I wanted to write my first post about Alia Bhatt and her glorious talent and switch to the fangirl mode, but making this a topical post about Naseeruddin Shah, in the light of his recent comments about Rajesh Khanna.
This is not the first time Shah has criticized film people. I think he has criticized a lot of people - from Amitabh Bachchan to Sajid Khan - that's quite a range! Also, this is not the first time he has criticized a dead person. He wrote not-so-nice things about Smita Patil in his memoir, which was released a couple of years ago.
Safe to say that Shah is a critical man, like Bhaskor Banerjee in Piku. Now, this makes me wonder if Shah is also constipated, and hence unhappy all the time!
Shah has a right to his own opinions. Free speech. Freedom of expression. And all that jazz. I am all for it. But but but...
Why does Shah take this ivory tower approach all the time when he himself has done so many crappy movies? He is the original art-house poster boy of Indian cinema, but he has done some really really bad films. He did Himesh Reshammiya's Teraa Surroor recently, for crying out loud. Surely it can't get lower than that when it comes to choice of movies. Shah even gives a rather clever response on why he does such movies in this interview with Rajeev Masand.
Fair enough. As an artist, you don't always get good work. You need to pay your bills, so you take on some projects with questionable credentials. Money is a good factor in career choices.
But then, can Shah really criticize others for bad work when he does films like Teraa Surroor? Why are the standards different for him and other people? Everyone has their own reasons to do a certain kind of work, and it's their choice. If Rajesh Khanna is responsible for bringing mediocrity in the 70s, Shah is responsible for bringing on a pain called Himesh Reshammiya on to our lives in 2015.
Now let's explore the money part a bit. Shah has been working in films for more than 40 years now. I am assuming that his family doesn't starve if he doesn't do movies like Teraa Surroor. Then why do these films? If you do it these films, then why criticize others? I fail to understand this.
Shah might be super-good actor, but I have more respect for the likes of Parineeti Chopra, who took a break after just two unsuccessful films, and has stayed away from the silver-screen for more than two years now (her last screen outing was in November 2014). I am sure Chopra got many offers in this break time, but she apparently wanted to sit back and think about what she really wanted to do. Chopra sure is very talented, but this clarity of thought is what I really appreciate, which Shah, IMO, lacks. If a 25 year old kid can let go of materialistic reasons to take up work (a 25 year old needs money to shop, for god sake), a 65 year old veteran can surely do it.
No wonder so many people are calling Shah a bitter old man, I think he deserves the title.
This is not the first time Shah has criticized film people. I think he has criticized a lot of people - from Amitabh Bachchan to Sajid Khan - that's quite a range! Also, this is not the first time he has criticized a dead person. He wrote not-so-nice things about Smita Patil in his memoir, which was released a couple of years ago.
Safe to say that Shah is a critical man, like Bhaskor Banerjee in Piku. Now, this makes me wonder if Shah is also constipated, and hence unhappy all the time!
Shah has a right to his own opinions. Free speech. Freedom of expression. And all that jazz. I am all for it. But but but...
Why does Shah take this ivory tower approach all the time when he himself has done so many crappy movies? He is the original art-house poster boy of Indian cinema, but he has done some really really bad films. He did Himesh Reshammiya's Teraa Surroor recently, for crying out loud. Surely it can't get lower than that when it comes to choice of movies. Shah even gives a rather clever response on why he does such movies in this interview with Rajeev Masand.
Fair enough. As an artist, you don't always get good work. You need to pay your bills, so you take on some projects with questionable credentials. Money is a good factor in career choices.
But then, can Shah really criticize others for bad work when he does films like Teraa Surroor? Why are the standards different for him and other people? Everyone has their own reasons to do a certain kind of work, and it's their choice. If Rajesh Khanna is responsible for bringing mediocrity in the 70s, Shah is responsible for bringing on a pain called Himesh Reshammiya on to our lives in 2015.
Now let's explore the money part a bit. Shah has been working in films for more than 40 years now. I am assuming that his family doesn't starve if he doesn't do movies like Teraa Surroor. Then why do these films? If you do it these films, then why criticize others? I fail to understand this.
Shah might be super-good actor, but I have more respect for the likes of Parineeti Chopra, who took a break after just two unsuccessful films, and has stayed away from the silver-screen for more than two years now (her last screen outing was in November 2014). I am sure Chopra got many offers in this break time, but she apparently wanted to sit back and think about what she really wanted to do. Chopra sure is very talented, but this clarity of thought is what I really appreciate, which Shah, IMO, lacks. If a 25 year old kid can let go of materialistic reasons to take up work (a 25 year old needs money to shop, for god sake), a 65 year old veteran can surely do it.
No wonder so many people are calling Shah a bitter old man, I think he deserves the title.
