While celebrating ‘Fan’, let’s not forget Kamal Haasan’s ‘Uttama Villain’. Or the fact that these films can be made only in India.
Watching Shah Rukh Khan’s Fan, I kept recalling Kamal Haasan’s Uttama Villain. Both films are not just about the characters these actors play (within the movie) but also about who these actors are – outside these films, and across the films they’ve made in their career. Thus, it’s impossible, if you’ve been following their work over the years, to watch these films as just films. You keep wondering if this scene is a reference to this earlier film, if that moment is a nod to that earlier moment. Both Fan and Uttama Villain cast an unflattering light on the protagonists, who are shown to be narcissistic and self-absorbed. And both films play with the notion of the death of a star. Uttama Villain does this literally, as the star at the centre of the film is dying. Fan deals with death in a metaphorical manner, saying that stardom will come to an end if your fans are turned off. You may face a fate worse than death: an empty auditorium.
But the purpose of this piece isn’t to compare the two films, fascinating though that pursuit might be. (Imagine the coincidence. Even the announcement of both films happened in the same year: 2013.) After Fan, I was curious if actors anywhere else in the world had subjected themselves to these meta-exercises masquerading as movies. But no. When I searched for “autobiographical films,” I found only the usual suspects. Fellini’s 8½, in which the protagonist with writer’s block (filmmaker’s block?) was based on the director. Cameron Crowe’s second-best film, Almost Famous (it’s terrific, but it’s no Jerry Maguire) – again, based on the director, on his years as a Rolling Stone writer. Then there’s Stardust Memories, Woody Allen’s severely underrated satire. It isn’t strictly autobiographical, but we can at least make the case that there’s a great deal of megalomania and narcissism on view, as is evident in the scene where a besotted fan asks the filmmaker to sign her breast, as though he were a Beatle.
But autobiographical films with actors (not bio-pics with actors acting out the autobiographies of others, but films about and around the actors themselves)? I couldn’t find one. But then, maybe films like Fan and Uttama Villain are possible only in India, where the cult of the actor is infinitely more potent than the cult of the director. Also, there isn’t another filmmaking centre in the world where stars come with such strong signatures. Take Leonardo DiCaprio. A huge, huge star. But when you think of iconic films – that is, not necessarily great films but films with moments that have slipped into legend – what do you have? Titanic certainly, with that arms-outstretched pose on the ship. The Revenant too, with that mauling by the bear. Maybe a couple more? Or take Brad Pitt. If you were to make a meta-movie based on his career, where are the grand, defining moments? Can you work in references to, say, Inglourious Basterds or Troy or Babel or Fight Club and expect audiences to instantly cotton on? Okay, maybe Fight Club, especially if he’s delivering one of his be-the-change mantras.
The difference is that Indian stars – especially the big, mainstream ones – are extraordinarily aware of their relationship with fans. They know what fans pay to see them in, see them do. This much could be said of international stars too. But they don’t go the extra distance Indian stars do, which is to route at least a part of their performance directly to the fan. (How ironic, then, that Uttama Villain flopped and Fan doesn’t seem to be doing all that well either. These films were culled from fanboy moments, and yet, fans didn’t exactly warm up to them.) In Hollywood films and foreign films, on the other hand, the performances are almost always contained by the framework of the character, by the vision of the director, by the fourth wall. So you get fandom along the lines of “Oh, he’s such a heartthrob,” or “Oh, what a good actor he is.” But not that many people go, “Oh, he’s mine and mine alone, and I have proof because he ignored his co-star and spoke directly to me… He even winked at me.”
And through the course of a long career, Indian stars accumulate so many of these “star signature” moments that you just need to string them along and you have a screenplay. (I’m exaggerating, of course, but you get the drift.) You can do this for Rajinikanth, Dev Anand, Raj Kapoor, Amitabh Bachchan, Ajith, Vijay, Salman Khan… Is there a downside to the self-referential strain that courses through their films? You could say this is why stars get trapped once they find what makes them click with fans. You could say this is why a Rajinikanth, say, finds it so difficult to deviate from the formula that made him the Super Star. But it is what it is. Stars are the creations of audiences. No actor became a star by doing something audiences did not like. This is what’s so endearing (and also scary) about mainstream cinema in India, that we seem to have a hand in shaping our idols’ career trajectories, to an extent unheard of anywhere else in the world. This is what explains a film like Fan.
An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2016 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
KadaKumar
April 23, 2016
Uttama Villain was a collossal bore. It was a vanity film which had no real plot or point, and the film-within-the-film was just insufferably irritating. The flop was well-deserved.
Fan on the other hand was interesting and entertaining at the least, with a psycho thriller angle. Too bad its not doing too well.
LikeLike
Vish
April 23, 2016
Hello BR sir, I’m a big fan. Been following your reviews and this blog for a long time now. Loved reading your books as well…especially Conversations with Mani Ratnam. Apt that my first interaction with you is within this piece about “fans” and autobiographical references in films. Keep rocking and writing as you always do !!
Btw a similar instance in a Hollywood film that comes to mind is Spike Jonze’s “Being John Malkovich” written by Charlie Kaufman.
LikeLike
sanjana
April 23, 2016
They crave for fans and when they get them they hate it. They want privacy, space and exclusiveness. They will mingle only with their equals or higher ups. They start quarrelling with cameramen and journalists.
LikeLike
Niranjan
April 23, 2016
One of the most ‘Is-this-a-movie-or-is-it-his-life?- movies I’ve seen is Allen’s ‘Deconstructing Harry’, where most of the moments there are his own disgust at his life, and perhaps how he has come to terms with who he is as an artist/person; perhaps the best epiphany moments that one may not get from all those on-the-couch sessions with a shrink!
LikeLike
Rahini David
April 23, 2016
A top 10 list you may find relevant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
April 23, 2016
Rahini David: many of those films aren’t really meta, which is more than just self-awareness. We had long discussion in some other thread about what’s meta… Some kind soul, please remind me 🙂
LikeLike
huyen
April 23, 2016
rangan (i presume you are b. rangan, like we all are in madras), i’ve never written in before though i’ve been reading your blog for a couple of years now. i’m a journalist myself and i recommend your blog to friends for the superb writing even more than the reviews.
a non-sequitur now… your million references to western films in this piece pisses me off. it’s such a shame that we indians need to reference the west all the time to show how erudite we are. i’m not necessarily referring to you. i sometimes laugh out aloud when people like suresh menon quote obscure western writers — see how much i know about THAT?
rant over 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
April 23, 2016
Can we include Guddi here? Jaya Bhaduri and Dharmendra acted in this movie. And Vani Jayaram sang that famous song in this film, bole re pappihara. Feel good movie.
LikeLike
Rahini David
April 23, 2016
BR: WatchMojo channel makes lists that amuse people who have a passing interest in the subject and invariably pisses off people who are actually interested in the subject. So I found the top 10 dance videos irritating, top 10 sit coms annoying but the top 10 horror movies interesting. Their top 10 sexy women list is what I would disagree with most passionately. It is because I know they are wrong. 😜
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
April 23, 2016
I tend to see it as more of an extension of the culture of idol worship that’s prevalent in India. Could be cricketers, politicians or film stars. These three are the most exalted classes of all in India, except that the one in the middle polarises opinion. So I would say the stars aren’t so much aware of their relationship with the fans as they are of the power they wield and wherefrom it derives. They know their stardom is a cult of personality and not much to do with film artistry (irrespective of how good they may be as actors, say in the case of a Kamal or AB, SRK too for that matter). And their stardom remains intact only long as they do what is necessary to keep the cult alive. AB’s case is interesting in that he was rejected as hero in the mid 90s but his stardom as such has remained intact and he still has an aura if no longer evoking the mania that he must have in the 70s and 80s. This is also why attempts to get too far out of the star comfort zone, like a Swades or Anbe Sivam, backfire. It’s a mutual addiction where the fans want more of the same and the star, in a way, does too because he’s possibly addicted to the sheer adulation he gets from the audience. In Hollywood, stardom never stopped even Tom Cruise from taking up interesting films but there seem to be definite limits to experimentation in Indian cinema, limits which don’t have much to do with the acting talent of the stars but rather the public’s limited and narrow expectations from the stars.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
April 23, 2016
Madan: Absolutely. I made the same point here:
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
April 23, 2016
http://www.firstpost.com/bollywood/shah-rukh-khan-gently-disses-obsessive-fans-in-fan-your-turn-rajini-sir-2745374.html
LikeLike
MANK
April 23, 2016
Brangan, i am not much of a kind soul :P, but i think it was Jigarthanda
LikeLike
Altman
April 23, 2016
Bill Murray’s role as the American movie star Bob in ‘Lost in Translation’ is based on the actor himself. His characteristic self awareness, dry humor, irony world-weariness were all written into the character he plays. Scarlett Johanson’s plays Charlotte a young, sensitive, newly wed, isolated woman based of Sofia Coppala herself. Her then husband Spike Jonze is depicted in a bad light as the indifferent photographer who hasn’t got much time for her. Years later Spike Jonze depicted Sofia Coppala as a demanding, arrogant, difficult-to-live-with ex wife(Rooney Mara’s role) of his protagonist in Her. Interestingly they both won Best Screenplay Oscars for their respective films.
You mentioned Stardust Memories, even ‘Annie Hall’ was inspired by Woody Allen’s relationship with Diane Keaton. Her real name Diane Hall provides the title and Allen’s character Alvy Singer is a standup comedian which was his former career.
Speaking of Diane Keaton many critics noted that in the frothy rom com ‘Something’s Gotta Give’ both Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson plays a version of themselves with respect to their relationships in personal life. Jack is a play boy while Diane is single.
The thing is these references are made in such a subtle way, almost as an inside joke not intruding the film’s narrative as opposed to the in-your-face references we are used to in our movies which doesn’t serve any purpose other than ensuring loud applauses and laughter from the audience.
LikeLike
Sev
April 24, 2016
In reference to your Salman post comment about obsessive fan worship springing from Hinduism’s cult of individual deities, isn’t that true of every religion? In Islam, you worship Allah as the Supreme Being. It is just that Allah hasn’t been defined or anthropomorphized but his acolyte Prophet Mohammad has been. The same is true of Judaism, etc. So I don’t buy this view you put forth:
“I think the personality-worship culture came to India fairly early. For we may claim to follow Hinduism as an abstract “philosophy,” but what we actually do is follow Shiva or Vishnu or Murugan or whatever. We worship these “personalities” as idols, and extrapolating this, it’s not difficult to see why we begin to worship our “human” idols too, sometimes with temples and palaabishegams.
Sachin is God. Ilayaraja is God (“Raaga Devan”). Rahman is God. Rajini is God. MGR is God (“Idhaya Dheivam”). We keep hearing this all the time.
Which is also why it becomes so difficult to criticise or offer a contrarian opinion on these human idols — because that’s tantamount to heresy, the equivalent of Husain and his nude goddesses.
js81615: I believe that when a star attains a certain stature, he becomes almost mythical to his legions of fans. And this derives also from the fact that our basic genre of filmmaking — masala — harks back to the myths. Those are the archetypes that, IMO, are most useful to examine the most larger-than-life star personas.”
And fantastical tales abound in the Bible or Hebrew Bible or the Quran as well. These aren’t limited to Hindu scriptures. In fact, pre-Christian religions of the Romans and Greeks were like that too. I don’t think our mythology is unique in that regard. What remains unique and inexplicable is this blind, unquestioning devotion to the high-and-mighty celebrities of the film and cricketing world. And such passionate worship seems to come a lot form the disenfranchised, less upwardly mobile classes, and the very young (affluent teenagers, for example). Maybe the answer to this bizarre phenomenon lies in these details rather than ancient cultural and religious mythology.
LikeLike
Madan
April 24, 2016
BR: Yes and I remember that article well too. 🙂
LikeLike
Utkal
April 24, 2016
Sev: “In Islam, you worship Allah as the Supreme Being. It is just that Allah hasn’t been defined or anthropomorphized but his acolyte Prophet Mohammad has been. ”
No. THete is no physical description of Muhammad. And certainly they dont worship the idol or image of Muhmamad, or anybody else. . “And fantastical tales abound in the Bible or Hebrew Bible or the Quran as well.” There are no fantastical tales in the Quoran. And the other characters in Bible are not deified. Apart from Jesus and Mary other characters are not worshipped as divine. So there is a difference with Hinduism, where idols of multiple gods are worrshipped, and new gods and goddesses (Santoshi ma, Sai Baba) are created everyday and worshipped. So there is a prevalent cult of idol worship.
LikeLiked by 2 people
KayKay
April 24, 2016
“After Fan, I was curious if actors anywhere else in the world had subjected themselves to these meta-exercises masquerading as movies”
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s interesting flop Last Action Hero comes to mind. It’s the closest I’ve seen Arnie obsessively self-referencing his screen image as he plays the quintessential Schwarzenegger character: A one-man-army and one-liner spewing screen action hero called Jack Slater, who needs to deal with a young boy, a huge fan who’s beamed into his “cine-world” and disturbingly points out to him all the action movie cliches. It also has a third act, where Slater gets back to the real world and runs into the real Arnold Schwarzenegger, who plays himself as a vain, self-promoting bore. all very meta, I thought, but it’s a muddled mess, although Arnie’s “action hero” take on Hamlet is endlessly re-watchable:-)
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
April 24, 2016
Kay Kay: You’re right. And it’s very much an “Indian” style of movie (the larger-than-life action genre) and hero (schwarzenegger) we’re talking about.
LikeLike
KayKay
April 24, 2016
On a lighter note, one could make a case for Grudge Match, about the rivalry between aging boxers Stallone and De Niro. The references to Rocky and Raging Bull are strewn throughout, but the whole thing is played for laughs and even the final boxing bout is a disgraceful cop-out. The movie, rightfully flopped.
Expendables 2 was the series at it’s self-referential best, with Schwarzenegger and Willis even doing a swap and mouthing each others’ iconic one-liners at one point but they were still kicking ass and taking names while doing it, so it went over well.
I think fans accept some measure of self-referencing but the illusion of the star’s “coolness” needs to be maintained. You can take a brick or 2 out of that edifice,as long as you don’t bring the whole structure down.
LikeLike
Aditya (Gradwolf)
April 24, 2016
As interesting as this piece is, one day, please expand on this Jerry Maguire > Almost Famous please. Would love to know more.
LikeLike
KayKay
April 24, 2016
“And it’s very much an “Indian” style of movie (the larger-than-life action genre) and hero (schwarzenegger) we’re talking about.”
Yup, which is why it’s only the Action Heroes in Hollywood who can do this as they come closest to our “Mass Heroes” in their fixed roles and signature moves or lines. and the Stallone/Schwarzenegger/Van Damme/Seagal heydays are over, with present stars not having any sort of fixed screen image fans demand anymore, except for a few like Jason Statham or Vin Diesel.
LikeLike
Jaga jaga
April 24, 2016
@Brangan – The phenomenon you have described can be generalized to all the facets in India. Here the individual is always bigger than the system. You take movies, you take cricket and sports, you take politics, you takes anything which matters – the same trend holds good. I presume that two aspects cause this mentality. 1. Even though we call India a democracy, we are still deeply entrenched in the idea of dynastic rule wherein one single person is the sole savior. 2. The way polytheism is practised in India, every community has its own idiosyncratic super-god with unique abilities somehow catering to only that particular community! Thus hero worship is so intrinsically imbibed in India.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Altman
April 24, 2016
Tropic Thunder is a very clever meta-movie on war films and Hollywood in general. All the method acting denouncers are in for a treat by Robert Downey Jr’s parody of a white actor playing an African American war hero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Miss Anthropy
April 24, 2016
To be fair, there have been a few self-referential or meta action films based on the “action hero” stars from 80s and 90s, as mentioned above. Arnie, Sly et al, I think are more than aware of their reputation. Seagal is just dumber than a bag of bricks, and therefore would never do one of those.
But, I always cite these when my friends bring up the self-referential nature of Fan or Uttama Villain (or even Billoo Barber) – JCVD and Birdman. Though I’d personally rather re-watch the former than the latter; Birdman is so damn smug about itself that it makes me want to go back in time and engineer a Travolta announcement over the Birdman Oscar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sev
April 24, 2016
@Utkal, but in my understanding of the Bible and its followers, there are apostles that are considered as close to sacred as one can. They might not construct physical idols, but they are certainly constructing metaphorical ones. I think the religious symbolism is there, at least in my experience of having interacted with some different types of Christians. And in Hinduism, idols are, at their very basic, mere symbols. And aren’t tales of the Exodus, virgin birth etc. somewhat fantastical? They appear so to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
April 24, 2016
Sev: I am from a Christian background. From what I know Catholics do pray to apostles and the belief is that the apostles will in turn pray for them to God. But protestant and pentecostal faiths frown upon idol worship in no uncertain way. Islam frowns upon idol worship pretty strongly.
The point is this. Hinduism accepts humans as gods very easily. I went to a Hindu school and was routinely told that elders are Gods, teachers are Gods, parents are Gods, husband is God etc. But this is not accepted in Christian faith and frowned upon greatly in Islam. The distance between God and man is greater there.
So if a cricket crazy Muslim boy calls Sachin his God, his parents will be strictly condemning the thought. A Hindu boy can say that as Sachin is elder to him and fine according to the faith.
Fantastic elements will be part of all faiths. We need not go further than Adam and eve for that.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Jagajaga
April 24, 2016
To build upon Rahini David’s point – Her version of Islam is the “puritanical” Islam as promoted by the Wahabis In India, the Sufi movement in the medieval ages incorporated a lot of pagan practices into Islam. So, Indian Islam – or Pan-Indian Islam (including Pakistan and Bangladesh) has a rich variety which is closer to polytheistic thoughts than a strict version of monotheism. In fact, even this so-called religion known as “Hnduism” is not a religion of its own, and is a motley collection of millions of communities. It is only the Brahminical version of it, which is strictly monotheistic – that’s what Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhwa proposed. Fortunately, for all of us the Brahminical version of Hinduism is restricted to some people who assume they are elite. Hence the polytheistic flavor which still resonates in the air of this land – which is nonetheless under a massve threat from both the influx of Saudi money into Indian Islam, and NRI “Brahminical” money from USA/UK blah blah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yoganand Netrakanti
April 24, 2016
I should remind of the one of the popular Telugu films of 1980s ‘Sivaranjani’, loosely based on the life of a film star.The title role was played brilliantly by Jayasudha, one of the popular heroines of the Telugu films in 1980s. the film was directed by Dasari Narayana Rao It is also a ‘biographical film’ in one sense that the film shows life-both private and public- of film actor. the film is about how a ordinary village girl Sivaranaji becomes a very successful heroines, despite of the trials and tribulations she faces in the growth of her career and domestic problems she faces from her family members. The movie has three different plots merged into one. the main plot is the background and circumstances that show the rise and growth of Sivaranjani and her ultimate scarifice, in the form sucide, In the second plot, a town boy, Hari Prasad(played by Hari Prasad) who is a very great fan of Sivaranjani who runs a fan club who goes onto the extent of making a marriage proposal to Sivaranjani,for which she accepts in the third plot, is the love of Hari Prasad’s cousin with Hari Prasad, which remains one-sided. All the three plots are woven into a common thread in the climax when Sivaranjani learns that Hari Prasad’s cousin is in love with Hari Prasad and requests her with the help of her grandmother to help her to get married Hari Prasad. Sivaranjani, with the help of her former-lover, whom she detests earlier for his order to abort pregnancy, asks and acts as if she is very close to her former-lover to bring together Hari Prasad and his cousin. In the climax, the film star sacrifices her life paving way for the married life of Hari Prasad and his cousin. The film shows all the sensibilities of film actors as well as fans. this is one of the best films ever acted by Jayasudha in main stream Telugu. In the later years also she acted in a number of main stream films. In the film death is only a sacrifice, but not in “death in a metaphorical manner”
LikeLike
sanjana
April 24, 2016
If one calls Sachin as his god, another calls Sachin as his hero. Is god different from a hero? Is god a hero? Hero cant be god. But god can be hero.
We have to separate the strict definition of god and the casual definition of god.
How many times we thoughtlessly say Oh my god or thank god whether we are hindu, christian or muslim!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Guy Next Door (@guy_in_london)
April 25, 2016
“Celebrating Fan”. LOL. Who’s doing that !!
LikeLike
venkatesh
April 25, 2016
This is not a new or even an Indian phenomenon.
Wasn’t it Rita Hayworth who famously said “They go to bed with Gilda and wake up with me”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sev
April 26, 2016
@RDavid and others:
Thanks for the response to my comment. What I am trying to say is that when we say “he is god”, all we are saying, on most occasions, is that he or she is worthy of supreme reverence. And this sentiment is not unique to Hinduism or any one faith. Hinduism does have Gods being born as humans but so does Christianity. We might not call Jesus God but the Son of God, but essentially, HIs is the image that we’re worshiping and praying to. Islam too defines the personality and habits of The Prophet that people then use as a template or compass to guide them. Sikhism is also putting its Prophets on a pedestal and in essence, worshipping them. They might not create a physical statue, but the idea is the same. Considering someone (in human form, or in divine form) as worthy of respect, and then venerating them. So in that regard, the said god or god-like figure becomes a sacred symbol. Whether you erect a statue of this symbol or put up a picture or put a book in front of you to remind you of the Divine One, it all comes to the same thing.
As for the parents are God, and teacher is God sentiment, that might be a commonly echoed view by teachers or people in a self-serving way, but if we assume that this sentiment is mentioned in Hindu scriptural canon, are we sure that the God implied in this statement (or the version of this statement stated in the scriptures) means we literally consecrate someone as God, or does that imply that someone is worthy of being respected as much as we’d respect a god-like figure? I think what we are saying is that latter.
And this idea of extreme hero worship coming from idol worship in Hinduism has taken a hold simply because of the word “idol”. On the one hand it means a literal statue, and on the other it can mean a heroic figure. And I think, keeping popular culture’s tendency to quick-think and lazy-think, they put the words “idol” and “idol worship” and the ubiquitous Hindu statue-worship they see together to conclude (quite spuriously, I think) that Bollywood’s or cricketers’ extreme fandon in India stems from the idol worship culture in Hinduism. If you really dig deeper into this idea, it has almost nothing of consequence to offer. And I think it behooves one to remember that statue worship is nothing more or less than consecrating an agreed-upon divine symbol, and that sentiment is true of all religions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
limatgans
April 26, 2016
Reblogged this on Words From An Idiot.
LikeLike
Rahini David
April 26, 2016
Sev: I agree with you about ALL religions being about Idol worship even if not a physical doll like structure.
I hope I didn’t sound as if I thought Monotheism is right and Polytheism is wrong or anything like that. You see that various approaches to religion exists and all religions have scope to allow deification of fellow Humans. I see it from a different direction but am basically approaching the same conclusion as you are.
Humans like perfection. They want to see the perfect Alpha Male who is infallible or a perfect Alpha Female with whom they don’t have to cut the umbilical cord, ever. They would love it if such wonderful humans existed. But they don’t. The chosen Alpha is imperfect and that annoys the crowd. One crowd may make an extremely perfect Alpha whose form they dare not imagine. Another may choose to say that their Alpha was never tainted with human sperm and another crowd may decide to get all creative and make many idols with unique personality.
Why are people who choose actual flesh and blood Alphas(be it politicians or actors or musicians or sportspeople) any lower than those who stick to canon alphas? To each their own.
Coming back to your point about physical stone Idols, I am not saying that Hinduism is more conductive towards idol worship because of the presence of physical Idols inside temples. Catholics have wax idols too. I am talking about how Hinduism is fine with injecting a little human fragilities in the constitution of their Gods. Krishna was a naughty child, Shiva is known to open his third eye just because his piece of poetry was criticized by a competent poet etc. (I hope that is Canon). So I am wondering if Hindus are more tolerant with the fragilities of their naughty actor Gods and angry cricketer Gods. Also teasing God is considered blasphemy and is considered a horrendous sin in monotheism. But Hindu’s do gently tease the same Gods that they adore. Think Chocolate Krishna or Kaadula Poo. So I think the climate of Hinduism is very distinct and more conductive to Idol Worship than Islam and Christianity where the distance between God and Man is (or is at least meant to be ) greater.
LikeLiked by 2 people
An Jo
April 26, 2016
How many times we thoughtlessly say Oh my god
Yes, especially during orgasming..can’t blame for being thoughtless there..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anuj
April 26, 2016
A very relevant and precise article. I do agree that among the Indian audiences “star value” plays a huge huge role in determining the fate of a movie. Indian audiences visit theaters to watch their stars perform their antics, which unfortunately relegates content to second position. Now you may argue that there have been films like Queen, Neerja, Piku etc which have performed well based on content alone, but the point to be noted is that even these films have had a very limited theatrical viewership as opposed to “superstar films”. Salman Khan & Rajnikanth (Amitabh in the 70’s/80’s) have of course taken star worship to a different level altogether (as indicated by the fact that even their films which get rejected by the neutral audiences end up making a fortune at the box office thanks only to their die hard fans) but even fans of the remaining lot are not too far behind. Its an unfortunate state of affairs and this star worshipping that allows most of these narcissistic high headed so called “superstars” to deliver mediocre movie after mediocre movie and yet get away with them thanks to strategically releasing them on festive occasions, creating unprecedented hype thereby fooling their gullible fans (a perfect recipe for marketing con).
PS : I bet you that had Airlift had Irfan Khan playing the lead instead of Akshay Kumar, the movie would never have crossed 100 cr despite it carrying a positive buzz among the audiences. That’s fan worship for you. Mind u, Akshay is not even as hugely popular among the urban audiences as any of the 3 Khans or even Hrithik for that matter!
LikeLike
hattorihanzo4784
April 27, 2016
Baradwaj and others
just read this guys.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Virat-Kohli-like-in-real-life
this is a quora thread about how virat kohli is in real life… there are really absurd incidents and you get an idea about how a lot of Indian people are completely insensitive to a celebrity’s privacy and also about how their expectations need to be immediately gratified and how angry they get when that doesnt happen…
LikeLike
sanjana
April 27, 2016
Star value or face value?
To get to that position these stars have worked quite hard with luck also favouring them. These stars provide entertainment in their own way which makes these films watchable for their fans. But the fans wont patronise if they dont like the film even if their favourite stars star in them. Example Talaash, Jai Ho and recently Fan.
Not only fans, even neutral audience patronise these films because there is something in them for them. No film can become a blockbuster only because of fans.
LikeLike
Anuj
April 27, 2016
Well its not that the likes of Irrfan and Nawazuddin have worked lesser. And mind u, trends surely suggest that movies like Bodyguard, ETT, Dhoom 3 and HNY have largely been rejected unanimously by the neutrals among both the urban as well as mass sector. These movies have collected huge thanks to their strategic release and blind fan following that these Khans’ enjoy.
LikeLike
sanjana
April 27, 2016
Atleast Aamir does not enjoy huge fan follwoing. Dhoom 3 collected because of its genre and the novelty of aamir doing a stunt film. Plus music and novelty factor in pairing.
Strategivc release did not help some of SRK’s movies. ETT and BG are quite entertaining and liked by the cinegoing public who just wants entertainment. If a dark flm without entertainment value is strategically released it will meet the fate as Fan inspite of his huge fan base.
Everyone works hard but stars work extra hard to keep up their standing.
Irrfan and Nawaz can never become stars because there is something called star pull which these two lack. As for talent, some of the tv serial actors have it in abundance, yet they cant get to where Irrfan and Nawaz are today.
LikeLike
sanjana
April 27, 2016
And stars excel and woo general public in song and dance parts.
Can you imagine Irrfan or Nawaz singing tujhe dekha to yeh jaana sanam.
Or Salman’s cliched but endearing dance moves, his style and his body language during those song and dance scenes. If Irrfan or Nawz do them, it will look outright crude.
Most of the filmgoing public have very basic qualifications and basic brains and so they want immediate entertainment. Not thinking about method acting or some such esoteric thing.
Stars can sing and dance and can also act and have presentable faces and good smiles. They are allrounders.
LikeLike
Anuj
April 27, 2016
Aamir definitely enjoys a larger fan following among the urban audiences than SRK in the last 10 years. Every single movie of his irrespective of release timing has gone on to create box office records of late. Its a trust factor that audiences have developed with the Aamir Khan brand of cinema that’s gone missing with SRK films of late. Among the B & C center audiences, Aamir was always a first choice compared to SRK as proved by the fact that films like QSQT, Dil, Rangeela and Raja Hindustani recorded higher footfalls among the B/C centers compared to SRK blockbusters of the 90’s which were more urban centric(thereby performing better in territories with higher ticket prices and hence the difference in collections). And hell yes, strategic release is the only reason why Ra.1 crossed 100 cr while HNY crossed 180. Both these films were outrightly rejected by their respective target audience and showed poor trending in week 2 and week 3. As for fan following, you just answered my point yourself. Indian audience is perhaps the only audience in the world where people are endured by cliched and downright idiotic dance moves and over the top dialogues. No wonder writers and directors never get the kind of coverage and importance in this nation as much as these so called superstars do. Pulp Fiction is remembered as a “Quentin Tarantino” film, Inception despite starring De Caprio is remembered as a “Christopher Nolan” film. That’s never gonna happen among Indian audiences.
LikeLike
Shantesh Row
April 27, 2016
Hindi cinema in the 70s and 80s was mostly about ‘Mata’ (namely Nirupa Roy). Then in the 90s it was the time for ‘Beta’ (Govinda and Anil Kapoor flicks). So post the Mata and the Beta, we seem to be arriving at the Meta….morphosis. Time to pay a visit to the Theta (theatre).
LikeLike
Anuj
April 27, 2016
And fyi, both ETT and Bodyguard collapsed in their respectively 2nd weeks. The only one’s who found these movies entertaining were blind Salman worshippers who’d garland his posters even if he runs in & out of courtrooms for the rest of his life.
LikeLike
mohanee
May 12, 2016
@RDavid. Thanks for the comment. I agree that Hinduism is quite distinct from the more modern Abrahamic faiths and is better compared with other ancient pagan faiths. Still, I am not convinced about idol worship being anything more than merely symbolic and similar to the divine symbols of the more modern faiths. And I am not convinced that it is the major reason why Indians seem to obsess over their favourite celebrities so zealously. To me, it seems more likely linked to one’s social standing and mobility. But these are merely my instincts. Anyhow, I’ve enjoyed our exchange. Thanks!
LikeLike
Vivek
May 25, 2018
“After Fan, I was curious if actors anywhere else in the world had subjected themselves to these meta-exercises masquerading as movies. But no. When I searched for “autobiographical films,” I found only the usual suspects.”
I am surprised to read this, as there are so many such examples… It is not unique to India at all…
Sunset Blvd – Gloria Swanson, Eric von Stroheim, Buster Keaton
Limelight – Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton
Singin’ in the Rain – Gene Kelly
Juliet of the Spirits – Guiletta Masina
Annie Hall – Woody Allen’s, Diane Keaton
Last Action Hero – Arnold Schwarzenegger
Irma Vep – Maggie Cheung
JCVD – Jean Claude Van Damme
Being John Malkovich – John Malkovich
Lost in Translation – Bill Murray
Curb Your Enthusiasm – Larry David
Adaptation. – Charlie Kauffman
Other Side of the Wind – John Huston / Orson Welles
Contempt – Jean-Luc Godard expressing his contempt about becoming a sell-out and replacing Karina with Bardot
Radio Days – Woody Allen’s boyhood days
LikeLike