Spoilers ahead…
It’s a wedding. It’s Jatland. That’s not really a word but it isn’t hard to guess what it means. Like Finland is occupied by Finns, Jatland is the domain of Jats, who, we’re told, don’t believe in love before marriage. But if that were true, there would be no movie, and so the bride elopes with her boyfriend, leaving her father fuming. Literally. When he gets this news, he’s seated at the mandap, before the fire. He wants his daughter back. And so he abducts the friends of the man she ran off with. If they don’t know where the couple is, who will? Sabbir Khan’s Heropanti is a remake of the Telugu film Parugu, and it moves to the classic rhythms of a certain kind of love story popular in Tamil and Telugu cinema, one that’s as much about the individuality of the couple as the importance of the family unit. Bommarillu and its Tamil remake Santosh Subramaniam come to mind, along with Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge, the granddaddy of this type of love story, where love for one’s boyfriend or girlfriend was placed on the same footing as love for one’s parents. You may love the girl, but you’re not going to get her till you get her daddy to love you.
This is a strange regression in the context of love stories, after the freedoms of films like Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak and Dil, where the couple essentially told their disapproving families where they could get off. After all, you have one life to live. Wouldn’t you want to spend the rest of it with someone you like? But films like Heropanti mount a strong case for the parents’ expectations. At the wedding, when Chaudhury (Prakash Raj) looks fondly at his daughter, the bride who will soon run away, someone remarks, “Aap ki jaan to is chidiya mein basi hai.” She is his life. That explains why he has such a tough time trying to do the “honourable” thing when she runs away and he sets out to find her. He knows he should kill her, but that amounts, in a way, to suicide. (Remember? She is his life.) So he wishes – no, prays for the next best thing, proof that she hasn’t run away of her own accord. If she hasn’t, then it’s the guy’s fault, and that can be easily remedied with a bullet. After all, there’s a reason the supporting cast consists of Henchman No. 1, Henchman No. 2…
This is the scenario in which Tiger Shroff makes his debut, often backed by the flute theme from his father’s first hit, Hero. That was more than thirty years ago, and the leading man has changed in so many ways. For one, he is not allowed to be hairy, at least in the parts one can glimpse in a family entertainer. Shroff is suitably waxed and polished – as with all young heroes today, the gym is his temple, Salman Khan his deity – and his amply muscled torso is frequently put on display. This is another way the leading man has changed. In earlier films, the heroine used to be the one required to strip. (Even the prim n’ proper ones like Meenakshi Seshadri were given a form-fitting Shakuntala-type costume and a couple of thrust-the-bust dance moves.) Here, the heroine, Dimpy, is played by a pleasant newcomer named Kriti Sanon, and she’s a veritable nun – that is, if nuns were given to navel displays. That’s it, really. There’s really not much in today’s films for hormonal teenage boys hoping to drag and drop another image into their mental folder. Unless the boys are into Shroff. With the camera gazing so lasciviously on the hero, it’s probably no surprise that he’s begun to look like a heroine. Jackie Shroff was the kind of macho hero who looked macho even when he draped a bandhni dupatta around his neck. Tiger makes his entry in a leather jacket, and he still looks… well, delicate. He’s given some unfortunate dance steps that emphasise this… well, delicacy, but even otherwise he moves with the litheness of a ballet dancer. He turns as if executing a pirouette. He has a smooth face and pink lips and the body of a champion weightlifter. He’s somewhere between the hero in touch with his feminine side (think Shah Rukh Khan in the 1990s) and the hero who’s all cocky swagger (think Anil Kapoor in the 1980s). And his character, Babloo, is somewhere between the soft, swoony-hearted romantic who treasures a fallen earring (think Rajendra Kumar in the 1960s) and the brute who’ll do anything for his woman (think Sunny Deol in the 2000s). It’s all very confusing. We want to tell him: “Make up your mind. Pick one type and stick with it.” In return, he tells us, repeatedly, that he’s got what no one else has. “Sabko aati nahin, meri jaati nahin.” He’s referring to heropanti, the quality of heroism. And then he shyly asks the heroine whether she thinks he is tall and handsome, whether his nose looks good, whether his lips look good.
Heropanti isn’t terrible. There is a nice set of contrivances, early on, that prevent Babloo from seeing Dimpy’s face. He doesn’t, therefore, realise that she’s the same girl he fell for, at first sight, when that earring fell from her ear, and later, when he saw her praying at a temple, her hair fluttering prettily in the Bollywood Breeze™. And when he sees that she is that girl, it’s a dramatic moment. Under a better filmmaker, these scenes would have registered more strongly, but in films like these, we take what we can get. A better filmmaker would have also realised that between the falling-in-love scenes and the separated-from-lover scenes and the happily-ever-after scenes, you need a few being-in-love scenes, so we know what this boy and girl mean to each other and why we’re supposed to root for them. And a better filmmaker would not rely so much on coincidences, like a conveniently overheard conversation, or following the trail of the abducted Dimpy by glimpsing a tiny statuette of Ganesha that’s fallen from her hands in an insanely crowded Delhi street. (Things always seem to keep falling from her – that earring, this statuette.) But the parts where Babloo sees how much Dimpy’s father loves her and cares for her are nicely done. There’s a terrific stretch outside a marriage bureau where Chaudhury runs into a couple that has eloped, and he tries to understand them. Prakash Raj has played these scenes a thousand times before, but as he seems to be the only one around who can act, we remain invested in him. As I said, in films like these, we take what we can get.
There are some tokenistic attempts at making the heroine more than just a showpiece. She says she wants to become Miss Haryana. (Translation: She Has Dreams.) She studies Home Science in college. (Translation: She’s Being Trained to Be a Homemaker in This Hideously Male-dominated Area.) Babloo talks to her about equality and bra burning and women’s suffrage. But there’s no denying that this is his film, a “show-reel film” meant to tell us how well Tiger can dance and fight and show off his muscles, and how tall and handsome he is, how good his nose is, how good his lips are.
KEY:
* Parugu = see here
* Santosh Subramaniam = see here
* Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge = see here
* Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak = see here
* Dil = see here
* the flute theme = see here
* Shakuntala-type costume = see here
* a bandhni dupatta = see here , around the 3:00 mark
* Bollywood Breeze™ = see here
Copyright ©2014 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
ramitbajaj01
May 24, 2014
Oh man, totally le li tiger ki.
and that hairy line and bollywood breeze, Rofl. Seriously, bure haal ho gaye has has ke.
LikeLike
venkatesh
May 25, 2014
“Thrust the bust” type of dance moves 🙂
Dude you rule.
LikeLike
Ram Murali
May 25, 2014
“Bollywood Breeze TM” cracked me up big time! Awesome review!
LikeLike
Anuja
May 25, 2014
Lol! BR, pretty boys with their buff bods, ‘pink lips’ and gorgeous clothes really get your goat don’t they? Your withering contempt for the new age metrosexuals like Hrithik, Ram Charan, and the rest of the himbo brigade, which you express so piquantly is an absolute delight to read, even if it is mean. Worse, you hate it when some of the more curvy heroines fail to hit the gym with the same fanatical fervour (Anjali, Nayan in her Gajini days etc.) But bias notwithstanding, your writing on such weighty matters is great for a few guffaws!
Back to the topic at hand, have you watched Paragu? What did you think? Allu Arjun is a repeat offender when it comes to showing off his waxed assets and preening like a peacock but I thought he was fantastic in Paragu. And you groused that there were not enough being- in – love scenes in Heropanti and the same can be said about Paragu but even so, in the latter there were no sour notes. You can almost believe the fact that two people can be madly in love with each other even if they have not had a chance to fully explore what they have been feeling. The director, managed to make it oh-so-beautiful even when there were ham – fisted contrivances all over the place.
LikeLike
burcidibollyreview
May 25, 2014
One of your best reviews, had a great time reading. My favorite: “supporting cast– Henchman No. 1, Henchman No. 2…” hilarious! true for most South films!
LikeLike
Maru
May 25, 2014
ROFL, Brangan! Oh for the “ Bollywood Breeze™” to blow this kind of fluff our way more often – just to read your snarky reviews. Much fun and much delicacy in the use of delicate to describe Tiger Shroff’s looks and moves. Sabko aati nahin, aapki jaati nahin – I mean the art of using words to destroy the hero in the nicest possible way. 😉 Wah, Wah!
LikeLike
MANK
May 26, 2014
Brangan:There’s really not much in today’s films for hormonal teenage boys hoping to drag and drop another image into their mental folder
Ha Ha , Man that rocks. yup , whatever happened to those Mandakinis under waterfalls or The Kimi katkars and Shilpa shirodkars getting drenched in the rain. Now its the Varuns and Tigers doing the honors. Seriously i am totally disappointed with the concept of hindi film hero going haywire like this.turning them into wax statues God!.
LikeLike
MANK
May 26, 2014
@Anuja,Agree with you about Poragu and Allu Arjun.It is a better directed film. Brangan is right. the tamil and telugu filmmakers makes these kinds of films well.One thing about Arjun is that , inspite of waxed abs, weak voice and all , he is a much easier guy to connect with on screen which unfortunately Tiger is not.At least he doesnt have pink lips.
does Brangan has a female bias .Dont think so. , he had good things to say about vidya balan’s curves in Shaadi ke side effects. https://baradwajrangan.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/shaadi-ke-side-effects-6542-989-76434/
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
May 26, 2014
What the heck. U type actress in heropanti on google and u get tiger shroff as response. Lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Gypsy Girl
May 27, 2014
BR, it’s interesting that you say this reminds you of Bommarillu, considering Parugu was also made by the same director. I rather enjoyed Parugu but this one I shall pass.
LikeLike
SR
May 27, 2014
……he is not allowed to be hairy, at least in the parts one can glimpse in a family entertainer….. 🙂
FYI – many 21st century women prefer glabrous/metrosexuals for non-family entertainment; no fun looking at a man and being reminded of PETA’s anti-fur campaign.
LikeLike
brangan
May 27, 2014
Anuja: Haven’t watched “Parugu.”
Maru: Destroy the hero? I’m not sure I was going for that. In the sense, I hope I didn’t sound cruel or personal. I just wanted to give an idea of how his screen presence was.
SR: Interesting comment. Think I’m going to use it someplace 🙂
LikeLike
Utkal
May 27, 2014
Boss, you are in great flow here. Averaging a laugh every two lines almost for me. And managing to tell a few meaningful things about the film along thew way. Haven’t seen the film, but seems like a fair assessment. Not all bad. And i suspect, in spite of his obvious femininity, Tiger has his charm as well. Not seeing the film, so wont know till at some later date when I do see a film of his.
LikeLike
Anuja
May 27, 2014
@MANK I won’t call it a bias… Perhaps a preference for a certain body type.
LikeLike
Sunny
May 28, 2014
BR is becoming extremely predictable with his non-stop whining about how awful it is that women now get to objectify heroes.
It is hilarious how worked up he becomes because the poor boys only get to see the heroine’s navel, which is insufficient soft-core fodder for their fantasies. Apparently a beautiful, perfectly toned young woman dancing in a crop-top and mini-skirt (surrounded by similarly clad extras) is simply not enough female objectification for BR’s liking. How cruel that BR didn’t get his money’s worth of ‘thrust-the-bust’ ! How could the director not understand that he was meant to sake male laviciousness while firmly ignoring any similar desire on the part of his female viewers? It really is so sad for boys these days that they have to make do with only Kamli, Sheila, Munni and Babydoll. Whatever happened to good old-fashioned female objectification?
And why are the men no longer portly and middle-aged dudes who waddle around with pot bellies while leering at lithe young girls their daughters age? That is the sort of strong, capable man who always inspires the confidence that he could knock out five bad guys effortlessly as opposed to lounge about on the couch watching TV and snacking between meals. Meanwhile, all the muscular men dominating the media these days (Ryan Gosling, David Beckham, Le Bron James) are so delicate and metro-sexual.
Rangan needs to stop deluding himself and address his evidently enormous insecurities because it’s no longer just a line or two mocking the hero. It is now the vitriolic centrepiece of every review about any film that happens to feature a sculpted male torso. Which is a pity because I think that BR is a fine writer when he is not taking these graitituous, bitchy swipes at every man who commits the cardinal sin of becoming ripped.
LikeLike
Rahini David
May 28, 2014
Rangan: Being a hormonal teenage boy in the eighties and being a hormonal teenage boy in 2014 are quite different. So I’d suggest you to stop worrying so much about them.
Sunny: This entire “so-you-like-objectifying-but-not-being-objectified” accusation sounds so much like the “so-you-like-to-eat-animals-but-how-would-you-like-if-an-animal-ate-you” accusation that vegetarians are so fond of. You’d convert nobody. You are just preaching to the choir. Just saying.
LikeLike
Sunny
May 28, 2014
Rahini- I don’t particularly mind that Rangan likes objectifying women but not watching men being objectified for women. What amuses me are his constant attempts to spin this into some kind of a grand crisis when in actuality female objectification is still far more predominant.
Even in modern, metrosexual Bollywood most of the heroes are twice the age and half the height of their young, sexy, leggy female model counterparts. Neither Aamir nor Shahrukh nor Ajay is likely to win any beauty competition soon. Even in modern Bollywood, there are female item numbers aplenty, each more risque than the next. Even in modern Bollywood, the female extras tend to be scantily clad and highly sexualized Eastern Europeans while the male extras are fully clothed men. Even in this film, the heroine is a beautiful woman with a fit body clad in the barest minimum of clothes. So what on earth does Rangan keep jabbering on about?
I usual ignore this aspect of Rangan’s reviews but here he is not just making a disgruntled aside about things not being as good as they were back in his day when the nubile, buxom woman fell for the hairy, pot-bellied man. Nearly half this review focuses on the gross unfairness of Shroff’s hairless body (and nose and lips) getting top billing over Sanon’s body. It’s becoming all too repetitive and boring, especially coming from somebody whose writing I have very high expectations of.
Worrying for the poor teenage boys who are deprived glimpses of the heroine’s breasts and have to make do with her bare stomach alone? There is another kind of filmic entertainment on offer online that caters to the fantasies of hormonal teenage boys who want to see unattractive looking men paired with women who bare more than just their stomachs and if that is all the hormonal teenage boy wants, he should stick to watching those videos. And then perhaps the talented critic can go back to actually reviewing movies instead of focussing primarily on the bust-to-ab ration onscreen.
Sorry if I am being terribly rude. I used to love Rangan’s work but his recent writing has begun to alienate me and I thought I would voice my opinion. I cannot of course presume to tell him what to write about (and clearly a lot of his readership enjoy this constant attack on handsome, muscle-bound men) but I can present the flip side to his views on the topic of male vs. female objectification.
LikeLike
burcidibollyreview
May 28, 2014
@Sunny– What a post! Hats off!
LikeLike
brangan
May 28, 2014
Sunny: This seems to be one of those things where the intent with which I write these things isn’t quite what the reader gets. And I’m not getting defensive here. I completely get that the reader *will* read what I write through a prism. I’m just trying to explain what I’m saying.
1. “how awful it is that women now get to objectify heroes”
“how worked up he becomes because the poor boys only get to see the heroine’s navel, which is insufficient soft-core fodder for their fantasies”
I am making an observation here, not a judgement. I am saying “look how things have changed,” and you’re seeing it as “alas, look how terrible things have become.”
Even the thrust-the-bust remark was about how things used to be and how things are now — again, not a lament but an observation.
I don’t think I come at this from the objectification angle at all. For me, what’s most important is how the narrative is served. That’s where I usually come from — whether this muscle-baring stuff is all there is or is there something else…
2. ” And why are the men no longer portly and middle-aged dudes who waddle around with pot bellies…”
I think I said something like this in the “Agneepath” review. What got my goat there was the excessive preening. Instead of giving me a well-shaped character, if you’re just giving me a well-shaped body, then the purpose of the film is undone — IMO. I understand that lots of people may come to the movies just to see this perfectly shaped body, and I cannot judge them. I’m just saying: get the basics right first, and then you can be buff and preen around. Again, I get that this may only be my POV, not a universal standard.
3. I make these references because reviewing to me is a personal thing and as someone whose formative years at the movies was in the 1980s, when a certain type of male-female body type prevailed, I find it INTERESTING to muse on these things.
I have a piece coming up this weekend about how kids like me grew up thinking that hairiness = masculinity. I see it as a personal piece, i.e. “once upon a time, we thought a man was a man if he had a moustache.” I don’t mean to say “a man is a man ONLY if he has a moustache.”
I hope you read that piece and give a comment. Will be really interested to see how you processed the piece.
4. Am I saying female objectification does not exist? I don’t think I’ve said that ever…
5. “Worrying for the poor teenage boys who are deprived glimpses of the heroine’s breasts and have to make do with her bare stomach alone?”
I meant that as a funny line — look how the girl is exposing less than the guy. Again, not “alas, the girl is exposing less than the guy.”
6. “Nearly half this review focuses on the gross unfairness of Shroff’s hairless body (and nose and lips) getting top billing over Sanon’s body.”
I didn’t mean it this way. I meant “look at how, in these films, it’s the guy who asks the girl to rate his lips etc, how things have changed.” I don’t mean that this is unfair. Just that it is. Of course, I’m implying that I don’t care much for this sort of thing, but again, that’s my POV and not a universal truth.
Thank you for having high expectations of my writing, and more importantly thank you for bringing all this up. It forces me to look harder at my writing. That’s always a good thing.
LikeLike
Di
May 29, 2014
And for sample you showed Hero without shirt and his ample bosom. If hero is so voluptuous then no need for a heroine to do stripping. Don’t worry. With so much criticism, he will surely tone down the lipstick in his next movie unless his lips are naturally red (remember both his grandmom’s are ‘gora’). Tiger doesn’t have the deep voice of his dad or his dad’s height. But then he has the dance moves. Hopefully he is also an actor. methinks he is here to stay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sunny
May 29, 2014
BR- Thank you for that reply. I know that you meant much of this review to be humorous, and that your comments about hormonal boys were not completely serious. I meant a lot of my caustic remarks in a sarcastic sense as well. I can see this change in the portrayal of male and female bodies interests you, but I guess I feel that you belabour this point too much in too many reviews and that it comes from a perspective that, to me, feels unnecessarily critical and even spiteful.
In any case, I wanted to let you know my thoughts on this piece as I’ve followed your reviews for a long time and increasingly felt that this was something I disagreed with you on. I suppose I’ll just skim lightly over such comments in your future reviews and focus instead of the little nuggets of insight and wit that your writing usually contains. Cheers for taking my criticism so sportingly!
LikeLike
Sunny
May 29, 2014
And thanks for letting me know about the moustache piece, I will be sure to read it and let you know what I think.
LikeLike
Abhirup
May 29, 2014
“Instead of giving me a well-shaped character, if you’re just giving me a well-shaped body, then the purpose of the film is undone — IMO.”
I agree completely, Mr. Rangan. I have no objection to a hero being buff and toned, but if that’s all there is to the hero, I think I have every right to laugh at him. Moreover, if the role the actor is playing doesn’t require such a buff body, then all that brawn becomes all the more laughable: I was re-watching ‘Student of the Year’ recently, and it struck me how absurd it is that Varun Dhawan and Siddharth Malhotra, who are playing school kids, have the kind of uber-muscular, fully developed bodies that men can develop only in their late twenties and thirties. Now, I understand that there are people who revel at the sight of these bodies, and they are welcome to enjoy themselves thus, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us don’t get to comment on the ridiculousness of schoolboys looking like marble statues of Greek gods. The same, as a matter of fact, goes for heroines; not every role requires women to have hourglass figures or to look like glam dolls, and the sooner our filmmakers wake up to this fact, the better. As in the case of men, if a shapely body is all there is to a woman, I have no reason to take her seriously.
I haven’t seen this movie yet, but from what I have seen of him in the promos, tiger shroff does seem to be one of the all-looks-and-no-acting-chops sort of guys, too many of whom have been appearing in the movies of late. I think, therefore, that you are absolutely justified in what you have said about him. When I see actors like shroff, I ask myself: does his role really need that kind of a body? More importantly, can he act? If the answer to both the questions is “no”, then I applaud every review that makes fun of shroff and his ilk.
Finally, “I am making an observation here, not a judgement”
–yeah, that’s how it came across to me. There’s a hell of a lot of tonal difference between an observational remark and a judgmental remark, and yours adheres closely to the former. Of course, everybody is free to read you the way he/she wants. But I find the attacks on you baffling. Anyway, thanks for a very enjoyable review. You rock.
LikeLike
MANK
May 29, 2014
Abhirup, that was a great comment, i too found the attacks on Brangan baffling. The observational and fun nature of the review was so obvious to me. Agree with you about SOY.Its a pity that even school boys have started to look like Rambos. the thing is that these buff bodies have become an sort of item in a film just like those item songs. its actually damaging for these actors in the long run,. the skills they may possess as performers are completely overshadowed by these aggressive exhibition of bodies as the audience comes to identify them with only their bodies. This has happened to many actors in the past even in hollywood , like Sly stallone who was a good actor in the early films like the first 2 Rockys or Fist etc , but his career went haywire after all the Rambos and subsequently bad rocky films . The audience came to identify him with only mountains of muscle.So he became sort of joke when he try to do something like Copland.
Anyway its nice to hear dissenting voices, that really helps to put things in perspective.
LikeLike
brangan
May 29, 2014
Abhirup/MANK: I don’t know that I would label Sunny’s comment an “attack.” It’s a strongly worded disagreement, maybe. If you want attacks, you have to go to rediff and firstpost, where things get really personal 🙂
LikeLike
MANK
May 29, 2014
Brangan, huh Rediff :-), oh boy! Empire of the Trolls 🙂 Been there .This is a saner space than that, Thank God!
LikeLike
nagharajabishek
May 29, 2014
@ brangan: No seriously, I must second Abhirup and MANK here. His was a case of itchy, key-happy fingers which I’m sure outpaced the contents of his skull. I (and I’m sure a lot of others) only click on reviews of films like Heropanti, which i’m never going to watch, for the scathing albeit clever brangan cheek and witticisms on tap. Also, like abhirup said, the humour didn’t even displace the observational/objective tone. Either a sense of humour is rare commodity to come by where Mr.Sunny is from or he is one of the aforementioned “boys who are into shroff” 😀
LikeLike
Abhirup
May 29, 2014
Mr. Rangan, I just want to say something I have been meaning to for a long time: good behaviour and tolerance are things one ought to learn from you. I say this without the slightest of sarcasm. I don’t think I would be able to put up with certain comments that I see on your blog; indeed, I think I would reject them outright instead of publishing them. Which, I guess, reveals as much about me as it does about the comments, but that’s how I am: there are some tonal varieties I simply can’t take, so I shut them out completely. So, somebody like you, who deals with those comments as civilly and rationally as you do never ceases to amaze me. I hope I can learn it somewhat from you. I realize I am sounding way too much like a fanboy of yours, but then, that’s what I have been for a long time now, and I take this opportunity to declare the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ramitbajaj01
May 30, 2014
It is unfortunate that Mr.Sunny chose this piece to highlight his point because most of us felt that this was an innocuous humorous piece. However his larger point addressing Mr.Rangan’s complex shouldn’t be lost. I am not referring to this piece,but in past Mr.Rangan has written some reviews where his complex of muscular good looking bodies was all too apparent.I can’t recall the pieces offhand now. But those definitely made me search Mr.Rangan on google images, and as expected I found his looks similar to that of mine, an anti hero for bollywood. I wondered if his subtle remarks were meant to bring a quantum of solace for people with round shaped bellies who could be sulking inside by looking at six pack abs onscreen. Or perhaps Mr.Rangan is indeed trying to make a point that one can do without a toned body and that a little fat is not all bad.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
May 30, 2014
Btw Abhirup, what a comment! I also feel the same for Mr.Rangan. He is a source of inspiration for me in many ways.
LikeLike
Rahini David
May 30, 2014
ramitbajaj: “but in past Mr.Rangan has written some reviews where his complex of muscular good looking bodies was all too apparent”
You’re welcome. And what a thread that was. 🙂
Sunny: “Nearly half this review focuses on the gross unfairness of Shroff’s hairless body (and nose and lips) getting top billing over Sanon’s body.”
Yeah. To me it sounded so gay and made me so merry. 😉
Others: Why is it assumed that Sunny is a Mister?
LikeLike
hari
May 30, 2014
ramitbajaj01, on the contrary little or more fat is all good :). More cushion for the pushin as the saying goes :).
LikeLike
Sunny
May 30, 2014
“I don’t think I would be able to put up with certain comments that I see on your blog; there are some tonal varieties I simply can’t take, so I shut them out completely.”
Forgive me for offending your so very delicate sensibilties with my ‘tonal variety’ Abhirup. But I must admit that I am very surprised to see such pious righteousness from one who has no hestiation in (frequently) writing comments as crude as these:
“Ah, so you ultimately reveal why you have become such a pathetic excuse for a biped: you never could get over the fact that retard roshan wasn’t the one to inaugurate your post-popping phase, and that even after his separation from Suzanne, you have as much chance of doing him as Mayavati has of being the next Pope…
I stand vindicated: you indeed can’t read. Or else, your grasp of the English language is worse than a newborn chimpanzee’s. Buy a dictionary, provided you know what that is. Learn to use it; it shall take time, given that your IQ is lower than the room temperature, but keep trying, and maybe in a year or so, you shall know how to handle a dictionary.”
LikeLike
Abhirup
May 30, 2014
Sunny: In that “tonal variety” line of mine that you have quoted, I wasn’t referring to your comments on this thread at all, but on some other comments I have seen on other posts by Mr. Rangan. If it’s your comments that I was talking about, I would have said as much, or I would have addressed my comments directly at you. That I have done neither should have been clue enough that I wasn’t talking about you, but your inability to grasp the same shows that you are rather thick, besides also being eager to pick a quarrel (probably for the want of anything better to do with your time).
As for the “crude” comments of mine that you have referred to, those were written in reply to somebody staggeringly uncouth and unpleasant; with people like those, I believe in the rule of “pay them back in their own coin.” Which is what I did.
So calm down, and get a life.
LikeLike
Madan
May 30, 2014
I too find the muscle flexing variety of Bolly hero pretty boring. At least it used to be Salman Khan’s sole preserve earlier and I knew I needed to run as far away from wherever they were running as I could. Somewhere down the line, he may well have become the role model for the latest young tigers (pun intended). I did find heroes like AB or Garam Dharam more ‘manly’ though I do prefer Federer to Boris Becker for some reason. 😛
LikeLike
Jai
May 31, 2014
Sorry BR–this may be slightly off topic, but does anyone else feel Tiger uncannily resembles Priyanka Vadra? A google search on those lines yielded this hilarious article:
http://www.theunrealtimes.com/2014/05/26/congress-leaders-clamour-for-tiger-shroff-to-take-over-party-reins-if-priyanka-doesnt-step-in/
LikeLike
brangan
June 2, 2014
ramitbajaj01: I can’t speak about the complex, but again, I wish to emphasise that this is not about actors like Akshay Kumar who look fit in a healthy, unfussy sense — he looks great for his age — but those who bulk up and get all these 24-hours-in-the-gym physiques for nothing more than to play a lover boy.
Rahini David: And that article was — again — about actors who shouldn’t be criticised for having extra weight when this weighty look doesn’t go against the character they are playing. If you’re playing an action hero and look like Madhavan in that film, then it’s a bit odd, but if you’re in a romantic drama, then I didn’t find it all that off-putting, just like I didn’t find Vidya Balan’s curves problematic in the film with Farhan Akhtar.
LikeLike
burcidibollyreview
June 2, 2014
I saw the film just recently and I think Tiger looks good. That’s how women want men nowadays. Think of that scene when Tiger comes out of the shower and hugs Kriti (which btw, doesn’t exist in Parugu). There is a side shot of them and it looks hot! Take away Tiger’s big muscles and it wouldn’t have been so hot. That scene had little purpose in the film, but that’s a different issue.
LikeLike
Rahini David
June 2, 2014
Rangan: I was just giving a link to what post I thought he was refering to. It was the comment section of that post that all the objectification issues were hotly debated. I did understand the point you were making
LikeLike