Tuesday, June 28, 2005

SRK & On-Screen smoking

Hmmm.. After all the brouhaha surrounding the Govt's decision to ban smoking scenes in the movies (my previous post on the topic here), the chocolate boy (still a boy?, sic) of Indian Cinema has finally come out with his views. In this rediff article, the great SRK has come out in favour of the Govt imposed ban on on-screen smoking.

Can he really be serious? Is it that after getting the Padmashree he feels compelled to support every decision (however stupid !!) the Government makes? I dont know, but lets take a look at the silly remarks in the aforementioned article.
"I haven't played a character for whom smoking is essential as part of the characterisation. Even in Hum Tumhare Hain Sanam, where I hold a cigarette in my hand all the time, I never light it. I borrowed this trait from the South Indian original of the film, where the hero always puts a cigarette in his mouth when he is agitated. I thought it was a masterstroke."
Au contraire, Monsieur Khan. Please have a look at the following in contradiction to what you have said.
  • You might not have played a role where smoking is essential. Thats because you always play the role of a goodie goodie guy (aptly named Raj or Rahul) romancing the girl of his dreams, at the same time exhibiting (most of the time over-exhibiting) strong family values. Even in your so called 'different movies', you have not been able to come out of that mould.
  • Also, you have a very long way to go before you can play all kinds of roles. And in some of those, smoking is essential to the potrayal of the character. Since you can never play those roles, you possibly cant imagine why smoking would be essential for them.
  • Hum Tumhare Hein Sanam was a master-stroke? Give me a break, man!! It was one of the most pathetic & forgetable movies ever made. I wonder if anyone even remembers whether the chief protagonist held a cigarette or not.
SRK, goes out to make another miserable observation in the article.
"It might be tough to depict characters from the underworld without cigarettes. But otherwise, what's so essential about smoking on screen? I don't think any film needs to be designed around a character who smokes."
Tough? You must be joking, dude !! I think 'impossible' would be more appropriate. Could you possibly imagine the characters in Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs or even Guns of Navrone without a cigarette? You obviously dont have the talent for such roles, but surely you can use a bit of common sense?

The crux of bull-shitting comes in the last part of his statement.
"Actually, the more liberal a society becomes, the more stringent the laws are bound to be. In the US, you can buy a gun off the shelf, and then someone starts shooting down kids in a school. "
So now smoking on-screen is compared to selling of guns & ammunitions? Wow, Mr Khan. Pure genius indeed. I would not waste my time commenting on this silly statement. But I cant help wonder, how come a guy like this becomes the heart-throb (and occassionally an icon) for the Indian masses?


Blogger //pukercense// said...

"But I cant help wonder, how come a guy like this becomes the heart-throb (and occassionally an icon) for the Indian masses?"

you're welcome to read a post called 'stupidity' in my blog. mayb u'll see the answer there... also mayb the answers to the following questions as well:

>how in god's name did movies like raaz and murder become hits?

>how come ekta kapoor's demented serials have such a huge following?
or even Jassi for that matter?

>how can people follow any obscure & self-proclaimed godman blindly without any logic or reason?

...and lots more like these. Bottomline is that we are dealing with the masses, and these 'masses' are nothing but a bunch of programmable robots.

1:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home