It&rsquo;s that time of the year again when zillions across the globe &ndash; and indeed India &ndash; await breathlessly the most hi-profile, glamorous, star-studded showbiz event on Planet earth: The Oscars!&nbsp;

Before we go to the main course which focuses on why India, forever seems to be a participant and not a competitor, it might be interesting to examine the importance of the Best foreign language film. Be honest.&nbsp; Has it ever aroused the remotest curiosity, generated the faintest buzz, sparked any real interest or unleashed the hi-octave adrenalin that the major awards do? &nbsp;

In fact, to the perceptive, don&rsquo;t these awards remind one of our Regional award-winners at the annual National Awards event, attracting polite and indulgent applause, lip service and media space for a couple of days before abandoning them to oblivion? What happens once the mingling with the biggies and the partying and photo-ops are over?&nbsp; Once the quaint foreign-accents are complemented and the fake bear-hugs and air-kissing end?

Various voices come into play.&nbsp; Brilliant Theatre Director of &#39;Tumhari Amrita&#39; and the recent, sensational &#39;Mughal-e-Azam&#39; Feroz Abbas Khan believes that &ldquo;even if this category lacks the star-power and glitz of the mainstream, the honour fetches it both curiosity and popularity due to the platform.&nbsp; This frequently lends it marketability across the globe, no mean achievement. Totally unlike our gifted regional films and film-makers whose awards mean nothing in terms of market value!&rdquo;&nbsp;

Classy, international star Victor Banerjee of the &#39;A Passage to India&#39; and &#39;Ghare Baire&#39; fame offers his take.&nbsp; &ldquo;For me, much more authentic and insightful than the populist, dazzling, star-heavy mainstream marque products are the foreign language films.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because they are chosen totally on artistic merit and not hysterical lobbying powered by obscene marketing budgets.&nbsp; C&rsquo;mon, what can films from Chile, Hungary, Sweden and Lebanon do in terms of spending power?&quot;&nbsp;

Right.&nbsp; Since the basic importance of the Best Foreign Film category is out of the way, let&rsquo;s zero-in on the central subject: Why India continues to be treated as an untouchable in the Oscars event?&nbsp; Why, over the last 50 plus years that we have religiously sent our stuff &ndash; with lots of excitement on our end &ndash; it&rsquo;s religiously been dumped in the tray marked OUT? Why, except for Mother India, Salaam Bombay and Lagaan, it&rsquo;s been the Wrong Number all the way?&nbsp;

Hi-profile lyricist and activist Javed Akhtar refuses to beat around the bush or play footsy and cuts to chase in a flash.&nbsp; &ldquo;Our films lack the quality that the winning entries offer.&nbsp; Just not good enough to match global standards, even if we believe otherwise. Obviously low in the required local roots, global perspective template that embraces a universal vision&rdquo;. &nbsp;

Celebrated film-maker Aparna Sen of &#39;36 Chowringhee Lane&#39;, &#39;Mr. &amp; Mrs. Iyer&#39; and The Japanese Wife, however, doesn&rsquo;t understand the hype and fuss that accompanies this yearly circus.&nbsp; &ldquo;What&rsquo;s this annual tamasha anyway?&nbsp; Why such a song and dance and mesmerised captive audience glued to the box, early morning, to catch the show LIVE?&nbsp; It&rsquo;s a Hollywood-specific event for heaven&rsquo;s sake, where excellence is not always the criteria for the winning entries.&nbsp; Other issues are at play. &nbsp;

&#39;Remember, great films are not those that have zoomed past the Rs.300 crore mark or picked up a major international award &hellip; but those that remain in your heart long after the film and film-maker have moved on.&nbsp; Check it out and maybe we can re-visit our views on the Oscars!&rdquo; &nbsp;

Veteran film-maker Shyam Benegal gets the last word.&nbsp; The renowned and respected trail-blazer of the New-Wave cinema which includes &#39;Ankur&#39;, &#39;Nishant&#39;, &#39;Bhumika&#39;, &#39;Manthan&#39; and the Chris Columbus who discovered the fantastic Naseer Shah, Shabana Azmi, Om Puri and Smita Patil hits the ground running. &ldquo;It has really to do with your knowledge of the basics involved in this exercise &hellip; how smart and savvy is your networking out there.&nbsp; Whether you have identified the key people to tap, hired the right PR film and pitched it right at the appropriate time.&nbsp; Asutosh and Aamir, reportedly, spent $2 million over a decade and a half ago to promote Lagaan.&nbsp; We are also talking deep pockets.&nbsp; Hence beyond quality, cracking the Oscars need tickling many boxes and joining many dotted lines.&rdquo;

So, while our much-acclaimed Newton was sent with hi-praise and hopes, it was once again a case of NEXT!&nbsp; And onto the next year, hoping woh subah kabhi to ayegi.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

"..Beyond quality, cracking the Oscars need tickling many boxes and joining many dotted lines", says veteran Indian filmmaker Shyam Benegal.

It’s that time of the year again when zillions across the globe – and indeed India – await breathlessly the most hi-profile, glamorous, star-studded showbiz event on Planet earth: The Oscars! Before we go to the main course which focuses on why India, forever seems to be a participant and not a competitor, it might be interesting to examine the importance of the Best foreign language film. Be honest. Has it ever aroused the remotest curiosity, generated the faintest buzz, sparked any real interest or unleashed the hi-octave adrenalin that the major awards do? In fact, to the perceptive, don’t these awards remind one of our Regional award-winners at the annual National Awards event, attracting polite and indulgent applause, lip service and media space for a couple of days before abandoning them to oblivion? What happens once the mingling with the biggies and the partying and photo-ops are over? Once the quaint foreign-accents are complemented and the fake bear-hugs and air-kissing end? Various voices come into play. Brilliant Theatre Director of 'Tumhari Amrita' and the recent, sensational 'Mughal-e-Azam' Feroz Abbas Khan believes that “even if this category lacks the star-power and glitz of the mainstream, the honour fetches it both curiosity and popularity due to the platform. This frequently lends it marketability across the globe, no mean achievement. Totally unlike our gifted regional films and film-makers whose awards mean nothing in terms of market value!” Classy, international star Victor Banerjee of the 'A Passage to India' and 'Ghare Baire' fame offers his take. “For me, much more authentic and insightful than the populist, dazzling, star-heavy mainstream marque products are the foreign language films. Why? Because they are chosen totally on artistic merit and not hysterical lobbying powered by obscene marketing budgets. C’mon, what can films from Chile, Hungary, Sweden and Lebanon do in terms of spending power?" Right. Since the basic importance of the Best Foreign Film category is out of the way, let’s zero-in on the central subject: Why India continues to be treated as an untouchable in the Oscars event? Why, over the last 50 plus years that we have religiously sent our stuff – with lots of excitement on our end – it’s religiously been dumped in the tray marked OUT? Why, except for Mother India, Salaam Bombay and Lagaan, it’s been the Wrong Number all the way? Hi-profile lyricist and activist Javed Akhtar refuses to beat around the bush or play footsy and cuts to chase in a flash. “Our films lack the quality that the winning entries offer. Just not good enough to match global standards, even if we believe otherwise. Obviously low in the required local roots, global perspective template that embraces a universal vision”. Celebrated film-maker Aparna Sen of '36 Chowringhee Lane', 'Mr. & Mrs. Iyer' and The Japanese Wife, however, doesn’t understand the hype and fuss that accompanies this yearly circus. “What’s this annual tamasha anyway? Why such a song and dance and mesmerised captive audience glued to the box, early morning, to catch the show LIVE? It’s a Hollywood-specific event for heaven’s sake, where excellence is not always the criteria for the winning entries. Other issues are at play. 'Remember, great films are not those that have zoomed past the Rs.300 crore mark or picked up a major international award … but those that remain in your heart long after the film and film-maker have moved on. Check it out and maybe we can re-visit our views on the Oscars!” Veteran film-maker Shyam Benegal gets the last word. The renowned and respected trail-blazer of the New-Wave cinema which includes 'Ankur', 'Nishant', 'Bhumika', 'Manthan' and the Chris Columbus who discovered the fantastic Naseer Shah, Shabana Azmi, Om Puri and Smita Patil hits the ground running. “It has really to do with your knowledge of the basics involved in this exercise … how smart and savvy is your networking out there. Whether you have identified the key people to tap, hired the right PR film and pitched it right at the appropriate time. Asutosh and Aamir, reportedly, spent $2 million over a decade and a half ago to promote Lagaan. We are also talking deep pockets. Hence beyond quality, cracking the Oscars need tickling many boxes and joining many dotted lines.” So, while our much-acclaimed Newton was sent with hi-praise and hopes, it was once again a case of NEXT! And onto the next year, hoping woh subah kabhi to ayegi. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why no Indian film ever won the Oscars

Bollywood is a dazzling universe. The ultimate, definitive, never-land-of-happy-ever-after for the stressed-out junta, dreaming of everything exciting, glamorous and romantic. The stars that rule this empire are not humans, but gods and goddesses. They are not merely loved and admired but worshipped by their hysterical devotees. &nbsp;However, there is a flip-side too, a terrifying side that shows how cruel and insensitive these very devotees can be once, the star&rsquo;s sell-by-date arrives. &nbsp;

Suddenly, collective amnesia from the hydra-headed monster called audiences can play havoc, dumping the once revered deities with alarming speed and replacing them with the latest, younger, hotter and more desirable flavours of the day. &nbsp;Very few are remembered and hardly any saluted, once their golden days are over. As for considering them benchmarks and timeless icons, one can count on one&rsquo;s fingers how many stars fit that elusive slot.&nbsp;

Sridevi, who died early Sunday in Dubai of cardiac arrest, must belong to that rare breed whom neither can chill nor rival steal. &nbsp;Her shocking and untimely demise at the young age of 54 is an irreparable loss to the industry and her zillion devotees. &nbsp;

Starting out at age 4 as a child-star and getting into the romantic mode at age of10-11, this amazing performer, blending irresistible oomph with mischief, only had to appear on the screen to light it up in matchless fashion. &nbsp;A hugely successful star across all the Southern states, Sridevi was Bollywood&rsquo;s first authentic female superstar. &nbsp;

Fact is she dominated the 80&rsquo;s when the action was the main draw and heroes were centre stage. Her astonishing performances in Mr. India, Chaalbaaz and Nagina wiped out the male lead good and proper! In all truth, till date, no one has been able to replicate her mass-draw with the audiences, trade and critics alike. &nbsp;The Chandni and Hawa-Hawai charmer who didn&rsquo;t know a word of Hindi when she entered Bollywood, only to race past earlier Southie heavies like Vyjantimala and Hema Malini, was truly something phenomenal.&nbsp;

Today, as we look back on her body of work, we are zonked! &nbsp;The diversity of roles, the depth and range across genres is the only one part of the story. &nbsp;The other is the astonishing ease and effortlessness with which she delivered her knock-out performances. &nbsp;Totally camera-friendly, uninhibited and spontaneous, a star is very difficult to locate, but Sridevi, time and again unleashed her brand of magic to mesmerise every viewer privileged to witness her chutzpah in action! &nbsp;Drama, romance, comedy, song-dance, she embraced the Bollywood template with a passion.&nbsp;

Finally coming to the point: &nbsp;What was so remarkable, special and exclusive that this amazingly shy, reticent and reserved person &ndash; off-screen &ndash; brought to the screen? &nbsp;What did Sridevi have that no other heroine did? &nbsp;

Renowned author and editor Rauf Ahmed believe &ldquo;it was sensuousness of a very special kind. &nbsp;No heroine before Sri ever let go in such un-inhibited fashion, in the dance numbers. &nbsp;You see the &#39;kaante nahin katte&#39; body language in Mr. India or the sizzling stuff in a Feroz Khan film - Har Kisiko - in Jaanbaaz, and it shakes you up! There is not one ounce of self-consciousness or vulgarity, only the wild abandon of romance. &nbsp;The super song-dance sequences in Chaalbaaz, Chandni and Lamhe too come into the reckoning. &nbsp;Like the legendary Garbo, she and the camera were magical soul-mates, lovers, eternally romancing each other in style. &nbsp;The moment the camera was off, she - amazingly &ndash; returned to her quiet, shy and reserved self.&rdquo; &nbsp;

Ahmed adds that beyond the sensuousness, Sri was also an unmatched talent in the area of versatility. &nbsp;&ldquo;Don&rsquo;t forget she started out with Jumping Jack Jeetu in pot-boilers like Himmatwala, Mawali, Justice Chowdhry, Tohfa etc. They were all films from the South and all very successful. &nbsp;They demanded a kind of loud and hammy-performance which the young aspirant pulled off admirably. &nbsp;A quick learner, she matured in her journey by maintaining an intelligent focus on what her directors wanted from her and how best she could deliver. &nbsp;Never judgemental, be it Yash Chopra&rsquo;s Lamhe and Chandni, Shekhar Kapoor&rsquo;s Mr. India and Joshilay or Pankaj Parashar&rsquo;s Chaalbaaz, she dazzled across all genres. &nbsp;Along the way, she also did a Sadma, inviting startled fans to wonder whether she was for real!&rdquo; &nbsp;

English-Vinglish, directed by Gauri Shinde was Sri&#39;s successful comeback film, putting it down to a talent that is &ldquo;instinctive, intuitive, spontaneous &ndash; a natural! &nbsp;It&rsquo;s a gift that cannot be acquired through training or whatever. &nbsp;You are blessed with it &ndash; or not. &nbsp;Period.&rdquo; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Today, as we bid farewell to this remarkable talent whose persona and work will always stay with us, one priceless line from one of her early interviews, resonates. &nbsp;I think it was with Vir Sanghvi. &nbsp;It reminded me so much of what the legendary Hollywood Director, Sydney Pollack, articulated so succinctly about the art of acting. &nbsp;He said &ldquo;Acting has nothing to do with intellectuality. &nbsp;An actor doesn&rsquo;t need to understand in a conventional way what he&rsquo;s doing. &nbsp;He has to just do it. &nbsp;It&rsquo;s critical to make a distinction between a performance that produces behaviour and one that offers intellectual understanding. &nbsp;All effective acting comes from wanting something. &nbsp;It&rsquo;s what you want that makes you do it, not what you think!&rdquo;&nbsp;

RIP Chandni. &nbsp;Thanks for the Lamhes spent with you. Now go, Hawa-Hawai to the lucky ones in the packed halls above.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Despite her shy nature, Sridevi was believed to have sensuousness of a very special kind in all her dance numbers, making all her fans zonked to the theater screens.

Bollywood is a dazzling universe. The ultimate, definitive, never-land-of-happy-ever-after for the stressed-out junta, dreaming of everything exciting, glamorous and romantic. The stars that rule this empire are not humans, but gods and goddesses. They are not merely loved and admired but worshipped by their hysterical devotees. However, there is a flip-side too, a terrifying side that shows how cruel and insensitive these very devotees can be once, the star’s sell-by-date arrives. Suddenly, collective amnesia from the hydra-headed monster called audiences can play havoc, dumping the once revered deities with alarming speed and replacing them with the latest, younger, hotter and more desirable flavours of the day. Very few are remembered and hardly any saluted, once their golden days are over. As for considering them benchmarks and timeless icons, one can count on one’s fingers how many stars fit that elusive slot. Sridevi, who died early Sunday in Dubai of cardiac arrest, must belong to that rare breed whom neither can chill nor rival steal. Her shocking and untimely demise at the young age of 54 is an irreparable loss to the industry and her zillion devotees. Starting out at age 4 as a child-star and getting into the romantic mode at age of10-11, this amazing performer, blending irresistible oomph with mischief, only had to appear on the screen to light it up in matchless fashion. A hugely successful star across all the Southern states, Sridevi was Bollywood’s first authentic female superstar. Fact is she dominated the 80’s when the action was the main draw and heroes were centre stage. Her astonishing performances in Mr. India, Chaalbaaz and Nagina wiped out the male lead good and proper! In all truth, till date, no one has been able to replicate her mass-draw with the audiences, trade and critics alike. The Chandni and Hawa-Hawai charmer who didn’t know a word of Hindi when she entered Bollywood, only to race past earlier Southie heavies like Vyjantimala and Hema Malini, was truly something phenomenal. Today, as we look back on her body of work, we are zonked! The diversity of roles, the depth and range across genres is the only one part of the story. The other is the astonishing ease and effortlessness with which she delivered her knock-out performances. Totally camera-friendly, uninhibited and spontaneous, a star is very difficult to locate, but Sridevi, time and again unleashed her brand of magic to mesmerise every viewer privileged to witness her chutzpah in action! Drama, romance, comedy, song-dance, she embraced the Bollywood template with a passion. Finally coming to the point: What was so remarkable, special and exclusive that this amazingly shy, reticent and reserved person – off-screen – brought to the screen? What did Sridevi have that no other heroine did? Renowned author and editor Rauf Ahmed believe “it was sensuousness of a very special kind. No heroine before Sri ever let go in such un-inhibited fashion, in the dance numbers. You see the 'kaante nahin katte' body language in Mr. India or the sizzling stuff in a Feroz Khan film - Har Kisiko - in Jaanbaaz, and it shakes you up! There is not one ounce of self-consciousness or vulgarity, only the wild abandon of romance. The super song-dance sequences in Chaalbaaz, Chandni and Lamhe too come into the reckoning. Like the legendary Garbo, she and the camera were magical soul-mates, lovers, eternally romancing each other in style. The moment the camera was off, she - amazingly – returned to her quiet, shy and reserved self.” Ahmed adds that beyond the sensuousness, Sri was also an unmatched talent in the area of versatility. “Don’t forget she started out with Jumping Jack Jeetu in pot-boilers like Himmatwala, Mawali, Justice Chowdhry, Tohfa etc. They were all films from the South and all very successful. They demanded a kind of loud and hammy-performance which the young aspirant pulled off admirably. A quick learner, she matured in her journey by maintaining an intelligent focus on what her directors wanted from her and how best she could deliver. Never judgemental, be it Yash Chopra’s Lamhe and Chandni, Shekhar Kapoor’s Mr. India and Joshilay or Pankaj Parashar’s Chaalbaaz, she dazzled across all genres. Along the way, she also did a Sadma, inviting startled fans to wonder whether she was for real!” English-Vinglish, directed by Gauri Shinde was Sri's successful comeback film, putting it down to a talent that is “instinctive, intuitive, spontaneous – a natural! It’s a gift that cannot be acquired through training or whatever. You are blessed with it – or not. Period.” Today, as we bid farewell to this remarkable talent whose persona and work will always stay with us, one priceless line from one of her early interviews, resonates. I think it was with Vir Sanghvi. It reminded me so much of what the legendary Hollywood Director, Sydney Pollack, articulated so succinctly about the art of acting. He said “Acting has nothing to do with intellectuality. An actor doesn’t need to understand in a conventional way what he’s doing. He has to just do it. It’s critical to make a distinction between a performance that produces behaviour and one that offers intellectual understanding. All effective acting comes from wanting something. It’s what you want that makes you do it, not what you think!” RIP Chandni. Thanks for the Lamhes spent with you. Now go, Hawa-Hawai to the lucky ones in the packed halls above. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion:  What did Sridevi have that no other heroine did?  

As the [once] gorgeous, dazzling and ever-popular Rani of Bollywood gets set to return &ndash; post-marriage and motherhood &ndash; one wonder whether the star whose dazzling smile and presence zapped her [once] zillion fans [ex-Pak President Pervez Musharaf included] can revive the same magic &ndash; minus any Hichki!

The charming, romantic heroine, teaming up seamlessly and super successfully with all 3 killer Khans and power-house actress who matched strides with the towering Big B in Black, can she hope to evoke that same level of excitement and anticipation at a time when Dipika &nbsp;Padukone is blasting popular imagination with her youth, looks, energy and talent; when Piggy Chops is romancing the media and fans at home and abroad with her global persona; when the picture-perfect Barbie doll, Kat Kaif is sizzling announcing she is zinda - and how!&nbsp;

It&rsquo;s a tricky terrain, where the temptation to try and repeat yesterday&rsquo;s feat is strong, whether the call comes from within or by ambitious, persistent film-makers. &nbsp;The once Queen-of-Hearts, Madhuri Dixit finally succumbed and gave the nod to Aaja Nach Le. Married and mother of two, she produced a spirited effort in the Yash Raj offering, but alas, few hearts went dhak-dhak. &nbsp;Her subsequent films, Ishquian and Dedh Ishquian too, while critically acclaimed, did nothing to indicate a mass-driven encore. &nbsp;The fabulous Sridevi too tried a TV serial which had to be peeled off the ceiling. She took the hint and focused on domestic bliss, marriage, and motherhood. &nbsp;Her comeback vehicles &ndash; English Vinglish and Mom - were smart choices. &nbsp;Central-character-driven, she played her age and pulled it off with success. &nbsp;Juhi Chawla and Karishma Kapoor attempted to return too but were greeted by the law of diminishing returns. &nbsp;Even the breathtakingly beautiful Aishwarya Rai Bachchan&#39;s Jazbaa and Aye Dil Hai Mushkil evoked the excitement of the wrong kind. Joining the list of comeback casualties are Raveena Tandon [Sandwich and Buddha Hoga Tera Baap], Rekha [Super Nani], Preity Zinta [Ishq in Paris], Manisha Koirala [Bhoot Returns], and Suchitra Krishnamurthy [My Wife&rsquo;s Murder]. &nbsp;Others are bound to follow.

Actually, comebacks are a tough call. &nbsp;Forget the corny and clich&eacute;d line &ldquo;What do you mean the comeback? &nbsp;I never went away. &nbsp;I was just taking a sabbatical and looking for the right role and project&rdquo;.

&nbsp;The truth is, this is not Hollywood where almost every top heroine is married, having two kids and yet continues to rock the charts and popular imagination. &nbsp;Unfortunately in Bollywood, New is Now. &nbsp;You can be the most loved and talented heroine in the country, but once you are married [Strike 1] and have kids [Strike 2], its best you stay at home playing wife and mummy dearest. &nbsp;

Why? &nbsp;Because popular perception has changed dramatically about your persona. &nbsp;From young, hot, single, you are now, well actually forget it! &nbsp;If Kajol has been the glorious exception, it&rsquo;s because she has been very selective about her role, banner, director, content and leading man. Dimple Kapadia too in earlier times. Although she&rsquo;s no more the leading lady, yet with those killer looks she could easily have been Bollywood&rsquo;s very own Mrs. Robinson!&nbsp;

Coming to Rani Mukherjee, after a lukewarm Mardani, will she follow this doomed list or break new ground to scale new heights?

She seems realistic to understand that audiences in 2018 are unlikely to go Kuch Kuch Hota Hai after seeing her. &nbsp;Post marriage and motherhood, she will have to concentrate more on performance than looks to re-make the cut with this new-age audience. &nbsp;So the challenge and opportunity will be on re-invention, re-cast and re-branding herself as an actress, and not be depending on the charm, beauty, sex-appeal exuding romantic charisma. &nbsp;

Will she be able to pull off her portrayal of Naina Mathur, a character handicapped with Tourette syndrome, a condition that forces an individual to make involuntary repetitive movements and sounds? &nbsp;Will the movie viewer accept a once-romantic Rani in such an unusual role? &nbsp;Well, in 2005, she delivered a knockout with Black, so it could be an encore.&nbsp;

Here&rsquo;s hoping that Rani does break the rules and prove that with focus, dedication, realism and talent, comebacks with Hichkis, rock!&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Post marriage and motherhood, Rani Mukerji will have to concentrate more on performance than looks to make a successful comeback.

As the [once] gorgeous, dazzling and ever-popular Rani of Bollywood gets set to return – post-marriage and motherhood – one wonder whether the star whose dazzling smile and presence zapped her [once] zillion fans [ex-Pak President Pervez Musharaf included] can revive the same magic – minus any Hichki! The charming, romantic heroine, teaming up seamlessly and super successfully with all 3 killer Khans and power-house actress who matched strides with the towering Big B in Black, can she hope to evoke that same level of excitement and anticipation at a time when Dipika Padukone is blasting popular imagination with her youth, looks, energy and talent; when Piggy Chops is romancing the media and fans at home and abroad with her global persona; when the picture-perfect Barbie doll, Kat Kaif is sizzling announcing she is zinda - and how! It’s a tricky terrain, where the temptation to try and repeat yesterday’s feat is strong, whether the call comes from within or by ambitious, persistent film-makers. The once Queen-of-Hearts, Madhuri Dixit finally succumbed and gave the nod to Aaja Nach Le. Married and mother of two, she produced a spirited effort in the Yash Raj offering, but alas, few hearts went dhak-dhak. Her subsequent films, Ishquian and Dedh Ishquian too, while critically acclaimed, did nothing to indicate a mass-driven encore. The fabulous Sridevi too tried a TV serial which had to be peeled off the ceiling. She took the hint and focused on domestic bliss, marriage, and motherhood. Her comeback vehicles – English Vinglish and Mom - were smart choices. Central-character-driven, she played her age and pulled it off with success. Juhi Chawla and Karishma Kapoor attempted to return too but were greeted by the law of diminishing returns. Even the breathtakingly beautiful Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's Jazbaa and Aye Dil Hai Mushkil evoked the excitement of the wrong kind. Joining the list of comeback casualties are Raveena Tandon [Sandwich and Buddha Hoga Tera Baap], Rekha [Super Nani], Preity Zinta [Ishq in Paris], Manisha Koirala [Bhoot Returns], and Suchitra Krishnamurthy [My Wife’s Murder]. Others are bound to follow. Actually, comebacks are a tough call. Forget the corny and clichéd line “What do you mean the comeback? I never went away. I was just taking a sabbatical and looking for the right role and project”. The truth is, this is not Hollywood where almost every top heroine is married, having two kids and yet continues to rock the charts and popular imagination. Unfortunately in Bollywood, New is Now. You can be the most loved and talented heroine in the country, but once you are married [Strike 1] and have kids [Strike 2], its best you stay at home playing wife and mummy dearest. Why? Because popular perception has changed dramatically about your persona. From young, hot, single, you are now, well actually forget it! If Kajol has been the glorious exception, it’s because she has been very selective about her role, banner, director, content and leading man. Dimple Kapadia too in earlier times. Although she’s no more the leading lady, yet with those killer looks she could easily have been Bollywood’s very own Mrs. Robinson! Coming to Rani Mukherjee, after a lukewarm Mardani, will she follow this doomed list or break new ground to scale new heights? She seems realistic to understand that audiences in 2018 are unlikely to go Kuch Kuch Hota Hai after seeing her. Post marriage and motherhood, she will have to concentrate more on performance than looks to re-make the cut with this new-age audience. So the challenge and opportunity will be on re-invention, re-cast and re-branding herself as an actress, and not be depending on the charm, beauty, sex-appeal exuding romantic charisma. Will she be able to pull off her portrayal of Naina Mathur, a character handicapped with Tourette syndrome, a condition that forces an individual to make involuntary repetitive movements and sounds? Will the movie viewer accept a once-romantic Rani in such an unusual role? Well, in 2005, she delivered a knockout with Black, so it could be an encore. Here’s hoping that Rani does break the rules and prove that with focus, dedication, realism and talent, comebacks with Hichkis, rock! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Will comeback of Rani Mukerji in film Hichki be a hit?

As the hi-pitched, blockbuster V-DAY gets ready to freak out lovers of every shape, size and colour across Youngistan, the purists and old-fashioned brigade, zonked, continue to ask questions, has the innocent fun and gaiety, once shared by family and friends been totally overwhelmed by crass carnival-style commercialism?&nbsp; Is every festival &ndash; or Day &ndash; in recent times perceived as market-friendly opportunities by shrewd Event-Managers and choreographed in appropriately seductive manner, to hawk goods and services of every FMCG kind?&nbsp; Are these very special days on the annual calendar, nothing more than hi-end glam windows where tradition and religion tango with fun, food, fashion, masti and music in true Bollywood style?

&nbsp;

If &ndash; like the oldies and purists &ndash; you feel a cardiac coming on, you are forgiven!&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Fact is, there has indeed been a paradigm shift in the way our festivals pan out today in the public domain.&nbsp; It&rsquo;s a different blueprint.&nbsp; Unknown and little-known festivals &ndash; and Days &ndash; are suddenly crashing through the woodwork, raising their hands to be counted and gaining startling momentum.&nbsp; Regional ones are going Pan-India and the traditional biggies, such as Puja, Diwali, Dussehra, Holi, Christmas are veritable blockbusters!&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Ashish Nandy, the renowned and respected Behavorial Scientist quips, in amused fashion &ldquo;Festivals seem to get manufactured &ndash; or revived &ndash; each day, like FMCG products.&nbsp; The scale, variety and accompanying appendages are mind-bending.&nbsp; Even weddings seem to have entered this glam zone, frequently resembling showbiz events instead of dignified and austere, ritual &amp; ceremony.&rdquo;

&nbsp;

Nandy is right &ndash; and the reasons are there for all to see. We live in totally consumerist times where perception is reality and Brand, the new god!&nbsp; Also, the fact that India has more festivals than the rest of the world must be considered.&nbsp; In this scenario, the way they are presented &ndash; and consumed &ndash; remains the key factor in today&rsquo;s &#39;dikhawa&#39; universe. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Sociologists believe that they can well indicate &ldquo;new-age markers with which to delineate contemporary history and economic life along with the shifting sands colouring society and culture.&rdquo; One of the biggest reasons, perhaps, lies in the character of today&rsquo;s cities, with its cosmopolitan nature where free mingling of people of different regions living and working in residential complexes is a given. So, over time, region-specific festivals, such as Puja, Onam, Lohri, Rakhee, Diwali, Pongal become open-ended affairs with everyone enjoying every festival, full-on! In some fashion, the celebrations help the uprooted, urban migrant bond, mingle and strengthen human relationship, something so critical in today&rsquo;s self-centred and self-absorbed times.&nbsp; It offers a sense of community oneness.

&nbsp;

Unlike sociologists, economists, however, worry that beyond identity and cultural values, festivals ultimately define big bucks and blatant, aggressive consumerism drive these events.&nbsp; &ldquo;Why. For chrissake, would festivals ever be conceived, built and presented around malls?&rdquo; enquires respected sociologist Shiv Vishwanathan &ldquo;and why do Pujas have celebrity, judges, special routes, pandals &amp; big-ticket Corporate sponsorship&rdquo; ask others. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

It&rsquo;s a complete designer and customised affair with all the paraphernalia in place. Created to woo the purchasing power of the gullible, glam-struck, new-age consumer who are bred and buttered on tradition and ritual influenced by the likes of Karan Johar and gang.&nbsp; Little wonder that today many of these non-North Indian festivals, for instance, Sangeet, Mehendi have gone solidly pan-India.&nbsp; While festivals get more assertive and pronounced, there seems to be a tendency of fusing trend with tradition, making them seem more like fashion statements than a reflection of values.

&nbsp;

However, everything considered, the fact is while festivals become carnivals, ramp-shows and sponsored programmes, muting the spiritual and religious content, it makes sense to do a reality check and realise that it&rsquo;s clearly a sign of the times we live in.&nbsp; In this scheme of things, cynics, critics and sceptics have no place. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Besides, if this is the way today&rsquo;s generation wish to pray, eat and love, why shove something un-cool down their throat?&nbsp; They&rsquo;ll throw up!

&nbsp;

So what&rsquo;s the takeout?&nbsp; Simple.&nbsp; In today&rsquo;s non-negotiable, consumerist world, chill, go with the flow, groove &hellip; or move! &nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

While festivals become carnivals, ramp-shows and sponsored programmes, muting the spiritual and religious content, it makes sense to do a reality check and realise that it’s clearly a sign of the times we live in.

As the hi-pitched, blockbuster V-DAY gets ready to freak out lovers of every shape, size and colour across Youngistan, the purists and old-fashioned brigade, zonked, continue to ask questions, has the innocent fun and gaiety, once shared by family and friends been totally overwhelmed by crass carnival-style commercialism? Is every festival – or Day – in recent times perceived as market-friendly opportunities by shrewd Event-Managers and choreographed in appropriately seductive manner, to hawk goods and services of every FMCG kind? Are these very special days on the annual calendar, nothing more than hi-end glam windows where tradition and religion tango with fun, food, fashion, masti and music in true Bollywood style? If – like the oldies and purists – you feel a cardiac coming on, you are forgiven! Fact is, there has indeed been a paradigm shift in the way our festivals pan out today in the public domain. It’s a different blueprint. Unknown and little-known festivals – and Days – are suddenly crashing through the woodwork, raising their hands to be counted and gaining startling momentum. Regional ones are going Pan-India and the traditional biggies, such as Puja, Diwali, Dussehra, Holi, Christmas are veritable blockbusters! Ashish Nandy, the renowned and respected Behavorial Scientist quips, in amused fashion “Festivals seem to get manufactured – or revived – each day, like FMCG products. The scale, variety and accompanying appendages are mind-bending. Even weddings seem to have entered this glam zone, frequently resembling showbiz events instead of dignified and austere, ritual & ceremony.” Nandy is right – and the reasons are there for all to see. We live in totally consumerist times where perception is reality and Brand, the new god! Also, the fact that India has more festivals than the rest of the world must be considered. In this scenario, the way they are presented – and consumed – remains the key factor in today’s 'dikhawa' universe. Sociologists believe that they can well indicate “new-age markers with which to delineate contemporary history and economic life along with the shifting sands colouring society and culture.” One of the biggest reasons, perhaps, lies in the character of today’s cities, with its cosmopolitan nature where free mingling of people of different regions living and working in residential complexes is a given. So, over time, region-specific festivals, such as Puja, Onam, Lohri, Rakhee, Diwali, Pongal become open-ended affairs with everyone enjoying every festival, full-on! In some fashion, the celebrations help the uprooted, urban migrant bond, mingle and strengthen human relationship, something so critical in today’s self-centred and self-absorbed times. It offers a sense of community oneness. Unlike sociologists, economists, however, worry that beyond identity and cultural values, festivals ultimately define big bucks and blatant, aggressive consumerism drive these events. “Why. For chrissake, would festivals ever be conceived, built and presented around malls?” enquires respected sociologist Shiv Vishwanathan “and why do Pujas have celebrity, judges, special routes, pandals & big-ticket Corporate sponsorship” ask others. It’s a complete designer and customised affair with all the paraphernalia in place. Created to woo the purchasing power of the gullible, glam-struck, new-age consumer who are bred and buttered on tradition and ritual influenced by the likes of Karan Johar and gang. Little wonder that today many of these non-North Indian festivals, for instance, Sangeet, Mehendi have gone solidly pan-India. While festivals get more assertive and pronounced, there seems to be a tendency of fusing trend with tradition, making them seem more like fashion statements than a reflection of values. However, everything considered, the fact is while festivals become carnivals, ramp-shows and sponsored programmes, muting the spiritual and religious content, it makes sense to do a reality check and realise that it’s clearly a sign of the times we live in. In this scheme of things, cynics, critics and sceptics have no place. Besides, if this is the way today’s generation wish to pray, eat and love, why shove something un-cool down their throat? They’ll throw up! So what’s the takeout? Simple. In today’s non-negotiable, consumerist world, chill, go with the flow, groove … or move! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Valentine's Day and ways millennials wish to pray, eat and love

&ldquo;We live in strange and troubled times, bro. Can you imagine &ndash; even a few years ago &ndash; titles, themes, subjects and contents focussing on material associated with sperm donation, toilet introduction to the hinterland, erectile dysfunction and now the latest sanitary pads usage? wassupp buddy?&quot;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Why this leap in a platform forever dedicated to glamour-spiced, feel good, escapist entertainment? From where did this jump into such totally un-conventional, off-beat, un-glam &amp; non-fragrance narratives, box-office-unfriendly-content come?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Have our star-struck audiences suddenly gone sanctimonious and issue-conscious, looking beyond jhatka stuff into meaningful story-telling that attempts to celebrate genuine causes and concerns that plague the howling mobs?

&nbsp;

Provocative as his observation was, it got me thinking and my mind raced back a few years ago, when my young director friend Shoojit Sircar spelled out to me, the nightmare times he experienced when he was attempting to put together Vicky Donor. &ldquo;Wherever I went amusement, bewilderment, shock &amp; disgust greeted me! Was I really serious about the subject &amp; content? A film not on blood but SPERM donation? More than a producer, I needed a shrink, many hinted!&quot;

&nbsp;

&quot;VD actually got moving only when star John Abraham came on board as a producer. Once it released and was declared a sleeper hit by the trade and audiences loved it, struggling and aspiring directors confided to me that production houses while breezily dismissing their concepts, often told them - Boss, kuch Vicky Donor ka jaisa bana! Amazing!&rdquo;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Toilet &ndash; hardly the sexiest title or content &ndash; surprisingly slapped its [eek!] critics to zoom past the magical Rs.100 crore mark. More recently, Shubh Mangal Savdhan, also fared decently despite its [ooooooh maa, nudge-wink-ahem] theme. While the leading man Ayushman called it a &ldquo;Family Film&rdquo;, unveiling a subject that is quite common but never openly discussed, heroine Bhoomi was more upfront and in-your-face.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Bhoomi&#39;s categorical response was, &ldquo;Manliness &ndash; commonly &amp; mistakenly believed &ndash; is NOT about getting it up but standing up tall and proud and fearless, to be a caring &amp; sensitive husband/partner. To address her areas of joys and insecurities, needs and wants beyond physicalities in a manner that is meaningful. The USP of our film was the treatment, a Hrishida &ndash; Basu Chatterjee style, blending light-hearted &amp; relatable humour with humanism, avoiding the temptation to be corny, vulgar and provide populist slapstick and trivialise a very delicate issue.&rdquo;

&nbsp;

Great. Point taken. However fearlessly making an issue-based film is one part of the story. The more important part, of course, is viewer acceptance, right? As the legendary Hollywood film-maker Billy Widder once, reportedly, stated.&rdquo; Talent is great but audience is greater!&rdquo;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The proven appreciation by mass audiences relating to all these films must say something about altering viewership taste too. The answer has to be a resounding YES. Fact is, message-driven films reflecting societal ills are not new to commercial Hindi cinema. Way back, across the fifties and sixties, giants like Raj Kapoor [Awara, Boot Polish, Jagte Raho] B.R. Choopra [Ek hi Rasta, Dhool Ka Phool, Sadhana, Naya Daur] Amiya Chakravorty [Daag, Seema, Patita] Bimal Roy [Do Bigha Zameen, Sujata] did unspool powerful narratives that were both critically and commercially viable as well as appreciated.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

After their exit, however, this genre vanished for one simple reason. Popular cinema largely reflects the mood and flavour of the times. Once the first flush of nationalism, patriotism [post-partition] and the need to assert one&#39;s identity through serious and meaningful content was done, the need to entertain through feel-good fun and glamour and larger-than-life templates came into play. Also, the influence of Western music &ndash; Elvis Beatles, Rock n&rsquo; roll etc. &ndash; blitzed in, changing the profile and trajectory of movie content.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Shammi Kapoor&rsquo;s YAHOO also played no mean part in introducing the Rom-com, a hugely popular and infectious category adored by the new-age audience of that time. The erstwhile issue-dominated films of yore, suddenly, found itself totally sidetracked. The few that did attempt to woo the distracted audiences &ndash; glamour-driven and star-struck &ndash; lacked the vision and the ability to engage that the Masters demonstrated with such confidence, sensitivity grace and class.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Today, despite the ridicule and contempt from some quarters, labelling the new film as exercises in sycophancy to appease the new ruling party bosses, the fact is, they have passed the litmus test: audience approval and appreciation. Viewers [of the ticket-paying variety] don&rsquo;t give a damn about political colouring. They want &#39;paisa vasool&#39; entertainment. If along the way, there is a message interestingly factored-in, not preachy, didactic or soporific, then that&rsquo;s solid value-addition for sure. The bottom-line is simple.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

God knows there are tons of critical issues crying for attention &amp; action: dowry, adult literacy, women and child abuse, law and order, self-employment, disparity of the socio-economic kind between the Have &amp; Have-nots. Who better than our smart and gifted Bollywood directors, blessed with a superb reading of the public pulse, to decode, sugar-coat these issues and offer them to the public in an enjoyable, easy-to-digest fashion that entertains while provoking them to ponder over issues showcased.

&nbsp;

In the meantime, PadMan has started a larger conversation about the critical importance of menstrual hygiene. Akshay&#39;s star-power is attracting Bollywood heavyweights to endorse the cause and the film. Bravo to all associated with these issue-based efforts and a special big shabash to the audiences. Why? Because at the end of the day, its neither the director, trade or critics who decide the fate of the film; it&rsquo;s the audiences, the hydra-headed, unpredictable monster that can send you to the heaven or hell. Remember the timeless, masala song , &quot;Yeh Public hai, yeh sub jante hai Yeh public hai!&quot;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

Viewers don’t give a damn about political colouring. They want 'paisa vasool' entertainment. If along the way, there is a message interestingly factored-in, not preachy, didactic or soporific, then that’s solid value-addition for sure.

“We live in strange and troubled times, bro. Can you imagine – even a few years ago – titles, themes, subjects and contents focussing on material associated with sperm donation, toilet introduction to the hinterland, erectile dysfunction and now the latest sanitary pads usage? wassupp buddy?" Why this leap in a platform forever dedicated to glamour-spiced, feel good, escapist entertainment? From where did this jump into such totally un-conventional, off-beat, un-glam & non-fragrance narratives, box-office-unfriendly-content come? Have our star-struck audiences suddenly gone sanctimonious and issue-conscious, looking beyond jhatka stuff into meaningful story-telling that attempts to celebrate genuine causes and concerns that plague the howling mobs? Provocative as his observation was, it got me thinking and my mind raced back a few years ago, when my young director friend Shoojit Sircar spelled out to me, the nightmare times he experienced when he was attempting to put together Vicky Donor. “Wherever I went amusement, bewilderment, shock & disgust greeted me! Was I really serious about the subject & content? A film not on blood but SPERM donation? More than a producer, I needed a shrink, many hinted!" "VD actually got moving only when star John Abraham came on board as a producer. Once it released and was declared a sleeper hit by the trade and audiences loved it, struggling and aspiring directors confided to me that production houses while breezily dismissing their concepts, often told them - Boss, kuch Vicky Donor ka jaisa bana! Amazing!” Toilet – hardly the sexiest title or content – surprisingly slapped its [eek!] critics to zoom past the magical Rs.100 crore mark. More recently, Shubh Mangal Savdhan, also fared decently despite its [ooooooh maa, nudge-wink-ahem] theme. While the leading man Ayushman called it a “Family Film”, unveiling a subject that is quite common but never openly discussed, heroine Bhoomi was more upfront and in-your-face. Bhoomi's categorical response was, “Manliness – commonly & mistakenly believed – is NOT about getting it up but standing up tall and proud and fearless, to be a caring & sensitive husband/partner. To address her areas of joys and insecurities, needs and wants beyond physicalities in a manner that is meaningful. The USP of our film was the treatment, a Hrishida – Basu Chatterjee style, blending light-hearted & relatable humour with humanism, avoiding the temptation to be corny, vulgar and provide populist slapstick and trivialise a very delicate issue.” Great. Point taken. However fearlessly making an issue-based film is one part of the story. The more important part, of course, is viewer acceptance, right? As the legendary Hollywood film-maker Billy Widder once, reportedly, stated.” Talent is great but audience is greater!” The proven appreciation by mass audiences relating to all these films must say something about altering viewership taste too. The answer has to be a resounding YES. Fact is, message-driven films reflecting societal ills are not new to commercial Hindi cinema. Way back, across the fifties and sixties, giants like Raj Kapoor [Awara, Boot Polish, Jagte Raho] B.R. Choopra [Ek hi Rasta, Dhool Ka Phool, Sadhana, Naya Daur] Amiya Chakravorty [Daag, Seema, Patita] Bimal Roy [Do Bigha Zameen, Sujata] did unspool powerful narratives that were both critically and commercially viable as well as appreciated. After their exit, however, this genre vanished for one simple reason. Popular cinema largely reflects the mood and flavour of the times. Once the first flush of nationalism, patriotism [post-partition] and the need to assert one's identity through serious and meaningful content was done, the need to entertain through feel-good fun and glamour and larger-than-life templates came into play. Also, the influence of Western music – Elvis Beatles, Rock n’ roll etc. – blitzed in, changing the profile and trajectory of movie content. Shammi Kapoor’s YAHOO also played no mean part in introducing the Rom-com, a hugely popular and infectious category adored by the new-age audience of that time. The erstwhile issue-dominated films of yore, suddenly, found itself totally sidetracked. The few that did attempt to woo the distracted audiences – glamour-driven and star-struck – lacked the vision and the ability to engage that the Masters demonstrated with such confidence, sensitivity grace and class. Today, despite the ridicule and contempt from some quarters, labelling the new film as exercises in sycophancy to appease the new ruling party bosses, the fact is, they have passed the litmus test: audience approval and appreciation. Viewers [of the ticket-paying variety] don’t give a damn about political colouring. They want 'paisa vasool' entertainment. If along the way, there is a message interestingly factored-in, not preachy, didactic or soporific, then that’s solid value-addition for sure. The bottom-line is simple. God knows there are tons of critical issues crying for attention & action: dowry, adult literacy, women and child abuse, law and order, self-employment, disparity of the socio-economic kind between the Have & Have-nots. Who better than our smart and gifted Bollywood directors, blessed with a superb reading of the public pulse, to decode, sugar-coat these issues and offer them to the public in an enjoyable, easy-to-digest fashion that entertains while provoking them to ponder over issues showcased. In the meantime, PadMan has started a larger conversation about the critical importance of menstrual hygiene. Akshay's star-power is attracting Bollywood heavyweights to endorse the cause and the film. Bravo to all associated with these issue-based efforts and a special big shabash to the audiences. Why? Because at the end of the day, its neither the director, trade or critics who decide the fate of the film; it’s the audiences, the hydra-headed, unpredictable monster that can send you to the heaven or hell. Remember the timeless, masala song , "Yeh Public hai, yeh sub jante hai Yeh public hai!" (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Padman, Vicky Donor, Toilet indicate Indian audiences are finally getting progressive

It was really the Nandita Das&ndash;Nawaz Siddiqui&rsquo;s conversation &amp; discussion relating to their forthcoming film Manto, in the just concluded KALAM Lit Fest in Kolkata, that got me thinking about whether committed and powerful art-house actors really had the clout or charisma to seduce mass audiences to their brand of cinema, and I suddenly found myself getting into flashback mode.

&nbsp;

The early seventies in Indian cinema witnessed an exciting phase emerge. Shyam Benegal&rsquo;s Ankur &ndash; literally and metaphorically &ndash; smashed Bollywood&rsquo;s carefully protected and preserved monopolistic glass ceiling to serve notice of a new form of cinema coming into existence. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Shabana Azmi&rsquo;s sensational debut was followed by equally stunning debuts by three others &ndash; Naseeruddin Shah, Smita Patil and Om Puri. They formed a formidable quartet headlining most of the path-breaking films of that decade. The middle-class intelligentsia &ndash; sick to the teeth of Bollywood&rsquo;s escapist hi-jinks and absurd larger-than-life portrayal of clich&eacute;d and predictable storylines - embraced this new cinema with enthusiasm. They welcomed actors, treatment, subjects and narratives that entertained, enriched and empowered in one sublime sweep.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

These four actors were the true stars of this new and powerful arthouse cinema, authored by a dazzling galaxy of brilliant, creative minds, determined to push the envelope in pursuit of good, intelligent cinema without full stops. Apart from Bengal, other names that blazed the neons included Govind Nihalani, M.S. Sathyu, Aparna Sen, Gautam Ghosh, Sai Paranjpye, Muzaffar Ali, Kalpana Lajmi, Kundan Shah, Saeed Mirza, Ketan Mehta, Shekhar Kapoor.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

These actors culturally, intellectually and even emotionally bonded to this brand of cinema; this amazing lot believed and pursued with passion and purpose, a cinema that was rooted to reality, humanistic in vision, non-formulaic in approach and definitely light years away from the overt, crass, over-the-top, populist, escapist razzmatazz offered by Bollywood&rsquo;s masala factory headlined by glamorous stars dedicated to posturing, not acting.

&nbsp;

It was [ironically] one of this very fab four, Shabana Azmi, who first sent out tremors within this artistic fraternity by moving across to do an out-and-out commercial film [Fakira] with this devastatingly handsome matinee idol, the [late] Shashi Kapoor.&nbsp; While most expressed shock, surprise and disappointment, Ms. Azmi offered an informed retort.&nbsp; She explained that while she was a proud product of the art cinema and that everything she received till date &ndash; audience, love, admiration, respect, awards, great directors, films &ndash; was because of that, she believed that actors also needed to, at some point, see the big picture. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Shabana Azmi insisted her commercial foray was for three reasons.&nbsp; One, experimenting is essential for creative artistes for self-growth.&nbsp; Two, experience first hand, what this huge platform, that so mesmerised stars and mass audience, was all about. Most importantly &ndash; and this is central to her argument and this piece &ndash; her presence in commercial cinema, she believed, would mean that her commercial films would reach out to more people at more places [than her brand of niche cinema] and induce at least some of them to patronise her art films and thus help the movement that they all were committed to.&nbsp; I remember Smita Patil dismissing this rationale outright, stating this kind of conversion can never happen because these two cinemas &ndash; their motivations and dynamics &ndash; were worlds apart!

&nbsp;

A while back, brilliant actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui made a similar remark when he stated that he was delighted with the accolades he was receiving for his cameo [Bajrangi Bhaijan &amp; Raees] and hoped that, at least, some of the zillion fans who stormed the halls to rocket these films to dizzy heights, would patronise his non-commercial, small films.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The point is: Can this ever happen?&nbsp; Has it ever happened? &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Can true-blue actors, participating in mainstream, over-the-top, star-driven commercial cinema, ever hope to impact, influence, motivate or inspire even a fraction of the mass audience, to gravitate towards the niche films that they showcase and celebrate?

&nbsp;

History clearly says: No!&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Admittedly, Shabana did tons of mainstream films with top line commercial directors but, to be brutally honest, does anyone who loves masala films and their superstars, ever care to remember Shabana Azmi in Amar Akbar Anthony, Parvarish or any other super-hit films from big directors she participated in? The same thing can be said about Naseer, Om [and late bloomer] Smita Patil. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

In Namak Halal or Shakti, was Shabana a memorable, critical, relevant component compared to Amit, Shashi or Praveen Babi? &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Now cut to Arth, Ankur, Nishant, Bhumika, Aakrosh, Sparsh, Chakra, Masoom, Mandi, Anthony Pinto, Ardh Satya, Katha, Paar and tons of similar gems where these four dazzled with their scorching portrayals, defining the linear truth. Is there any comparison, in terms of contribution, between the two brands of cinema that these four graced?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It was an interesting situation for the mainstream blokes, getting these powerhouse titans of the art house cinema meant a triumph, making them trophy catches.&nbsp; For the actors, it was a taste of starry extravagance they had heard about, non-existent in their modest workspace.&nbsp; Barring very few exceptions, sadly, both were losers because &ndash; as the late Smita Patil rightly pointed out &ndash; they are two completely different brands of cinema with different narratives, focus, compulsion and the twain can never meet.&nbsp; This is equally true when big stars, bitten by the acting bug, attempt to do parallel cinema or &ndash; as the Big B attempted in Yudh &ndash; enter TV serial space.&nbsp; More often than not, they are 5-star disasters!

&nbsp;

Nawaz Siddiqui, Irfan Khan, Kay Kay Menon, Manoj Bajpayee, Konkona Sen Sharma, Richa Chadda, Rahul Bose, Adil Hussain, Kalki Kolechin, Radhika Apte are only some very fine actors whose talent are proven, but can they ever carry a commercial film on their shoulders?&nbsp; Will the mass audience pay to storm the theatres to see them?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

This is not to devalue Nawaz Siddiqui&rsquo;s talent or hope, but everything being equal and the Bollywood and our mass audiences being what they are, niche will remain niche and big-budget blockbusters will remain the big-budget blockbusters, driven by their own dazzling seductive package of customised requirements and compulsion. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Sure, Nawaz and gang&rsquo;s performances continue to be appreciated, but to imagine that their role would motivate audiences to rush into patronising arthouse cinema is like saying that James Bond fans [Sean Connery] would definitely see Connery &ndash; synonymous with exotic locales, hot babes and deadly action &ndash; in non-Bond films [The Hill] with the same enthusiasm. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

No way! Remember, mass audiences need to be, both shaken and stirred!

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Everything being equal and the Bollywood and our mass audiences being what they are, niche will remain niche and big-budget blockbusters will remain the big-budget blockbusters.

It was really the Nandita Das–Nawaz Siddiqui’s conversation & discussion relating to their forthcoming film Manto, in the just concluded KALAM Lit Fest in Kolkata, that got me thinking about whether committed and powerful art-house actors really had the clout or charisma to seduce mass audiences to their brand of cinema, and I suddenly found myself getting into flashback mode. The early seventies in Indian cinema witnessed an exciting phase emerge. Shyam Benegal’s Ankur – literally and metaphorically – smashed Bollywood’s carefully protected and preserved monopolistic glass ceiling to serve notice of a new form of cinema coming into existence. Shabana Azmi’s sensational debut was followed by equally stunning debuts by three others – Naseeruddin Shah, Smita Patil and Om Puri. They formed a formidable quartet headlining most of the path-breaking films of that decade. The middle-class intelligentsia – sick to the teeth of Bollywood’s escapist hi-jinks and absurd larger-than-life portrayal of clichéd and predictable storylines - embraced this new cinema with enthusiasm. They welcomed actors, treatment, subjects and narratives that entertained, enriched and empowered in one sublime sweep. These four actors were the true stars of this new and powerful arthouse cinema, authored by a dazzling galaxy of brilliant, creative minds, determined to push the envelope in pursuit of good, intelligent cinema without full stops. Apart from Bengal, other names that blazed the neons included Govind Nihalani, M.S. Sathyu, Aparna Sen, Gautam Ghosh, Sai Paranjpye, Muzaffar Ali, Kalpana Lajmi, Kundan Shah, Saeed Mirza, Ketan Mehta, Shekhar Kapoor. These actors culturally, intellectually and even emotionally bonded to this brand of cinema; this amazing lot believed and pursued with passion and purpose, a cinema that was rooted to reality, humanistic in vision, non-formulaic in approach and definitely light years away from the overt, crass, over-the-top, populist, escapist razzmatazz offered by Bollywood’s masala factory headlined by glamorous stars dedicated to posturing, not acting. It was [ironically] one of this very fab four, Shabana Azmi, who first sent out tremors within this artistic fraternity by moving across to do an out-and-out commercial film [Fakira] with this devastatingly handsome matinee idol, the [late] Shashi Kapoor. While most expressed shock, surprise and disappointment, Ms. Azmi offered an informed retort. She explained that while she was a proud product of the art cinema and that everything she received till date – audience, love, admiration, respect, awards, great directors, films – was because of that, she believed that actors also needed to, at some point, see the big picture. Shabana Azmi insisted her commercial foray was for three reasons. One, experimenting is essential for creative artistes for self-growth. Two, experience first hand, what this huge platform, that so mesmerised stars and mass audience, was all about. Most importantly – and this is central to her argument and this piece – her presence in commercial cinema, she believed, would mean that her commercial films would reach out to more people at more places [than her brand of niche cinema] and induce at least some of them to patronise her art films and thus help the movement that they all were committed to. I remember Smita Patil dismissing this rationale outright, stating this kind of conversion can never happen because these two cinemas – their motivations and dynamics – were worlds apart! A while back, brilliant actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui made a similar remark when he stated that he was delighted with the accolades he was receiving for his cameo [Bajrangi Bhaijan & Raees] and hoped that, at least, some of the zillion fans who stormed the halls to rocket these films to dizzy heights, would patronise his non-commercial, small films. The point is: Can this ever happen? Has it ever happened? Can true-blue actors, participating in mainstream, over-the-top, star-driven commercial cinema, ever hope to impact, influence, motivate or inspire even a fraction of the mass audience, to gravitate towards the niche films that they showcase and celebrate? History clearly says: No! Admittedly, Shabana did tons of mainstream films with top line commercial directors but, to be brutally honest, does anyone who loves masala films and their superstars, ever care to remember Shabana Azmi in Amar Akbar Anthony, Parvarish or any other super-hit films from big directors she participated in? The same thing can be said about Naseer, Om [and late bloomer] Smita Patil. In Namak Halal or Shakti, was Shabana a memorable, critical, relevant component compared to Amit, Shashi or Praveen Babi? Now cut to Arth, Ankur, Nishant, Bhumika, Aakrosh, Sparsh, Chakra, Masoom, Mandi, Anthony Pinto, Ardh Satya, Katha, Paar and tons of similar gems where these four dazzled with their scorching portrayals, defining the linear truth. Is there any comparison, in terms of contribution, between the two brands of cinema that these four graced? It was an interesting situation for the mainstream blokes, getting these powerhouse titans of the art house cinema meant a triumph, making them trophy catches. For the actors, it was a taste of starry extravagance they had heard about, non-existent in their modest workspace. Barring very few exceptions, sadly, both were losers because – as the late Smita Patil rightly pointed out – they are two completely different brands of cinema with different narratives, focus, compulsion and the twain can never meet. This is equally true when big stars, bitten by the acting bug, attempt to do parallel cinema or – as the Big B attempted in Yudh – enter TV serial space. More often than not, they are 5-star disasters! Nawaz Siddiqui, Irfan Khan, Kay Kay Menon, Manoj Bajpayee, Konkona Sen Sharma, Richa Chadda, Rahul Bose, Adil Hussain, Kalki Kolechin, Radhika Apte are only some very fine actors whose talent are proven, but can they ever carry a commercial film on their shoulders? Will the mass audience pay to storm the theatres to see them? This is not to devalue Nawaz Siddiqui’s talent or hope, but everything being equal and the Bollywood and our mass audiences being what they are, niche will remain niche and big-budget blockbusters will remain the big-budget blockbusters, driven by their own dazzling seductive package of customised requirements and compulsion. Sure, Nawaz and gang’s performances continue to be appreciated, but to imagine that their role would motivate audiences to rush into patronising arthouse cinema is like saying that James Bond fans [Sean Connery] would definitely see Connery – synonymous with exotic locales, hot babes and deadly action – in non-Bond films [The Hill] with the same enthusiasm. No way! Remember, mass audiences need to be, both shaken and stirred! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Can Arthouse actors ever connect with masala audiences?

First a brief backgrounder. The legendary fabled Rani Padmini / Padmavati / Padmavat the breathtakingly beautiful Rajput Queen who gave her life defending her honour rather than fall prey to a zonked-out mesmerised Turkish Sultan Allaudin Khilji&rsquo;s lustful gaze lives again this time courtesy Bollywood Filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali, but with drama, passion and hi-jinks played out (both in reel and real life) unmatched in the 600-year-old event, narrated either in history books or folklore.

Bolly-watchers insist that director Bhansali and controversy continue to be made for each other &amp; that it is a deliberate strategy to grab attention curiosity &amp; excitement to trigger footfalls &amp; zoom the film deep north. Both his earlier forays into historical fiction Ram-Leela&nbsp;and&nbsp;Bajirao Mastani followed a similar template to rake in big bucks. His modus operandi (state his detractors) is the way he leverages his presentation method: a spectacular canvas, scale, colour, grandiose and hit-pitched dramabaazi designed to dazzle the eyes and numb the senses. Big-budget extravaganzas starring glam and popular.

Bhansali pulls out the stops to re-define the willful suspension of disbelief-factor [such a critical aspect of the movie-viewing experience] for the dazed, chloroformed viewer. Historical authenticity or accuracy is usually sacrificed at the altar of entertainment, because it is history-as-fiction and popular bharpoor manoranjan that B-town&rsquo;s latter-day Cecil B Demille is aiming for.

Not all buy into this grand plan as is clear in the way Padmavat played out, off-screen. Hysteria met histrionics in high decibel fashion blasting across every available media avenue to keep Bollywood junkies enthralled and others totally perplexed, disgusted and resigned to an uncertain fate for the creative community.

While fringe groups like the Rajput Karni Sena claimed that the cinematic narrative hurts the sentiments of the entire Rajput community and that the outrageous distortion of facts-love scenes between Khilji and their sacred queen as well as the blasphemy driven Ghoomar dance, to name only two&mdash;were unpardonable, other militant bodies jumped into the fray to add fuel to the fire, including some so-called members of Rani Padmini&rsquo;s family, across generations. The harassed director&rsquo;s plea&mdash;on TV&mdash;that the film had only saluted not humiliated the honour and valour of the great Rajput community fell on deaf ears &amp; a total ban was demanded or else bodily harm was threatened to the cast and crew, with large sums of money and chopping of head grabbing headlines in a sensational&nbsp;manner!

Whatever happened to our celebrated and much&mdash;touted 5000-year-old civilisation redolent with a rich heritage, tradition and legacy of peace &amp; non-violence? At another level, is this the way a tomorrows super-power behaves in the face of a creative piece of work? What is the Government doing about it? Is the creative community&mdash;Bollywood as the softest target&mdash;under siege, forced to listen to the diktats of goons &amp; bullies &amp; settle matters either when big money exchanges hands or toe the line drawn by the political big-wigs of the state?

Respected Veteran film-maker Shyam Benegal is both confused and upset at the way things have played out. &ldquo;If you remember, I had two segments dedicated to Rani Padmini in my late 1980&rsquo;s serial BHARAT EK KHOJ and no one batted an eyelid. Why this sudden madness and chaos? It has been cleared by the Censor board and if any state refuses to play it, it is unlawful. Law and order being a state subject, it is the duty of the authorities to maintain it to the best of their abilities.

It seems to be a clear case of politics coming into play, with the election coming up and appeasement, a seductive, driving force. The climate of intolerance&mdash;real or manufactured&mdash;is also not helping the creative community or right-thinking people who prefer to embrace confluence, not conflict. Reputed Film critic Saibal Chatterjee adds his evolved bit. &ldquo;This is just hooliganism paraded as honour to fulfil a political agenda. It&rsquo;s amazing that the loudest yells have come from people who have not seen the film &amp; refuse to recognise the fact that Padmini was a fictional character &amp; remain hell-bent on insisting that Rajput honour has been tampered with &amp; is non-negotiable. While the supreme court has squashed all State nay-sayers &amp; ordered it to be shown everywhere, the point is : What message does this Padmavat&mdash;even the name was forcibly changed&mdash;madness send out to the creative community? Beyond the Censor Board, do political parties, leaders, goons &amp; activists have to compulsorily be in the framework before even starting any film or creative work? Are we a banana republic &amp; not the world&rsquo;s largest democracy?

As Padmavat gets ready to unspool its wares to a viewership curious and excited in equal measure, right-thinking individuals have much to ponder about. Why were the powers&mdash;that&mdash;are hemorrhaging with its power-packed rhetoric suddenly converted to the silent movies mode? Whatever happened to the basics of democratic rights and freedom of speech, and expression? Has it been hollowed out and emptied of all meaning? Are immediate, extractive, short-term gains to nurture avaricious and opportunistic thrusts, the new name of the game? Has our inability to live entirely in the present combined with our ability to see the future make us strange, in-between creatures&mdash;neither beast nor prophet? Are we&mdash;finally&mdash;railroaded to offer polite prosaic, factual precision when a feral howl is the need of the hour? Our time starts&mdash;now!

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

The hooliganism around the film raises the question if India is turning into a banana republic from the world’s largest democracy.

First a brief backgrounder. The legendary fabled Rani Padmini / Padmavati / Padmavat the breathtakingly beautiful Rajput Queen who gave her life defending her honour rather than fall prey to a zonked-out mesmerised Turkish Sultan Allaudin Khilji’s lustful gaze lives again this time courtesy Bollywood Filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali, but with drama, passion and hi-jinks played out (both in reel and real life) unmatched in the 600-year-old event, narrated either in history books or folklore. Bolly-watchers insist that director Bhansali and controversy continue to be made for each other & that it is a deliberate strategy to grab attention curiosity & excitement to trigger footfalls & zoom the film deep north. Both his earlier forays into historical fiction Ram-Leela and Bajirao Mastani followed a similar template to rake in big bucks. His modus operandi (state his detractors) is the way he leverages his presentation method: a spectacular canvas, scale, colour, grandiose and hit-pitched dramabaazi designed to dazzle the eyes and numb the senses. Big-budget extravaganzas starring glam and popular. Bhansali pulls out the stops to re-define the willful suspension of disbelief-factor [such a critical aspect of the movie-viewing experience] for the dazed, chloroformed viewer. Historical authenticity or accuracy is usually sacrificed at the altar of entertainment, because it is history-as-fiction and popular bharpoor manoranjan that B-town’s latter-day Cecil B Demille is aiming for. Not all buy into this grand plan as is clear in the way Padmavat played out, off-screen. Hysteria met histrionics in high decibel fashion blasting across every available media avenue to keep Bollywood junkies enthralled and others totally perplexed, disgusted and resigned to an uncertain fate for the creative community. While fringe groups like the Rajput Karni Sena claimed that the cinematic narrative hurts the sentiments of the entire Rajput community and that the outrageous distortion of facts-love scenes between Khilji and their sacred queen as well as the blasphemy driven Ghoomar dance, to name only two—were unpardonable, other militant bodies jumped into the fray to add fuel to the fire, including some so-called members of Rani Padmini’s family, across generations. The harassed director’s plea—on TV—that the film had only saluted not humiliated the honour and valour of the great Rajput community fell on deaf ears & a total ban was demanded or else bodily harm was threatened to the cast and crew, with large sums of money and chopping of head grabbing headlines in a sensational manner! Whatever happened to our celebrated and much—touted 5000-year-old civilisation redolent with a rich heritage, tradition and legacy of peace & non-violence? At another level, is this the way a tomorrows super-power behaves in the face of a creative piece of work? What is the Government doing about it? Is the creative community—Bollywood as the softest target—under siege, forced to listen to the diktats of goons & bullies & settle matters either when big money exchanges hands or toe the line drawn by the political big-wigs of the state? Respected Veteran film-maker Shyam Benegal is both confused and upset at the way things have played out. “If you remember, I had two segments dedicated to Rani Padmini in my late 1980’s serial BHARAT EK KHOJ and no one batted an eyelid. Why this sudden madness and chaos? It has been cleared by the Censor board and if any state refuses to play it, it is unlawful. Law and order being a state subject, it is the duty of the authorities to maintain it to the best of their abilities. It seems to be a clear case of politics coming into play, with the election coming up and appeasement, a seductive, driving force. The climate of intolerance—real or manufactured—is also not helping the creative community or right-thinking people who prefer to embrace confluence, not conflict. Reputed Film critic Saibal Chatterjee adds his evolved bit. “This is just hooliganism paraded as honour to fulfil a political agenda. It’s amazing that the loudest yells have come from people who have not seen the film & refuse to recognise the fact that Padmini was a fictional character & remain hell-bent on insisting that Rajput honour has been tampered with & is non-negotiable. While the supreme court has squashed all State nay-sayers & ordered it to be shown everywhere, the point is : What message does this Padmavat—even the name was forcibly changed—madness send out to the creative community? Beyond the Censor Board, do political parties, leaders, goons & activists have to compulsorily be in the framework before even starting any film or creative work? Are we a banana republic & not the world’s largest democracy? As Padmavat gets ready to unspool its wares to a viewership curious and excited in equal measure, right-thinking individuals have much to ponder about. Why were the powers—that—are hemorrhaging with its power-packed rhetoric suddenly converted to the silent movies mode? Whatever happened to the basics of democratic rights and freedom of speech, and expression? Has it been hollowed out and emptied of all meaning? Are immediate, extractive, short-term gains to nurture avaricious and opportunistic thrusts, the new name of the game? Has our inability to live entirely in the present combined with our ability to see the future make us strange, in-between creatures—neither beast nor prophet? Are we—finally—railroaded to offer polite prosaic, factual precision when a feral howl is the need of the hour? Our time starts—now! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Is Padmaavat turning into the Rani of controversy?

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Monojit Lahiri

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.