media, the parasitic step sister only makes matters worse. There was a time when news channels looked down their pompous noses at anything BW. Today as you can see they make mega bucks harping on affaires de BW 24×7.
Awards are another example of cronyism. If you cant beat em join em. So stars have their own favourite awards and vice versa. Its a joke really. One can almost predict results.
Whilst it is a fact that awards celebrate success and not excellence, the reality is also that in an arena where mediocrity thrives, excellence is not permitted to be glorified and faces attrition. The main players are to blame entirely.Producers, Directors, Actors.
Role of Producers: Recently a writer friend who is working with us on a script had this to narrate. Having met a top Producer of recent hits, he went on to narrate an original script. The Prod bored stiff stopped him mid way saying “Forget it .. save your breath. Who wants original stories? Not me. You think xyz ( his recent BBs ) are original? they are all rehashed versions of previous films?” He went on to quote a few others and led him to the door saying ” the day you modernise a hit ..come to me “.
No producer today is interested in making a good film. All he is interested is in casting stars. If you have one, your project is on.When funding is controlled by businessmen then art will always take a backseat and be at the mercy of exploiters. Either you pander to their demands ( ludicrous) or go wearing out your soles.
Actors/Stars : It is their self centred and avaricious temperament which has resulted in the trash that is churned out. Lets take an example of a 50-60 cr film. The star pockets not a fees but a territory which amounts to almost 25-30cr. So in actuality the making of the film is just about 25 or so plus prints and publicity. To rake in profits then and legitimise his price it is the B& C centers he will have to woo, with single screen digital theatres. The multiplex audiences are not that many to add up volumes. Plus he has to keep a check on his rank and standing. So alvida to quality or content.. Its all about a hit even if you dole out s..t.
Had he been a passionate actor, ( which they faithfully profess to be) who reveled in his craft, it was easy to cut his price, make it convenient for better films to see the light of day. With a lesser budget, recovery was simpler and subsequently content which has an audience would guarantee success. This would help arresting massy pre emptive trends.
Is it too much to expect a star who has made his millions to now apportion his time for worthy projects? NO.. but does it happen? No again.. coz the fall in number games would get him into a depression where even the viagra wont help!
Its not just about the A listers. Serious, respected performers , who are considered epitome of professionalism hurriedly take on the bandwagon to nonsensicality. Recently one such great actor was heard saying ” Acting wacting bahut kar li.. ab paisa banana hai..multi starrer main kaam karoonga” ( Am done with acting and all that BS.. would rather make my bucks now ). Its not as if he was being paid peanuts in any case. But look at what he is aspiring for ! The attraction of having a bungalow in Dubai is tremendous. “So where is the time to cater to Bws ‘quality film?.. Knock at another door ji.”
Directors: The recent skipping and jumping taking place beats the sports arena hollow. Choreographers, dress designers, cameramen, script writers.. all suddenly wielding the microphone, looking through the lens, shouting ” And Action”. Wish they’d understand that merely by emulating Spielberg, you dont get to be one. It is the toughest, most demanding and highly specialised department. But how does this crossover happen especially at time when talented directors are jobless? Simple.. they can get the stars. And Producers, as explained earlier, dont care. All they want is a Khan or Kumar to be in their film..it ensures an on table profit. So there is another turkey under production, which is going to fail miserably. But nobody is really bothered. the star will get his price,heroine another item number she can perform in the world tours, producer has sold the film.
But the industry suffers. A setback is a setback.
A hit film is not necessarily a good film. Of course.. we all know that. But try saying that to the money guys.
Comment by Som on 7 October 2008:
Kaveetaaji:Some excellent points here.Wholeheartedly agree with you.
“the reality is also that in an arena where mediocrity thrives, excellence is not permitted to be glorified and faces attrition.”
That sums it all.I wonder why there’s no commitment to excellence. It’s because excellence doesn’t mean anything anymore if one is able to make the cash register ringing. We continue to slip back into twilight of mediocrity,slouching towards the realm of mediocrity. Something isn’t really bad but it’s not really good either. It’s just trapped in that bleary zone in between. It’s an undesirable scenario of “The blind leading the blind”.
Comment by Julie on 7 October 2008:
Hi Kaveeta. You have raised some immensly interesting points and it is really educational reading such views at NG (which I have not visited in the past almost a month).
Very few voices are left in the forum that invoke any sort of response from me, but couldn’t help but respond to the points raised by you.
You raise interesting points on contemporary BW films that may be a success at the BO but are mediocre in quality and standard even if we compare them to some of the classics of the 60s and 70s. This raises some very interesting points for a debate. The era that spanned the 60s and 70s saw some of the most enriching contextual themes displayed on the big screen, even the demonstration of expressions and histrionics outlined the theme and the subtext in a rare finesse. The crucial question here is that whilst these films which were made on shoe-string budget could keep the audience thoroughly engaged, and had a very high repetitive value. Arguably it was a rich assembly of a script, screenplay, direction, acting and music. Everything went hand in glove and no single factor could be deemed as the most crucial factor because all of these factors were embedded in the subterranean of the context and the theme of the cinema.
In contrast, the movies today pretty much have to run on star pull rather than as a complete package and medley of factors that define good cinema. Of course much as some of us may despise this streak, the fact remains that it is star phenomenon, which now more or less defines BW and Box Office. As an example it is an Akshay Kumar, which could pull off a mediocre script like Singh is King or an SRK, which could make a stale pie like the new Don work. It is sad but true that money more or less rules and is a very decisive criterion for movie selection – script and rest have become secondary. There is now an enormous responsibility on the shoulders of a BO King to make the film work for which he commands a huge premium upfront and also in the form of profit share. So where does this bankruptcy of good films lead us to. Don’t know but a good question. But still there is the other side of the coin where small budgeted films are suddenly cascading into prominence because somewhere along the line there are creative talents who can churn out interesting stuff without having to rely on big brand names. The past year has increasingly witnessed the onslaught of small scale budgeted films on the big screen which have been very profitable for their producers and distributors, why because they have been genuinely good films. So all is not lost yet.
Comment by Rocky on 7 October 2008:
Some very thought provoking comments by Kaveeta, Jay and Julie !
Re.-Arguably it was a rich assembly of a script, screenplay, direction, acting and music. Everything went hand in glove and no single factor could be deemed as the most crucial factor because all of these factors were embedded in the subterranean of the context and the theme of the cinema.
Very well said Julie !
Comment by Rocky on 7 October 2008:
Kaveeta-Had he been a passionate actor, ( which they faithfully profess to be) who reveled in his craft, it was easy to cut his price, make it convenient for better films to see the light of day. With a lesser budget, recovery was simpler and subsequently content which has an audience would guarantee success. This would help arresting massy pre emptive trends
I think Bachchan tried to do this with Kartoos ( Later Made as Mangal Pandey) but could not succeed.
He did try to the above with Main Azaad hoon and all the Hrishikesh mukharjee films.
Comment by rudresh on 7 October 2008:
From last few years we had seen very small budget movie doing extremely well on BO.These were infect good movie but same time media and reviewers are positive for them,which help these films a lot.So reviewers playing a postive role in promoting these talented film makers technicians which although donot have load of money but definitly lot of talent.
But its irony that same media get crticised selectively and that also for the movie which infect is a very bad movie.
Comment by Julie on 7 October 2008:
Rocky - thanks
rudresh - good point raised on selective critcism. It is indeed befuddling to see the reaction against the media for a film which is a geuninely bad product. Why on earth shall we diss the media when all they do is provide us with a yardstick to go by or form an impression. There is no black or white here but just a premise to form your own judgements. Speaking of the film in question, Drona was never an inspiring film right from the word go. I had predicted this long time back but the counter reaction was there for all to see. You get a feel or perception of a product just based on a few previews or even stills and smart cookies would always avoid a bad product like plague. As far as critical review is concerned, SR received very good critical reviews for most part but the film underperformed at the BO. Now you can’t have it both ways. The media did support this film to a great extent but the public did not support the critic’s views. So ultimatley WOM is the master. Media can give a hand at the begining but the WOM prevails at the end. You can’t blame the media for castigating a bad film which ironically has been lambasted by the most esoteric fans of Abhishekh Bachchan too.
Comment by satyam on 7 October 2008:
Julie: all of this has nothing to do with Drona. I did not praise any reviewer who gave SR a good review. usually I only value Rangan’s views and to paraphrase Obama I valued them whether Abhishek was up or he was down! I remember making the same point when Guru was getting extraordinary reviews. The idea that those reviewers were right for the wrong reasons. Drona is here just an example of really shoddy criticism. It is however my contention that Abhishek is treated with particular severity when he fails. And is often treated to other kinds of negativity when he’s successful. This doesn’t mean that this doesn’t happen with anyone else but with nothing approaching the regularity in his case. And it’s not about negativity but the kind of negativity in each instance. The reviews for Tashan and JBJ were probably equally negative but written very differently in each case.
If someone valued the media for the SR or Guru reviews or what have you and then dissed the same for Drona your criticism would be perfectly acceptable. But I don’t believe anyone’s done that. Most are willing to accept the same critics either way. Some like myself don’t accept them irrespective of whether they’re positive or negative.
Finally no one has castigated the media for bringing about a flop in Drona.
Comment by satyam on 7 October 2008:
Also I am unsure if stars alone can be blamed for this state of affairs. There were big budget productions in every age and there are many fabled disasters in Bombay film history.
Stars always face the pressure of delivering in film after film. The smarter stars stick to genres that guarantee minimal returns. Clearly SRK could not guarantee anything with Swades. Even within genres there can be problems. The trending of VZ and even moreso KANK are classic examples. Akshay couldn’t save Tashan much more than Abhishek could save JBJ. Every big or small film Hrithik did after KNPH flopped until he was reinvented by his father in KMG (even if evidently this is not nepotism by some). To begin with one has to compare like for like.
In Hollywood stars take a percentage of profits all the time. Hanks received 40m for Forest Gump. Some of these things might seem excessive but clearly the market is supporting such a model. Now one can argue about the future viability of such a model but I don’t believe actors can force their fees on the system. However if a star can guarantee continually good initials and/or grosses he probably can get more out of the producer though again if he is smart he won’t push things beyond a point and contrary to the ridiculous stories that are put out for consumption in the media most top stars aren’t actually that unreasonable.
But there are pitfalls to a commercial industry and most of it is about making that quick buck. In a film industry this art/commerce struggle is far more immediate than in other art forms for obvious reasons. But yes the commerce side of the equation is today more important globally than it ever was before because for a variety of factors that would take too long to get into here industries are really making increasingly ‘disposable’ films or in other words products of consumption.
This is one of the things I keep talking about. Industry standards in a variety of ways just aren’t where they used to be in past decades (in the case of Hindi cinema ‘before the 80s’) and even in a technical sense we often fool ourselves when we think that Bollywood is competing with the rest of the world for the first time. It isn’t by any stretch of the imagination and if there are exceptions there were so in other decades as well and in this context the 50s cannot be beaten for a pure visual grammar.
Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 8 October 2008:
Thanks a ton Som:)
“I wonder why there’s no commitment to excellence.”
There is ..some set off on the path, promising themselves nothing will come in the way. No deterrence strong enough, no distraction worthy. But.. the perennial BUT…
Let me illustrate through a first hand account. A while ago a film maker who tried to create a new idiom, a freshness in approach,a grammar in cinematic language which gave me goosebumps when I saw it and would have to the discerning audience, earnestly, excitedly showed the first cut, to his cast, the lead pair. Come interval, the pair sat huddled together, morose and fidgety. The maker was all smiles as was the rest of the audience, and enquired of the pair what they thought of it. Here is what they had to say ” Sir, we are not making a classic. Please spoil it a little..this film has to be hit Sir ji..it is for the masses also.”
Nobody is interested in creating a work of art, ( not even a film which will raise the standard and break away from the stale stereotypes and accepted mould) at least not the bunch who matter. Its not as if there is a paucity of talent, but their wings are clipped. The day we as an audience begin rejecting trash and support films which dare to be different, there will be a new cinema which will emerge. There is some stuff happening. But imo if we compare it to HW or even South asian countries, our efforts are at best the first baby steps. we tend to get excited at the minimal exposure to sense, such is our rather dismal state.
Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 8 October 2008:
Julie..Thanx for your heartwarming words. You have aptly described the era gone by. Why cannot we re create it is the conundrum isnt it? Considering technically we have learnt a thing or two, communication has transcended borders, ( also exposed the finesse of the west and our lack of it unfortunately) a filght of fancy can take away smoothly, budgets have taken on a gargantuan scale. Why has it not translated into evolved cinema routinely?
Apart from what I have listed above..I would think the demographics and the consequential changing expectations has led filmdom on a frivolous outing. Statistics show that our current population consists of 70% in the age group of 19-35.Raj Kapoor was compelled to make Bobby to recover the losses he incurred with Mera naam Joker. the film became a runaway hit. BW never looked back. The her as a mature man was replaced by a teeny bopper. Films were now made to appeased the young. Naturally , the whole gamut had to undergo a radical change. Comedians were out of job since the hero had to provide the necessary guffaws. The vamp was disposable too. Focus shifted from thought provoking cinema to one that proudly proclaimed ‘ leave your brains at home’. We swallowed it all.
The tremendous success of such films scared the Producers from attempting to challenge the current wave. Things degenerated so much that mediocrity was hugely acceptable and genius in the doldrums. ‘Jo bikta hai wohi achcha hai” the new mantra when it ought to have been ‘jo achcha hai wohi bikta hai”.
Things are changing slowly..rather snail paced. The budgets allocated for such films is paltry, takers are few. henc it is a rather half hearted attempt right now. the few that have made a mark are good , some are expectedly over rated, since we are so starved for sensible cinema that right now anything that faintly resembles it is welcomed with excited coos.
We as audiences have to share the blame as well. I know of a majority who are willing to spend Rs200 on a ticket for a Khan Kumar starrer but won t for a small budget even if acclaimed, citing the cause of expense. A dvd or an internet download is the option, freely available. This is in fact sealing the fate of such films. Its a bit like not voting and then complaining that the wrong people are at the helm. Question is have you voted the right ones into power? Another reason why i espouse the cause for a three day if not a weeks delay in reviews. It discourages people for the wrong reasons. give the film a chance to gain by WOM which is a given in the case of a big budget but in the case of niche films is the life line which can mean survival. We all need to give it a thought.
Must add ..”As an example it is an Akshay Kumar, which could pull off a mediocre script like Singh is King or an SRK, which could make a stale pie like the new Don work.” True.. But wont it be then worth their while if not incumbent to work with sane makers and noteworthy scripts? what do they have to lose? BO will be jingling anyways but the audiences emotions would be tingling as well.
Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 8 October 2008:
Hey Rocky.. Ab is not in the contextual radar. My contention was more towards end 80s and onwards era. Even presently I may not have liked some films he worked in but his performance has always left one dumbstruck.
Comment by Kaveetaa Kaul on 8 October 2008:
Re:”Now one can argue about the future viability of such a model but I don’t believe actors can force their fees on the system. However if a star can guarantee continually good initials and/or grosses he probably can get more out of the producer though again if he is smart he won’t push things beyond a point and contrary to the ridiculous stories that are put out for consumption in the media most top stars aren’t actually that unreasonable.”
I dont agree. Actors are keenly observant of the fact that their shelf life comes with an expiry date and they tend to bulldoze the system with their terms.Hanks is an International star so his fees is legitimate since the proceeds are from across the world. As said before we cant really compare BW with Hw. Another example. ..the budget of a 20 sec ad film made in the US is sometimes equivalent to the biggest magnum opus feature we create here.
“Industry standards in a variety of ways just aren’t where they used to be in past decades (in the case of Hindi cinema ‘before the 80s’) and even in a technical sense we often fool ourselves when we think that Bollywood is competing with the rest of the world for the first time. It isn’t by any stretch of the imagination and if there are exceptions there were so in other decades as well and in this context the 50s cannot be beaten for a pure visual grammar.”
Absolutely. I agree