SubscribeSome Hope for Bollywood: Upcoming Releases
Finally, things are looking up for Bollywood. I already confessed my excitement for the upcoming film Aisha, but am still trying to forget the disaster that was I Hate Luv Storys.
After a very disappointing 2010 (My Name is Khan fans: stop reading now), I have good reason to be optimistic about the rest of the year. Fortunately, we won’t have to wait too long. On Friday, July 16, two movies that I’ve been eagerly waiting for will be released. Soon after that, Aamir Khan’s Peepli Live and Aisha will also hit theaters.
Next week, Udaan and Tere Bin Laden will release. Udaan is another film that appeals to the urban youth audience, the latest trend in Bollywood. (Thank God the NRI phase is over). Anurag Kashyap started last year with a bang when Dev D.’s success was attributed to this emerging demographic. As a producer for Udaan, I expect this film will also be able attract a younger crowd, and slowly, a larger audience. After the horrific HLS , which was as formulaic, predictable and cliche as they come, sensible Bollywood fans are dying for a film that is, well, good. Udaan will stand in stark comparison to IHLS. And if the film doesn’t turn out to be the saving grace of indie-Bollywood, we at least have some great music by Amit Trivedi. Check out the theatrical trailer for the film:
Promos for Tere Bin Laden never fails to make me burst out laughing. With such an enticing premise, which includes a look-alike Osama Bin Laden, the film has set up high expectations for anyone who hears the title or watches the trailer. If the filmmakers can pull off such a novel concept, it will be the biggest story in Bollywood this year. It’s a hard task, one that reminds me of my ultimate favorite film, Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron– it’s hard to beat the film’s satiric tone and its intricately woven message about corruption. As is well known in Bollywood, it takes one movie to become a hit to start a trend. Bollywood hasn’t yet been able to consistently address political issues, and Tere Bin Laden would be a great start.
Peepli Live is the reason Aamir Khan is infinitely better than his arch nemesis, Shahrukh Khan. The film addresses farmer suicides, and even though it is produced by Bollywood’s favorite actor, most actors are either art house or unknown. The film would have gone unnoticed by the masses if it weren’t for Aamir Khan’s name attached to the project, and no matter how big Khan’s ego is (one of the biggest in Bollywood, which is saying something), the fact that he’s putting his name behind a film that isn’t a popcorn movie (even the music is authentic), is inspiring and commendable.
Here’s a great video about the film:
Let’s see what the coming weeks in Bollywood bring us. Hopefully, these films can carry us through the winter, when the brainless masala films takeover the industry.
Jha’s Rajneeti- a Mahabharat without the Good Guys
When I read The New York Times and The LA Times review of Rajneeti, I was a little worried that my high hopes for the film may be crushed, as they frequently are, when it comes to Bollywood. After watching the film, even Katrina Kaif’s unappealing performance couldn’t deter me from the film. In my books, it’s one of the best of 2010.
Rachel Saltz of The New York Times wrote that the film jumped from scene to scene, easily resting the blame on the the screenplay for the faulty narrative. But, for me, this very feature of the movie let it redeem itself from all the other less intriguing segments. The fast pace of the film and parallels to the Indian epic Mahabharat are the reasons I write in support of the movie.
The Mahabharat was a story of the Kuru family who ruled Hastinapur. It was about the power struggle and the fight of good and evil between two branches of the family, the Pandavs and Kauravs. Both the Pandavs and Kauravs had flaws, but the Pandavs were clearly the good guys. They stood with the truth, and had God on their side (literally). The Kauravs, on the other hand, personified evil. Samar and Prithvi (Ranbir Kapoor and Arjun Rampal) represented the Pandavs, while Veerendra and Sooraj (Manoj Bajpai and Ajay Devgan) symbolized the Kauravs. Devgan’s character in particular was an accurate reflection of Karan from the Mahabharat, who was also the illegitmate child of Kunti, the mother of the Pandavs.
Unlike the Mahabharat, it is hard to argue that one side– either the Pandavs or Kauravs, are inherently “good.” Arjun Rampal’s character was obviously flawed– his relationship with Shruti Seth’s character, his violent streak, his refusal to let a Dalit run for election and his thirst for power were all qualities that don’t match up with the famously moral Pandavs. It was unclear as to why Katrina Kaif’s character believed he had a “good” heart. His love for his brother and his failed attempt to save his brother’s girl friend did not make him a good person, but definitely a compelling character.
Samar, Ranbir Kapoor’s character, also had too many shades of darkness to be accurately matched up with the most famous Pandav, Arjun. Bajpai and Devgan together did have darker shades than their counterparts, but the stunning difference of a lack of truly moral figures from the Mahabharat is notable, and one of my favorite themes in the film. It was a deliberate and brilliant move by Jha. Frank Lovece of Film Journal International stated that the film “becomes so ridiculous and over-the-top violent that there is nobody, nobody, to root for.” For me, this was one of the saving graces of the film. Jha’s message that politics doesn’t have room for heroes was accurately conveyed, even more so, with the use of the Mahabharat.
The characters in Rajneeti played politicians, yet none showed any compassion or responsibility toward their constituents– they were all selfish, all greedy, and all power hungry. At the end, Kapoor’s character stated that politics can only bring the darkness from inside of you, and he has a point. It was a pessimistic message about Indian politics, one that differed from Mani Ratnam’s Yuva.
In Jha’s film, he conveyed that in the modern era of politics, it’s all a power struggle– there is no virtuous Yuddhishtir, no politicians who stand who work for the greater good. There are some who are more evil than others, but circumstances did play a hand (as seen through Devgan’s story). According to Jha’s film– in politics today, there are only Kauravs.
The film’s storyline and performance by Arjun Rampal were delightful. Katrina Kaif’s performance and storyline were weak and almost destroyed the film. Oh, and I must note that her character bares no significant resemblance to Sonia Gandhi.
Overall, Rajneeti was a compelling story, and due to a lackluster Bollywood year, I’m glad that a film that relied on a good script and strong performances outdid some other less deserving films that pulled strong box office numbers (cough, My Name is Khan, Housefull, cough). This movie also deserves merit because major Bollywood stars took a risk by making a dialogue-heavy film that wasn’t too commercial. It was nice to see Ranbir Kapoor, Arjun Rampal and even Katrina Kaif act in a film that was very different from anything they had done before. Kapoor’s career in particular is becoming more intriguing by the day.
Because Bollywood seems mythological obsessed these days (Raavan releases on June 19), stay tuned for a post about Kalyug, Shyam Benegal’s 1981 film starring Shashi Kapoor– also an adaption of Mahabharat.
Amitabh: use that Beautiful Voice of Yours
Amitabh Bachchan should know it’s his time to speak up, if only to stop Bal Thackeray from speaking in his defense.
Bachchan, one of the most popular movie stars in India and in the world, was asked to become the Brand Ambassador to Gujarat. What’s the controversy in that, you might ask? Bachchan was Brand Ambassador for Uttar Pradesh, his home state, not long ago.
The problem stems from Gujarat’s government. The Bharatiya Janata Party (right wing) Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, has been harshly criticized for his Hindu fundamental stands, most notably for his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, one of the most violent events in post-partition India. The United States revoked his Visa the following year, and calls for his resignation were continuously made in the aftermath.
Bachchan was once the darling of the left wing, secular Nationalist Congress Party. He was pals with Rajeev Gandhi and was even a member of Parliament in the 1980’s. He now campaigns for the Samajwadi Party, a popular one in U.P and amongst his fellow Bollywood colleagues. Consequently, the superstar has been harshly criticized by Congress Party members for his endorsement of their main competition (Samajwadi doesn’t align itself with BJP or Congress, but is not a right wing party).
Congress has constantly raised one question: Does Bachchan’s endorsement of Gujarat translate into his support for Modi’s actions during the 2002 communal riots?
Bachchan is usually comfortable sitting on the sidelines during major controversies– the latest was his silence on the Shahrukh Khan- Thackeray debacle. Before that in 2008, Raj Thackeray, another Shiv Sena member and Bal Thackeray’s nephew, accused Bachchan of caring more for his home state, UP, over Maharashtra. This criticism was made during a series of attacks on immigrants in Maharashtra. Bachchan chose to stay mum on the whole issue.
While Congress is being a bit dramatic over his endorsement, Modi himself said anyone who questioned Bachchan’s action were “The Taliban of public life.”
Bachchan hasn’t specifically stated his rejection of Modi’s politics or previous actions; he simply stated that he is a fan of Gujarat’s culture, and is acting as a public servant.
It’s time for Bachchan to speak up. As one of the world’s most popular actors, all of his actions receive immense speculation, and sometimes criticism. Like columnist Vir Sanghvi, I don’t give in to Bachchan’s notion that supporting Gujarat and supporting Modi are that different.
If Bachchan supports Modi, that’s fine. It’s his right. But he shouldn’t keep hiding from every controversy that comes his way. His popularity wouldn’t wane if he was vocal– take Khan’s stance against Thackeray, for instance. He spoke agaisnt Bal Thackeray, and the film industry supported him. Bachchan, like Khan, needs to start addressing uncomfortable situations, whether it be over Congress’s silliness or Thackeray’s absurdity. Especially with that enchanting voice of his, the world would listen.
If Congress thinks that Bachchan will publicly renounce Modi, they shouldn’t hold their breath. It’s not Bachchan’s style. It seems as though all the ruckus Congress has created is because they are afraid of permanently losing the superstar to the right wing. Don’t worry too much, Congress– you still have Govinda.
Hats off to Bollywood’s Star
Imagine– Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visits the US, and one of his key meetings are with the creators of Wall-E because their film was about global warming and human waste.
That didn’t happen, obviously. But, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited India, she met up with Aamir Khan. Before you scratch your heads, it’s because Khan is the brand ambassador for The Times of India’s Teach India Initiative. Why is a Bollywood star the brand ambassador for the program? Because he made a movie about a dyslexic child’s struggle with the Indian school system.
Before you think I’m pulling an Arundhati Roy and think it’s ridiculous for actors to voice their opinion or take a stance with social issues, let me tell you that I think what Khan’s doing is brilliant– and here’s why.
Years ago, I wrote an opinion editorial about Lage Raho Munnabhai’s incredible achievement of reviving Gandhi’s teachings in India (yes, Gandhigiri was so forgotten that it needed reviving). I thought it was incredible– and I thought, this is why Bollywood is great. Everyone watches mainstream Bollywood films. And if made right, they really can have an incredible social impact. Aamir Khan’s directorial debut Taare Zameen Par was one such film that highlighted a huge problem in Indian society. I’m not sure how much of an impact it had, if any, on the educational system in India, but it was definitely a topic that needed the limelight.
Khan and Clinton had an important conversation on the many problems in Indian education, like the lack of diversity in majors students pursue, or the style of teaching that the majority of teachers use. Usually, talks about education in India center around the need to make sure rural areas and women are getting a good education. Of course, that’s a topic of utmost importance. But a focus on the current methods of teaching that will impact future students must also be reviewed.
Aamir Khan, as many Bollywood actors, have been criticized for their support of different social issues (such as the Narmada dam). If Bollywood stars are capable of bringing important topics to focus, then I’m all for Bollywood stars getting active with social issues.
Bollywood’s peeking out from its closet
Finally. Finally finally finally. Indian courts yesterday ruled that gay sex is no longer illegal in India, stating that “The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognizing a role in society for everyone.”
Thankfully, in this new age of Bollywood where fimmakers are actually veering away from formulaic masalas, some films did have gay characters and addressed some issues pertaining to the gay community, some better than others. Here’s a look at some of those films that made an impact:
- Honeymoon Travels, Ptd. Ltd (2007)– A light film with some heavy themes. One of them was of an gay non-resident Indian who married an Indian girl he met online. Another newlywed couple start to face problems when the husband discovers that he may be gay. The reason why the film was important is because it doesn’t portray the two gay characters as cross dressers (which is Bollywood’s default definition of homosexuality). The men are perfectly normal, and are gay. It’s not overly dramatic, it’s actually very relatable. Hats off to the director!
- Fashion (2008)– The film was another from Madhur Bhandarkar, who is famous for his films with strong female leads. The film was mainstream, thanks to the strong backing of Ronnie Screwvala (the producer), and the lead actor Priyanka Chopra, but still touched on themes that were seldom addressed in films before. One of them was homosexuality. Some men were openly gay, while another openly gay established fashion designer asked a female friend to marry him because of pressure from his mother. She does, knowing full well that he is gay. The film did a great job handling the subject because it wasn’t demeaning and it was a realistic portrayal of gay men needing to marry to appease their family.
- My Brother… Nikhil (2005)– This film came out years before any of these others. I would credit it with opening the gates for homosexuality in Bollywood. The film wasn’t like the others– it was serious, and it was a tear-jerker. Also, the main character, unlike the other films, was actually gay. The protagonist, played wonderfully by Sanjay Suri, was diagnosed with HIV. The film doesn’t show any love scenes between the two men, but it does show a type of intimacy that was never before shown between two men in Bollywood. The movie was produced by one of the most powerful production companies in India, Yash Raj Films, but the promos never touched on the gay relationship, just on the AIDS theme.
- Dostana (2008)–I saved this movie for last because it is getting all the hype when it comes to homosexuality in Bollywood. (The New York Times even referred to it in its article about the court case today.) The reason why this film is a big deal is because it is produced by Karan Johar, and stars three A-list actors. Personally, I found some of the story ridiculous (like Priyanka Chopra’s wardrobe, or why Bobby Deol was even in that film). The two leading men (Abhishek Bachchan, John Abraham) pretend to be gay so they can live in an apartment with a girl who has an overprotective aunt. It was a masala flick that was a bit different, but still did have all the songs and ridiculous wardrobe choices and overacting. Although the actors pretend to be gay, homosexuality isn’t looked down upon, and a doting mother even accepts her son and his son-in-law. I wouldn’t say that the film was revolutionary for gay rights, but it seemed to make it OK to be gay, which was definitely needed. I just wished that the characters would have actually been gay.
I have left out Straight because the film failed and didn’t really seem to make sense, but it’s worth a mention because the leading character (Viinay Pathak) thinks he might be gay. It wasn’t that revolutionary, or even that good. I didn’t include Fire because it wasn’t really a Bollywood film and was made way before the period of Bollywood I’m referring to, although it was fantastic. Movies like Girlfriend wasn’t included either because it was all skin and no depth.
Obviously, Bollywood has a long way to go. I’m hoping that Bollywood moves on from only showing cross dressers or gay characters included in the script just for comic relief. Hopefully this progressive movement by the Delhi Court ushers in an even more progressive movement from Bollywood.
Bharat ko bachale Vidhaata.
Ram Gopal Verma’s new trailer for his film Rann somehow already managed to get banned by the censor board and reached the Supreme Court, who ordered the Censor Board to reconsider its ruling.
If you watch the trailer, hopefully you will recognize the melody and the words. It’s India’s national anthem, with some added lyrics. The song by no means tainted the national anthem or voiced any anti-Indian sentiments, yet it was banned.
The lyrics addressed the growing divide between Indian states and its people. It addressed India’s apathetic nature towards politics and the government, as was seen earlier this year when, despite major efforts to increase voter turnout, it was still only 50 percent.
The Censor Board referred to a law which stated that the National Anthem could not be altered, thus banning the trailer of the movie. But isn’t that at odds with the basic concept of the freedom of speech? Even if the song was unpatriotic and anti-Indian, it would surely warrant controversy, but definitely not a ban. And this song is far from either– the words and the creativity in which the song was rendered does not deserve such treatment from a progressive democracy.
The song isn’t anywhere near a performance by The Roots in California, where they sang Bob Dylan’s “Masters of War” but started the song by singing lyrics on the tune of the National Anthem. Some lyrics, directed at the leaders of the country at that time, were: “You play with my world like its your little toy… i just want you to know, i can see behind your masks. ” Very tame compared to Rann, yet no problem.
RGV has done many crazy things over the years, including some incredible films (Satya, Company) and some not so much (Daud, Gayab). But in this case, more power to him, and to the what should be progressive country of India. As said so wonderfully in the song, “Bharat ko bachale vidhaata.” God save India.
-
Follow me @bollyobserver