I just quote two paragraphs of the Telegraph article which alludes to an interesting meta-level that goes beyond the fan-level:
"Pathaan is a heist film, a spy caper, an Iron Man spin-off, the masala blockbuster that Johnny Depp never made as well as a wry celebration of Shah Rukh Khan’s magical relationship with Bombay’s film audience over thirty years. There’s a lovely moment early in the film when Shah Rukh’s character tells us his origin story. He was a foundling, he says, abandoned in a cinema hall and raised by the nation. I grinned at the shameless seduction of this: ‘you made me,’ he’s saying to everyone watching, ‘so we’re in this together, no?’ "
and
"Think of the intricate, yet empathetic, genius of this move. Shah Rukh Khan, who is in real life a Pathan, plays an orphan of unknown origin who becomes a Pathan by acclamation. This foundling could be any of us and so, therefore, could Pathan. It’s a mistake to think that Shah Rukh Khan has used patriotism to buy himself a hit. Rather, he has fashioned a non-majoritarian patriotism that lets him be himself and allows his audience to identify with him. For the duration of the film, a twice-born Pathan (Shah Rukh in real life and Shah Rukh in the movie) becomes an Indian Everyman. To carry this off in Modi’s India and within the unforgiving genre of the mainstream blockbuster is a rare triumph."
Do you see that likewise?
16