Getting over with films which continue to be my favourite subject for analysis, let me put you across a serious, somewhat hackneyed, ambiguous yet intriguing (as per me, of course) subject which I would like to share and hear it from you.
After the recent display of ‘shameless journalism’ by INDIA TV (yet again), it makes me wonder over the role of media in the society (yet again). I began to reconsider on the definition and significance of ‘Breaking News’. The picture shows the unusual nature of a tiger over his meal. Due to his “inappropriate” behaviour, he has been referred to as a ‘cat’, courtesy INDIA TV.
Apparently, the continuous mention of this trivial news as ‘Breaking’ gave me a déjà vu of similar news flashing (not so long back) on Prince and Buddhia Singh. This kind of TRP-hungry, incredible-lookin
g journalism (especially by Aaj Tak and INDIA TV) leaves us flummoxed over their intent. As for the ‘unusual tiger’ shown, his only qualification for coming on prime time TV was his ‘refusal’ to eat a live animal (lucky tiger..). Surprisingly, the channel later showed an illegal racket of tiger products in China and how these products are used for different purposes. The whole report on tiger products (which was very brief) seemed an extension to the initial catchy news which was aired for most of the time. Invariably, the title bar still shows ‘Breaking News’ for the ‘unusual behaviour’.
Couple of days ago, Aaj Tak proclaimed that “Shahrukh ne Amar Singh ko darinda kaha..”. Although I agree many would like to subscribe to Shahrukh’s opinion, the real culprit here is again not the ‘40+ doing 20+ roles’ actor, but the media’s misinterpretation. Shahrukh had jokingly (and very casually, without any assertion) described Amar Singh as looking to him like a beast in Filmfare Awards. His ‘statement’ could easily pass as a jocular comment, regardless of their earlier bitterness. But Aaj Tak pounced on this opportunity to make his joke as a declaration. Furthermore, they asked Amar Singh of his opinion on this “serious” matter.
In a run for the moolah, the viewer’s purpose of watching daily TV-news is somewhere getting lost. People are probably not going to get enlightened by the knowledge of the ‘unusual’ tiger or change their opinions on Shahrukh Khan. Where is the media heading then; you decide. Is the media doing justice to the news or presenting it in an attractively packaged gift-wrapped form? How is this behaviour masking serious journalism, if at all? Did you like the pictures I have taken? Hehehe…..but seriously do tell me your views on this.
After the overwhelming response I got for my earlier past (spelt four comments..), I decided I might as well go ahead with this bashing.
The Hindi Film Industry or Bollywood (which seems like a really cheap adaptation of its parent name) is strictly monopolized by some few industry magnates who virtually dictate the norm to be followed for a successful film (we need MRTP to act here). It is very reluctant to absorb new ideas and talent unless that talent is in the guise of your father’s shadow. Name any 5 people in the industry who don’t have any family influence and are still successful. Ok, we have Shahrukh Khan( that is one thing I like about him, rather THE ONLY THING I like) and probably Madhuri Dikshit but a very sparse number of such species. Abhishek Bachhan is so surprisingly lucky to hit it big time in Sarkar after 17 flops. And we just appreciate him for at least bettering his unsuccessful peers (you should see girls get floored by him….for reasons unknown to me). I mean, just compare him to his Hollywood counterparts, and you will realize the difference in the hard-work and LUCK. You have to carve out your presence there by pure talent. It’s like not like we have none in our country. FTII and NSD alumni are worth its salt anywhere in the industry. As a matter of fact to get an entry into FTII for acting is getting into the top 16 on a nationwide basis (which makes it pretty tough). But is this talent really absorbed in the place it deserves? That is something that definitely needs to be looked upon.
There is another aspect which revolves around this topic. Why show sense on CINEMA? Well, fiction is portrayed best when it seems close to reality. Quixotic, imaginary or fantasy movies sell best when equipped with technology (like LOTR or StarWars) which is out of question when talking about Indian Cinema (no, Krrrrrrrrrriiiiissshh doesn’t qualify in that league). The best advantage of meaningful cinema is that people can RELATE to it. You can’t relate to a man getting his second love back courtesy his 8 yr old daughter (courtesy Big Gay Karan in KKHH) or Sunny Paaji fighting 1500 people with as EASE as (--fill it yourself--). But you can relate to some movies for sure. Like I felt a bit more career conscious after watching Lakshya or felt idiotically close to winning basketball tournament after Jo Jeets Wahi Sikandar (…shattered dreams, huh). At some point or other we felt close to cinema, either directly or vicariously but we did. After a long time, fortunately torch-bearers like Farhan Akhtar and Ashutosh Gowariker are leading the way to a new realm. Movies on Indian historical topics (without distorting it), movies inspired by Indian literature or movies with just a GOOD story are in dire need and is somewhat catered lately, although on a very marginal level.
Well, first of all thanks for coming this far. Now that you’ve completed level 1 of torture, I bet it’s a smooth ride from now on. Trust me on this one! Before proceeding further, a small disclaimer: All that is written in this blog is COMPLETELY backed by more opinions and less facts; any relation to any living being, especially Karan Johar and Himesh Reshammiya is totally out of scathing intentions and shouldn’t be even remotely taken for co-incidence.Talking of Hindi films,(my favorite subject for bashing) I’ve always realized a discordant note of it. Some of it makes complete sense, while some is as contradictory as Elvis being kidnapped by aliens. Think on this, Vaastav -The reality (…like we can’t translate it on our own) starring Sanjay Dutt was claimed by the director to be very close to the REAL scenario of the underworld. I quite innocently accepted it until the pav-bhaji song, and the real gangster being melodious enough to sing and romance his girl in Switzerland. We complain of our films being not upto the mark with western or European films, but that’s where the underlying problem is with our films – SONGS!!
How many people actually say “Wow! A song, that too in the middle of the story, feels great!! I was dying to see this.” The answer is zero. Then why do these directors push for more songs in a country which is 70% young and the youth hates it. It’s like a standard recipe for them to churn out films like a Coca-Cola factory producing Coke. It’s a foolproof, tried and tested (has been working well till now, and hence would work in future) irrespective of the population it caters. I don’t object to showing romance or marital infidelity by Indians in New York (only Big Gay Karan knows why not in India) who are unabashedly singing in public (in case you haven’t got it , its Kabhi Alvida…and no, I haven’t seen it), but there is somewhere we should at least near logic.
And due to this unhealthy practice (as in ‘unhealthy’ for your brain), the industry has churned out crassy vocalists like Himesh Reshammiya. I know I am making some enemies here but his voice and music is simply unbearable. Can you believe more than 30% of the film’s budget goes in songs (what a waste!!). Whenever songs are played, most of the people in the theatre grunt. Barring some, most of them are unwanted and anachronistic. If they want to show love, why don’t they show the REAL THING…hehehe. But seriously, I never want to see how to express love by dancing with a choreographed group on different days(although with the same group) wearing different costumes and singing in parts which are amazingly rhyming.
g journalism (especially by Aaj Tak and INDIA TV) leaves us flummoxed over their intent. As for the ‘unusual tiger’ shown, his only qualification for coming on prime time TV was his ‘refusal’ to eat a live animal (lucky tiger..). Surprisingly, the channel later showed an illegal racket of tiger products in China and how these products are used for different purposes. The whole report on tiger products (which was very brief) seemed an extension to the initial catchy news which was aired for most of the time. Invariably, the title bar still shows ‘Breaking News’ for the ‘unusual behaviour’.
