Continuing with the new fascination of all things Amitabh is the new headline in the Indian Express. You would think it is another article by some BA (Arts) intern that Indian Express regularly hires to fulfill its daily quota on Amitabh news. But it is an article about a book -Bollywood, A History by Mihir Bose.
Now, inspite of the assholes in the media, who will probably lead us to believe that nobody exists in Bollywood except the Bachhans (and , in addition, maybe His Supreme Assholeness Sriyut Salman Khan), Bollywood did have a rich history before it descended into the garish chutiyagiri that we see these days. And so , it happens the real stars of the book (you know "ordinary people" like Dadasaheb Phalke, Salunkhe, KL Saigal) have to wait till the latter part of the article to be condescendingly mentioned.
Note that in the article, the webprint for the greats of yesteryears put together is approximately equal to that dedicated to Mr. Bacchan.
Utter stupidity reigns, I tell you ......
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Guru - a missed opportunity
Guru is (supposedly) the life story about Dhirubhai. And you will be convinced about it if you can believe that Dhirubhai (and Kokilaben for that matter) was capable of doing a mean dance step. Actually, I am quite sure that they were quite incapable of it and hence the fact that “Guru” is asininity presented on film.
First of all, the movie does not have the balls to present Guru (Dhirubhai) as the master manipulator that he was. The various ways that he screwed the system are mentioned only in passing and in ways that are more accusatory (even laudatory at times) than based in fact. Eg. The way in which Dhirubhai scammed the government by importing empty boxes and claiming excise exemption is mentioned by a reporter while trying to shoot a false sequence implicating Guru and even there it is interjected by a laudatory line (“Kudos to Gurubhai for making money off of empty boxes”) by a disabled Meenu (Vidya Balan).
Dhirubhai was born to run, he did not know the meaning of “No” and was probably the most arrogant of all businessmen. Bill Clinton was once rumored to have spent 45 minutes talking with him but Dhirubhai himself said that he was willing to fall at the feet of the lowliest government servant if he could get his work done. To truthfully present such a complex character would have taken, at the very least, a dedicated study of the man himself and at least a modicum of honesty to present things as they were. Neither was possible here because mani Ratnam did not even attempt to involve the Ambanis (probably he knew he was making a bollywood movie not a biographical) and ... well, good luck trying to find honesty in our movies regarding powerful people.
Anyways, this would have meant showing Guru as a person who is so obsessed with his goals that he may as well be mad – The movie pretty much kills this by unnecessarily wasting time making Guru dance to forgettable tunes and try to steal kisses from Aishwarya Rai as they share a rented room with her brother.
Can a hero be portrayed as ruthless and still be good? Probably in an Ayn Rand novel. Not in “Guru”. Guru only tersely remarks “The more they try to stop us, the faster we will go”. Even the effort to silence a newspaper owner is pinned on one of his managers. The real Dhirubhai, as everybody know, was much less forgiving towards his enemies and much more proactive in crushing them.
All in all, the movie justly deserved its “neither-a-flop-nor-a-hit” status in spite of great acting by Abhishek and Mithun-da. A movie, which does not have the balls to be honest, deserves a kick in the ass.
First of all, the movie does not have the balls to present Guru (Dhirubhai) as the master manipulator that he was. The various ways that he screwed the system are mentioned only in passing and in ways that are more accusatory (even laudatory at times) than based in fact. Eg. The way in which Dhirubhai scammed the government by importing empty boxes and claiming excise exemption is mentioned by a reporter while trying to shoot a false sequence implicating Guru and even there it is interjected by a laudatory line (“Kudos to Gurubhai for making money off of empty boxes”) by a disabled Meenu (Vidya Balan).
Dhirubhai was born to run, he did not know the meaning of “No” and was probably the most arrogant of all businessmen. Bill Clinton was once rumored to have spent 45 minutes talking with him but Dhirubhai himself said that he was willing to fall at the feet of the lowliest government servant if he could get his work done. To truthfully present such a complex character would have taken, at the very least, a dedicated study of the man himself and at least a modicum of honesty to present things as they were. Neither was possible here because mani Ratnam did not even attempt to involve the Ambanis (probably he knew he was making a bollywood movie not a biographical) and ... well, good luck trying to find honesty in our movies regarding powerful people.
Anyways, this would have meant showing Guru as a person who is so obsessed with his goals that he may as well be mad – The movie pretty much kills this by unnecessarily wasting time making Guru dance to forgettable tunes and try to steal kisses from Aishwarya Rai as they share a rented room with her brother.
Can a hero be portrayed as ruthless and still be good? Probably in an Ayn Rand novel. Not in “Guru”. Guru only tersely remarks “The more they try to stop us, the faster we will go”. Even the effort to silence a newspaper owner is pinned on one of his managers. The real Dhirubhai, as everybody know, was much less forgiving towards his enemies and much more proactive in crushing them.
All in all, the movie justly deserved its “neither-a-flop-nor-a-hit” status in spite of great acting by Abhishek and Mithun-da. A movie, which does not have the balls to be honest, deserves a kick in the ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)