The Innocence and Sadness of Being Salman Khan

 

Most Hindi movie channels on TV show dubbed language films from the Southern states, filled all through with mindless violence, which make no sense. And then a few other TV channels show old Hindi movies which again makes little sense. I don’t know what will it take for the TV channels to realize that people would like to watch films of the current time, made in the same language, because otherwise how would one ‘connect’ with a film? But these TV channels are run part of bigger organizations and each need to have a movie channel, a news channel, a general entertainment channel, and so on. Therefore, there is little focus on quality, and customers are left to fend for themselves – meaning, keep browsing channels till a tolerable show can be found.

I happened to land on a movie channel which was showing an old movie of Salman Khan from the year 1990, meaning Salman Khan was 25 at that time. I watch him on the Bigg Boss show these days and hence am aware of how he is now. I was shocked to find how he was at the age of 25 in this old movie. 

In this old movie from 1990, his name was “Sajan”. In the film, he spoke so innocently, with such softness, that it is difficult to believe he was the same person that he is now. He was young, thin, with sensitive eyes and a soft voice. Nothing in the texture of his voice matched his current voice. No facial expression, nothing from his personality from that time matches his current self, as seen in Bigg Boss show on TV. Is this what ageing is – it makes the same person so “different”?

In the film, Salman Khan’s character falls in love with a girl, who again was young. I read now that it was her first film. Like Salman Khan, her expressions were also so pure in the film. There was not an iota of artificialness of acting. Salman Khan talked to her in the film in such a gentle manner. In the first scene when he sees her, he just stares at her for several minutes, as if the world had stopped. There is so much innocence in his face, which is remarkable.

At the same time, when I look at him in the reality show on TV now a day, he appears mostly bitter all the time. When he has to congratulate any participant, he gives an expression which is borderline hatred, and rest a mix of apathy, indifference, and bitterness. There is clear artificialness in his behaviour now. His bitterness seems like just an outward expression of sadness he feels inside. Otherwise, what else could explain it?

I am of course not in a position to judge his life situations or his journey, but I am just wondering based on what I see on screen and read in newspapers. It was a disaster that he did not marry. Looking at how he treated the actress in this film from 1990, it is clear that he was a good person and would have made a good ‘family man’. I am inclined to put lot of blame on his family for not getting him married at the right age, due to which he came to the situation where he did not want to marry at all. At the same time, from media reports, it seems he decided not to marry because the women he loved declined to marry him. Due to such things, I detest this whole business of falling in love. Falling in love is good only if the two get married. The one-sided love, or rejection in love, can harm a person’s psychology, like perhaps it did to Salman Khan.

I am still in shock to see no resemblance between Salman Khan of 1990 with his current self. His innocence replaced by sadness expressed in bitterness, I don’t know if it was worth it all for him. But I know, in the end, only we are the best judges of our lives, and no one else can take into account all the things we underwent, in order to be able to judge us. Therefore, I would definitely give him a benefit of doubt. And I shall keep wondering about the complexities of human life.

- Rahul

What If Salman Becomes A Frog?

Colleagues were discussing Salman Khan Hit-and-run case over afternoon tea in the office. Everyone was unanimous in saying that nothing bad will happen to Salman and he will be saved despite being guilty. Then I remarked that may be he would get punishment after he goes to meet God - may be he will become a frog in next life as a punishment. This is the way I understand it. Then one colleague gave a revolutionary answer which shattered my theory.

She said, "Even if Salman is reborn as a frog - he won't remember that he became a frog because of his bad work in last life. So he will once again enjoy life. In fact being a frog is good because he does not have to worry and take tensions like us."

This is very logical. A frog won't know if it got 'demoted' or 'promoted' by becoming a frog. Although even if this is true, I won't risk it fir myself. But I think being a 'bad guy' is always advantageous rather than being a 'good guy'. You won't have to play by the rules and your conscience does not trouble you so often. But what stops so many of us from becoming bad? Is it only 'inertia'; or do we really take a call in full awareness? 

What do you think?

- Rahul 

Return Strong and Honest from Jail, Dear Salman!

Despite being a Salman Khan fan, I am happy that he would get punishment for his crime. So that his sins won't haunt him till his next births. I am also disappointed because I expected him to speak the truth in the court of law. But he tried to save himself, even throwing his driver to the gallows - which was like attempting another murder in full consciousness - when he knew that his driver Ashok Singh did not do the crime. Salman proved himself as just another rich celebrity trying to manipulate the system for personal gains.

This case has once again proved how corrupt and dishonest the members of the film industry are (a generalization). In fact this realization has been dawning upon me for some time and I don't feel proud anymore in promoting and being a proud fan of any actor (over reaction). It seems easy money, power and fame can make any good man into evil (philosophizing).

With Salman Khan going to jail, I also wonder how bad-days would come for so many models and pretty faces whom he regularly tries to rehabilitate into the film industry (sarcasm). When actresses do MBAs from good universities but then settle down to doing item-songs in Bollywood, it does not look right (selective higher-standards).

In the jail, Salman would meet the bad characters he sometimes played in his movies, and then he would see the true and complete meaning of "being human". Repent, dear Salman, repent; be good, remain strong and add more to your life apart from playing puppets on the screen for money.

I wish Salman Khan good health and calm during his upcoming stay in the jail. May you come back soon to tell us some good stories. May you live an honest life, happily ever after.

- Rahul

Superman: Salman-Ka-Fan

Arjun Kapoor dances to the tunes of “Mai hun Superman… Salman ka Fan” and something is just too loud to be ignored. We can call it pride or even arrogance; but being Salman-ka-Fan sort of justifies it all… With this brush if we want to paint the fossilized topic of comparing the three famous Khans of Bollywood, how do we rate the Aamir, Shahrukh and Salman?

Aamir had always been too ‘girlish’. Several times he tried too hard to break this image but alas – how could be change it unless he comes on screen with a mask every time! So it does not matter whether he plays a tapori in ‘aati-kya-Khandala’ wearing leather jacket and growing a bit of stubble, he still appears like a cheeky chick. Shahrukh has slightly different flavor - even when clean-shaven he always appeared like unshaven – and he made the ‘boy-next-door’ look his biggest strength. Not all girls actually believe in their dream of marrying a prince – most of them would perhaps agree to marry a frog if the frog wears Versace. And what a rich wrinkled frog Shahrukh has been! A dog can bite, even a cat can bite, but a frog is too harmless to be of any harm – and that is what makes him attractive to girls. Girls could dream a lizard to turn into a monster but never an SRK to be threatening to them – that is quite some quality to possess. That brings us to the only Khan who has remained himself all through the ages. Salman Khan is the only Khan who never needed to humiliate himself in order to win our hearts… Don’t believe it? Just look at coy and childish Aamir playing pK!

Photo: Aamir playing pK

Coming back to Aamir being girlish. It was no surprise that Aamir failed when he tried to portray a Manly (Mangal) Pandey. In order to hide his girlish looks, Aamir tried something which worked just as bad – he tried to play the kid! We all loved him in 3-Idiots because appeared too natural for the juvenile’s role he was playing. He continued the same to Dhoom-3 where he played a character suitable for his looks – that of a cute child. Btw, before that he failed once again in Talash – because he was playing the role of a Manly Policewallah with a manly moustache. So in pK he returned to his comfort zone and this time took it several notches above – he made himself into a clown! Ok, fine, it was alien. But the alien he was playing seemed to have been inspired by a clown – just look at the way he carries himself off…

Photo: Aamir failed each time he played a manly character like Mangal Pandey or in Talash but succeeded when he played a boyish joker or a clown-like alien.

While Aamir thrived on his girlish looks, Shahrukh was neither a proper ‘boy’ nor a proper ‘girl’ and his only strength was his ‘newspaper vendor boy-next-door’ look. So our so called King failed when he played Ashoka the Great. His tapori-panthi, sly, street-smart moves were out-of-class for the classy look and feel needed in the character. Shahrukh also made complete fool of himself when he tried to outdo the original Bachchan’s Don. People would accept him a road-chhap tapori but he appeared to be wearing rented suits and stolen deodorants for his role as a Don. SRK being the only Khan without a look worth second glance outdid all his previous antics by growing his six-packs which appeared more naturally grown in a starving smoking man than a person frequenting a gym of any shape and size. With his eight-packs he proved in front of the whole world how desperate he could be! Before all this madness about body-chiseling SRK was thriving on being a rare combination of intelligence, manners and romanticism. All his earlier life he must have been an ignored, average and invisible boy and hence the viewers connected with him instantly! After all, despite having the worst biopics he always used to get the girl by the end of the movies! How fascinating for the public to see such a pathetic boy getting all beautiful girls from one movie to the other! To the girls, he appeared to possess many complimentary qualities which they would like to have in their boyfriends, if nothing less then nothing more than that also. Being a boring loyal husband was not an option but compulsion to the King Khan without a proper beard.

Photo: Shahrukh failed when he tried characters which required class; was ridiculed when he grew six-packs perhaps as a revenge on God for not giving him a proper body

The only Khan who did not need to humiliate himself in order to make it big at the Box Office has been the undisputed Salman Khan. Salman is the ultimate Dabang of Bollywood – the unashamed handsome devil – who had it all with grace and class each time. The only Khan who when takes his shirt off, people don’t close their mouths with hands, like they did with Aamir’s weirdly tattooed Ghazini or Shahrukh’s not-worth-counting packs. While Aamir might have gone completely nude to promote his one movie and Shahrukh might have nearly killed himself to develop eight-pack abs in this old age, Salman is the man who has grown older with grace worthy of his (sur)name.

Photo: Salman Khan is the unashamed Dabang of Bolywood; the only Khan who did not need to humiliate himself to make it big at the Box Office

While Aamir went after marrying multiple women and also did not miss to create affairs with a White woman abroad to produce illegitimate child and Shahrukh with his poor looks held on to perhaps the only woman who agreed to marry him as a loyal husband, it is Salman who dared to love. When he loved, he made no attempts to hide it. When his women abandoned him, he cried like any human would. And when he loved next time, he made no secret of that either! How can you not love the humanly vulnerable yet rock solid Khan? If you see him or watch his interviews, you would certainly notice one thing about him – he never pretends! He is straightforward and dil-se; what all other phony actors claim to be but are not.

Salman Khan is the only Khan with real fan-following from other men. If you are Salman-ka-Fan, you won’t need to be ashamed, something which comes frequently if we start to think about being fans of Aamir or Shahrukh. That is why Arjun Kapoor says “Salman-ka-Fan” and takes the Taj Mahal by storm:

Photo: Arjun Kapoor sings ‘Salman-ka-Fan’ in Tevar

Salman Khan was the only Khan who had the guts to stand with NaMo (Modi) and fly kites in front of the whole media, even before Modi got power in Delhi. On the other hand, Shahrukh is a known Pakistan-sympathizer while Aamir is by and large non-political.

Photo: Salman Khan with Narendra Modi

Salman Khan is also the only Khan who can pair-up with the Dabang Girl Sonakshi. Imagine girlish Aamir or tapori Shahruku appearing like school-kids in front of the Desi Girl? We would rather eat all the popcorn ever produced than watching the lesser-Khans humiliate themselves once again…

Photo: Salman ‘Dabang’ Khan with Sonakshi ‘Khamosh’ Sinha

On these happier notes, let me now take a break :)

© Rahul | Written in leisure | Cheer Up | Detailed Disclaimer |

Dabang 2 and Portrayal of Religion in Movies

We watched the recently released flick ‘Dabang-2’ and found it very entertaining. We thoroughly enjoyed it. But as afterthoughts I am left wondering about the trend of negative portrayal of religions in our movies.

The main villain of Dabang-2 is a criminal turned politician called Bachcha Singh Thakur (played by Prakash Raj). In the first shot when he appears in front of the audience, he is shown as taking part in a Yagna in a temple. His goons have prevented any other devotees to enter the temple while he is busy offering oblations to the gods. When his brother is killed by ‘Dabang’ Chulbul Pandey, he performs proper last rites and also scolds his other brother for not going to immerse the ashes into river himself (this event turns out to be game changer in the story). In the end, a war happens as the climax between the hero and the villain and it takes place at the remains of an ancient looking Hindu temple. During the fight, when Thakur Bachcha Singh becomes sure that Chulbul Pandey has been subdued and defeated, he tells his goons, “make preparations for his last rites while I come back after thanking the God” and moves towards the temple along with his brother for prayers. All through the movie, the villain’s religious affiliations are clearly shown as a remarkable feature. But if we think about the plot and the story, these religious dimensions were totally unnecessary and irrelevant.

The plot and story would have lost nothing whether the villain was introduced while performing Yagna or while addressing a mass gathering. Or if the climatic fight happened in a ruined fort rather than a Hindu temple. But if the filmmakers had chosen not to highlight religion (in particular Hinduism) in the manner they have done, it would not have resulted in a trend worth getting disturbed about – increasingly the film industry in India is showing religion (in particular Hinduism because it is most tolerant in the lot) in the wrong light. On one hand villains are shown to be practicing religious men, the ‘Heroes’ are shown as irreligious guys who do not practice any rituals or religion. Hero’s religion do not matter, but villain’s religion becomes a point worth being highlighted – why such a double standard? Do the film makers want to make us believe gradually that religion is bad and practicing it is not “cool”? They will never accept it but what they are doing certainly means the same…

I am fully with the creative industry’s rights and freedom to fabricate whatever kind of villains and heroes they want for their creative offerings, but when movie after movie a disturbing pattern emerges, it is worth being made a note of.

I liked Dabang 2 and would always remember it for its nice representation of family values and fun. Sonakshi’s role as a wife, Vinod Khanna’s as a father and Arbaaz Khan as brother in a typical Indian family sharing little joys of day to day life is so wonderfully portrayed. But if they had not chosen to go the run-of-the-mill way of presenting religion as a kind of demonist characteristic to be painted on the villain, it would have been much better and fairer.

- Rahul

Note: Views are personal and do not represent views of any organization associated with the author. [Detailed disclaimer]

Jootha?

An interesting conversation in Big Boss caught my interest. Salman Khan asked Manoj Tiwari why he disagreed to inmates eating from each-others’ dishes. He asked if Manoj found something wrong in the practice. I became curious. Indian/Hindu culture is unique in many aspects and Indians/Hindus maintain the highest aspects of ‘personal hygiene’ (as different from public one). And we have this concept of not eating other’s jootha – a word for which there is no English translation available at all! I support this practice – it’s anyone guess that eating someone else’s jootha may result in disease contraction – as jootha would contain traces of saliva; and contamination - we never know if the other person had properly washed hands or not. Salman Khan may not be knowing the background, or maybe he was casual (or tricky?) in his question. Anyways, so what did Manoj reply?

Manoj Tiwari’s reply was something like this: “I have no problems as such but I think we should not eat from someone’s plate until we know him/her properly.” He went on, “Also, I protested against them tasting the food in kitchen itself before it was served, which I found to be improper (unhygienic).” Interesting answer! It doesn’t offend anyone (which a lecture on culture or hygienic benefits would have done), and yet it is precise at the same time! I think such an art of speech really makes one very popular. And it is not everyone’s cup of tea.

- Rahul