Posted:
Originally posted by: love srk
fary u can call me mario. if ur soo confuss 😆
oh yeah sure BTW mario is my fav game😃
Originally posted by: love srk
fary u can call me mario. if ur soo confuss 😆
Originally posted by: fizzwizz
oh yeah sure BTW mario is my fav game😃
| Shah Rukh Khan : Master of Spoof ! |
| Bless SRK for his AMAZING sense of humour which loads of film industry folk need to imbibe in large doses. |
| If the buzz doing the rounds in the industry is to be believed, Farah Khan's eagerly awaited Om Shanti Om features Shah Rukh Khan in a double role as Om and Om. Unlike his other double role in Duplicate he won't be seen simultaneously on the screen in both the roles. At first SRK plays a junior artiste from the 1970s who's bumped off by a jealous hero (Arjun Rampal). He's then re-born as Om again…naturally! While the theme of reincarnation and revenge is a direct tribute to Subhash Ghai's Karz, there are several other passages in Farah's feisty homage/spoof which do tributes or take-offs on Bollywood's stalwarts It's time for the industry to get seriously apprehensive. Farah's films will take pungent potshots at the film industry's bright- packers,specially at those who mattered monstrously in the 'golden era' namely the 1970s. Apparently, none of the stalwarts has been spared from the web of satire. One of the primary targets of satire is Manoj Kumar, the man who wrote and re-wrote a considerable amount of the grammar and glamour of commercial Hindi cinema. Apparently Om Shanti Om takes stinging potshots at Manoj Kumar and several other stalwarts from the era. "But all in good faith," says a source close to the film. "There's no malice intended in the satire. And Shah Rukh and Farah are counting on the belief that people in the film industry have a sense of humour." SantaBanta.com |
| King of Bollywood : Shah Rukh Khan |
| A New York Times Book Review by Charles Taylor, who is a columnist for The Star-Ledger of Newark. |
| The larger significance of the book is that a major American publishing house is bringing out a biography of a major foreign star, largely unknown in the United States. And that is remarkable at a time when newspaper and magazine editors and film distributors are increasingly reluctant to offer readers and viewers what they haven't already heard about. The state of foreign film distribution in America is disastrous right now. Strong work from new and established filmmakers continues to emanate from Europe and from all parts of Asia. But after winning raves at festivals, even the best of these films struggle for an American release. Bollywood cinema, with its love of melodrama and lavish color and outsize emotion, with nearly every genre making space for six or seven songs, may not be the first thing that springs to mind when someone intones the phrase that remains a pedigreed arbiter of cultural sophistication: "foreign films." But in a global economy in which India stands poised to play a bigger part, when the Internet and DVD's are creating film audiences not bound by borders or by the caprices of film distribution, when some American multiplexes are giving over screens to Bollywood releases in order to lure America's growing Indian population and when the stagnation of Hollywood sometimes makes the survival of movies as a popular art form seem an iffy proposition, Americans can't afford to ignore Bollywood much longer. At the moment no one represents Bollywood more than Shah Rukh Khan. It's not just that this epitome of Hindi cinema is a Muslim, which makes Khan an unusual star. Part leading man, larger part buoyant goofball, Khan looks something like the offspring of John Stamos and Jerry Lewis. Without the dark undercurrents of the Bollywood superstar who came before him, Amitabh Bachchan, Khan claims, and Chopra agrees, that he represents the confident, successful Indian yuppie, the citizen of the world who is nonetheless recognizably Indian. In "King of Bollywood" and in her previous book, a superb monograph on the wonderful 1995 Bollywood film "Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge" ("The Bravehearted Will Take the Bride"), which has never stopped playing at the 1,000-seat Mumbai theater where it opened 12 years ago, Chopra offers a brilliant reading of how Indian cinema, represented by "D.D.L.J." (as its fans know the movie) and its hero Khan, has confronted the liberalization that came with an expanding economy, rejecting Bollywood's previous view of the West as purgatory while at the same time expressing fear of waning Indian tradition and identity. The brilliance of Chopra's reading of the film is that she argues for its simultaneous traditionalism and progressiveness, a dual but not contradictory approach that can be applied to some of our greatest mainstream movies, from "The Best Years of Our Lives" to "Schindler's List." Chopra covers a lot of ground here. There is Khan's story itself — his unlikely rise to fame; his wooing of his wife, Gauri, despite her parents' objections; the predictions of failure when a few flops followed many hits; his finding himself under threat from the Indian mafia, which was extorting the country's film industry. Still, I wanted more. Chopra hints that Khan's extraordinary confidence may shade over into arrogance. And she hints of the horrendous pressure Khan finds himself under, referring to himself at one point as "just an employee of the Shah Rukh Khan myth." And I wanted Chopra to examine how Khan, who can be a charming presence or an overbearing one, might be limited as his career proceeds. Most of all, I wanted to know if Chopra believes that a country contemplating greater corporate diversification might find its film industry damaged as ours has been by the triumph of a corporate mentality that possesses none of the old studio moguls' love for movies. But I wouldn't have wanted any of this if Chopra weren't good enough to raise the questions in the first place. "King of Bollywood" evokes a film industry that, whatever perils it faces, right now does what Hong Kong cinema did in the 1980s and '90s, what Hollywood only intermittently does: approach the job of entertaining an audience without embarassment or apology, treating making movies as more than a future entry on a balance sheet. Hollywood still lives — if only occasionally in the American movie industry. NYtimes |
| SRK says No to Hirani? |
| Shah Rukh Khan may not do Raju Hirani's next. Is it because of the scathing remarks that producer Vidhu Vinod Chopra made on Paheli? |
| When Raju Hirani wrote Munnabhai MBBS, Shah Rukh Khan was his first choice for the role, but due to some reason, SRK did not do the role. With Sanjay Dutt's future still in a flux, Hirani and Vidhu Vinod Chopra kept the third part of the Munnabhai series aside and moved on to finalise SRK for their next, based on Chetan Bhagat's novel Five Point Someone. But the latest buzz doing the rounds is that SRK is not doing this Hirani project either. The grapevine is that Khan is upset with Vidhu Vinod's unsavoury remarks against Paheli in the recent past (after his Eklavya was criticised for being India's official entry to the Oscars) and is reluctant to do a film with him. Vidhu Vinod had taken a dig at Paheli, saying that he had made no noise when Paheli was sent to the Oscars- thereby clearly hinting that the SRK starrer Paheli did not deserve the honour. When contacted, SRK tells us, "I am not upset with Vidhu's comment on Paheli. I have no problems with anybody talking about films I do or make." We probed further to confirm if he is doing Hirani's new directorial project. "It's not yet final," SRK says. "Saying yes or no to a film is a big process for me. It takes a lot of going back or forth on my part. So it does go through a lot of discussions. I wish I could get things done fast. As of now, I am discussing lots of films. I will be clear on it in a few weeks as I am currently busy with Om Shanti Om (which releases November 9) and Shankar's film Robot," he explains. Vidhu Vinod Chopra remained unavailable for comment. |
comment:
p_commentcount