Once again, you don’t HAVE to ask me questions or anything related to Shahrukh’s birthday. Or Ittefaq. But you also can if you want.
As always, you can ask me questions from the personal (“have you seen the original Ittefaq yet?”) to the specific and factual (“who made the original Ittefaq and what connection if any is there to the remake?”) to the general discussion (“is remaking Ittefaq a terrible idea, a brilliant idea, or just an okay idea?”)
Only rule is, you have to let me answer first! Otherwise it is no fun for me, and also the discussion doesn’t seem to go as well somehow. But once I have answered, feel free to jump in and join the conversation.
dontcallitbollywood 
I really liked that song in Toilet! What’s your favorite song of the year so far? (not just music but the whole package) I’m guessing you’ll pick Radha?
Gut reaction: will Ittefaq be a hit? You are going to see it this weekend, right?
LikeLike
I am tempted to try to surprise you and pick something else, but yeah, definitely Radha. And then second, “Ik Vaara” from Raabta. It’s just such a happy kind of throwback love song
Ittefaq, I can’t imagine it not being a hit. Well, a “hit”. My hope is that the lowkey promotion is reflective of a lowkey release. And certainly the budget couldn’t have been that big. I am expecting it to do decent business overseas, $3,000 to $4,000 and to make back it’s budget in India. So it won’t break any records, but it will be a solid profit maker for producer, distributor, and theater.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 7:49 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
There is one idea that I especially like about the promotion: the “Say no to spoilers” campaign.
LikeLike
OK, I’m probably going to regret starting this but here’s my question. This is inspired by the recent sexual harassment revelations coming out of Hollywood and elsewhere.
This blog on occasion has detailed discussions of “attractiveness” and sexiness of actors and actresses — mostly actors. It sometimes gets very specific, like SRK’s best body parts.
Let me be clear . . . I’m not complaining!
But, how is this not the same “objectifying” that is so rightly being attacked but feminists and progressives around the world?
I have some ideas why it’s different but I’d like to hear yours. Thanks.
LikeLike
Hmm. Definitely an interesting question and I would be interested in other people’s takes on it.
I think it gets down to three things, tone, materials, and the basic fact that men and women are in a different position.
I do try in my posts to keep the tone light. It’s saying “he is so handsome” or “I love his little tummy!” It’s pointing things out, but also laughing a little at how silly it is to talk this way. And it is not explicitly sexual, it’s more aesthetic. That is, 6 pack abs rather than pant bulges. And, if this makes sense, I try to keep the focus on them, not on me. It’s creepy to say “when I see his shirtless body my heart beats faster”. It’s fine to say “He looks very handsome in this shot”. Or “he has lost a lot of weight”.
Materials, I try to use mostly posed photos. And photos that are asking me to look at them this way. The line gets fuzzy sometimes, but what I mean is, I would not post a photo of Aryan Khan, who is a “civilian” and is only available in family photos or candids. But I will post one of Daboo Ratnani’s shots of Shahrukh which are asking us to objectify him. And there’s also the fact that, if you compare it with the Hollywood context, there are a lot more materials that are truly asking us to discuss visual elements. Song sequences, posted photo shoots, even certain scenes in films (for instance, John Abraham’s entry in Dostana) are about the visual, not the acting performances in a way that is a lot less common in Hollywood films. Part of the reason I lean on Shahrukh is because he has explicitly said that it is “okay” to look at him this way, he welcomes this kind of fan gaze. I would feel less comfortable studying, say, a shirtless candid of Irrfan Khan and discussing his body, because he has not told me it is “okay” to do that.
And finally, there’s the fact that objectifying men just isn’t the same as doing it to women. Women are under constant pressure to look good, their body is their value and their currency. Buying in to that by judging them based on their body is dangerous and destructive. I will certainly say something like “so-and-so looks gorgeous in this shot” or “I love so-and-so’s new look for this film”. But I will not say “Her thighs are too big” or even “her breasts are glorious”. To take certain elements of the body like that is to turn them into just their body, rather than their body and personality combined. Madhuri isn’t gorgeous because of her figure or her hair or anything else, it’s because it all comes together to be Madhuri.
And there’s also the element of real danger. Turning women into objects of sexual fantasy often blurs into making them seem sexually available, and then into anger and violence when they are not. And I don’t see that with men, women don’t get angry and violent in the same way just because Shahid Kapoor took his shirt off for a photoshoot but won’t sleep with us when we meet him in person.
Anyway, that is my first thoughts, I know there are plenty of people in the comments who have thought about this a lot more than me probably and have many more ideas to contribute.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:05 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think there is also a distinction between objectifying an actual person you know and interact with, and objectifying a media creation — the “star” Shah Rukh Khan, as opposed to the actor Shah Rukh Khan or the human being Shah Rukh Khan. But I can see there are gray areas in those distinctions as well.
Also, while it is true that women are socialized to objectify themselves (google “self objectification”) from infancy, and boys are also taught to see girls and women in this way, over the last generation men have been more subject to this kind of sexual objectification. Both trouble me. It’s one thing to find someone sexy, it’s another to value or devalue an entire class of people based on their sexiness, or to see someone only through the lens of whether or not they are “hot”.
LikeLike
One thing that I think comes up a lot in our discussions is that “hot” is only one element of what we look for in a performance. I will give Arjun Kapoor a hard time for how he looked in Mubarakan, because he didn’t seem to be giving us anything else. He wasn’t dancing, he wasn’t that funny, he didn’t sell the romantic moments, and he wasn’t even attractive. I will give Siddharth Malhotra a hard time for Kapoor & Sons or Baar Baar Dekho because he was beautiful onscreen, but he wasn’t anything else. And I won’t care that Rishi Kapoor kept getting larger and larger as the 80s went on, because his performances were about so much more than that. So at least the goal would be for appearance to be only one part of a performance and given the correct weight. Although it is also true that face and body are part of an actors’ toolbox, so there is at least some part of it that we should talk about. For instance, I do think they pulled back on the choreography in Mubarakan simply because Arjun was not capable of moving the way he used to.
I don’t know, it’s confusing and complicated.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:26 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
It is the same objectifying when it comes to people who turnes themselves into a kind of ‘object’ by ‘objectifying’ themselves in so far as they present their body (clad or unclad) to a camera or people’s eyes with the purpose that one should focus on a part or the whole of their body.
ShahRukh very honestly admits not only the trappings of his profession but also his contribution into making people like/love/desire him. So, it’s better to be positive about that aspect of the profession he chose and the position he enjoys.
In my opinion the difference lies in the consequences which depend on the difference between the way sexual desire is stimulated in women and in men and the difference to whom the stimulation is contributed: men tend to give the responsibility for their desire to the ‘object of their desire’ and women tend to look into themselves for that (the sexual organs penis and vagina could be like the pointing finger and the regard into oneself).
Men (like ShahRukh) who have no problem in admitting the feminine part of themselves can very well enjoy also ‘bodyparts’ of a woman but may not feel a sexual desire…they just see the beauty.
LikeLike
“attributed” (not “contributed”)… sorry
LikeLike
OK. I gave a couple of questions~about DDLJ & your Scene by Scenes & about Indian cinema in general.
First: Simran’s father is this gung ho Indian who demands that his family live up to his memories of the way Indians live & behave. But~he’s engaged his daughter to a guy who lives in the Punjab & presumably is a Sikh because his last name is Singh yet doesn’t wear a turban or a bracelet or a beard. Nor does his father or anyone else. Even Simran’s father must be a Sikh cuz otherwise he probably would not be marrying his daughter off to one, right? So what’s up with that? Why doesn’t HE dress like a Sikh?
Also~a friend of mine who’s Austrian asked me why Indian women are portrayed in films as being so antagonistic? Simran is constantly nasty to this guy Raj who’s flown half way around the world to save her from marrying a total jerk (insensitive, narcissistic, misogynistic, condescending, self-centered plus unattractive & extremely hairy). All Raj wants to do is marry her in a way that won’t alienate her from her entire family and she acts as though he’s the bad guy! I’m always surprised that he doesn’t just give up on her. Yes, he’s brash at first & plays tricks on her & later doesn’t fall in with her desire to just run off & elope with her but she always seems to think the worst of him. She never seems to rise up out of her self-pity to wonder why he’s such a paradox~a party-er & college failure who’s also an accomplished pianist & chess player.
LikeLike
What interesting questions! I’ll take them one by one.
Sikh: There are variations on Sikh. “Singh”, to start with, isn’t necessarily a Sikh last name. It can also just be a Punjabi last name. Second, in the Punjab, there is some cultural overlap between Sikh and Hindu, so someone like Surinder Sahni in Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi is also Sikh, but a very light version of it. For DDLJ in particular, I believe they are supposed to be Punjabi Hindus, not Sikhs. In general, Amrish’s sense of Indian identity seems to be a very specific kind, he wants to maintain the family structure he is used to, and some religious traditions, but he isn’t necessarily terribly religious, we don’t see them visiting temples or anything like that. They are distinctly not Brahman. He doesn’t seem to have a strong connection to music, or art, or anything of that nature. Even in England, his daughters are going to school and wearing western style clothing, and he doesn’t object to that. It is really just about his position in the family and maintaining that same structure in the next generation with the families his daughters marry in to. It seems like a lot of illogical arguments, wanting to maintain being “Hindustani” but only in certain ways, except that I have known people, many people, who were raised in similar families. There are a lot of things that don’t matter, and then suddenly there will be one big thing that does.
Indian women: One thing I have noticed in portrayals of the heroine is that the big thing they are doing often is not explicitly stated, which makes their little rudenesses seem worse. In Kajol’s case in DDLJ, as soon as she embraces Shahrukh in the mustard field, the audience knows and Shahrukh knows and Kajol knows that she is now “his”. Which means she will literally die for him, will never love anyone else, has wrapped her whole life up in his. Explicitly in Hinduism, a husband is a God to his wife. So she may be grumpy sometimes and snappy. But underlying that, he could at any time ask her to jump off that terrace and kill herself, and she would. And he would not do that for her. That’s actually a law in India, you can be arrested for inciting suicide, and it was intended for that kind of situation, a husband telling his wife to kill herself and her obeying. Well, and also, I think Shahrukh movies in particular naturally fall into this dynamic because he plays it really well, the sweet befuddled husband trying to please his wife.
I could be missing things with both of those answers, I’d love to hear from other people!
Oh, and also, you really should buy my book. It’s a short easy read and this is exactly the kind of background I try to give in order to let people enjoy the films more.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:09 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
My take on Simran is: she acts like you describe ist, Erica, out of insecurity. She loves ShahRukh and wants to be with him; she also trusts him…she only doesn’t trust her trust. As her education was – socially – much more limited than Raj’s, his kind of behaviour isn’t only new to her but disturbs her. Fortunately Raj has (like ShahRukh) the sensitivity to understand her insecurity and angst.
Insecurity, socially limited knowledge and angst is something that seems to belong to far too many Indian women due to their education. Again a connection between DDLJ and JHMS…
LikeLike
Thanks for the insight!
LikeLike
This isn’t a very topical question, but your “kin” songs on the pumkin song post reminded me of something I’ve been meaning to ask about. There is a kind of (over?) identification between fathers and sons when it comes to sexual attraction that feels pretty skeevy to me–a middle-aged white American lady. Some examples include: the son’s daydream about his dad in Ra.One (what son daydreams about his dad getting it on with a damsel in distress?), Shava Shava in K3G (Amitabh is clearly as or more attracted to Rani than Shah Rukh and neither Rani nor Shah Rukh seem to mind), The multiple gross scenes between Amitabh and Abhishek in KANK, and the song you posted with Amitabh, Abhishek, and Aishwarya. Those last two have an extra yuk factor given the real family relationships.
I guess this is somewhat complementary to the whole “a boy’s first and most important love is his mother” theme. Even in interviews with Shah Rukh he, from Aryan’s infancy, has joked about Aryan being a competitor for the ladies’ attention one day. It’s just so strange to me.
My questions are: 1. Am I seeing things or is this really a theme? 2. Is there a similar theme in Hollywood and/or British films that I’ve just missed (I mean, there is the whole Oedipus story, but that’s pretty far back in the Western canon)? and 3. What are your thoughts about this theme?
LikeLike
1. This is really a theme. I think I mentioned in my JHMS scene by scene, that moment when Anushka declares “I am so sexy even Rupen’s father wants me!” is speaking a truth that you are not supposed to say. With the whole idea of an arranged marriage and your parents picking out your match, what we are really talking about is someone saying “I think this is the person my child should have sex with”. And it’s not far off for that to turn into a fantasy of “I wish I could be with this hot young woman, oh well, I will pick her out for my son and that is close enough.” I don’t think this is limited to Indian culture either, I think every culture has that element of “I am happy with my son’s choice in a wife which partly means she is the kind of women I would be attracted to myself”. But it seems a bit closer to the surface somehow in Indian films/culture, I’ve seen the same thing you have.
2. Yes, I think it is also there in Western culture, we’ve just gotten used to it. The “that’s my boy!” pride when the son brings home a beautiful woman, the father and son talking together about which actress is most attractive (I’m thinking about things like, say, “which Charlie’s Angel is the best?”), just generally sharing male sexuality as a conversation topic. And it’s not necessarily bad, it’s part of growing up and a father should model this behavior for his son. But somehow sometimes it crosses a line from acceptable to not.
3. There seems to be a general acceptance that procreational sex is a social/family issue, not just between a couple. For me, I see a line between Shahrukh talking about how attractive Aryan is, and Shahrukh wanting grandkids. Not just wanting grandkids, but feeling like the creation of the grandkids is part of his responsibility, he needs to make sure Aryan gets married to an appropriate woman and has kids at the right time. To some degree, your children are a sexual commodity, that is part of making sure they get a “good” marriage and have the happy life you want for them.
At least, that’s how it seems to me, I would love to know what other people think!
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:21 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find this kind of “competitive” spirit between father & son you noticed, Procratinatrix, quite understandable in a culture that has such a disturbed and contradictory attitude towards sexuality. In general sons worship their father in every culture and like to see them as heroes and a person to love and to obey. A prominent trait of the Indian hero is to rescue damsels in distress and what the concept of obedience had done as damage is mostly a matter of circumstances and established ‘laws’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been thinking quite a bit about music lately, and this has been puzzling me: how can you tell whether what is happening in a song is “really” happening in the story, or is a fantasy, inner dialog, or something else? This really messed me up when I first started watching Indian films. I am pretty familiar with American musical theater, and have no problem following the musical numbers. But there is something very different about Indian films, and I still quite put my finger on it.
LikeLike
I always think of SRK as completely self-created~including his physical appearance. I don’t mean by plastic surgery but rather that he actually decided to re-create the way he looks~both his body and his face~and then somehow through a combination of sheer intention and self-discipline managed to do it.
For that reason, I always think of his physical attractiveness as a magnificent work of art created for everyone’s enjoyment~ including his own and his wife’s.
His intellect and his character~also self-created and maintained~ are something completely different because I think they are more for and of himself personally, And mostly or his own enjoyment~though he clearly loves to share the fruits of his intellect with those equipped to recognize it.
I’m equally attracted to all three (though without the character and the intellect the physical beauty would not be enough to elicit more than a passing admiration) and I’m always grateful that they come together in one glorious package.
I find this view to be common to most of SRKs female admirers. And I think it’s completely different from objectification and especially different from the all too common objectification of women by some men who have no interest in women beyond their looks~and, indeed, fail to notice anythibg else.
And~thanks for the clarification of the Sikh thing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, you said that so well! I would expand it in general to talk about someone’s appearance based on the artwork they have created versus what they were born with or did not want us to see. And that would be true for men or women, Shahrukh in Dard-E-Disco and Kareena in Talaash, they both made a point of discussing their body changes as part of building these particular characters and a look for the film, part of their artwork. Especially in terms of looking at a character in a film, Indian film places a lot more importance on appearance as part of the character than other industries seem to. Stuff like a highlight in the hair, losing or gaining weight, a style of sari, wearing a revealing shirt, it’s all part of building the character, not just starring at the actor.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:07 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
” Indian film places a lot more importance on appearance as part of the character than other industries seem to. ”
That is so interesting because in 3 Idiots I was taken with how much he changed his body and how he moves in space. I’m pretty sure he used botox to reduce his wrinkles (though kudos to whoever his doctor is because his face wasn’t frozen and he could still emote) and didn’t wear elevator shoes (which he normally does because he is an elven sprite of a man) so he was much shorter than his co-stars. He also dressed in clothing that was too big for him and the way he moved reminded me a bit of Tom Hanks in Big, sort of flailing around because he was too young to have total control of his body.
And then in the present time scene in Ladakh he no longer has the super smooth face and his clothes are tighter fitting and he’s not flailing anymore. It’s really well done. Of course, this is all in support of the emotional side of his performance which is also spectacular. He was incandescent in the role. The pure spirit he channeled shone out of him.
LikeLike
Yes! Exactly! 3 Idiots is an extreme example, but the same thing is present in all kinds of films. The time jump is also a standard element of Indian film, so it is common to have to find a visual way of showing a character aging 5-10-15 years. And often that is done through stuff as simple as changing the actor from hair with highlights and cool branded t-shirts, to suits and a shorter hair cut. Which is still part of the character and the performance they are crafting, so it seems appropriate to remark on it.
One really interesting film to look at in this way is the Telugu film Mirchi. Our hero goes through a transformative emotional experience, and comes out the other side of it with a completely different look, mannerisms, everything. Both A & B versions of our hero are definite “hero” types, not what you would see someone wearing or how they would act in “real life”, clearly artificial constructs made by the actor working with the filmmaker in order to present a slightly different kind of hero. So it is reasonable to discuss the film in terms of “I really liked his look in the first half, but not in the second”.
And then the other part of this is that actors are so familiar to the audience now, when they change anything (like Aamir changing his usual style of dress and expression in 3 Idiots), it is worth remarking on. It’s not a coincidence or something the actors thought no one would notice, it is on purpose and they want us to see and appreciate what they have done.
Oh, and unrelated to above, you HAVE to see Lagaan. I know I already told you that, but you really really do. Aamir’s look and performance and everything is very different.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:36 PM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
It is fuzzy. To my mind, there are 3 kinds of songs. 1 is the totally diagetic song, the “club song” or “function song”, “You are My Soniya” or the title song from K3G. The other is the total fantasy, it isn’t happening at all, “Suraj Hua Madham” from K3G. But then there is the tricky 3rd option which seems to be a song version of something that is really happening, “Deewana Hai Dekho” from K3G. Kareena and Hrithik are clearly seeing and interacting with each other around campus, but they probably aren’t really dancing and singing at each other, it just feels like that.
And the only way I have found to tell them apart is not from the song itself, but rather what happens right before and right after. Soniya and the title song, everyone is in the same clothes and continues conversations before and after as though the song had in fact happened. Suraj Hua Madham, we go into slow motion and have a fade in and fade out, indicating we are entering their minds eye. And there is a different location, clothing, etc. And most of all, the song is never mentioned again once we return to “reality”. And for the 3rd option, that’s where it gets tricky again. Kareena and Hrithik’s back and forth before the song is different from after the song. It feels like they have gotten to know each other a bit, seen each other on campus, etc. Maybe. And the song was just the sung version of that.
Of course, even the “fantasy” songs can have an effect on plot. Suraj Hua Madham includes the moments when they both fantasize about what their life would be together after marriage. And the characters later make decisions based on those fantasies, on what they were picturing. It’s a fantasy, but it does tell us what their motivations are later in the narrative.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:07 AM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think of it sort of like magic realism in Latin American literature. People from the US perceive magic realism very differently from those of us who come from Latin American cultures. They struggle with what’s real and what isn’t while we treat it all as real–sort of. Things that aren’t concrete can still have profound effects in the world. So whether or not they are literally real isn’t all that important.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Alisa, I think (and feel) likewise…with a strict middle European background.
It always amazes me that there are – despite many differences – thing we have in common as human beings…all over the world. Intertwining the world of reality and the world of imagination is, for example, something kids do (reagardless where they live) not clearly distinguishing between both 🙂
Somehow, certain cultures have preserved this childlike ability 🙂
LikeLike
This isn’t a question but sharing that my Bollywood rampage is continuing. This week I watched 3 Idiots (twice), Ghulam, Bajrangi Bhaijaan and Maine Pyar Kiya. Quick impressions:
– Maine Pyar Kiya: Very cheesy even by 80s Bollywood standards. I fast forwarded through a lot of it. But now I get why Salman is a star. Holy cats he was gorgeous when he was young, good Lord. And I know what you mean about that naive quality he has, very appealing.
– Ghulam: It was okay. Loved the Aati Kya Khandala scene and the chemistry Aamir had with Rani. But my tolerance for 90s era fight scenes is very, very low.
– Bajrangi Bhaijaan: So much better than I expected–sweet, charming and funny. The chemistry between Salman and the little girl was off the charts. It dragged a bit after intermission but picked up again at the end. I wish Kareena had more to do (same complaint I had about her role in 3 Idiots)
– 3 Idiots: The first time I watched it I wasn’t in a good frame of mind so I felt a little let down but something compelled me to give it a second shot the next day and that’s when it blew me away. I had some problems with the script, especially the childbirth scene and Kareena’s character but holy crap, Aamir’s performance. My husband took a peek over my shoulder and asked who was playing Rancho and when I told him he said, “Wow, he’s really young there, huh?” which says it all.
Sharman Joshi and R. Madhavan also delivered terrific performances and I appreciate that while Aamir was the star, their characters were equally important. The chemistry between the three leads was wonderful. A “bromance” but very different from gross out Hollywood comedies.
LikeLike
Yaaaaaay! Thank you so much for reporting back, makes me so happy.
-Maine Pyar Kiya: yep, you got the main point, Salman was breathtaking with a special kind of innocence. Something to know in general is that this film was the first of a whole genre of films, Raja Hindustani included, which were a return to this kind of sweet love story. So you get to ogle hot Salman, and you get to learn a little bit of film history.
-Ghulam: Unfortunately, fight scenes don’t really get that much better. Have you seen Ghajini yet? I think Aamir’s fights in that are pretty good, but still not what you might be used to from Hollywood. Aati Kya Khandala, another Film History moment, one of the all time most popular songs, referenced every where. Fun behind the scenes story, at the end of Lagaan in order to get the hundreds of extras to believably spontaneously react with joy, Aamir said “oh, I know how to make this happen” and then just strolled out and started singing Aati Kya Kandala, and as soon as he got a few words in, the crowd went insane.
-Bajrangi Bhaijaan: So glad you liked it! I wish I could recommend more movies like this, but unfortunately they are few and far between. Although, again, you should check out Chak De India. No adorable little girls, but similarly well-made with a great message and a lot of heart.
-3 Idiots: Really an amazing movie. Aamir’s performance is wonderful, and I am so glad you were also able to appreciate Maddy and Sharman Joshi! If you want more Maddy, try Saala Khadoos, which I think is on Netflix.
And please keep reporting back!
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 1:58 PM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
Do you think making/remaking Ittefaq is relevant now? Considering that it’s a pure thriller and we’ve already had an adaptation of sorts in Kaun? Also, Rajesh Khanna played the lead in the original – do you think the decision to case Siddharth who’s good looking but not that great an actor otherwise might be the movie’s undoing?
LikeLike
I just watched the original to prepare for the remake, and I was struck by how many intriguing ways it could be remade. I am hoping/expecting for them to do something similar to the Don remake, where they play with the audience expectations in a way that makes the twists even more surprising. For one thing, the original is told straight, not from alternate perspectives, whereas this one looks like it will be constantly flashing back and actually showing the alternative twists to the story.
So I do think it is worth remaking, at it’s heart it is such a simple story, a man on the run holds a woman hostage in her home, and what happens next? Plus, it is a “legit” remake, again like Don, in that it is being made by the studio and family of the original filmmakers. It feels more like a tribute than a ripoff in that way.
I think the Siddharth casting is brilliant! Rajesh at the time he made Ittefaq was still more of a handsome chocolate hero than an actor, in fact this was one of the roles that proved he really could act, it came right after Aradhana. And part of what made his character so hard to handle was seeing someone we are used to as this clean perfect type being all terrifying and wild. In the same way it was confusing seeing Nanda playing this slippery character instead of her usual straightforward bouncy heroines, and Sonakshi also gives us the same “wait, Sonakshi? But she’s so nice! I am sure we can trust her” feeling.
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 3:26 PM, dontcallitbollywood wrote:
>
LikeLike
I loooved the twist in the new Don, and SRK was :))
I haven’t watched the old Ittefaq, but have watched Kaun and hence wondering. But I’m still a little conflicted about Siddharth, I’m hoping Akshaye Khanna will more than make up for it though – what a fantastic actor he is. And thank you so much for answering every question/comment :))
LikeLike
I just wiki’d Kaun to confirm, and yep, the plot goes in a very different direction than Ittefaq. which is what is exciting, all you need is a man on the run and a woman alone, and you can do anything with it that you want. Similar to Don, you just need a “good” man put in place of a physically identical “bad” one and you can add on whatever further complication you want.
Akshaye’s character is, I am hoping, going to be the wild card. The police end up having a surprising connection in the original, but there are 3 police characters with distinctive motives, not just one. Which means Akshaye could be a combination of all 3 somehow, or just one of them, or anything else.
LikeLike
Can you please write old Ittefaq review? I’m watching it now, and I would love to read your thoughts.
But unlike you, I don’t think casting Siddharth Malhotra was a good decision, primaly because I just don’t like him. I have never been a fan, but lately I read his tweet about Haryana floods and I thought: Oh man he is such an idiot. His other tweets wasn’t better and I have lost all interest in watching him on screen, and knowing he has nothing “inside” I don’t even consider him attractive or sexy anymore. Sure, I don’t know him personally, but that is the impression he gaves me. On the contrary- I started following Madhavan because he is handsome, but reading his interviews and tweets I saw that he is so much more than just pretty face, and I become a fan. The same with Shah Rukh and Siddharth Narayan. And of course they all can act, so even if they would be shallow or odd (like Nawazuddin for example) there would be the reason to watch them, unfortunately Siddharth Malhotra doesn’t have even that.
LikeLike
Oh, I’ve been planning to review the Old Ittefaq for Classics Friday this week for ages. Definitely going to do it, and probably put in a full spoiler summary for people who can’t manage to see it.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if they use that “pretty but nothing inside” vibe with Siddharth for the character? Make him be someone you are initially charmed by, and then slowly realize there is no there-there.
LikeLike
Yes, you’re right. It would be interesting, but will Siddhart be able to act well? This is what dishearten me from watching this movie.
LikeLike
So I should see the original NOW! Who has it?
LikeLike
youtube! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3M7cC97Xo0
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the link…I just watched it 🙂
LikeLike
Will comment whenever power comes back on. Have no lights, no heat, no water, so food in fridge abt to go as in freezers. Trying to conserve usage. I hate not being able to read all the blogs and all the comments.
LikeLike
Oh dear! Are you in Maine like my sister or somewhere else with no power?
LikeLike