I initially added this longer comment here but then decided that informal as it was it probably deserved its own post. The continuing Don 'debate' is basically the jump-off point for what follows.. This move nonetheless tells us something about our moment. As opposed to the 'chora Ganga kinarewala' whose 'truth' and whose vision of India must necessarily dominate over that of the 'international' corporate figure that Don is in the newer avatar it is exactly the opposite. Because of course the dominant 'multiplex' audiences today are hardly invested in the paans of Benares! Hence the amoral corporate figure survives and becomes a franchise. He kills his old Indian double! He does this by rewriting the 'Ur-text', correcting it in a sense, bringing it more in line with current ideologies. It is as if the 'new Indian' protest against the old Don is: everything was right about that film except that Don shouldn't have died! Watching the film as a child I always found it a bit disappointing that the original Don died. He seemed a bit too charismatic for death to touch him. Today I think I shall once again defend my childhood instincts against Farhan Akhtar's re-imaginings. Because what is lost in the rather empty remake is precisely the romantic nature of the Don character. This too is a reading of the 'Vijay' mythos. Much as I have in the past cited Agneepath's Vijay as a link between the Deewar character and Lallan Singh in a different sense Don himself could be bridge between the two. A Vijay who completely amoral (not 'immoral') and ultimately unknowable though not yet nihilistic. We see pure gesture with Don but there is also a back-story here that we can never access. We sense one however because this is a rich portrayal and also because there are the slightest of hints at points. There seems to be a genuine relationship between Don and Narang. Later on when we discover the horrible reality of the already creepy Malick we realize that Don wasn't 'just' like him. Don is a bit of a magician, the thrill of his performance and 'artistry' is everything for him. He is always devoted to the 'self-fashioning' of his myth and he dies indulging in the same. It isn't just about Shahrukh's inadequacies or Farhan Akhtar's far greater ones in terms of conceptualizing these 'remakes' or 'sequels'. We perhaps also get commentary on contemporary multiplex 'generations' that for all their complacency seem hopelessly impoverished compared to those counterparts of theirs that nurtured the great Bombay cinemas of the past. There was a Hindi film renaissance in the 1970s (not the only one by any means). What we have today is for the most part a 'multiplex' generation and mindset that with only slight caricature can be represented as one that thinks having Pepsi is 'cooler' than consuming Thums Up! It really isn't much deeper than this. Yes the American imperium has been our world's reality in so many ways. The cultural colonization that has led from this the world over is also only to be expected. But one would have hoped for a richer 'alloy' coming out of cinema. After all this isn't the first time we've absorbed 'Western' models. The cinema of the 50s for instance is soaked in them. That cinema however gave us Raj Kapoor and Guru Dutt and Bimal Roy. In the 1970s we had the scripts of Salim-Javed or a film like Sholay which again blended influences from East and West. What did we have in the 90s? A 'Saved by the Bell' aesthetic masquerading as classic cinema. The audience found anything more than this challenging! Over the last decade there has been much that's promising though some of those dangerous 90s viruses remain in the system. It is not too clear at this point whether the 'interesting' such as it has been in this period has only repeated certain Hollywood moves without critiquing the same adequately (as was once true) or if there is indeed a hazy vision for a newer, richer 'Bollywood' more organically connected to the glories of the past. I certainly hope it is the latter but I am not persuaded yet..Dumbed-down Don!
People often forget that even the most commercial cinema has its own logic. When you watch a film by Manmohan Desai it doesn't matter that a guy beats up ten people or that people separate and 're-connect' as a series of coincidences. All of this could be justified on its own terms of course but the point is that the emotional truth of Desai's world transcends these ordinary 'realistic' concerns. Which concerns (to be repetitive) are misplaced in the first place. One does not ask of the Iliad whether it is 'realistic'. One judges the Iliad using the terms of this work. Similarly the wager of Manmohan Desai is hardly that of Hrishikesh Mukherjee.
Getting back to Don it is simply not plausible that the 'actual' Don figure could have lived the life of an impostor the way his double did. If this had happened in the original film it wouldn't have been acceptable and it was quite idiotic even in the remake. Was it a twist? Yes! And one we weren't expecting. But it was just thrown in by Farhan Akhtar without the logic really being worked out.
This entire subtext is absent from the remake (not the least of its problems of course). Now you just have a rather petulant egotistical Don who picks up where Shahrukh's Josh character left off! And Shahrukh can really only do 'street-gang-psychotic' in these situations. The images we've just seen with Don in prison and looking all beefed up with a cheesy tattoo ('D'!) on his forearm confirms everything I've been saying here. In Farhan Akhtar's fairly colonized world-view the prison gang genre is also incorporated and Don might as well be a guy in Con Air or some such Hollywood effort! The director has even left open the possibility of another sequel! The original script with a Don who is the true romantic hero of that world translated into a franchise with a cartoon character more or less with Hollywood gadgets and stunts and so on. In the older film Don is wanted in 11 countries but we only ever see him in India. In the newer franchise he's gallivanting all over the world. Berlin this time.139 Responses to "Dumbed-down Don!"
For all recent AB articles, as well as all the latest news on BigB and his upcoming films, check out AmitabhBachchan.net
February 22, 2011 at 9:39 AM
"What did we have in the 90s? A 'Saved by the Bell' aesthetic masquerading as classic cinema. The audience found anything more than this challenging!"
I think you need to define your time frame more specifically, Satyam. If the above is a reference to KKHH, as I suspect, that film didn't release until 1998. OTOH, before that during the 90′s, there were HAHK, DDLJ, and RH (Raja Hindustani), none of which fit the above framework. To the extent that you posit a paradigm shift powered by the rise of the multiplex theaters, you are pretty much forced to look at the post 2000 time frame. So please clarify this point.
As for what the multiplex audience finds challenging, I think it is more that introspection of any sort is discouraged in the present generation, and certainly anything in the nature of a moral dilemma. The very notion of "morality" has become irrelevant. Otherwise a film like 3 Idiots (a highly immoral film, in my view) could never have succeeded as well as it has.
February 22, 2011 at 9:42 AM
Maybe you should have titled this thread "Don and Donner."
February 22, 2011 at 10:12 AM
LOL, love that suggestion!
February 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM
Satyam you write well, but you get carried away with your views. I would like to repeat your wotds – there can be no merit in your views, because you hate the temerity f SRK to have played that role. This I can understand, because I'd feel the same if Amir were to do the role of Guru Dutt, ever!
I know you didn't mind SRK in MNIK and CDI, but generally speaking he along with KJO (YRF are out of this 'for the moment
) are the ones you would like to consider below your intellectualism.
So I repeat there is no merit in your views here.
Like you I dislike the modern thought process behind making of present day films, but I know times have changed and this is what goes, so I don't comment forcefully about them. Just feel sorry for all the wannabeism.
Talk of people declaring flops after the first show/day, here we are hung up on 3 pictures for a prediction
February 22, 2011 at 10:06 AM
Oldgold, I will take that as a 'no response'!
But it's not just three pictures. I have mostly based this piece on 2006 Don.
As for 'temerity' but I have actually been as harsh on Hrithik. It is not just about the actors though but the entire mindset that goes into the making of these remakes and which seems to have a certain agenda to it which I in turn polemicize against.
I must say though you're trying hard to say 'nothing to see here' with my post. I think I've made my point!
February 22, 2011 at 11:19 AM
this is a nice article – in DON 2 – SRK fails to leave an impression and while in the original DON, we remember BIG B for many of the trademark dialogues, songs, scenes – we don't remember a single thing of SRK from D2. Now, this is a huge failure on the part of an actor…..aamir did Ghajini remake and still left his own mark…..but one has to give it to SRK…..despite all that, the man has a huge fan following and can assure a BO success still with his solo hero projects – no mean achievement that….
February 22, 2011 at 11:26 AM
well Aamir wasn't following up on Bachchan at his iconic best! Plus Surya in any case belongs to a different cultural tradition. No one in Bombay had seen the original.
February 22, 2011 at 11:56 AM
IdeaUnique – I din't see aamir leaving any impression as an actor, atleast in ghajini
In recent times i think it was the weakest performances by top star/actor. Aamir had tried to re-anact Surya in every frame but i felt he failed big time as an actor
Aamir had proper reference with surya and yet he din't bring anything to the character. (Not even a single expression) to me that's a failure for an actor – Recreating & Copying does have big difference
I dont mind actor failing by recreating but i hate when actor fails by copying …
February 22, 2011 at 12:29 PM
Aamir did not fail for others. For a SRK fan, Aamir fails regularly.
Ghajini created boxoffice history whether you like it or not.
But people like you dream about Aamir's failure. Just cannot digest the fact that he can do powerful action roles.
February 22, 2011 at 12:30 PM
LOL.
Did you see the right film or you were watching Savita Bhabhi?
February 23, 2011 at 12:10 AM
I can't find much fault with Aamir's acting in Ghajini..Nothing exceptional but decent…But Ghajini as a film was a mediocre one..A cartoon villain and silly fight at end..The story had lot of potential,but it was completely spoiled by effort to excessive melodrama and playing to the gallery type of masala..
February 23, 2011 at 12:37 AM
Anyone who has watched surya's version agree's that it was failure on Aamir's part
He lacked depth or intensity in his performance.
Completely agree as the whole was medicore but my problem is he dint contribute anything as actor in ghajini, whole movie was a snobbish effort of what he can do for a movie.
February 22, 2011 at 5:11 PM
@satyam
>I will take that as a 'no response'!
A 'no response' to a 'no merit' comment????
February 22, 2011 at 10:02 AM
For me the 90s truly begin with DDLJ. This is the watershed film of that era. HAHK was a much bigger grosser much as later RH was a pretty massive one too but these films ultimately didn't impact the era in any appreciable sense. So yes there were other hits pre-dating DDLJ but these did not give the decade its real flavor. In the early 90s there was still the sense of a transition after the mostly poor 80s (this in fact began in the late 80s). But DDLJ set the terms for the new dominant cinema. The Barjatya model of HAHK did not survive and is now best read as an ode to Madhuri (which it was considered to be even at the time).
Similarly the 90s extended beyond that decade in terms of certain trends but post-Lagaan something new did happen. I've talked about all of this before. To get into an older example the '70s' really begin in the very late 60s with Rajesh Khanna and run through the very early 80s.
KKHH is just a good representative of an overall trend where even when the actual aesthetics of 'Saved by the Bell' are not in evidence the mindset of these films is not much more sophisticated than that!
On 3I I am mystified why you consider it an 'immoral' film. But leaving this aside I must confess to not being bothered very much by such a term inasmuch as it often hints at a discourse that is prevalent on the right and is often tied up with notions of cultural policing. I am far more interested in 'politics' as a question of competing ideologies. The more progressive vs the more regressive (as I see it). But whether it's a question of 'immorality' or even 'amorality' I don't think we would get very far in art (and indeed in life) if we decided to completely banish both. I think you probably mean to allow the representation of the 'immoral' if it can be 'corrected' by the end of a work. But this defeats the authenticity of the representation. There must be something of Satan that cannot really be overcome by God!
On the present I would argue there is a degree of amorality prevalent when it comes to a certain American-inspired corporate-capitalist ethic. However the other side of this is really a counter-reactionary conservative agenda that aims to 'restore' all (family) values. Both moves are present in Johar. Note by the way why the Abhi-Ash marriage offends many who otherwise pretend to be progressive or at least such is their self-image — they dared to be truly progressive! It is an inversion of the Johar world. In the latter you have all the trappings of consumption and the liberation seemingly connected with this but actually all the old biases are slyly endorsed as for example in KKHH where Kajol becomes acceptable only when she stops being a tomboy. With Abhi-Ash you have the conservative framework of family hierarchy and so on but this cloaks much greater professional ambitions. Hence inviting the charge: when will she have a baby? They are the most career-oriented couple in Bombay film history, at least so far, they really have their own career targets and Ash (which is the more important deal here) has been pursuing these vigorously since marriage. No slackening off upto this point. They are often shooting in different cities, different countries and so on. If there have been sneers about her pairing with Hrithik she still doesn't mind repeats nor does the husband But all of this induces an anxiety! It would be easier to deal with if they didn't have the whole family routine at the same time because then they could be classified as way out there.
February 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM
I usually have no trouble parsing your essays, Satyam, but this particular post has me completely befuddled. I will put it down to lack of sleep (on my part) for now and revisit it later. But for now I hope you are not accusing me of "cultural policing." At any rate, what I see in this post is not just a restating (or rehashing) of some of your favorite themes, but rather a reflexive mishmashing of them into an incoherent whole. And I want to challenge you to write one post without mentioning any of the Bachchans.
So I will come back to this later in the day, and elaborate my take on 3 Idiots (among other things), though that really requires an in-depth critique, which I don't have time for now.
(On the Aishwarya question, though, all actresses face this. First they are "linked" with every male costar, then are constantly asked when they will marry, and if they will continue to act after marriage, then when will they have kids. It's patriarchal, but not limited to Aishwarys. And frankly I don't see many times when she is asked about her motherhood plans — certainly this question comes up a *lot* less frequently than the question to Salman of when will he get married!
)
February 22, 2011 at 10:38 AM
I wasn't accusing you of cultural policing but yes I am a bit suspicious of the 'immorality' discourse.
On the rest I guess we can come to a pact with my mention of the Bachchans and you mention of Salman! Leaving this aside what other actresses go through is precisely 'traditional' stuff. People ask all those usual questions. But my point is 'other' here. It's not just the media speculation but the extent to which it seems to bother many on blogs and so on as to when she will have a child. And this is part of a larger concern where people who are otherwise committed to progressive thinking (at least in terms of their self-image) are really so in the Johar-sense. In other words more committed to 'consumerism' and the minimal liberation accompanying this rather than any greater sense of upheaval that questions more basic institutions of life like marriage and so forth. With Abhi-Ash however you get those institutions but with some subversion mixed in. So too much of a professional career and almost in an independent sense seems to bother many (this isn't really the Hema Malini example) as does the pregnancy issue. But it's also that this subverts the Johar paradigm or the multiplex liberation model where you you do all this stuff but still marry by a certain age or have kids by a certain age and so on. It's called having your cake and eating it too. In the Johar universe you can have everything. It only requires a level of self-deception about how progressive or liberated one has been. But in the Abhi-Ash marriage there is quite obviously a cost.
On Salman I would argue it's a bit different. He's around 45 and is fast giving the impression that he might never want to marry. Which is entirely his choice of course. But then he cannot be assimilated with any existing paradigm so that he can be defined as 'way out there'. He can be ignored by those who believe in marriage and children and so on.
On being incoherent here I must plead guilty. But hey it's more fun this way!
February 22, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Any one is there even if he ready to marry?
February 22, 2011 at 10:12 AM
Interesting.
Agree with quite a bit of what you say. The real Don is untouchable.
What Farhan is doing is just using the fascination with the Don to make his own thriller. Which works for me in isolation. More than dumbed down , it is an emasculated Don. This Don is more like a metrosexual city slicker. And, that is atleast partly by necessity. Today's multiplex generation finds it easy to identify with this kind of Don and SRK doesnt have the persona or the presence to play it the way it was originally done. To be fair to SRK, nobody does.The old Don jsut needed to play witht his eyes and his face to convey menace and power. Now, one requires glitzy locales and elaborate sequences and costumes and hair does and make ups to achieve something close. It is a sign of the changing times and the gap between the king and the pretender. However, I did enjoy the new Don on its own and this is easily the SRK film I looking forward to the most.
February 22, 2011 at 10:17 AM
Valid set of points. I must confess I didn't enjoy SRK's Don very much. Did see it in the theater and was often bored. I should revisit it! Do agree that the new film might be better being liberated from the original. And it could also be a successful film if it's just done as a slick thriller with no baggage at all. On SRK's upcoming stuff the Bhardwaj project would have been a good one but it again seems questionable. There's no confirmation on this and some Bhardwaj statements suggest the opposite. As for Don 2 if the film is enjoyable that would make it worthwhile for me because by and large I don't enjoy watching SRK at all in most of his outings. Liked him in MNIK as he retrieved some of his older vulnerability here.
February 22, 2011 at 10:17 AM
3I – AN IMMORAL FILM???
What makes it immoral, SM ? The characters, at their worst might have demonstrated an amoral behaviour but what makes the film – immoral?
February 22, 2011 at 10:25 AM
See my reply to Satyam. I'll have to get to this later.
February 22, 2011 at 12:19 PM
@sm-"Otherwise a film like 3 Idiots (a highly immoral film, in my view) could never have succeeded as well as it has."
i would wait, and i am sincerely interested to know your version.
February 22, 2011 at 12:21 PM
on DON and Srk Mannerism- my old post where i clearly felt Don was inspired/copied from Face off, an earlier view of mine
http://satyamshot.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/rooneys-view-don-face-off/
February 22, 2011 at 3:13 PM
I compare the old Don and the new Don here: http://filmigirl.blogspot.com/2010/02/70s-week-don-vs-don-two-will-enter-only.html
What's interesting to me is that the South Indian remake of the "new" Don (Billa) remains truer in spirit to the original – and the sequel will be a prequel and is going to focus on Billa's rise to the top.
February 23, 2011 at 4:15 AM
wow thats interesting! would really like to know if u have trailer filmi girl?
February 22, 2011 at 3:23 PM
Thanx for the interesting link filmigirl.
Would appreciate your views on the aamir/srk/amitabh on the other thrread "images from don 2″.
btw wanna cum 4 koffee—dont worry—we r decent guys, esp iffronfire! haha
February 22, 2011 at 3:27 PM
SRK's Don was extremely disappointing. Easily the worst film Farhan has made…even leaving aside the comparisons with originally, it was just tepidly paced and had no exciting moments.
February 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM
This is precisely my problem with the film. It's not that it doesn't live up to the original (it never had a chance of doing this) it's just that even on its own terms, divorcing (to the extent that this is possible) the Bachchan predecessor from the equation, it's still a poorly made action movie. Poorly constructed, leaden and shot with sheen but not a lot of energy. Akhtar is a director of surfaces and his Don is all gloss, no heart.
February 22, 2011 at 3:46 PM
I'll also add that SRK's Don (the character) failed for me not simply because he was in the wrong movie and couldn't compare to the Bachchan precedent but because his approach to the character was just off. I think he was very self-conscious of the "Don" icon and his every calculated stride and expression seemed to project the sense that he was "watching himself" play Don. He seemed amused to be playing the role almost to the point of parody.
February 22, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Filmigirl—just skimmed thru your don micro analysis—guess even farhan or javed akhtar didnt go into so much detail! Agree that don2 was essentially a pale flaccid lopsided sluggish film, if u know what i mean. Few scenes like the golf scene were just massacred by the hamster srk
BTW—Recently saw "dil chahta hai" again on telly!
Must say that i enjoyed it more in a different way this time round.
Would rate is as one of the most original & refreshing takes in bollywood this decade.
A cult film….
Am willing to spare akhtar a lot of sins just for that one movie..
Feel that once the "weight of the original" is not there, he will perhaps perform to his undoubted potential…
February 22, 2011 at 4:28 PM
I've only seen bits and pieces of the new Don, and there's no way I could have continued watching the film based on what I saw. The whole trying-too-hard routine from SRK to look "tough" and "mean," as Don, was so juvenile, I thought I was watching a Bhojpuri actor in an English film — it looked so much out of place. And character.
I haven't seen MNIK, but I did (sort of) like SRK in CDI. I wouldn't call it an example of great acting though; he was more sincere than affecting. It also helped that he (somehow) managed to underplay his role in the film.
February 22, 2011 at 4:37 PM
Agree. CDI is the perhaps the only role, other than swades (to an extent) that i sort of liked. HIs alltime best is (parts of) kank and hey raam. Rest of his filmography is studded with hamming overdone vulgar perfromances. But its exactly this overstatement which people (read aunties–young and old) and some male-aunties love.
Unfortunately, there seem to be more aunty mentality around.
Just saw a telly program where SRK was parading the whole indian team including the likes of sachin, gavaskar, ganguly, dravid on stage and made them" dance".
Most seemed visibly uncomfortable but somehow played along. Throughout SRK had this bullying attitude, whilst the pakistani team enjoyed the friendly insult from the audience. Seems to be from one of the IPLs
Disgusting how he gets away with all this!
February 22, 2011 at 4:42 PM
Yeah, the TV bit with cricketers looked so fake, I'm surprised that Sachin, Sehwag et al played along.
February 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM
its not only fake and dumb. Similar episodes as in this case and esp in award functions border on embarassment and even humiliation to those involved.
Did someone see what he did with poor shahid kapoor this year in some awards this year.
February 22, 2011 at 11:58 PM
I have to confess that I have not seen the original Don..So I can't compare and say that that was great and this one sucked..About SRK don which I watched at the time of release,I don't recollect much..Truth is most of the time I was bored,the film was technically good,SRK's performance was fine,songs were also good and well picturised,but there was something wrong with that movie..It was not interesting enough till that final twist..Here also I appreciated it for two reasons,one for taking me by surprise,two to actually make a villain get away …It was different from the usual hero always win at the end stuff which is part of Hindi commercial cinema….
February 23, 2011 at 12:43 AM
Recreating Don was a good idea but result was no good, but among the top stars i still thing srk is the best choice we have here. Though i'm not a great fan of srk's acting but this dude do have some charm to pull some character's. I liked his version of Don in first 30 mins but rest you can ignore
February 23, 2011 at 3:00 AM
For me Don is a good material for a commercial franchise. It's totally foolish to forbid anyone to fulfill this highly potential project because Amitabh-god-Bachchan has done something great with the character.
It's like saying that nobody should've played Bond after Sean Connery. That's totally insane
We can discuss again and again about Don2 on its own merit (good, bad etc, SRK wasn't the good guy), but this entire mythological aspect about legacy is just too much. More than 80% Bollywood movies are remakes !!
Actually i like what Faran is doing with the film. He's not trying to reach any cult level but just proposing what he thinks, is a slick action entertainer. Is that bad ? IMO no. He's may be wrong but i'm glad that he felt free of any pressure and make Don his own.
February 23, 2011 at 6:16 AM
This is a very good argument and quite agree with most of it…
"It's totally foolish to forbid anyone to fulfill this highly potential project because Amitabh-god-Bachchan has done something great with the character.It's like saying that nobody should've played Bond after Sean Connery. That's totally insane"
"More than 80% Bollywood movies are remakes !!"
Very valid points
February 23, 2011 at 8:24 AM
Wrong example. Bond series is a franchise, Don isn't. A more pertinent example would be Gus Van Sant's remake of Hitchcock's Psycho. Now Gus Van Sant is a respected filmmaker, but he was mauled for attempting to remake a classic. It's difficult to cross the hurdle in the case of a classic because it's near impossible to improve something that's close to perfection.
On the other hand, when 'Ocean's Eleven' was remade, nobody raised any eyebrows. The original, though it starred Sinatra, was never considered a classic to begin with.
February 23, 2011 at 8:26 AM
I thought the complaint about the Psycho remake was that they *hadn't* changed anything, which led to the question, why bother to remake it then, if they were going to keep it exactly the same?
February 23, 2011 at 11:49 AM
Yes, you are right, but there were some subtle changes incorporated in the film. Norman Bates' voyeurism, for instance, is given an explicit (sexual) context in the film. Van Sant also abandoned black and white to shoot the film in color, which annoyed a lot of critics. Even for (mostly) a shot-by-shot remake, critics weren't too impressed by the final product, and in general found Van Sant's work inferior compared to the original.
February 23, 2011 at 11:59 AM
I couldn't bring myself to see the film, experiment or not! But yes you're right in that no one liked it and it didn't make an sort of impression whatsoever.
February 23, 2011 at 8:46 AM
Gus Van Sant's remake was done as a sort of experiment though. I haven't even seen the film but his aim was to reproduce the original shot by shot without deviating at all from it and to figure out what happens when a remake is done this way. Of course the exercise was somewhat bizarre because once you change the actors everything changes!
February 23, 2011 at 9:02 AM
Ocean's Eleven became a franchise when the original film with the famous rat pack was just a one shot. A bad one. So it was a good move from Soderberg right ? You can't take Brad Pitt, Clooney, Julia Roberts, Don Cheadle and Matt Damon only for a one night stand ! Impossible !!
Same thing for Don. Ok Amitabh made it a cult film, but the character and the scenario itself was bold and modern enough to be made and remade and stand for 2 or 3 films imo. That's exactly what is happening and i'm aplauding with both hand and feet
February 23, 2011 at 9:11 AM
Saket just responded to this. Let me put it this way — I am not the most ill-informed person when it comes to movies and I was only vaguely aware of the original when the remake was announced and in fact saw it after watching the latter. Don't think the original is a particularly good effort and I probably prefer the Soderbergh. But this in any case wasn't a Psycho or anything. Again I didn't have a problem with the Satte Pe Satta remake. Don is not just a cult film, it's a central part of the Bachchan canon. One of his most iconic films. It features some of his most iconic lines and songs. This is not Khoon Pasina! Even with Satte Pe Satta no one could match Bachchan, specially the bad guy here but if done right it could be a good film (though Dutt looks too spent and out of shape at this point).
As for the character and scenario well evidently the original script-writers who had Don killed disagreed! And herein lies one of the great misreadings of the film. The point here is that Don should be killed. This is precisely not a Bond deal where a cool character keeps showing up. And if one thinks the original Don was charismatic enough to be resurrected first of all I don't see the 'sense' in suggesting that because one liked Bachchan so much in that role let's now have SRK doing it. After SRK who? Maybe Ranbir Kapoor or someone?! But secondly one should using this logic start resurrecting many other equally charismatic Bachchan characters and remake those films and offer sequels!
February 23, 2011 at 10:10 AM
"Don is not just a cult film, it's a central part of the Bachchan canon."
Just like Psycho was for Hitchcock. Does it mean that a director like Gus Van Sant with such a particular POV did not have the right to do what he did? IMO yes he had. He approached his subject like an art project. Why? I can't explain. But I can't see either why we couldn't let him do what he wants with a film he highly respect.
Let's go back to Don. Not really the same cup of tea, the same director with the same talent. But hey, guess what? He did exactly what some crazy geeks wanted to do: an evil revival by killing the less interesting character of the story. Is it crazy, a total non sense, and a fraud? Maybe. Is that cooler? Yes it is. "The original script-writers who had Don killed disagreed" and someone disagreed with them 30 years later. Since I watch Indian movies, I learned not to be a stickler about certain things. So to see Don resurrected in what is becoming a real fake remake is surprising … and a pretty good news imo.
As for the choice of SRK, considering that there's no actor in Bwood who could match his Highness, anyone would be a bad choice anyway. So yes, why not Ranbir?
To sum up i admire the approach the two men who dared to challenge the sacred. 'Cause damn, these are just films. The cult status shouldn't become a dictatorship to limit imagination or protect aggressively movies that doesn't need it.
Just my very liberal POV
February 23, 2011 at 10:38 AM
I think everyone has the legal right to do a remake once the copyright issues are sorted out!
Actually Gus Van Sant faced a lot of flak for attempting Psycho even though he did suggest it was an experiment on his part.
So people have the legal right to protest too!
Also I don't see this as a debate over basic human rights or political freedoms!
Not that I am surprised to see these rather unusual standards crop up when SRK is involved. I just don't think Indian democracy will be threatened either way.
On the specific question though SRK attempting this Bachchan part has always been a bit like Jeetendra potentially playing Hamlet. No legal requirement either way. But all people of good taste should be offended.
February 23, 2011 at 9:04 AM
A remake is different from a franchise as Saket has just pointed out. Leaving this aside it's not only about Bachchan. Again Saket has the perfect counter-example with Psycho. Certain films are such an extraordinary part of movie lore and/or so perfect as accomplishments that these ought not to be touched at all. Bachchan is part of what makes Don so perfect. The same could be said about many other films of his and yes none of these ought to be attempted unless of course a very gifted director gives some thought to it and does something totally different with that plot. So for example if someone like RGV went really downmarket with this plot and say had a Bajpai doing it I could see the point. And there would be no question of an overt comparison with the original. I once offered this thought on a remake when the film was first announced. So there should be a point to the remake. I would be as appalled if someone tried to remake Awara. It's not only about Bachchan therefore but as with everything he touches it has to be about him as well.
As for 80% of Hindi films being remakes that is actually factually untrue. There is a difference between a film that specifically takes up an earlier film and decides to redo it and quite another for certain genres and themes and plot features to recur in a cinema. The latter does not constitute a remake. Aamir's Ghajini is a remake because it works off the Tamil original. But otherwise there are tons of Tamil films where heroes are out on vendetta sprees and beat up people, so on and so forth. Ghajini isn't a remake of every Tamil masala film out there! Similarly Scorsese Departed was a remake of a Hong Kong film not one of every such film belonging to that genre!
But whether it's about Bond or the remake/genre distinction I would say the differences are rather obvious unless of course one wanted to defend the remake at any cost!
All of this does not by the mean that the film cannot be enjoyable on its own terms. And this is of course partly the cynical ploy here. You make a film and milk the 'name' of the original to do the remake. You then make a sequel where you again milk the original by suggesting this will be unlike it. You make your own movie which by this point might have almost nothing to do with the original except for the title. You enter the theater and you find the movie acceptable. If the film works to any degree those associated with it start saying that it's a successful remake or sequel or whatever!
February 23, 2011 at 10:58 AM
Actually when you start making the same film with succeeding or preceding parts – sequel or prequel – it does become a franchise! Ocean's…, Star Wars, Indiana Jones…, Spiderman and all the other super(s)…
The moment Don 2 was conceived, it became a franchise. Don of SRK was a remake. Don 2 of his cannot be called a remake!
February 23, 2011 at 11:24 AM
"But all people of good taste should be offended."
Trop péremptoire mec, ça va pas ! Frankly when you say such words, how do you want us (not only SRK fans, but just people who doesn't think like you) to react ?
Ok the tone of my last message was a bit melodramatic (my K-JO side maybe lol), but at the same time it's not like the energy used to defend everyday your POV wasn't OTT at times either. Saying that half of the Bwood audience is dumb won't cool down the most hysterics SRK fans, or simple hindi cinema lovers who happen to find him fine.
February 23, 2011 at 11:43 AM
Not that I wish to mock your taste, but when you say that you find SRK "fine" as an actor, I'd just like to know which other actors do you happen to admire? I repeat, I have no intention of making fun of your choices.
February 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM
Wooooooooooow, OMG now i need to be tested to see if i'm not crazy. It's getting better and better. Ok let's try.
-Don't be surprised if i say that i like Aamir (a classic one). I like the actor, not the image built around him as Mr Different. For me he's not the radical type ala Daniel D Lewis. He's just a guy with a big faith in good commercial cinema. Enough for me.
-Another classic one : Abhishek. Frankly, he's really talented but he needs to give to his career another dimension. I thought he did with Guru but the hype felt back just after that. I also think directors are lazy with him. They never really challenge him, just play with his charisma…
- Saif Ali Khan: a real waste of talent. He can do so much better. He's good in comedy, can play a psychopath, a lover … just everything. But what is he doing ??
- Shahid Kapur : oh gosh what a shame ! Not the same generation but again the guy has the talent to do anything with the right director.
- Anil Kapoor : frankly i don't watch his films, but his role in 24 and his death were just awesome
- Madhavan : charming, what is he doing now ?
- Boman Iran : like a Switzerland knife, can play everything
- Arjun Rampal : a real shame again, but I find him underrated… but that's his fault. Stick to his big friends Farah and SRK may be good but is not helping his career.
- In the last generation Irfan and Ranbir are charming but they're falling in a real trap. All their last films look the same
I can't say i admire these guys but find them talented when they are well used. Overall, the biggest problem of Bwood and hindi actors is that everyone is becoming lazy. There's no real excitement nowadays around films except when there's a big project annoucement. Unfortunately films with average budget are also average in quality so…
February 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM
Ok, sanity has been restored
Jokes apart, barring Arjun Rampal, I have no issues with your list at all. I'm actually a big admirer of Boman Irani! Not too impressed with Ranbir though.
I'd recommend you to watch some small budget films like Mithya, Oye Lucky Lucky Oye, Dhobi Ghat etc to get a real feel for quality…
February 23, 2011 at 12:41 PM
second that..
February 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM
Having said that, I actually feel quite at home watching Dhobi Ghat or Ghajini. The former is a better film overall, but I don't feel the need to sneeze at the latter. It's not about mindset either. I don't feel the need to be in a certain 'mood' to enjoy a particular genre. Neither do I try to be overly critical – Ghajini is a film that operates in a 'masala' universe, which requires a certain suspension of disbelief. At the same time, inside that universe, there's a whole lot to admire – the songs, the narration, the acting etc. The point being, I look for tonal consistency, a bare minimum set of standards and an affecting story arc/performances inside any film. Usually (actually, without exception), SRK's films fail to meet my set of standards, which might make me look like a film snob. But in my defense, I do love watching films like Ghajini & Dabangg!
February 23, 2011 at 1:50 PM
I am with you on all of this.. and yes it is true that people think you're being snobbish or pretentious… speaking for myself I'd rather watch a bread and butter masala movie from the 70s than just about anything else in the world!
February 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM
Saket, why do you think SRK's films do not have "tonal consistency, and an affecting story arc/performances inside the film"? I found most of his early films to be very affecting, and his performance definitely noteworthy. It's only in some of the YRF/Dharma films where I found the stories silly — but even there, SRK's performance usually manged to make the film tolerable (or perhaps it was his charisma). I think it's fairly recently where he has started to caricature himself. While his biggest hits have come from YRF and Dharma, as well as Red Chilies, those are not the entirety of his filmography. If you're going to evaluate him as an actor, you must look at his full body of work.
February 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM
again I think there's a problem of definition sometimes.. everything that an actor does on screen cannot be defined as good 'performance' at least to the extent that this word is then correlated with notions of acting. I often like watching Akshay Kumar, I don't consider him an 'actor' (at least not most of the time) but the 'effects' he produces on screen are nonetheless engaging. Loved him in Khakee for example. Similarly I am a great fan of John Wayne's Westerns but he is just not an actor the way say DeNiro as an actor. It's not about the latter being better or greater, they're doing very different things. What we see on screen is also about physicality and gesturality and so on and these too make for a worthwhile experience for the audience. But this does not mean that every actor is so to speak 'acting'! Wouldn't put SRK in this category by the way. I'd put SRK and Aamir on one side as actors 'acting' (irrespective of who one prefers) and Salman and Akshay on the other as 'actors' largely dependent on gesturality and so on.
February 23, 2011 at 1:33 PM
SM, I find SRK's "acting" to be particularly jarring. SRK only knows one way to act, and that is to play himself, over and over again. Now this is a charge that's also levelled at Jack Nicholson, but I presume his 'charm' is of a different variety than SRK's!
And I've seen most of SRK's earlier films. I guess he was a perfect fit for DDLJ, not too bad in KHKN, but that's about it. The less I say about his "acclaimed" performances in Darr, Anjaam etc the better it is. Let me be kind in suggesting that he has a tendency to ham it up, irrespective of the character, situation or setting he finds himself in. I find it particularly odd that for a film audience that's getting more and more exposed to Hollywood (where the acting standards are certainly high!), he's given a free pass for some very obvious "overacting".
February 23, 2011 at 2:01 PM
Saket, thanks for the explanation. I would only quibble with you on the statement that standards of acting in Hollywood are very high, as if by definition. There is as much bad acting in Hollywood as in Bollywood. They are two different styles, that is all.
Satyam, I already know that the list of those you do not consider to be "actors" is long and legendary.
February 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM
No but this is understood as a partisan point on my part when it is anything but. I do of course attach a premium to 'acting' but if I listed many of my favorite stars around the world there would probably be as many in either group. and the other thing here is that even a term such as 'acting' becomes complicated. For example there are many Western critics who will praise one John Wayne 'performance' or the other. Because whether one is a pure actor or not there is some sort of performance being put on screen. With Dilip Kumar it might depend more on 'acting' understood in some traditional sense, with Dev Anand it might be entirely about style and gesture and so on. But in each case the audience receives it as an effective 'performance'. Even when the same audience can separate between the two. So you might have people who think Aamir acts better than Akshay but still prefer watching the latter. But even speaking about myself I'd rather watch Dev Anand in the 50s than Dilip Kumar in the same decade even while readily conceding that the latter is infinitely superior as an actor. The reasons are not really worth getting into at this point but it illustrates the whole difficulty of 'reception' when it comes to these matters. I am not a Salman fan at all, didn't mind him early on but always found his zany attempts intolerable in the Dhawan films and beyond. But I loved watching him in Dabanng. He didn't become an actor to me overnight but I loved his 'performance' or the way he handled the part. I'd rather watch Eastwood in a Leone Western than any De Niro or Pacino performance. But I don't have a problem accepting that there is light years worth of difference between those two and Eastwood as 'actors'. And this is of course brings me to another oft-repeated point. De Niro and Pacino cannot really take on Wayne on his terrain and vice versa. So being the superior actor does not always result in the better performance because cinema is also about physicality and 'star signature' and so forth. But sometimes when we're very invested in stars for whatever reason we find it hard to accept that what we love is more the persona and the 'style' and/or the gesture rather than 'acting' in the usual sense. One last example here is MGR vs Sivaji. Of course the latter was always considered the thespian but the former was actually something of a non-actor in much the same way that Dev Anand was. Of course this would get me murdered in TN but leaving aside that small matter the audience in that state didn't have a problem nonetheless preferring the effects of MGR on screen which was then reflected in the grosses. Similarly everyone accepts Kamal as Rajni's superior in this sense (though I'd say, again on a heretic note, that Sivaji isn't as good as Kamal while Rajni is far superior to MGR.. as 'actor') but the latter excited the very same people in ways Kamal could not. This was again reflected in the grosses.
February 24, 2011 at 2:54 AM
"Sanity has been restored" BIG LOL.
No frankly, i see very often in this forum SRK's fans treated like they were dumb or insane. All i'm saying is, everyone have their POV and we are all here to discuss it.
But you can't expect people to remain calm if everytime they trie to defend their taste, they are treated like idiots.
And sometimes it got nothing to do with SRK, it's just a normal human reaction. The fact that you ask me a list to justify myself is just one of the few example that can bring an unnecessary tension in a very polite conversation. Just my 2 cents
As for SRK himself, i find him fine but he got a real problem with his careeer. I can understand that he wants to try to be an action hero with all the technology available now. But on the other hand, he's missing the big changes happening in Bwood nowadays. Too bad, but let's keep faith he'll wake up
February 23, 2011 at 11:58 AM
Here's the issue though — why should the very dictionary definition of a 'remake' be altered or rendered incomprehensible to accommodate this one remake? Why is there this attempt to pass blanket statements on all of Bollywood history to justify this one remake? This is what I always object to. One could say this remake is not a serious one for a variety of reasons but it could still be an enjoyable film that works at the box office. There's nothing contradictory about this. The problem is that you start questioning the 'basics' just to make the remake acceptable in every sense. Finally there is the 'Bachchan isn't God' refrain. The idea that he's being placed on too high a pedestal and what not. Meanwhile the same folks worship at the altar of every second Hollywood film and actor! This sort of remake would invite the very same kind of negative attention in Hollywood.
And yes there IS a question of taste here. I have never subscribed to the idea of anarchy or for that matter democracy in the arts. If one touches an iconic film or such a great star-actor's work these questions arise as a matter of course. If Shaan is going to sing a Kishore Kumar or Rafi song don't tell me not to be offended! He has every right to do so of course! This is not because I think certain works are sacred and ought not to be touched but that the bar is raised so high with these that it is pointless to touch them unless one has very serious thought things through and one has the artistic gifts to make the remake worthwhile on its own. And by the way when I 'attack' contemporary audiences I do so on grounds of taste and ideology not intelligence. I refuse to subscribe to this politically correct idea that hey it's all the same in every age, it is only trends that change. No! Shakespeare did not arise in every age, Lata Mangeshkar does not have an equivalent, on and on. These people become the stuff of legend for a reason. So when we approach their work it is incumbent on us to to do something interesting with it and not simply use it as an ad campaign to further our own cynical box office ends not to mention feeding our egotistical selves. The thing is that if one person listens to Ravi Shankar, the other loves Kunal Ganjawala and both expect to be taken equally seriously in matters of taste! There is absolutely nothing wrong in listening to the latter. I love a number of bad Mithun and Jeetendra films from the 80s, I like many 'poor' Hollywood thrillers. I don't start imagining this is great cinema and that no one should question me on this. My approach does not prevent anyone from enjoying anything. But when the debate is a 'critical' one certain issues come into play.
If the response is that anyone has a right to remake anything irrespective of what the intentions are I don't disagree as a legal matter but no more than this. Because I too have the right to attack each and every such remake on my chosen grounds. If the point is to suggest that this is a worthwhile remake then too one might question the film in the very same way. But again it seems to me that 'reasons' to justify the remake are pulled out of a hat like rabbits. In all these years I have debated many on this remake many times and I have never got the sense of the other side really holding a set of genuine beliefs about this or consistently taking one position. It was impossible not to have the sense (and I have it today) that a star's decisions were being justified by hook or by crook as opposed to a proper argument being presented. Just take your responses today. You're all over the place.
This isn't about SRK (though I question his politics for many reasons). I like many stars that I don't esteem them as fine actors. I wouldn't want to see them attempt certain things.
February 23, 2011 at 12:08 PM
Just out of curiosity, Satyam, when did Don become an "iconic" film of Bachchan's? While obviously I don't claim your exhaustive knowledge of Bachchanalia, I had never heard of this film until the remake talk started, while I had heard of Kabhi Kabhie, Deewar, Zanjeer, Coolie (more for the accident than its quality), Amar Akbar Anthony, Abhiimaan, Silsilla, and, of course, Sholay. In fact, at the time of the new Don's release, I remember reading an interview with the original Don's director or someone else connected with the film, where he said that they never thought of it as particularly iconic, and it was just a nice little film that they made, along with a lot of other "average" films. And this was pretty much the version I read in most places (i.e., it was a successful film with some hit songs, but it wasn't in the same league as the other Bachchan films I've listed above).
As for iconic films being remade, after RGV ki Aag, I don't think you can really bring up that argument any more.
February 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM
Check out the Don gross here:
http://ibosnetwork.com/asp/topgrossersbyyear.asp?year=1978
According to Nahata it did 6 crores in '78 when Trishul did 7 crores. Gave the former an A1 rating and the latter an A11.
It was one of Bachchan's most successful films in the 70s (leaving aside something like MKS, his biggest grosser if you leave aside Sholay) and extraordinarily iconic at the time. They might not have thought this to be the case when the started making it but it became this and really it is a film inseparable from the Bachchan canon. Judging from your list (and with all due respect) you weren't very well informed on the Bachchan canon because there's much that is the stuff of Bachchan lore that's missing from it. No Trishul? No Mukaddar Ka Sikandar? No Namak Halal? I could go on! Silsila doesn't even begin to compare with these films. It didn't do well at all when released despite much hype though it always had an audience among certain bourgeois segments. The songs of course became legendary.
And Farhan Akhtar wouldn't have remade Don if it hadn't been so iconic! He talked about liking some other Bachchan films also. Mentioned Dostana for example but remade this one.
On RGV's Sholay actually I always found the idea appalling, didn't want this done and certainly after the film released no Bachchan fan I know has defended it. Similarly some of us have been going after Agneepath and even most Hrithik fans are not trying to defend it (though they'd be happy with a hit here).
By the way glad to know you have greater faith in media reporting when it isn't about Salman..
But since you've brought up Barot's testimony see here:
http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/interviews/don-210706.html
he places don alongside Zanjeer and Sholay as films responsible for Bachchan's superstar status.
also see here:
http://specials.rediff.com/movies/2006/oct/16sld3.htm
talks about don becoming a big hit despite releasing in the near vicinity of Trishul.
February 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM
I don't have faith in media reporting; that's why I asked you.
That list of films was just what I could recall off the top of my head, and the ones most often mentioned; it wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list.
February 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM
But does a hit make a film iconic?
I am a Bachchan fan and have seen most of his films including Don. Found it good because of AB, and the paan song. But iconic?
Farhan may have chosen Don, because of the possibilities it offered. He said somewhere about making Don flamboyant to suit SRK's personality which I think is possible to turn a Don into.
To bring up Ravi Shanker, Shakespeare etc in context to Don is really going too far with this business.
Finally your problem is that you see Don as iconic while many do not. I was wondering where you were coming from, and now I see it.
Much as I love all AB's films many aren't iconic even if they were hits – it's just AB who is really iconic!!!!
June 2, 2011 at 3:10 PM
Out of the List that SM mentioned 3 of them are Yash raj films which they go GaGA over time and again, because he has made em, they are all over yash raj websites, DVD's classic collections so and so forth, So your resources in my understanding are limited to yashraj. (the other films you mentioned, who does not know sholay or coolie for watever reasons). But the other 3 you know of or heard of are because it seems you follow the yash raj camp very closely, hence limited. oh btw, Kabhi Kabhi and Silsila are big flops, and Talking about remakes, Agree Don was a really bad remake of it original, Dont have to or dont want to point out the differences (do i really need to? ), Someone did mention that 80% of movies are remakes in indian cinema, maybe true, there are some examples i can give that were made from classics, but neither its original or new verson would have a problem wtih either, for ex the biggest remake of of one of the biggest movies of the 50s was devdas, remade by Prakash Mehra as in Muqaddar Ka Sikandar, yes the story was ofcourse rehashed for its time, but the basic plot was the same thing, (Think about it) and they were both loved and blockbusters without the newer one, how should i say this "insulting" the older version. So yes, there are ways to make remakes, I bet you if RGV ki Aag was not publicised as the remake of sholay and only if ramu had kept his mouth shut, it would have been a cult dacoit movies of our times. but the ramu that ramu is..he had to go that route.SRK's performaces less talked about the less "headache" for all of us here. BTW satyam, I cant believe you also prefre a Leone eastwood over deniro or pacino and 70
s flick, etc etc..man i cant say this enough, found the right minded people on this site. Loving it here.
February 24, 2011 at 8:26 AM
Not that my word should be the end-all, but as long as I have grown up in India, Don was always an iconic film. The line "Don ko pakadna mushkil hi nahin, namumkin hai" was uttered by us in the late 80s, early 90s, when I was in my preteens. Never questioned the iconic status of Don. Now if you talk of a Khuddar or Pukar or Desh Premee, then yes… they were hit filmf of Amitabh, but never aged well to be iconic.
Don, with its blaxploitation-influenced treatment and disco inferno music style was actually quite ahead of its times.
February 24, 2011 at 8:28 AM
Abzee, your word is the end-all as far as I'm concerned on many of these matters..
February 23, 2011 at 2:44 PM
Satyam, it's certainly a very valid point that remaking classics or iconic works is an exercise in pointlessness (especially if the people involved lack artistic vision). However, if this proposition is applied only selectively according to ones prejudices, it becomes nothing more than a cynical exercise is partisanship.
Ohh btw what are your feelings about Pritam remaking R.D Burman's iconic Dum Maro Dum?
February 23, 2011 at 3:17 PM
That's not a very fair question Matrix if you've been following me for a while as you have. When there was doubt about the Agneepath casting I suggested Abhishek if offered should take it up as a 'sacrifice bunt' rather than have another actor wreck it even more. Never thought this was a good idea even though I am hardly the film's greatest fan. With Satte Pe Satta I had no such problem. Some years ago I recall there was a rumor about Rohan Sippy possibly being interested in a Shaan remake. This is a film I've always loved but here I felt it wasn't a Bachchan 'performance' like many others and therefore could be 'repeated'. I still had doubts about whether the coolness quotient of the original could be replicated and those doubts would always remain but I am not in principle as opposed to it as I would be to Naseeb for example. Similarly if SRK did some other Bachchan remakes I'd be willing to live with. RGV's Aag was always a bad idea to my mind. I was only interested in seeing Bachchan and Lal together but this film was quite a remarkable train-wreck. The thing with RGV though, even as this was a miserable experiment on his part, is that there was an idea there. Earlier today I talked about RGV doing a Don remake perhaps with Bajpai and setting it say in the world of Satya. This would be akin to a Shakespearean play transposed to a very different milieu. A remake in terms of the essential plot-line but otherwise very different. With Don though there is no such attempt. It is basically an effort to 'refine' the original and to establish a Bachchan-SRK correspondence. This was certainly so at the time. I've commented on the politics of this many times and won't get into it again here. But it's certainly not being about selective. If I'm remaking Ocean's 11 the bar is surely lower than if I'm remaking Citizen Kane?!
Song remixes are a very different cup of tea. One might not like the idea as I don't but it is an element in the film and not the entire. The least of my objections to the new Don was that the original songs were redone. I find most of these efforts poor but I am not in principle as opposed to them provided there is something creative about them. I would love for Rahman to attempt Dum Maro Dum for example. the Midival Punditz background bit on the teaser was great. I have very little faith in Pritam to be honest beyond the fact that he'll deliver a hit. Beyond this there is at least one redeeming factor in Rohan Sippy's decision to use the song at all. From the hippie world of Hare Rama Hare Krishna and the specific moment of the song itself where everyone is let's say high to its transposition to a film which is about the drug trade and so on seems a bit more justifiable than say plucking any old hit number and inserting it into a film. But in any case I don't see remixes and remakes as completely comparable. In each case though I do approach the work with a great deal of suspicion unless otherwise persuaded.
We talk about Bollywood contexts here. I actually find most Hollywood attempts more. I didn't even bother to get into Psycho even though I do like some of Van Sant's other work. Leaving aside this I find the overwhelming number of Hollywood adaptations (not even remakes these!) appalling and this includes some relatively celebrated ones.
February 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM
anyone questioning iconic status of DON needs to ask young boys who have seen DON, and that famous dialogue of catching don!
it was among bachchan most iconic movies in my childhood! children used to utter in mannerism of DON! and that too years after it released!
@sm- did u place ur 3 idiot imoral post, if so guide me there
February 23, 2011 at 2:39 PM
Rooney I don't want to call you a liar, but you are not telling the truth.
If you are in your early 20s then in early 90s children weren't talking like Don.
One doesn't have to be young to know what the trend was then, because one is in contact with all ages at home, in your social circle etc.
February 23, 2011 at 3:05 PM
don't think that's fair Oldgold.. it depends on who one has been hearing from. There are large parts of India that were bypassed by the Yashraj moment. These people though showed up for RH or Gadar or Ghajini or some others. There are parts of India where new cinema has been more or less absent for the longest time. But Gadar is a legend in these places. Even in major metros it can vary quite dramatically depending on what part of the city one is from. This is again where Bollywood shut out a lot of people, the media catered to the same audience and all of us here on blogs such as this also belong to more or less the same social grouping. Unless we take the time out to collect anecdotal evidence from other quarters and I can tell you from personal experience that it can vary dramatically. With Bachchan this is especially not odd. There was a survey done some years ago which revealed that there is not a single day in any calendar year when a Bachchan movie is not shown on at least one channel. The point precisely is that at least so far Bachchan has been unavoidable on TV even for those who didn't grow up with the films.
Of course the argument some of you are making questioning Don's iconic stature is a bit amusing. Surely the evidence lies in the remake itself? Is it because those original lines were not iconic that these were even used in the remake?!
February 24, 2011 at 7:12 AM
>don't think that's fair Oldgold.. it depends on who one has been hearing from.
That was what my point was, satyam.
So, if a remake proves the iconicity of a film does 'not remaking' one proves otherwise?
Can't remember any names (since those films weren't iconic), but there have been a lot of remakes especially over the past decades stating it is remake of this or that film.
February 24, 2011 at 7:36 AM
Actually that wasn't your point. You suggested Rooney wasn't telling the truth as no one so many years later could be mouthing those lines anywhere and Amit Kumar Pandey just suggested otherwise. You claimed you knew what younger people discussed and my point addressed that aspect of things. Of course I doubt as a general matter that even the Sholay lines are repeated by kids today the way they once were. This is the most legendary film of all, it's lines have become part of the cultural vocabulary and yet I don't believe the lines are repeated by people growing up today with the same immediacy that they once were. This is only natural. So when Rooney said what he did or Amit related his own experience this does not mean that all over India people have been saying these lines over the last 20-25 years or whatever. Just that it is some sort of index of the film original iconic appeal as most other film lines from most other films are never repeated beyond a point! Bachchan is in a somewhat different category as so many of his films have remained 'current' over the years but Farhan Akhtar when first deciding on the remake called Don a very 'modern' film. There is something correct about this statement which has made some of its lines more 'repeatable' over the years than say something like MKS which is otherwise one of the biggest hits in Hindi film history. But again one has to be careful here too. Because even among superhits and/or iconic films there are geographical factors in play. So MKS was Bachchan's biggest grosser ever (leaving aside Sholay) and by a fairly significant margin but especially in the North this has been the stuff of lore. Not surprising of course. Similarly an AAA has a very special appeal in Bombay. Ganga ki Saugandh was again a big heartland success. So even when films do well across the board they might do particularly so in certain regions and have greater appeal in these. What is considered iconic in Kanpur might be very different from what is considered so in Bombay. But any film that has recall value in terms of its lines and so on anywhere indicates something important.
To get to the rest of your comment a remake does not prove the iconic stature of a film, I of course suggested no such thing. But I can't think of another remake that actually uses lines from the original as well! In other words why would anyone use those lines if these had no recall value at all? And of course it doesn't logically follow that a film that isn't remade is not iconic. In fact usually people try to stay away from films that have been iconic to any degree. Farhan Akhtar's example is a bit unusual in this sense (though after the Hindi Don they also had the idea of doing the same in Tamil where Rajni's remake of Don (Billa) is itself a very iconic film! One could I suppose also think of some Hollywood films but it is still unusual because it's just a higher bar the more iconic a film whereas with a hit that has been forgotten over time this can easily be done). But even he wouldn't attempt Deewar or something. Yash chopra redid Trishul with Vijay (Anil Kapoor, Rishi Kapoor) in the 80s when he was going through a lean phase but he avoided all the lines of the original.
I should add here Oldgold that I sometimes lay out these things for the benefit of others reading. Otherwise it can become simply a game with you where you keep arguing just for the heck of it or put up smileys to get out of sticky situations and one has to question whether it is a sincere enough contribution from your side.
February 24, 2011 at 8:52 AM
>You claimed you knew what younger people discussed and my point addressed that aspect of things.
My claim was like his claim. 'THat's what I wanted to show'.
I didn't feel the need to spoon feed my thought here.
I wanted to show one can make any claims one wants with examples of their experience, and Amit Pandey is doing the same.
Songs at public performances are very normal especially a popular song.
I'm sorry you can't convince me, just as I can't convince you that Don may have been a popular, successful film but iconic is not the word that comes to mind.
Talking of personal experiences I could also write that on none of the 'old film' forums that I go to does anyone talk of Don. Sholay several times over so also Deewar.
But I'm not going to use 'this' as proof.
February 24, 2011 at 10:20 AM
Sholay and Deewar are not reasonable examples. These are at least upto the present date two of the most famous films in Hindi film history. If a forum was discussing just these two I wouldn't think much of it to begin with.
You have now three people in Abzee, Rooney, Amit Kumar Pandey who've talked about Don being iconic. You keep insinuating that people are making unreliable claims here but the problem is that these folks aren't saying the same about many other Bachchan films. Abzee has said so explicitly. I doubt Rooney and Amit Kumar are going to come here and say that Khuddaar and Yaarana were talked about all the time (even though these were hits). I am part of such a list, I grew up knowing how iconic Don was relative to many other Bachchan films but in any case there are hosts of Bachchan hits for which I would not use such a term.
as for not being convinced I don't think there's anything that can convince one is one doesn't want to be convinced. Obviously no one can produce hard evidence of the iconic stature of Don relative to other films. But we can't do this for a lot of stuff actually. No one can produce hard evidence of the extraordinary moment that Rajesh Khanna represented for some years, not just as the first superstar but also as an enormous cultural presence. You can track his hits and so on and you'd find these impressive but just these wouldn't give a measure of the star specially since he's so dead at the moment. You might read in articles that there was a craze for him and what not but this too could be said about many stars. Something unique came about with Rajesh Khanna but there is no hard evidence to prove this. Similarly there is no 'poll' here to prove Don was an iconic film. You still haven't of course answered the question of why even the lines from the original film were used but I'm sure you'll come up with an explanation. Again this is not a debate about whether Don was iconic or not but whether one is going to plant oneself in concrete or not where one's opinions are concerned. 25 years from now people might argue about whether SRK was that big in the overseas markets. There might be other stars with impressive records at that point. People will go back and realize he had the hits and so on but wouldn't be able to accurately gauge just what he meant for the diaspora. Now of course he's lived through an age where a lot lot more is documented in every sense so he won't literally have this problem but if there weren't these things how would one prove it?
And again there should be an integrity to one's participation in any debate. When Rooney initially mentioned his experience you basically disbelieved it. When two others came up with the same you suddenly decided this was about 'supporters'. So the ground keeps shifting. The only constant here is you won't change your opinion or be corrected. This kind of Bush-like 'steadfastness' is hardly a virtue!
February 24, 2011 at 8:14 AM
"but you are not telling the truth. "
Its cool if you dont believe, nor this is court, nor i would lead evidence here
but would only ask you to acknowledge/understand is i normally dont have a tendency to say to others that i dont take what they say at a blog. as i like to believe people.
if u for once would try that, it would be worth it imo
anyways if u doubt i cant help it Miss, but then thats life i guess!
February 24, 2011 at 9:12 AM
Rooney no hard feelings.
I just meant to say it lightly. Personal experiences are no support as far as I'm concerned. It's too personal and limited.
I apologize if you took my comment seriously.
February 23, 2011 at 5:31 PM
Re: If you are in your early 20s then in early 90s children weren't talking like Don.
Really? How did you come to that conclusion. It is not about talking like Don. It is about using the dialogues and the attitude/mannerism.
As Stayam very rightly pointed out, one cannot question Don's iconic status.
The very fact that Farhan/SRK attempted a remake using the same lines/songs ( it is another matter that they didnt succeed0 shows how iconic Don is. One has to be really intellectually bankrupt and dishonest to treally attempt questioning Don's iconic status. One can argue if it is a great film or not or whether it has aged well. But, its status and inflluence one can only question at the expense of one's credibility.
February 24, 2011 at 6:09 AM
"The fact that you ask me a list to justify myself is just one of the few example that can bring an unnecessary tension in a very polite conversation."
I'm really sorry if that's how you interpreted my intentions, although I do understand it might be difficult not to interpret it in any other way.
I was being merely curious because SRK's fans normally call him an actor, and in my humble opinion, of all the charges that have been leveled at SRK, this one doesn't stick!
Again jokes apart, I've always found it difficult to understand how people can be fans of other well known actors and SRK's "acting". Even when I had limited exposure to films, and Bruce Willis used to be my hero (after Die Hard), I could sense that SRK was always caught trying too hard. His performances always had this overstated quality that has since been described as his "energy" or youthful appeal or whatever. In my mind, these are all terms to mask his great weakness as an actor. For a self-confessed Hollywood fan, he seems to be stuck doing 'Kathakali' steps in a Hollywood-inspired milieu. The effects therefore, can only be jarring.
February 24, 2011 at 8:34 AM
Abzee, your word is the end-all as far as I'm concerned on many of these matters..
LOL! But seriously… I always lurk around, wanting to post but not finding the time cuz my job ain't desk-bound. But I was compelled to support Rooney's testimony because it is jut ludicrous that the very 'iconicity' of Don i now being questioned. Perhaps that is the only way of effacing the looming unsurmountable shadow and impact of the original compared to the remake, which tries to justify its 'legitimacy' by way of the remake!
February 24, 2011 at 9:27 AM
nice to see ya buddy
and do keep posting more abzee!!
February 24, 2011 at 8:35 AM
which tries to justify its 'legitimacy' by way of the remake!
I meant sequel. A remake that justifies its legitimacy by way of a sequel!
February 24, 2011 at 8:47 AM
OT — Abzee, since you happen to be an industry insider, could you unravel the mystery of 5 big name directors being gay?
I'm expecting Rajen to pounce on my insatiable curiosity, but I'll take that risk if I can fill up my mind with some more useless trivia…
February 24, 2011 at 8:54 AM
since you happen to be an industry insider, could you unravel the mystery of 5 big name directors being gay?
Sadly, I'm not that 'inside' to unravel the mystery. Besides, I've never bothered 'poking' that 'deep' into this matter.
February 24, 2011 at 9:07 AM
LOL
February 24, 2011 at 9:07 AM
Of course there will be several supporters who will come up to prove how iconic Don is.
I don't think I'll be able keep up with them flooding in.
But satyam take this as a proof of your own comments about how SRK fans can't accept what they think an attack on their 'tastes' etc. This story seems to have a similar narration now with different characters
I'm as much a fan of Amitabh Bachchan, but honestly the thought of Don being iconic had never occured to me till I read comments here.
And there is no institution that declares a film 'iconic'. I've noticed here on this blog people proclaiming films they have liked as iconic.
February 24, 2011 at 9:26 AM
@earlier commen- no didnt took personal but on second thoughts my language might have made u think so! thus i indeed say miss, having gone through a criminal matter today in arguments might have been a reason.
its was strictly business
@ new comment-
i didnt say it earlier but i would just like to mention maybe in my childhood once in fancy dress competition one of my friends played DON character of Amitabh Bachchan! now see i cant confirm that based on vague memory.. but i am positive something on similiar lines! and moreso as indeed i remember he had brought those diwali / toy pistols .. in performance!
anyways have a nice day! tc
February 24, 2011 at 9:53 AM
FWIW, I don't think the original "Don" was iconic either. A big hit and a cult favorite – yes, iconic – no. That said, I do think the remake altered the legacy profile of the film and elevated it to iconic status. It is *now* considered an iconic film and performance by Bachchan. Sort of a cinematic Hawthorne effect. I think a similar thing happened with "Mughal-E-Azam", which somewhere during the colorization and re-release process went from being the event of 1960 to an unassailable classic of Hindi Cinema. Bah!
"I've noticed here on this blog people proclaiming films they have liked as iconic."
I've noticed that too, but I don't think the behavior is confined to SatyamShot. I think all of us occasionally have trouble transcending the cocoon of our beliefs.
February 24, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Shalini, you're quite wrong on both Don and MeA. The latter has always been one of the touchstone films since its release. These things wax and wane of course but the stature of MeA has never been in any doubt.
February 24, 2011 at 10:17 AM
i dont know how anyone can say DON is not an iconic film since it was after the release the name 'chora ganga kinarewala' was given to Bachchan
February 24, 2011 at 12:09 PM
"after the release the name 'chora ganga kinarewala' was given to Bachchan"
what kind of logic is this? Then Badshah will also be an iconic film with the same logic…Now films with Munni nd Sheila will be iconic too…
February 24, 2011 at 10:21 AM
It is easy to question iconic status of any movie or work or art or person.
It is harder to convince the one who questions of the fallacy of their beliefs.
First it requires good faith, secondly understanding of basic English and the word icon/iconic and thirdly, an appreciation of Bollywood industry.
By the time, you combine all three, you will most likely end up with someone who is an AB fan and the question of convincing becomes moot!
February 24, 2011 at 10:25 AM
Iconic does not refer to quality but impact.
Am not sure, how an honest person in control of his faculties can question iconic status of Don. That opinion is either dishonest or misinformed. However, not illegal!
February 24, 2011 at 10:34 AM
Re: "I've noticed here on this blog people proclaiming films they have liked as iconic."
That true. There ARE people who consider RNBDJ/OSO or Veer or London Dreams iconic. Just kiddin. Dont take umbrage, SM. We value and respect your opinion and just becasue we kid around, dont take that as a sign of intolerance. I made it clear that anyone who argues in good faith is respected. While, I might have been mistaken in my belief that you knew me well enough for me to have a license to have a little fun at your and Oldgold's expense, it does not change the fact that I do regard you as a valuable and respectable contributor. If you think an apology is neccessary,consider it offered.
February 24, 2011 at 11:04 AM
LOL rajen but i would say of the lot u mentioned i consider RNBDJ is quite underrated, a gem of a film. imo
February 24, 2011 at 11:06 AM
Rooney since you also mentioned the Don anecdote you have just now offered the best evidence possible of your impartiality! Liking RNBDJ!
February 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM
hehe! i know.
btw i have stated this point i think before also, that when i first time saw in theater –
rnbdj- ok ok
ghajini – rocked.
__________________________
but with time, ghajini i still njoy, and love the masala narrative, but i would have loved script more tight! and edited more ( i guess what doesnt help all my rewatch of the movie had biggest of breaks on tv channels in commercials!)
rnbdj- i have appreciated it more and more, and i like it more than former. and have liked the idea more and more, may be some problems with execution, but SRK as Suri indeed was refreshing imo and lately i have liked anushka's performance also.
ps- the comparison is only becoz i saw both movies within 7 days frame. and thus i remembered it.
ps2- actually one cant compare both as difference of genre's but let ps1 be the excuse.
February 24, 2011 at 9:45 PM
Lol. Now, Guys questioning of icionic status of my Don.
I want to add my personal experionce from early 90s when i was 6 – 7 year old. The craze in my neighbours was such that i saw old don multiple times playing on vcr from night till morning next day on multiple occasions. But as a child, i could never understand much of it. Even in my town it was one of those films alongwith mks, sholay, zangeer, mard, kranti which played in many theaters by 94 – 95.
February 24, 2011 at 10:11 PM
thanks for that note Rentz..
February 24, 2011 at 10:15 PM
offtopic- pvr to go slow, one of the reasons mentioned debacle of KHJJS
indeed feel sad for movie and production house.
http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/30/2011022520110225031015993bea1c982/Game-over.html
February 24, 2011 at 10:16 PM
SRK Show gets lowest TRP ever.
It has now achieved the distinction of having the lowest TRPs ever for a show hosted by a Bollywood star! Even a Rakhi Sawant anchored show attracts more eyeballs than King Khan's latest outing on the small screen.
And Rakhi has not been mincing any words on her popularity ratings. "My Rakhi Ka Insaaf on the same channel (Imagine) had more viewership than Zor Ka Jhatka."
And in her characteristic candour she declares, "Ek dum Zor Ka Jhatka laga hai!"
http://www.mid-day.com/entertainment/2011/feb/250211-Shah-Rukh-Khan-Zor-Ka-Jhatka-lowest-TRPs-B-Town-star.htm
ps- is that show this bad?
February 24, 2011 at 11:46 PM
I watched the opening episode and it really is bad. SRK simply compounds the torture by his way/style of hosting.
What do others think who have been viewing the show lol
February 25, 2011 at 3:06 AM
my tv viewing is next to zero ! except for say EPL, UCL.
February 25, 2011 at 3:23 AM
@ Rooney – snap but i watch other sports also like snooker and tennis.
February 25, 2011 at 1:25 AM
Thank god…SRK will at least quit TV and do more movies…
February 25, 2011 at 1:30 AM
yes thank god for those miserable ratings..
February 25, 2011 at 2:00 AM
"yes thank god for those miserable ratings.."
No i m thanking God coz i never see any of these big stars shows on TV (except for a show like KWK)…
I always like to watch them on big screen….I would love to see stars like SRK or a HRithik do more movies rather than wasting time on small screen…
Since these stars (along with Aamir) are doing less movies, producers/directors are forced to sign flop actors for their movies…we are getting dozens of miserable movies each year…
February 25, 2011 at 4:23 AM
Wipe out ratings give SRK a Zor ka Jhatka!
I did watch the first show and this guy is a sledge'hammer'! What was the purpose of him commentating in the studio while the physically inept contestants were pin-balling obstacles?!
February 25, 2011 at 5:10 AM
shahrukh,aamir are actors and Akshay is not an actor? Haha.
February 25, 2011 at 7:10 AM
SRK dons new role with Mughal-E-Azam
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/SRK-dons-new-role-with-Mughal-E-Azam/articleshow/7569361.cms
February 25, 2011 at 8:04 AM
I'm eagerly waiting for some bigwig in bollywood to take the step of preserving the bygone era of hindi films (and in every regional language).
I hope this small step in recognizing this need will lead to some solid attempts at digitalising and making every film made available to public.
The family members should play a major role.
February 25, 2011 at 8:06 AM
PS:
hahahaha!
>SRK **[dons]** new role…
February 25, 2011 at 7:25 AM
"People often forget that even the most commercial cinema has its own logic. When you watch a film by Manmohan Desai it doesn't matter that a guy beats up ten people or that people separate and 're-connect' as a series of coincidences. All of this could be justified on its own terms of course but the point is that the emotional truth of Desai's world transcends these ordinary 'realistic' concerns. Which concerns (to be repetitive) are misplaced in the first place. One does not ask of the Iliad whether it is 'realistic'. One judges the Iliad using the terms of this work. Similarly the wager of Manmohan Desai is hardly that of Hrishikesh Mukherjee."
I fail to understand this 'intentional theorem of lineancy' that you are showing towards a certain Manmohan Desai brand of Cinema. I would rather sya,i too like his movies.But then,you cannot use the 'emotional truth of Deesai's world' to defend the illogical superhuman nature of your favourite and my much reverred star,Amitabh Bachchan and disregard the same kind bent of mind towards the 'romanticism' of 90′s and the directors involved.A plausible explanation could be that the advent of 90′s ate up the much established empire built by Big B. So,a natural tinge of criticism for the attempts of 90′s can be seen in your commentary. If Desai's 'emotional truth' transcended the boundaries of reasoning' which i don't think is a generalised and documented fact,then how can you so consider the endeavour of the 90′s as 'not up to the mark or 'viral in character'[as if an infection] and not allow it a defense of such 'emotional truths'…although it is a much documented fact that tissue papers went out of stocks quickly in the era of 90′s.
The alibi of 'emotional truth' is poorly built. Who decides it? Who will define its extensions? Who can gauge the exact quantum of such a truth? I have no problems with the alibi in this case but i have a strong objection to your unexplained and poorly argued case of the 90′s. Don- is as iconic as Bonnie and Clyde,but then the illogical stuffs that come as appendages attached to the so-called 'masala cinema' cannot be defended by a certain director's emotional[a quantity that cannot be measured] vision.If such be the case ,then anyone can defend any movie using such exculpation.
February 25, 2011 at 8:15 AM
A few points to be made here:
1)You define my interpretation of masala cinema as one that tries to overcome the inherent 'illogic' of the enterprise. In other words 'it's ok if Desai is illogical because he makes it up with his emotional quotient'! But this isn't my position at all! Because I do not find there to be anything 'illogical' about Desai much as I don't find anything illogical in Homer or Shakespeare. On grounds of 'realism' (at least a certain ordinary understanding of the term which itself is not one I can subscribe to because 'realism' in the arts has a very complicated history.. people often think it is about a certain documentary truth but it is much more than this and of course 'documentary truth' itself is another kind of fiction) all three might be considered illogical. Hopefully I don't have to get into examples. So it's not that I am asking you to ignore the fact that one person beats up ten in Desai because I think there are other redeeming features in these films. I actually have no objection to one person beating up ten in the first place! My point simply was that those who focus on this sort of feature in masala miss the forest for the trees.
2)There are very many bad masala films. Just like any other genre it has them! This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. But if I said I preferred Kishore Kumar's songs to Udit Narayan's and if you then told me that Kishore sang many terrible songs that would hardly be a counter-argument. Many great writers come up with poor works. We have to look at things in totality.
3)What masala represents to me as a set of narrative, political, aesthetic (and of course these terms bleed into one another and others) codes is something I consider to be infinitely superior to the same codes represented in the Yashraj cinema of the 90s. Again I am not objecting to anything 'illogical' in say KKHH in the usual sense. I just find it poor on many grounds and on the specific point of emotional truth I find it completely fake. Why? Because it is a cartoon-like film that refuses to deal with the emotional stakes it raises and tries to get around them in all sorts of dishonest ways. One of the problems I've always had with this cinema even when I've enjoyed particular films (I always enjoy DDLJ for example) is that there are no real 'stakes' here. The Yashraj/Johar ethos is about having your cake and eating it too. So in KKHH the film stages SRK's romance with Rani and his subsequent loss when she dies as a kind of way-station to Kajol. In the older films when this sort of thing would happen you'd have the hero moving on to another woman after a great deal of emotional upheaval. Of course the latter would just be better represented in an older cinema but leaving this aside there would never be the sense that somehow the earlier 'affair' didn't mean much. Gradually the male protagonist would fall in love again and/or compromise. In KKHH though there is the sense that SRK should always have ended up with Kajol but he somehow needed this detour with Rani so as to allow Kajol or give her enough time (!) to become a real woman and shed her tomboy instincts (this itself is a regressive move.. note how the proponents of new Indian liberalism found it rather easy to embrace this kind of 'plot'). Even though SRK never has any problems with Rani the film still advances this logic. There are those lines about everything happening once in life. This of course sounds absurd given that this gentleman seems to be doing everything twice! But actually Johar's crafty move here is to clearly imply that the Rani affair and marriage was really a 'trailer' for the more real deal awaiting the hero with Kajol! This is just one example from one film but I could go through all of SRK's iconic films and come up with such 'readings'. I consider this to be dishonest cinema. Politically regressive but also dishonest because it presents itself as 'progressive'. In those older family socials that had poor social messages at least no one pretended it was anything other than the obvious. But again my problem with many of these films isn't built around 'illogic'. I am not getting into those sorts of plot elements and so on. Unless it is taken to absurd extremes relative to the film's own world. Some stuff that happens in Gunga Jumna Saraswati is plainly idiotic even going by the 'rules' of the Desai universe. On the other hand Naseeb is perfectly alright. Similarly DDLJ is fine but RNBDJ is ridiculous in the same sense.
4)It is not about quantifying anything. That is not a metric that can be used in the arts. And I personally don't find your question in this regard very sincere too. It's like if you praise a SRK film as great and I ask you how you quantify 'great' or even 'good'!
February 25, 2011 at 9:25 AM
I am reminded of something Aristotle said that (and here I am relying on James Wood's formulation) that a 'convincing impossibility' is better than an 'unconvincing possibility'. The best cinema, the best art always trades in the former.
February 25, 2011 at 1:23 PM
Thats a great line. And. very appropriate.
February 25, 2011 at 12:59 PM
SRK interview:
February 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM
SRK could have landed an appropriate part in Dum Maaro Dum..!
February 25, 2011 at 1:21 PM
"Tabhi toh Superstar hoon Dost"..
LOL…
February 25, 2011 at 1:24 PM
I like this look.
February 25, 2011 at 1:29 PM
This look has a little bit of character to it. The usual look with jelled hair and trying desperately to look young, I dont like.
February 25, 2011 at 2:02 PM
If the intention is to get a grunge look here, think Srk and fArhan whoeva is involved seem to hav pulled it off well. It is a double edged sword And one has to get it rite or else may backfire with the indian audience.
Don't know y but the few don2 pics I have seen till now have enthused me– for a person who rarely likes anything Srk, this says something.
Heard somewhere that an "international"version is also being planned– looking forward to it!
February 25, 2011 at 2:07 PM
Faux Pas!
February 25, 2011 at 4:42 PM
SRK dumbed down DON. Agreed. I don't think you need such a long article to prove this. But ials belive SRK atleast succede .001% as don. I am new here So i don't know if you have written anything on Babban (The way Amitabh Killed Gabbar Singh in RGV ki AAG.)
February 25, 2011 at 9:24 PM
yes but RGV though he made a disaster of a film was also making something totally 'other' than Sholay. He so dramatically changed the film in every sense that this was no easy 'repetition' of Sholay. Not that I ever favored such a remake but RGV was upto something perverse here.
February 25, 2011 at 5:00 PM
It is good that SRK get a Zor ka jhatka. Every teaser of ZKJ was irritating. I don't know what NDTV guys and SRK think. Why could't they saw a pridictable doomsday for ZKJ.
February 25, 2011 at 10:31 PM
Ya, I agree. RGV was upto something perverse here. But here i found Big B more guilty then RGV. RGV is a mericural genius. But i think deep down in his heart Big b knew that sholay can't be never made and gabbar can't be recreated. So why didn't he flately refused. That is my main grouse against Big B.
February 25, 2011 at 11:23 PM
won't disagree here..
February 26, 2011 at 12:17 AM
I will disagree here…It was always RGV's fault and he has rightfully accepted it. I was always supportive of RGV remaking Sholay(in fact remake of any film) until i watched the trailers.
A remake is always a director's vision. It can be successful or can go wrong. It's just like any other film which needs good directions and performances to succeed.
I remember an interview of BIg B (i think with Arnab Goswami of E Now. If some can plz find the link.) where he was talking about his experience of Anand. He had to enact the scene where anand was dying and he had to deliver the emotional dialogue. He then continued that how he recollected all his sad memories and delivered the dialogue. It did not work with Hrishida so then he stopped him and told him to simply say the dialogue. And that particular scene remains one of finest scenes of indian cinema. This particular tale shows exactly what is the job of a director.
Back to RGV ki Aag. after the film failed RGV in an interview said he is such a huge fan of Big B that he just kept watching him from behind the camera while Big B was enacting the role of Baban Singh. Later they realized it has turned out to be a ham act.
February 26, 2011 at 4:32 AM
zor ka jhatka lowest ever trps…..
http://www.hindustantimes.com/SRK-s-Zor-Ka-Jhatka-records-lowest-TRPs/H1-Article1-666647.aspx
February 26, 2011 at 6:40 AM
yeah saw this earlier, someone posted it. Supposed to be a miserable show from everything I've read. Don't know why SRK agreed in the first place. Specially after something like Paachvi Paas which also did not work, even his KBC outing was alright but just not strong enough one would have thought he'd be more careful. This show had low numbers on the debut and later it was worse. Just didn't generate any interest at all.
February 26, 2011 at 12:02 PM
Reading the article and the comments was a real treat, time well spent.
P.S.-SRK is now again copying Aamir- showing up at parties in his Flmi get up !!!
February 27, 2011 at 1:27 AM
Rocky. Do u believe he has actually grown up his hair. In media confrence, some mediaperson asked him how his hair so long as just week back it was too short in zoor ka jhatka confrence. I saw that video on tv. This is hypocracy at worst, aamir does it when he actually grows his moustache/ look but in his case that was wig.
February 27, 2011 at 2:15 PM
>This is hypocracy at worst, aamir does it when he actually grows his moustache/ look but in his case that was wig.
Please get your facts straight before you start comparing, and putting down SRK.
Those are extensions he's wearing and he said so in the interview.
You can't just remove them and have them on again without damaging your hair which anyhow suffer.
He even said that as soon as the shooting is over he'll have them removed.
March 3, 2011 at 7:34 AM
Don ,2006 was good film and it had different ending to it and that made me surprised how good faran did the job,still i would prefer to watch the orignal don,1978. It was brilliantly made and Amitabhs was superb.
SRK should stop living in Amitabh shoe and remain to his own shoe,he can never do anything different,action wise he is zero to non existent..
Films are changing and the waves are very high…
Amir Khan gave 2 mega back to back blockbuster,
Dabaang became another blockbuster….Don 2 will sink without a trace!