Qalandar’s Thoughts on Chandni Chowk to China

Qalandar |

137 | January 12, 2009 at 12:10 am | 64 views | Reviews| Share

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

Sorry guys, no full-fledged review. I was going to dedicate my review to Gabber, but after watching it a the New York premiere earlier this evening, I decided I liked Gabber too much to do so.

For months, I’d been saying on NG that the one thing that worried me about Chandni Chowk to China’s box-office prospects was that in recent years, the audience hadn’t taken well to zany, spoofish humor, as demonstrated by the fates of Tashan, Jhoom Barabar Jhoom, and Jaaneman. But I wasn’t unduly worried about the quality of the film (after all, I’d quite liked each of the three films mentioned above).

Well folks, I was right on one count and wrong on the other. Having watched the film, I remain unsure about its box office prospects (I hope the film does well, but I can’t say I expect it to do so). But I was wrong in expecting to enjoy this film. Dead wrong.

Chandni Chowk to China is, not to put too delicate a point to it, pretty darn bad. In the first instance, it is unsure about what kind of film it wants to be; unlike a Jaaneman which started out spoofy and ended up sober, or an Om Shanti Om or Tashan which also devoted their second halves to getting serious, Chandni Chowk preserves a schizophrenic identity throughout. It cannot be dismissed as a spoof, as it takes its masala roots and moments (right from amnesia to bichday huay bachchay to backstabbing mentors) quite seriously — and yet just about each and every one of these
moments is rudely interrupted by a farcical moment, a manufactured attempt to evoke laughs, that quite simply spoils the mood. The film never recovers from this, because these two personalities are never integrated into a seamless whole, and the masala moments — the one thing this film had going for them — that seem poised to move the audience come crashing back to earth.

Now for the good stuff: it was great to see Akshay do some real action towards the very end of the film, albeit this was all too brief and juxtaposed with shots of the villain metamorphosing into an aaloo (you can’t make this up), and there were some evocative shots of the Delhi streets (even if these were sets, they were good ones) throughout the film. Akshay also had some good comedy moments, and the audience really seemed into it early on in the film. Sadly, this is another one of the film’s strengths that it fritters away (the scene of Akki trying to close the luggage compartment in the airplane to China is hilarious). Deepika Padukone was at her leggy loveliest, and the action sequence introducing the “Chinese” Deepika was superb. And I really liked the grand, zany, picturization of the title song. And I laughed out loud at the crazy touch of a Chinese man who’s lost his memory, his daughters Deepika, and only speaks Hindi . Other than that there wasn’t much — even the much vaunted on-location shooting in China was limited to shots of, on, and around the Great Wall 95% of the time.

PS– Goodfella saw it with me too. Neither one of us, nor a third person who had accompanied us, was impressed (the third friend walked out 15-20 minutes before the film was done)

Oh, and being a premiere, I got to see Akshay and Deepika in person.

All in all, I am VERY disappointed. Score one for Nikhil Advani’s ponderousness over Rohan Sippy’s Taxi No. 9211 and Bluffmaster! touch…

My take on CHANDNI CHOWK TO CHINA (Hindi, 2009)

Akshay, who has had a string of flops this year with Chandni Chowk To China, 8×10 Tasveer, Kambakkht Ishq and Blue, is now keeping his fingers crossed for De Dana Dan.

Sajid Khan’s Housefull starring Akshay & Deepika delayed

Akshay Kumar to work with Vishal Bharadwaj?

Nahata – “It’s A Hit! Oh No, It’s A Flop!!”

There Are 137 Responses So Far. »

Som 8 January 2009
08:26:38 pm

Thanks Q!! I am going to see it for Deepika

Gabber 8 January 2009
08:27:12 pm

Q, thanks for the review.
Lagtaa hai Akshay ki watt lagne waali hai.

Qalandar 8 January 2009
08:27:38 pm

You should. She’s fine, especially in an otherwise-absurd red-dress cover version she breaks into…

Gabber 8 January 2009
08:29:35 pm

Q, aapke kitne paise lage?

Qalandar 8 January 2009
08:30:43 pm

A film like Singh is King is better: because it is clear about what it wants to be, and is in that mode from the beginning; like it or not, no one can feel let down. Here, that is exactly what I felt…perhaps I am being over-harsh on the film because I had great expectations, but I would take Tashan over this anyday.

The audience reaction was mixed: many people left before the film’s end, but many of those who stayed were cracking up with laughter. I don’t know if Akki’s and Deepika’s presence in the theater made peoplereact differently (to an extent I suspect so; there were tons and tons of catcalls for Deepika, different from what one normally hears).

Akshay’s entry got a big reception.

Qalandar 8 January 2009
08:31:57 pm

Gabber: my tickets were free, so can’t complain on that front. But I did wait for 40 minutes outside the theater in bitter winter weather

My friend got to shake hands with Akshay, and became a fan: he said the guy was really friendly and warm…

goodfella 8 January 2009
08:34:09 pm

Amen. This was so bad, one can hardly begin to explain its faults away. When a movie re-flashes back to a flashback that it flashed back to three seconds ago, you know the filmmaker’s have lost any respect for their audience.

My favorite part of the screening: Nikhil Advani, in his preshow speech, making twenty people clapping in an enormous theater sound as if it were a standing ovation.

I’m no fan of Ghajini, but I’d endure that over this.

Som 8 January 2009
08:35:55 pm

Q: Well you did not like it so did Goodfella.But taking into consideration the fact,mediocre stuffs have worked at the Boxoffice in the past,how do you see it performing at the BO?Is there anything in the movie that will keep the paying public happy and worth of their time and money?

Gabber 8 January 2009
08:38:40 pm

‘When a movie re-flashes back to a flashback that it flashed back to three seconds ago, you know the filmmaker’s have lost any respect for their audience.’

flashback ke andar flashback….yeh to major narration flaw hai.

ideaunique 8 January 2009
08:41:58 pm

Thanks for this write-up Q. Since quite sometime i’ve this feeling that akki is going on and on with these mindless comedies and public is bound to fed up (just like what happened with Govinda) – and fed up in such a way that after that they won’t go for even good films with different genres starring akki – he needs to understand that…

Nikhil advani seems to have lost it all after KHNH…Salaam-E-Ishq had so much hype around it and it bombed miserably…the man is not sure what he wants to do…he’s gonna have a tough time ahead….

akki has tremendous potential and how i wish that he does different kinda films now onwards….

Gabber 8 January 2009
09:12:02 pm

Now that one of my reliable sources Q is disappointed with CCTC, I have no doubt that this movie will disappoint me as well. But one good think that CCTC will show is how Akshay can pull in crowd if given a proper release, irrespective of how good or bad the movie will be.

AJ 8 January 2009
09:12:37 pm

Seems like advani messes up again. I had doubts about his capabilities after SEI and for KHNH i believe it had a strong KJo influence. Looks like they need to get a bumper opening to reach safe shores.

sandy 8 January 2009
09:25:52 pm

Q, one has to say then that the promos deceived completely. It seemed unlikely that this could be a bad film.
My understanding was always that this would be head and shoulders above the likes of Singh Is Kinng and Bhul Bhulaiya and that itself would give it a major edge, critically and commercially.
The ‘zany’ ‘spoofy’ elements (if any) was not something I’ve been concerned with but it’s actually about something Akshay said on Piture This. He said he signed the film on the basis of a poster Rohan Sippy showed him! Akshay said there was no story at that time, so the actor gave him a suggestion, ‘Why don’t we make it on my life?’ and Rohan went back with that thought to pen a screenplay. That whole episode somehow reeked of a team putting together something so big without even a concrete idea before them.

sandy 8 January 2009
09:32:21 pm

Q, how did the premiere tickets happen in New York? Amazing!

ideaunique 8 January 2009
09:37:32 pm

“That whole episode somehow reeked of a team putting together something so big without even a concrete idea before them.”

and add to that – warner bros. pumping in lot of money there….don’t these people have something called “think- tank” or maybe they just thought that akki is a happening star to let us jump? Sony burnt its hands with Saawariya and now warner bros.’ turn? btw, SONY has good chance to recover with R2 – especially if CCTC is this poor a product…

Qalandar 8 January 2009
09:38:37 pm

Sandy: the brother of a close friend had a friend at the studio. But neither he nor my friend could attend at the last minute…so I got lucky…

and yes, the promos deceived completely. I think this film would be safer at the BO if advertised as another Singh is King, rather than as the uber-cool, Warner Bros. co-production, etc. But the it isn’t as single-minded as Singh is King, it is definitely a schizophrenic film

ideaunique 8 January 2009
09:42:30 pm

Horn ok pl…. is releasing with CCTC now…. so that may actually do well

sandy 8 January 2009
09:47:56 pm

The fact that they premiered a week early suggests they were supremely confident of the film. This kind of strategy has worked earlier with films like Parineeta where the WOM was positive but this is suicidal if the film is carrying negative reports.

sandy 8 January 2009
09:49:14 pm

But again, Q never liked many of Akshay’s earlier hits – including Welcome (which I tend to love), so he can’t really be the judge of its BO prospects

ideaunique 8 January 2009
09:51:58 pm

PIC got good review frm Nikhat, BLG seems to be a comedy…, Kass mere hote is a thriller (starcast is a letdown)…how is the publicity for these 3 flicks releasing today ???

ideaunique 8 January 2009
09:52:33 pm

“Kassh mere hote”

sandy 8 January 2009
09:55:13 pm

I will be seeing CCTC on Thursday. They could be a possible premiere of the film in Pune too I’m told by theatre owners here. Whether good or bad, the film will get a 100 per cent opening when it releases, they tell me. But so far, no enquiries!

Qalandar 8 January 2009
09:59:31 pm

True sandy, but with welcome and Singh is King we got what we were promised, no more and no less. I am not sure if the public is expecting a Nadiadwala production from this don’t you think?

Tango 8 January 2009
10:08:10 pm

Q- Tumko pasand a jati to main zyada darta

On a serious note, the makers have made it clear that its an Indian equivalent of the typical kung-fu Hong Kong stuff, so I know what to expect here and if the makers fail to give me that, I will be disappointed.

Tango 8 January 2009
10:09:30 pm

Personally I found Welcome much better tha Singh Is Kinng, though I still maintain Bazmee’s No Entry is his best.

sandy 8 January 2009
10:14:56 pm

Welcome bahut achchi thi but I’ve always maintained that that film cannot be considered an Akki solo. Yaar, Nana aur Anil ko bhi kuch credit do aur gaane kya kamaal the!

Tango 8 January 2009
10:18:59 pm

Sandy Nana-Anil track was definately great and contributed to the collections, but opening to Akshay-Katrina ki jodi ne lagayee, warna koi aata hi nahi

I will say Welcome was entertaining, not great, but better than SIK, the success of which I am unable to understand.

Tango 8 January 2009
10:20:01 pm

Sandy how is PIFF going?

sandy 8 January 2009
10:30:20 pm

Incidentally, I mentioned Q’s review to my exhibitor friend who heard it and was stunned into silence and then he recovered and said, ‘Aise mat reviews do yaar recession ke time pe’ Then I mentioned how the said reviewer didn’t like Bhool Bhuliaya either and he sighed with relief, ‘BB achchi nahin lagi, toh phir it’s not a serious situation’ LOL!

sandy 8 January 2009
10:32:33 pm

PIFF Is starting from today. Should be good.

sandy 8 January 2009
10:34:34 pm

“opening to Akshay-Katrina ki jodi ne lagayee, warna koi aata hi nahi ”

‘Opening’ ka credit goes to Akki-Kat aur film ‘chalne’ ka credit goes to the whole team.

utkal 8 January 2009
10:39:44 pm

I could always tell that this one was going to be a dud. No of reasions.

1. Nikhil Advnai has shown no sparks of being a great ditrecxtor. With S-E-L he showed what a wannabe he is.

2. Some directors have a sense of humour. Some dont. David Dhwan has it. Manmohan Desai has it. Anees Bazmi has it. Priyadarshan has it. Kundan Sha has it. Hrishikesh Miukkherjee had it. Manish ( Loins of Punjab) Towari got it. rajkumar Hirani has it. Abbas Tyrewallla has it. The Tashan guy doesn’t have it. Shirih Kunder doesn’t have it. Shaad Ali doesn’t have it ( He manged in B&B though.)

3. The problem with wannabe filmmakers is that they aren’t roted. Their inspiration comes from watching foreign DVDs and not any inherent lesons or observations from life. That’s what makes a Rajkumar Hirani different from a Nikhil Advani or Shirih Kunder and a Murugadoss or Shankar different from Sridhar Raghvan ( though he is really good.)

4. The Kungfu Hustle kind of genre is impossible for any bollywood direcor to pull off. It comes to Chinese directors naturaaly, because they have a thousand year tardition of martial arts and physical comedy, which are interlinked. ( We ahve a similar tradition in melodramatic romantic tales and song-and-dance masala entertainment a la Radha-Krisna and Shakuntala, a la Ramaleela and Nautanki). So the whole thing will fall flat.

It might open big on Day 1, but is going to crash pretty fast. May fare the fate of Tashan.

Qalandar 8 January 2009
10:45:18 pm

Actually sandy I preferred Bhool Bhulaiya to Hey Baby, Welcome, Singh is King, Bhaagam Bhaag!!! But your point is taken as the others made even more money…

ideaunique 8 January 2009
10:56:18 pm

Q- I liked BB too, but i liked Rajni’s Chandramukhi more – reason? RAJNI’s styles…and he is…he is GOD onscreen, esp. in this movie, i’ll never forget the cities, cheering, taalis on his entry in this movie

neelu 8 January 2009
10:58:07 pm

I think I am ready to make a prediction on CCTC now! My formula for predicting is available upon request

Opening week 40 cr.
End of run at between 90 and 98 cr.

Arun 8 January 2009
11:08:56 pm

Thanks, Q!

Gabber 8 January 2009
11:29:13 pm

http://entertainment.in.msn.co.....id=1778798

CCTC Preview:

The movie takes you on a madcap Journey from the by-lanes of Chandni Chowk in Delhi, to Shanghai, the Great Wall and rural China, marrying in its wake hilarious gags, breathtaking action, spectacular locations, and heart stirring emotions.

Our protagonist Sidhu (Akshay Kumar) is the lowest on the totem pole, cutting vegetables at a roadside food stall in Chandni Chowk in Delhi. He longs to escape his dreary existence and looks for shortcuts- with astrologers, tarot readers and fake fakirs – believing anything except himself, despite his father figure Dada’s (Mithun Chakraborty) best efforts. His redeeming moment arrives when two strangers from China claim him as a reincarnation of a war hero in the past and takes him to China.

Sidhu now dreams of wine, women, and a princely existence in foreign lands. Thanks to the devious translator, a conman by the name Chopstick (Ranvir Shorey), little does he know that he is being taken to the Promised Land to rid the Chinese village of the vicious smuggler Hojo (Gordon Liu)!

Therefore, Sidhu blissfully sets forth to China with Chopstick who instigates dreams of a delicious future and forgets to reveal the perils, which await him. Along the way, he meets Sakhi (Deepika Padukone), Ms. Tele Shoppers Media (Ms. TSM) who has embarked on a journey to pay homage to the land of her birth and her dead father and twin. Initially, Sidhu through a series of lucky coincidences manages to sidestep being beaten by Hojo’s men but finally Hojo catches up with him and exposes him as the country buffoon that he really is. Sidhu has the fire of revenge in his belly and finds the one man who will make him a Kung Fu expert and set the village free. Armed with his Sifu (master), faith in himself and the love of the fair Sakhi, Sidhu sets forth to conquer all!

utkal 8 January 2009
11:40:18 pm

Neelu, there is no way it can open with 40 crores and toatl more than twice to reach 90 crores. That means the movie has been liked more than OSO, D2 and Ghajini. Not a chance! All this smart-alecy sdpoof wont just fly. If you want to try retro, you really must have genuine love for it a-la-Farah Khan. The audince doesn’t like being taken for a ride. Sridhar raghavan is not Jaideep Sahni. So no soul. No audience connection. No footfalls.

Gabber 8 January 2009
11:41:33 pm

Q, Like Sandy’s friend, I too am hoping that you just don’t like these kind of blockbusters.

neelu 8 January 2009
11:51:55 pm

I had to deduct 10 crores as the impact Q’s early review will have, but they they will be back!

Qalandar 8 January 2009
11:52:44 pm

Gabber: believe me when I say, I too am hoping the same thing. I might not have liked welcome and singh is king but I certainly back akki (partly because I have a soft spot for him; partly because I dislike some of the double standards we see sometimes, where personal preferences are elevated to absolute markers of “quality”, and some genres are dismissed more than others). Plus this is about more than akshay: as the first tie-up between a Hollywood and B’wood studio, the fate of this film could have significant business implications for the industry. Furthermore, given that Rohan Sippy’s next film is with Abhishek, a success with Chandni Chowk to China would make distributors/exhibitors a little bit more excited about the next venture from the same production house…

Qalandar 8 January 2009
11:53:25 pm

If my review is worth that much, I’m in the wrong business! I would have sold akshay a good review for a tenth of that

Som 8 January 2009
11:54:29 pm

“The audince doesn’t like being taken for a ride. Sridhar raghavan is not Jaideep Sahni. So no soul. No audience connection. No footfalls.”

It is too early to discount the movie Utkal.It is just couple of our NG members who have seen and disliked it.The reactions on NG do not necessarily coincide with the WOM of average paying public.

Qalandar 8 January 2009
11:55:46 pm

As I said on the shoutbox earlier tonight, if we went by NG reactions Oye Lucky would open at 42 crores!!!

neelu 9 January 2009
12:00:27 am

Believe me Q – you review is already doing the rounds on the web! Akki should have delivered those free tickets and made sure you sat next to Deepika…

RAJ 9 January 2009
12:03:24 am

Agree with Some here..

The movie would surely open big…

RAJ 9 January 2009
12:03:25 am

Agree with Some here..

The movie would surely open big…

utkal 9 January 2009
12:17:24 am

“As I said on the shoutbox earlier tonight, if we went by NG reactions Oye Lucky would open at 42 crores!!!” Now we are losing all sense of proportion here. The fcat that Ngites liked OLLY means it is ging to reasonably well in its inche. and it did. Even though it was released in the week of Mumbai teror, it has ntted about 6 crores and is nota flop. That’s fair. Similarly, CCTC which is meant to be a samrt, spoofy kind of film, should ahve appealed to NGites if it has to appesal to nayone at aall. After all it is not as earthy as Welcome or SIK. so not being liked by a couple of NGites is bad news for CCTC. Come on, Nikhil Advani is not Stephen Chow. Can never be.

Actuallu no one in Bollywood can make even a Rush Hour let alone Kungfu Hustle or Shaolin Soccer. If anyone can pull sucha thing off, it has to bea Tamil director, who has the zaniness to pull off the action and physical comedy. ( Kamla Hassan in Daaavatar half pulls off what he tries. Rajnikant manages it to some extent. No, Mani dint manage it in Thiruda, Thiruda, but RGV dida half decent job in Kshnam Kshnam. I dont even know some of the others who do action comedy there.But my bet is one of them, rather than DVD watching South Mumbai types.)

Aarohi 9 January 2009
01:16:23 am

“Sridhar raghavan is not Jaideep Sahni. So no soul.”

Not sure that follows. Khaki definitely had soul and sole in plenty

jayshah 9 January 2009
01:26:11 am

Thanks for sharing Qalander – this means it will be a blockbuster. Though I will wait for more reviews now to see if its worth a watch…sayign Singh is Kinng is better has put a big dampener on my plans for next weekend…

utkal 9 January 2009
02:30:37 am

Sridhar Raghavan is good. Khakee had some soul, yes, but still the scripts come from intelectual reprocessing of Western films seen. But I think the real organic, from-the-heart scripts come from guys who have lived normal lives and not watched THAT MANY films. People like Rajkumar Hirani, Jaidep Sahani,and people like Bala, Shankar and Murugadoss in the South. Only they can create something earthy and original which connects with a huge number of viewrs.

Aarohi 9 January 2009
03:03:58 am

utkal: I see your point but I don’t agree.

satyam 9 January 2009
03:54:34 am

Thanks for sharing Qalandar. Disappointed to learn they’ve messed this up. You gave Tashan a way better review than this and I didn’t like Tashan at all either (barring scattered moments). Unfortunately if this doesn’t work Akshay is not going to try this sort of thing again. He will stick to his past comedy fare. Can’t blame him either. Ultimately it remains a problem that Bollywood is unable to ‘imagine’ masala except through the prism of parody. It is (as I’ve said before) reflective of contemporary bourgeois attitudes towards the genre. This is exactly why I appreciated Ghajini so much within the context.

akshay shah 9 January 2009
04:10:30 am

Seriously guttered here Q bhai!! Will still catch it for Akki.

As for GHAJINI, the movie manages to pull off a absolute 100%, hardcore masala film with utmost conviction-Aamir is no doubt at the top of his game and 2008 belonged to him!

CCTC I was looking forward to as it would give Akki a double whammy with SIK and CCTC back to back at the start of the year…but who knows…the boxoffice can be unpredictable;)

IMO the top 3 are still SRK, Aamir and Akshay. Hrithik will deliver big in KITES, but the hype isn’t much at all compared to 3 IDIOTS and MNIK!

A.Shah

Gabber 9 January 2009
04:44:33 am

akshay bhai, you re-entry to NG is timely and imo augurs well for CCTC.
You have to post your review if the film is good.

Come here often buddy.

goodfella 9 January 2009
05:04:24 am

Gabber, btw, in regards to your earlier comment – even if the movie disappoints, I don’t think Akshay will disappoint fans who enjoy his persona. If you can ignore the terrible movie around him, he does as good a job as he can!

There are moments of great humor. My personal favorite is a sight gag involving Akshay trying to close his luggage bin in an airplane. Has to be seen.

ILG 9 January 2009
05:04:27 am

Thanks, Q. My fears are confirmed. Was never too excited about CCTC. Your review confirms it. Nikhil Advani just doesnt have it. KHNH was probably ghost directed by K Jo.
Utkal, I love you buddy but Shaad Ali actually has a fantastic sense of humor and fun.
Akshay, Have been wondering where you have been Welcome back and hope all is well.

utkal 9 January 2009
05:25:11 am

ILG, You maybe half right about Shhad Ali. Because the gags in his B&B most worked. But then it was written by Jaidep Sahni, who gave ita rooted background agnaist which the zany gags could be played out. But in JBJ he falls for the same parody trap, which is so collegian in thinking. So I dont know, will have to wait for something else from him to judge.

ILG 9 January 2009
05:44:36 am

I know JBJ has people divided but I thought it worked pretty well tho not a lot of people got it. It would have owrked better having an Indian setting but Adi………..

satyam 9 January 2009
05:49:25 am

ILG: Agreed.. I did think on reviewing that the first half is structurally the more interesting one and in some ways even brilliant but the ‘content’ here if you know what I mean could have been vastly better for that conceit. The second half on the other hand is very fluid and constantly works up a rhythm but it is also the less interesting one. Still overall a film that I like though the problems are always apparent on reviewing. Incidentally it has that wonderful video in the first half (bol na halke).

But yes I would rate is over a Tashan which barring certain Akshay moments did not work for me at all.

goodfella 9 January 2009
06:53:04 am

I have a huge soft spot for JBJ. Think it has one of Abhishek’s best performances, and remains Shaad Ali’s best film.

This places me in a rather large minority, of course, which bodes well for CCTC!

satyam 9 January 2009
07:05:23 am

Goodfella: Yeah, given that you and Qalandar both disliked CCTC the film might be in good shape!

I must say I prefer BnB overall as a film. On Abhishek’s performance I find it good but I’d take his work in BM over this.

speaking of which Rohan Sippy directing and him producing are evidently not the same thing!

goodfella 9 January 2009
07:08:07 am

Hate to disagree on two films I adore, but I think BM required less of Abhishek the actor and more of Abhishek the star. As a film, BM is miles ahead of JBJ, no question.

But Abhishek was the life of the latter film, and made it far, far better, and really shaped a very different character than what he’s accustomed to playing.

Qalandar 9 January 2009
07:09:08 am

Re: “Thanks for sharing Qalander – this means it will be a blockbuster.”

LOL Jay.

Kidding aside, I think some of the commenters on this thread are confusing two distinct issues: i.e. “if Q dislikes it, it will be a hit” is a rather different issue from “if Q thinks it will flop, then it will be a hit.” i.e. with Welcome, Dhoom 2, Om Shanti Om and Singh is King, whatever I thought of the films I never thought the films would flop. Whereas, when I came out of watching Tashan or Jhoom Barabar Jhoom I was not optimistic about the box office prospects. With Fanaa and Ghajini I wasn’t sure, because I wasn’t sure to what extent such throwback masala remained acceptable given where the contemporary market/audience is. I was unsure about Rang de Basanti because of the whole “kill the DM” business; with Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna I was pretty sure it would not be a big hit.

All in all, with Chandni Chowk I am not feeling too good about the box office prospects. I have been wrong before, and hope I am wrong this time too, but there you have it.

Utkal: Re: Oye Lucky Lucky Oye: chill yaar, it was a lighthearted comment.

I disagree with utkal on “rootedness”, in the sense that nothing about films like Welcome, Singh is King is rooted in the sense of a Bala, Jaideep Sahni, etc.; and yet they made bucketloads of money.

ILG 9 January 2009
07:23:46 am

Q,
May be they think your judgement is as flawed as your taste and that both are interchangeable! In their eyes only, might I add.

ILG 9 January 2009
07:27:33 am

Anyways, this was a losing proposition all around.
Jay kept his legs crossed for once for your sake and was denied yesterday and you didnt have any fun either.

utkal 9 January 2009
07:28:20 am

Q, Anees Bazmi is not rooted exactly in the same sense as Bal and Jaideep are. But they have a rooted sense of humour and narration which connects with e audience. And my problem with movies like JBJ and Tashan is that they wanto parody the same things they want to exploit. Doesnt’t work. Make up your mind. LOins of Punjab does it brillinatly. The use of the song Bole Chudiyan… that’s how you parody and play homage at the same time. Writers of JBJ and Tashan dont have that sensibility or the sensitivity.

utkal 9 January 2009
07:36:22 am

With regard to JBJ and Tashan or even Janeman, I will quote one of our NGites comments, ” In a sense ’spoofing’ masala always misses the point.. the genre always had built-in ’spoof’ elements even if the overall effect was never such.

One would have to be extremely lucky to hear/read a more insightful comment for the rest of the week. Masala movies are kind of spoof-proof.”

Qalandar 9 January 2009
07:39:45 am

PS– at least a dozen people walked out of the screening before it was done. To be fair, those that remained gave it an enthusiastic ovation, and like I said on the shoutbox or perhaps elsewhere I don’t know if that response was conditioned by the presence of the stars. [E.g. there were multiple "I Love You Deepika!" catcalls throughout the film ]

jayshah 9 January 2009
07:43:17 am

I guess the place was full of som’s

goodfella 9 January 2009
07:44:06 am

Oh absolutely, the stars’ presence really helped the reception in that screening. The moment Akshay’s face appeared on the screen, there was a near-Rajini like wave of screaming.

Okay, maybe not near-Rajni, but still. Pretty enthusiastic.

Qalandar 9 January 2009
07:45:53 am

There I agree with you and satyam utkal; a bit dismaying that so many contemporary directors seem unable to engage with this tradition except through the prism of spoof or gag…

satyam 9 January 2009
07:52:50 am

I will say this. I like Akshay enough where I would always want his films to work. Now I don’t like most of his comedies but I’ve enjoyed his success. I didn’t want Tashan to fail and I don’t want CCTC to fail. Having said that here were extenuating circumstances for Tashan and there are those here (if it fails). The first didn’t affect SIK in any sense and all he needs is a regular Kambakt Ishq kind of deal to follow this up. He has a high enough volume and a loss here and there doesn’t matter. When a star does one film at a time it becomes critical. Unless of course you’re Aamir and then even that one film never fails!

utkal 9 January 2009
07:55:20 am

The way to ” to engage with this tradition except through the prism of spoof or gag…” would be really update the tradition. And I think Ghajini did it so beautifully. It was telling an old-fashioned revenge story, with a chatterbox heroine, and an obnoxious villain, but with the new twist of ‘ short term memory loss’ and lot of technical chutzpah and a different way of using songs for some songs. The way it is done, the multiplex generation does not realise they are watching a an old-fashioned revenge dram and don’t feel alienated. That is the achievement of Murugadoss and Amir.

satyam 9 January 2009
09:02:46 am

Another attempt Utkal was Khakee. This film was more of a thriller but it had enough genuine masala moments (still Akshay’s best role I think). The whole combination of elements here was fantastic (though Devgan was a bit poor here and we really could have done without Tushar Kapoor!).

I think masala in Bollywood suffers from two afflictions. One is the distance which current bourgeois audiences (I mean especially target multiplex viewers) have from the tradition. In Tamil cinema that heritage has never been lost and has been upgraded at every point. Now one might not be a fan of the genre but that’s a different point. One does have a choice to see what a healthy masala tradition would look at present. In Hindi cinema there is a sense in which it is not taken seriously enough. People who watch masala films and are a little embarrassed with what they perceive to be ‘crude’ elements in those films from the comedy to the action sequences to what have you.

What is however missed is the extent to which masala depends on such a combination of the high and low. This is why Deewar is not really a masala film. It is akin to Shakespeare in many ways where you have the most lofty thoughts expressed in the most exquisite poetry in one moment and then you suddenly get the most obscene sexual puns! The overall effect of Shakespearean drama depends on such a juxtaposition of elements. These are in many ways questions of ‘filmic’ time. The comedy portions rudely interrupt the more serious dramatic ones and vice versa. The same is true for masala cinema. The genre operates in linear fashion on the one hand but also laterally in other ways. There are sequences that take the story forward and others that simply keep it ’still’. But both are equally necessary. What you see with a certain kind of cinema is that the comedy bits are taken out, in another kind it’s only the comedy. The other vital ingredient is always missing one wat or the other. Masala cinema is therefore always a bit of a roller-coaster reader. It’s not just that too much happens (a thriller could do as much) but that it happens in different ‘time zones’. It is then the job of the director to compress these different ‘zones’ into one at the very end of the film. Of course this also involves a literal spatial element as well. Characters who start off within a common space, are then scattered, but reunite at the very end. The ‘communal’ (in the sense of community) space is therefore always present only as an ideal. Once in the very early portions of the film and then in the film’s ‘afterlife’ which we again imagine but do not actually witness. In between there is only to introduce Hamlet once again ‘time out of joint’.

Similarly the technical values to the extent that these might be judged ’substandard’ (this is not true for all masala) are also very much a part of the film’s fabric. This is why the idea of updating Don the way Akhtar tried to do also misses the point. Don works as a kind of B movie with a megastar at its center. Don is not Bond even if Akhtar imagines this to be the case!

Goodfella once very usefully suggested that masala cinema depended on a certain “kinetic” quality and energy to keep things going. This is perfectly correct (though most masala reworkings today, spoof or not, don’t have this.. referring only to Hindi cinema). This is also what Shakespeare has (but Bhardwaj never seems to have).

But the other affliction is that masala cinema depends on a notion of the ‘epic’ that is sadly completely foreign to the sensibilities of most contemporary multiplex audiences (again within Bollywood). One understands that genre fashions change with time. I don’t lament the loss of masala simply for its own sake but because of what it represented which is to my mind the most inclusive and politically progressive cinema in Bollywood film history. Despite all the caricatures and all the stereotyping masala cinema ‘represented’ more groups and more identities than any other before or since. It was simply a more variegated world. A richer cinema.

Similarly when I bemoan the loss of the ‘epic’ I am also referring to ‘rootedness’ and cultural artifacts that have informed Indian sensibility in many ways, whether we know it or not. Masala engaged with this as well, or took up this heritage consciously. The film scripts that I would consider ‘great’ from the 70s married this epic inheritance with Western romanticism and Shakespeare and so forth. This was ‘real’ writing not just a cobbled together script that could be written in ten minutes by any one of us here.

But it wasn’t only masala. Many other little films around the same time (Mukerjee’s in particular) operated at a kind of tangent to this cinema and were also richer for this reason. Certainly for Mukerjee the opposite of masala was never the ‘un-rooted’.

And it is hopefully not ‘judgmental’ to suggest that a film tradition that fed off the Mahabharata was ‘better’ than one that relies on Saved by the Bell (the ‘college’ in KKHH? The entire ethos of all these romances (which even if one enjoyed them at the time are really no more advanced than Disney teen romances) operates at a somewhat infantile level. Qalandar once said that films in an earlier age (not just masala but the cinema in general) was one for adults. Now it generally is not and the entire movie going demographic confirms this! People are too happy seeing Gen X films made into small budget clones in Bollywood to ever dream of returning to the epic challenges of J P DUtta (in the 80s to be exact.. the one director who did ‘update’ masala but was perhaps too late..). No audience nurtured on KKHH will ever be able to digest Ghulami. Just won’t happen! I was rather surprised to see Khakee underperform at the time. Perhaps the fact that the film made as much as MSK is a tribute to the film’s quality but really it should have been a massive blockbuster. It might have done better today (I wonder sometimes..) but in any case this dark film was too much for the audience.

When one turns to Tamil cinema the nicest thing about it is the extent to which masala there is not an ‘issue’. It is as normal as any other genre! This is why I didn’t even notice Ghajini too much when it first released there. I did see it and didn’t think much of it. Because that tradition offers much better. But in Bollywood this film (of course I think it’s better in the remake) has all the shock of a seismic event and little wonder that it has registered one at the box office. An authentic one! This is also why I wrote that specific piece on the film. In contemporary Bollywood such a film cannot be divorced from the entire history I’m talking about. In any case this has very much been Aamir’s aim. As I said the other day people have misread his career. He’s always erred on the side of masala in his career, never done the Switzerland romance. Dharmesh Darshan, Indra KUmar, Ghulam, Fanaa, now Ghajini are all examples of this.

satyam 9 January 2009
09:07:44 am

And yes Aamir was smart enough to pick up on Ghajini as opposed to tons of other masala hits in Tamil because he knew this could be ’sold’ to the Hindi audiences for his look and for the Memento element. But this is how (as Obama would say!) change comes about. The next time around the bar won’t be as high for a masala film provided the attempt is as credible. Today some of the audiences might find the violence a bit much. Tomorrow they might be more used to it. Of course I don’t really expect Ghajini to become a tradition to the extent that there really isn’t anyone on the scene in Bombay capable of directing proper masala. But if I were Akshay or Abhishek I would try to take this further. Abhishek does many risky films anyway. Such a film could hardly be a greater risk! Akshay similarly has been able to live down a Tashan. Don’t think masala would hurt him. Both actors would probably attempt it if there were credible offers but the problem precisely is that the stars will have to do this themselves, i.e. create the entire setup as Aamir did. Eventually it might lead to something. But for the moment getting a Tamil director and selecting the right project is perhaps the most feasible way to go. At the most there’s Santoshi who always seems to lose his way after a very good film but who presumably still has the talent to make a Ghayal or a Khakee.

Qalandar 9 January 2009
09:17:09 am

Your penultimate comment superbly summarizes your thoughts on the issue satyam. I have for the longest time been urging you to write it up as a formal piece, i.e. comments are harder to find later…

satyam 9 January 2009
09:19:57 am

Thanks Qalandar.. will try to act on your advice..

Qalandar 9 January 2009
09:24:37 am

The other thing I miss is “population” (was reminded of this in the context of imgr8’s comment on the Delhi-6 thread too: http://www.naachgaana.com/2009.....nt-163182). Desai’s films, to take him as an example (even if he is too much of a summit to be considered typical) used to teem with characters — this guy had so much story to tell he needed multiple characters, in fact including multiple baddies as well. Today’s films are mostly impoverished in that respect, partly because most of today’s stars, when they become too big, don’t seem to want to share screen space with others perceived as rivals (or even good character actors who might be perceived to steal the show; when these are used their roles are mercilessly chopped)*; and partly because the writing is so bad even one half-realized character seems beyond some of these chumps. The likes of Jaideep Sahni (Khosla Ka Ghosla; Aaja Nachle; Chak de India) are exceptions. Even the likes of Ghajini do not “teem” the way a really high-quality masala movie would; and the likes of Bhansali provoke death-by-stupefaction at the juxtaposition of the cavernous interiors and mere handful of characters. Satyam you brought up Shakespeare; let me add Joyce: much as I love Ulysses and Leopold Bloom, the novel does not “teem”. And contemporary cinema doesn’t even offer us a Poldy! (aside: Dasvidaniya clearly bears that influence, although the filmmaker is unable to take that sort of “everyman” seriously except through the prism of sentimentality).

*[Akshay is one of the exceptions; while he had gotten a bad press for allegedly lopping off Suniel Shetty's or Govinda's roles, the fact is that he is actually more generous than many others.]

goodfella 9 January 2009
10:07:50 am

Satyam, amazing comment. For me, Munnabhai series is a terrific example of the modern masala sans an epic framework, (follows the Desai thematic model on some levels and addresses the population matter that Q astutely brings up) I think.

But the model has been interestingly addressed/revised/revisited throughout this decade even in films like Omkara, RDB, BM.

satyam 9 January 2009
10:18:43 am

Excellent comment here.. it certainly is the case that those older films had many characters, many credible characters at that and proper actors doing most of those roles. Today even if a film has many characters there is the temptation to cast a star for every one of those parts. And again those films displayed a certain fidelity to the ‘high and low’ principle even in this sense. The little characters, even the supporting ones were not played by stars but were nonetheless very integral elements of the film’s fabric. I couldn’t imagine masala without its stars but I also couldn’t do so without the character actors. This ties in with my earlier point on ‘representation’. ‘More’ was represented earlier.. more professions, more classes, more ethnicity and more religion, more kinds of ‘faces’ for want of a better term (today there is a degree of sameness where most of the emerging stars try to conform to certain audience expectations.. Aamir, SRK, Akshay are different but they’re also much older stars.. Abhishek’s the one exception among major younger stars and he upsets a lot for this reason!), so on and so forth.

Now it is true that things have been much better in this decade and I think one can even be hopeful for the future but it’s hard for me to shake off the sense that if the set has been enlarged (principally by way of the little multiplex film) it has created a world which too often betrays a certain bourgeois perspective. So yes there are interesting characters in films but as these would appear to the ‘multiplex crowd’. The humor generated is often a result of such ‘vision’ where the audience can be smug about being on the ‘outside’ of such a world.

Even RGV’s films too often fell into the trap of relying on ethnic stereotypes (in the guise of realism) though the Sarkar films are a step up in this sense where RGV introduces a bit of masala into the proceedings.

Now a point should be made clear here. Akbar in AAA or Anthony in the same film are also stereotypes. But these are completely idealized ones (the Tamil stereotype in masala was far less benign.. revealing thereby the North/South divide of that cinema).. and these in effect were the film’s most lovable characters (even if this was otherwise problematic for other reasons..). ‘Amar’ is perfectly ‘normal’ and perfectly dull as well! So on the one hand the minority as the lovable rogue is also someone who doesn’t seem to have any serious mission in life he is nonetheless portrayed in a way that makes him more desirable as friend or lover than the faintly nasty Amar. As I once said before in Desai’s world the minority is always privileged!

In any case these minorities, even if stereotypical, always aligned the audience on their side. In today’s cinema we sometimes laugh at the little guy, rarely with him (or her). Similarly the RGV films precisely because they’re ‘realistic’ let no idealization occur. Sarkar is better because two ‘non-Maharashtrians’ occupy the film’s center (isn’t this the ultimate slap to the Thackerays?! and they’re great admirers of these films too!) and furthermore there are more masala villains here than was ever the case in Satya or Company.

Stereotyping therefore does not always have the same effect on the audience. Much as masala itself is treated as parody today a similar move is also performed in ‘little films’ (not always but quite often).

One of the notable recent exceptions in this regard was Omkara (not Maqbool very much) where Bhardwaj had a cast of characters who didn’t all seem to belong to that hinterland he was portraying but it didn’t matter. He didn’t do an RGV here and have actors who would all then have looked like quintessential UP/Bihar ‘rural’ denizens.

Aarkayne 9 January 2009
10:24:41 am

Utkal : “…..RGV dida half decent job in Kshnam Kshnam. ”

This and DAUD have to be the best ‘road’ movies that RGV has made. They were pretty funny for their times.

satyam 9 January 2009
10:27:39 am

Thanks very much Goodfella.. my most recent comment crossed with yours but yes Munnabhai is certainly an authentic attempt in this regard.. RDB also has many of these elements..

On BM I see where you’re coming from though I think it is ultimately a true deconstructive take on masala cinema. And only Rohan has the sensibility to make such a film one of solitude! Life is always poorer without masala! In fact isn’t this the lesson that in some ways the makers of Tashan or JBJ did not learn? You cannot have ‘half-masala’. You cannot enter that world and then also try to stay on the margins as commentator.

Rohan makes a ‘tale of cinema’ and that entire ‘meta-critique’ also doubles as an allegory on the vanishing of masala cinema. And Abhishek’s entire character and body language project this in the film. Ritesh is the character of yesteryear who still thinks the old tricks can be learnt.. Abhishek however knows it’s too late.. at the very end they arrive at a hotel or structure that if memory serves me right was also used for some of the shots in Desai’s Naseeb. It would be fitting if this is indeed the case.

I said this in the context of Ghajini but BM is another kind of mausoleum — of cinema, also of a more specific tradition.

But these attempts nevertheless found masala cinema an ‘issue’ to be engaged with. In OSO though you get what seems to be the ultimate homage but what is really the ultimate scam. It is the masala of the most fake kind. It is essentially the garb Yashraj needs to update itself in this post-Switzerland period. Of course only farah Khan has had the intelligence to understand this.

Qalandar 9 January 2009
10:31:46 am

Re: “Ritesh is the character of yesteryear who still thinks the old tricks can be learnt.. Abhishek however knows it’s too late”

Roy also thinks its too late to learn any new tricks — Ritesh’s character disabuses him of that in the climax. For it is love that has taken Roy off his game in a sense, that is his true vulnerability: in this film that is a homage to a vanished cinema, this is an old-school touch.

satyam 9 January 2009
10:41:18 am

True.. except that the love story operates in front of a film unit where the artifice is completely exposed.. so Roy’s romance probably won’t inhabit a commercial potboiler..

Qalandar 9 January 2009
10:50:17 am

No, the revelation does — the love story itself operates in private, best symbolized by the moment when Roy wakes up to an empty bed…superbly edited scene, that one.

satyam 9 January 2009
10:53:38 am

What I was referring to is the film’s final shot where Abhishek and priyanka are seated somewhere and the film’s unit is unraveling behind them or at least the ‘trick’ has been revealed and one can hear unit shouts off camera as well..

The scene you’re referring to was indeed a superb one..

Rocky 9 January 2009
10:57:37 am

Lucky you Q! Great Discussion.
I saw RDBDJ, in Aligarh UP, they had to call the police as the crowd was going berserk., there were many people who had come again to watch it.Personally I liked SRK a lot as the older guy and disliked him completely as the Younger avtar.
PS – In Aligarh, Ghazni had to settle for a much inferror theatre as the better one was taken by RDBDJ.

Ghazni was strictly OK for me.
Utkal has made a very valid pont above-

And I think Ghajini did it so beautifully. It was telling an old-fashioned revenge story, with a chatterbox heroine, and an obnoxious villain, but with the new twist of ‘ short term memory loss’ and lot of technical chutzpah and a different way of using songs for some songs. The way it is done, the multiplex generation does not realise they are watching a an old-fashioned revenge dram and don’t feel alienated. That is the achievement of Murugadoss and Amir.

Tango 9 January 2009
11:00:15 am

Rocky?

Ye ghalat baat hai. You had promised to meet me in India!

Tango 9 January 2009
11:01:00 am

So you saw it near your sasural

Rocky 9 January 2009
11:03:28 am

Tango, I did but I myself do not know where the fuck all the vacation Days went by !!
Hamka Bhool ho Gai, Hamka Maafi de do !!

Tango 9 January 2009
11:06:07 am

Koo baat nahi bhai! There is always anext time. Mobile le lena.

Yeah you are on dot, PAC was called out in not only Aligarh but even in Agra and Bulandshaher.

Rocky 9 January 2009
11:13:18 am

RDBDJ is a huge in small town.
Just as I could not find a single person who had liked OSO, I could not find a Single Person who Disliked RDBDJ.

Rocky 9 January 2009
11:20:24 am

As a Kid the greatest Masala Movie for me was Dus Numbari !!
LOL !!

Rocky 9 January 2009
11:22:37 am

There is a scene where the Villain gives a choice to Manoj Kumar to save either his Maa or his Mehbooba and MK with great pride chooses Maa !!

satyam 9 January 2009
11:36:39 am

Dus Numbri is a guilty pleasure for sure even if Manoj Kumar never became one for me! I have always loathed him!

satyam 9 January 2009
11:37:17 am

“There is a scene where the Villain gives a choice to Manoj Kumar to save either his Maa or his Mehbooba and MK with great pride chooses Maa”

SRK would have asked for option C — mother-in-law!

Rocky 9 January 2009
11:40:12 am

SRK is Paanchvi Fail Remember !! LOL !!

satyam 9 January 2009
03:02:21 pm

Ha!

satyam 9 January 2009
03:03:49 pm

Aarkayne: I somehow found Daud completely flat and completely boring. Have never revisited it since the original release.

Qalandar 9 January 2009
03:04:18 pm

Is Dus Numbri the film with the song “Jai Bolo Be-imaan Ki”?

satyam 9 January 2009
03:09:34 pm

No that film is titled ‘Beimaan’! LOL!

Dus Numbri has ‘yeh duniya ek numbri..’

Aditya 9 January 2009
03:33:58 pm

aw maaaan!! i desperately wanted this film this film to be good. i called a few months back that this film will either work like a charm(if it remained tongue-in-cheek throughout) or be a total disaster(if it takes itself too seriously). i guess its the latter. bummer!:(

side note: clint eastwood simply ROCKS!. “gran torino” is way better than i thought!. one of the best films of the year.

Aditya 9 January 2009
03:35:53 pm

i meant to say “i called it a few months back”…..

Shahid 9 January 2009
04:44:03 pm

Thanks for your thoughts yaar. I didn’t have any specific expectations for this film… The promos left me cold (I know, I must be one of the few!). The flaw you mention of emotion being spoiled by mis-timed humour sounds like the work of a C-grade director. To me, this sounds like a very serious flaw and renders a film unwatchable.

Boo hoo to people dissing Singh Is King on here. It’s a guilty pleasure film that I love to bits. Altogether now: “All my ladies going crazyyy, with rhythm of the music spinning, it’s heating up the niiight.” Woohoo!

satyam 9 January 2009
10:06:01 pm

Shahid: Singh is Kinng is actually comparatively restrained. It’s almost a bit flat at points. It certainly doesn’t over the top for the most part the way Akshay’s other comedies are. For this reason I possibly prefer to most of his other films.

satyam 9 January 2009
10:06:17 pm

Shahid: Singh is Kinng is actually comparatively restrained. It’s almost a bit flat at points. It certainly doesn’t go over the top for the most part the way Akshay’s other comedies are. For this reason I possibly prefer to most of his other films.

utkal 9 January 2009
10:09:04 pm

aarakayne, I agree with Satyam, Daud was flat and boring. As against Kshanam which was exciting and entertaining. Daud shares the same lack of respect vfor the audience with movies lke JBJ and tashan, and is actually worse that these two. I mean what were songs like O Bhawnre pictured totally unimaginatively, with Urmila’s derriere, doing ina film that is supposed to be smart? The gags were mecahnical predictable abd singualarly unfunny. This was RGV at his uninspired worst, maybe a good competition would be Shiva, the 2nd avatar. Rangeela and Shiva 1 offer the sharp contrast as to how these films can be done right.

Aarohi 9 January 2009
10:24:46 pm

Daud was Kshana Kashanam redux in some ways. Didn’t work nearly as well as the latter. But was enjoyable in parts.

Shahid 10 January 2009
03:21:03 am

Satyam: Glad you agree… Yes, there are some flat moments especially with the whole poverty angle. But I love some bits like Akshay chasing the chicken in the beginning, his comic timing in the Bhootni song and the wonderful sight gag with Sonu Sood in the wheelchair. Definitely prefer it to Welcome or Bhagam Bhag.

Qalandar 10 January 2009
08:33:56 am

I too would have tyo say that I prefer it to Welcome. Although nothing in it is as funny as the last 20 minutes of Welcome, but over all I prefer Singh is KIng. Bhaagam Bhaag was the worst, it was so flat; all in all Bhool Bhulaiya is the one I enjoyed the most…

satyam 10 January 2009
09:11:22 am

yes agreed Qalandar.. the last half hour of Welcome was great fun..

The thing with SIK is that I think it could have actually trended much better than it did if it had been more over the top!

uluv33 11 January 2009
12:45:47 pm

A Roundeye Kick to Haters! Haiiii-ya! CC2C is sheer Bollywood resurgence!

Got a chance to watch it at the snazzy New York Premiere on 42nd street, which had Akshay, Deepika and Nikhil Advani in attendance. Seemed like the mother of all premieres, as it seems to be well in advance of the movie’s release next week. Advani must be really confident of his product – and rightfully so.

The film was hardcore comedic desi masala with a side of lo mein. Akshay Kumar is now a genre of his own – especially his brand of humor which appeals from front-benchers to the elitists.

Technically, this has got to be one of the more superior projects to emerge out of Bollywood. The martial arts sequences, the eye-caressing shots of the Great Wall (did you know this is the first flick ever to be shot there? EVER!? DAym!).

Don’t expect a brilliant storyline or a gripping plot. CC2C is like how Austin Powers would do Enter the Dragon. Sheer madness and insanity. Comic-bookish – so please leave that condescending and sarcy brain of yours at home, which always goes to watch a Bollywood movie to mock it afterwards for “weak storyline”, “sequences were difficult to believe”. Arrey? Its a fantasy movie about a cook from Chandni Chowk who gets sucked into being the reincarnation of a Chinese Warrior, and eventually saves a village. Do you know anyone who can say, “Hey, that happened to my brother-in-law, last week!”. I mean, please. Just goin for the laughs, enjoy the over-the-top-ness, savor the superior production quality that Bollywood lovers will soon get used to, as more corporate houses like Warner Bros emerge on the desi scene.

Hardcore recommendation! Watch CC2C. It rocks! Haiiiiii-ya!

–

Qalandar 11 January 2009
12:48:59 pm

uluv33: are you new to NG? If so, welcome.

Qalandar 11 January 2009
01:16:40 pm

…although I must say, I think we saw different films at the same premiere

ILG 11 January 2009
01:31:04 pm

Unfortunately, Q, you didnt receive the instructions to leave your condescending and sarcy brain home before hand!

Gabber 12 January 2009
02:00:03 am

welcome uluv33.

Thanks for your review of the movie of the year – CCTC!

Q, I also hope that you saw a different film….maybe billoo barber

RAJ 12 January 2009
02:29:57 am

Satyam,

“”"When a star does one film at a time it becomes critical. Unless of course you’re Aamir and then even that one film never fails!”"”

Which other star having one film a year have failed ????

sv 12 January 2009
04:58:11 am

uluv33,good to see an Akshay Kumar fan here.

satyam 12 January 2009
06:12:32 am

Raj: No current star that I’m aware of has Aamir’s record where at that low volume and that kind of genre mix everything works. You can do OSO once a year and have a sure shot success. It’s not quite the same thing with a TZP! Of course even when Aamir increases his volume everything still works (Lagaan and DCH, RDB and Fanaa) and it’s still a mix of genres.

I think I’ve made this point clear many times. That the ‘once a year’ policy is justified only when you’re seen to be shifting the ‘debate’ if you will. Coming back after one year and doing RNBDJ doesn’t quite cut it. Because absence signifies (Hollywood or otherwise) a degree of ‘care’ that the actor puts in in terms of choosing a project. So both TZP and Ghajini can be easily justified for all the reasons we’ve discussed many times before. If absence doesn’t signify prestige and careful selection then it becomes only about the box office. The subliminal message with an aging star also is that the one superhit a year is great but the star clearly doesn’t want to ‘risk’ more exposure than this.

Even a younger star is not entirely clear of this danger. So JA is perfectly defensible, Kites isn’t. With that gap.

Any advantage that Aamir gains by having one release a year is balanced out by the risky genres he gets involved with. On the other hand when you do formula films (whatever your strength genres might be) then you actually convert even the absence into a strength. So people want a Yashraj love story in any case but being away for a while means they want it even more! Despite this RNBDJ did not get off to a rocket start on day 1. The publicity argument is lame. The ads were all over TV every single day. As if people needed to be persuaded anyway to watch SRK and Yashraj!

But the competition also comes in here. Why is is that Akshay can do multiple formula films a year but not SRK? Why is it that Abhishek has a Mehra/Rathnam double and no one else does? It can be argued very plausibly that only Aamir could have such a combo if he so desired. Even he couldn’t come up with a more prestigious deal!

It is impossible to argue that stars other than Aamir or Abhishek are actually not interested in a Hirani, a Mehra, a Rathnam or what have you. The obvious conclusion is that either the star isn’t getting these offers or doesn’t have the nerve to take real risks.

Now we’ve heard the old spiel before where mysteriously certain stars keep rejecting every good project in town. With SRK the drama is that he coincidentally has fights with every prestigious maker and refuses to work with them! All a little silly if you ask me. Hard to believe who could buy this kind of story!

But there is nonetheless another kind of truth to this structure. SRK for example at his age wants blockbusters once a year. He doesn’t feel he can get the same result if he does a risky film and rightly so. Given that he’s predicated his career for so long on being big or even the ‘biggest’ he can’t compromise his box office in any way. Because remember Aamir doesn’t just do a Hirani but often does films with less than established setups (DCH, TZP, Lagaan). SRK is not willing to do this. Which leaves the other option of established prestige names coming to him. This doesn’t happen either. At least not often.

Which brings me to yet another point. Will Smith might be the biggest Hollywood star of the moment but Fincher is not about to cast him in a Benjamin Button anytime soon! For the prestige subject just being the biggest box office star might not be enough. Guess which ‘Italian’ Scorsese was casting? Not Stallone! It’s not just about acting prestige. There’s a certain box office logic to this as well. Actually Stallone couldn’t have delivered more even in box office terms in Scorsese’s films. Because authentic subjects depend on the actor appearing authentic as well. Again an old example of mine. Name me the ‘top’ star who does more in a different film than Abhishek does in Guru (in box office terms). There is none. And this isn’t the most ‘commercial’ film around by a long stretch and depends even more on the central protagonist than most other different films in the same period. No frills here. Except for the publicity of the lead performance. Or let’s turn it around. What star considered Abhishek’s equal or lesser than him grosses as much in a ‘different’ project?

All of this has to be understood. If this were not the case many directors would be idiots for not just taking the top 3 stars at the box office at any given time! This is where all the debates about star rankings also miss the point. yes, in an absolute sense Stallone and Schwarzenegger were bigger than De Niro. But in a system that values prestige this fact is not the only one that matters. India is also now becoming a Hollywood kind of system which is why one sees even stars with proven box office ability venturing in other directions. Why did Hrithik need to do a JA after Krrish/D2? He could do a couple of these movies every year and become absolutely the top box office star? Would Akshay do only comedies if he could get ‘better’ films and find them viable? Of course not. The same held for Stallone as well!

This holds especially for stars who have proven box office ability or a fanbase and who walk away from it. Aamir’s is again the best example. But also take Abhishek. Had a great ‘05. Walked away from it. To this day no BnB like followup, no Dus like followup. SR as a sequel came three years after the first one (however it worked there was quite a gap; it couldn’t have been his only show!), even BM which helped him greatly in urban centers does not have a followup. Finally there’s a Dostana three years later and even this cannot be universal because of the gay theme! And what about Guru? Why not another film or two, even inferior ones, that exploit the overman thing? It’s easier than ever in this multiplex age to prosper from formula. But these are the only two stars who have demonstrably walked away from obvious advantages. It takes time and discipline. Aamir went through the 90s (though he was always one of the top stars) before he got to his current triumphs (he had hits then also of course but it was a different environment).

All of this is connected to your point. You have to look at contexts. No one thinks that SRK doing a RNBDJ once a year and Aamir doing a Ghajini is the same thing. And I’m not even getting to TZP or what have you. Even with ‘prestige’ certain projects are safer than others. Would you bet on Hrithik/Ash in a Bhansali or Abhi/Ash in Rathnam? In pure box office terms? Aamir has never even gone for this kind of ‘obvious’ choice, or not often. The same holds for Abhishek.

There’s also another parallel. When Aamir got commercial flops (Mela) or even earlier after QSQT he abandoned those paradigms. He didn’t try to do better versions in the same genres. Abhishek also does this. Aamir also learnt that being ‘different’ had its limits. Abhishek has been learning that as well. He still seems to have enough volume but Aamir at that age wouldn’t have disagreed with doing Mehra, Rathnam, Johar, RGV, Rohan Sippy, Balki or what have you!

So it’s all about contexts, the narrative a star has or the narrative he ‘controls’.

satyam 12 January 2009
06:21:55 am

I find it fascinating that Abhishek is obviously his father’s heir. But his career choices ironically enough are not that of a guy who would like to be a megastar but much more an Aamir’s! Or that of his father’s in the 70s though Bachchan of course was unique and could combine the Mukerjees of the world with the Desais and get great success each way. That model is just a unique. Since Bachchan Aamir has been most influential in my view (and will be recognized more as such with time) in terms of altering the basic terms of the debate in Bollywood. The star who follows him most is Abhishek! So Aamir’s project while totally successful at this point still does not have an obvious ‘heir’ other than Abhishek. The latter’s success, depending on how much he gets over time, is also Aamir’s success! This in addition to the ‘Bachchan signature’ extension. Both Bollywood pathways converge here. How much he can do with these remains to be seen. But SRK even though culturally significant in so many ways, moreso than Aamir in fact for many segments, was nonetheless not able to bring about that structural difference. So we see SRK now getting as close to masala as possible with OSO, trying to go small town and authentic (even if the result is anything but the latter) in RNBDJ. So on and so forth! Sure, SRK did Mansoor Khan and Rathnam in the 90s but that didn’t change anything for him or anyone else. Aamir’s path did. The other thing here is of course Bachchan who pretty much made ‘age’ a non-issue for a viable star. No one could replicate him but when a man even in his 60s seems so relevant the guys in their early 40s have a better shot at things!

satyam 12 January 2009
06:23:47 am

By the way even Abhishek’s boldness does not match Aamir’s. Because Abhishek makes these choices in an industry where ‘prestige’ means a great deal. When Aamir tried these things in the 90s it was a very different ballgame.

satyam 12 January 2009
06:28:20 am

Do I give Aamir too much credit? No! I am fairly confident that a certain immersion in Bollywood history will reveal the fairly unique nature of Aamir’s achievement in this decade. There isn’t another such model where a star literally ‘invents’ the idea of prestige. There were always prestigious names and big stars did such films as a matter of course. But this was different from the ‘idea’ of prestige. Aamir’s model is quite singular and he could keep doing this for years. Age will obviously be less of an issue for him in his 50s than it is today for stars, let alone ‘yesterday’. Assuming there isn’t great physical deterioration. Always a danger for any star. Again Bachchan’s unique. Physically remarkable at every stage of his career!

satyam 12 January 2009
06:28:58 am

Raj: Moral of the story? Never ask me a question! LOL! Unless you don’t mind reading volumes!

Gabber 12 January 2009
06:48:13 am

‘I find it fascinating that Abhishek is obviously his father’s heir. ‘

Satyam, members will come and go but your fascination will remain the same. I will prefer Abhishek to make his own mark. I do not think he can become the real heir of Amitabh. Even Amitabh would have struggled to repeat his success.

Tango 12 January 2009
08:25:02 am

The true inheritor of Bachchan legacy is daughter Shweta. Her talk show were live proof of it. But it was her choice to settle for a family life rather that being in the limelight. I respect that.

Abhishek has taken more after Jaya ji than Big B, it is quite obvious.

Tango 12 January 2009
08:27:32 am

**was**

Tango 12 January 2009
08:28:51 am

Gabber kya scene hai? Lets exachange notes after watching CCTC

I hope its thumping action.

satyam 12 January 2009
09:23:22 am

Gabber: I would like to think I am not dense enough to suggest Abhishek is his father’s heir in terms of replicating his father’s ‘event’. I think I have made myself very clear on both scores.

satyam 12 January 2009
09:46:13 am

Tango: It was worthwhile writing that long comment to get the Shweta response once again from you! Anti-Abhishek folks thy name is anxiety!

Tango 12 January 2009
08:24:02 pm

Anxiety after a sureshot Dostana getting to where it did

and

Gabber 12 January 2009
09:17:08 pm

‘Gabber kya scene hai? Lets exchange notes after watching CCTC ‘

Sure will do.

Qalandar 12 January 2009
09:18:41 pm

Tango; there is not as much action in Chandni Chowk as there should have been; the stuff that is there is very good, but there is not enough of it. That btw probably won’t hurt the film, since I am an “old school” guy in these matters and want more action than many seem to today…

Tango 12 January 2009
09:22:48 pm

Yeah i had aread that in your review Q and in that case they will be misinformimg the audience.

Tango 12 January 2009
09:23:59 pm

Yes Gabber we will.

I’m set for first day 6-9, unless the maligned fog re-appears!

ideaunique 12 January 2009
09:41:26 pm

Satyam, any idea how the stalwarts like Kamal Hasan, Dilip Kumar, BIG B……have reacted to GHAJINI (if they have seen it…)?

akshay shah 13 January 2009
02:02:38 am

Yeh kya ho gaya Q bhai? Wow..surprised at the review, nonetheless thanks for posting bro….still looking fwd to this a lot!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Qalandar

Related Posts

There Are 137 Responses So Far. »

Leave a Reply