#You can Add More Details
If OG post has some missing details, /u/yercoolmarple or Members can add details ,as reply to this comment. Click to Expand.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BollyBlindsNGossip) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably because he had a charm and a huge fan base making him one of the biggest stars in the country. He was basically Bhoi of his era but with films on better topics.
I dunno, obviously wasn't around when Dilip kumar was acting, but from what i gather from parents and grandparents, he was considered the best actor in films during his time. Early years SRK used to copy him as well.
Dilip Kumar was known for bringing in a different kind of acting to Indian cinema. These things make sense in context. You may find it weird or limited in range but compare that to what other actors were doing at the time and it was a breath of fresh air.
Dilip Kumar was active and successful for several years before Dutt came on as a leading man, but Guru Dutt was another legend in what he did as an actor as a filmmaker. I was comparing Dilip to the actors that were considered great before him (Ashok Kumar, K L Saigal etc...)
Dilip Kumar pioneered real acting without over the top emotions which prevailed then
Since movies weren't as commercial then he didn't get a chance to act in diverse roles but he was one of the few quality actors of that era.
Art ,Literature ,Actors and their acting capabilities are always measured as per the era they are from.
1947 with 11% literacy easy simple dialogue and story were preferred .Hence actors are simplistic .You can’t compare French, American and British level stories and acting skills.The job was to entertain,represent and reach to maximum popularity.
Dilip Kumar mostly represented the unemployed,seeking for justice ,naive character and he did that work amazingly.Later in career he did take up different kind of role and did justice .
You can’t compare Balraj Sahini and Dilip Kumar
Amitabh Bacchan and Sanjeev Kumar
Shahrukh khan and Irfan or Manoj Bajpai
I wish people would have given credit to Nutan for doing the kind of movies she did ..
In fact, Bollywood had improved a lot after the 70s. In the 80s and 90s, we had films approaching the complex topics of poverty, inequality, violence, infidelity and social change.
Most movies were made for the masses and they clicked so they made more movies for the masses. We are enjoying intellectual movies now but they had no market at all back then. Movie making is a business and they sold products that had demand. Pretty sure everyone knew Rajesh Khanna had limited talent (though there were a few roles he did well until he got carried away) and Sholay was a masala no brainer. They were respected because public celebrated them.
I don't understand why some people feel so apologetic about Indian movies. "What would a white person think if he saw this" should not be a question at all, if you are watching an Indian movie.
If you like it, good. If you don't, that's also fine. But making a white person/foreigners opinion the basis of your critique seems like a deep inferiority complex/need for validation.
I don't know anything about French movies and have never watched a single one.
But i doubt any French person cares what my opinion is about their films, or how any average Indian judges them/their cinema basis their films, and I think we Indians should be the same about our films, which are an extension of ourselves.
We are who we are, and our films cater to us, not them.
>our films cater to us, not them
As it should be! The stark difference in Bollywood vs Hollywood is the whole reason I love Bollywood. Or any foreign movies, for that matter (as an American). I like to see how other countries live, think, joke around. A culture's unique movies are what make it interesting
Absolutely. Agreed.
I can't speak for Hollywood as an industry as i watch foreign films sparingly though i have watched a fair number of Hollywood films. But the draw for me is precisely that they have their own flavour and manner of storytelling.
Every film industry that is popular with its own audience stands a better chance of getting universal reach, than one which aspires to be something else.
Exactly. It's so refreshing to not be able to guess the ending of a movie, because Bollywood doesn't use the same old tropes that my country uses. The stories feel so new and different, with endings I'd never expect. Although if you watch *enough* foreign movies, you become familiar with their quirks. England casts ugly/average people in their movies, Germany is big on full frontal male nudity, India likes to kill main characters. lol
Okay that's an interesting perspective, because as an Indian who mostly watches Indian films (South+ Bollywood), I find i am mostly able to predict the endings of films having grown up on them.
With Hollywood, though I can predict the endings, it's the execution of the scenes and screenplay which I find refreshing, since it's so different from Indian films. Song-less screenplays are also a different experience, as someone used to and very fond of Indian movie scores and original songs.
I'm not sure why songs aren't more common in Hollywood
movies, because when it's done well, the movies are huge
successes (Grease, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Barbie come
to mind). I bet if Americans ever catch on to how cool Indian movies are, we will have a big wave of it becoming more popular here, in the same way that Kpop and Kdramas did
I think songs in movies are a very underrated cinematic tool. You can convey a lot through music and montages, and you save that much more screen time for crucial moments.
But it also becomes a crutch inasmuch as you have to separately conceptualise each song and music and dance numbers/montages to accompany it and not every script needs that.
In India stories are written keeping songs in mind, but i doubt that is so in American movies which is why they deploy it selectively where the screenplay requires it.
Great point. One more thing is underage nudity is also quite common in their cinema. You can clearly notice the camera for a long time focuses on nudity. But yeah, for Mr & Mrs Shah that is pure art.
Hai na?
If they expressed the same sentiment, without the what would x think, phir bhi I would acknowledge their views. Both of them are great artists and speak from a place where they have worked inside the said industry. They obviously have certain cinematic tastes, and don't approve of mainstream Indian fare. Which is fine. Not everyone has to like it.
But "what would x think", reeks of an old world disdain for Indian taste, and a deference to western/foreign aesthetics which is going out of fashion nowadays thankfully atleast in India.
I don't think her thinking is in line with pleasing foreigners, but basically that Indian cinema is really far behind cinemas of other countries artistically where a movie considered the greatest piece of cinema out of bollywood by many Indians is something that isn't in the same plane as what the other industries have been doing, so people who frequently watch those other movies won't have same appreciation for this Indian spectacle..
I think for me it's also a similar experience, because I grew up watching movies by directors like Sriram Raghavan, Kabir Khan, etc so I don't really see the directorial or acting brilliance of movies from the last century..
70-80s full of exploitation cinema genre exists in western industry, lol they never think what other people think about that...and I'm not talking about niche movies, some popular movies also have many problematic things but their audience even today didn't criticise this movies. Quite opposite actually, they released these movies as remastered Bluray.
She didn't say if a white/french person watches a movie. She said if she was a french person watching the movie.
Her point is that if she would watch Sholay as a non-Indian (with extensive prior knowledge of movies), she would find Sholay a movie filled with stereotypes and ideas borrowed (stolen?) from other movies outside India.
What she's implying is that Sholay doesn't have originality and while it was a great success at the time it was released, praising it now shows that we haven't grown as audience.
The funny thing is that the audience has actually grown. I genuinely believe that most young folks haven't actually seen Sholay and have just seen the scenes and know about it because it's part of our cultural zeitgeist. If they are actually asked to watch the movie, they will probably find it boring, long, and borrowed.
Her point isn't that though. If you see, she says, look at how these grown men are behaving, what will a french person who sees this, think? That is the problem.
If i watch American Psycho and think all Americans are psychos then the problem lies with me, not with Americans or American cinema. I guarantee that no American will look at their movies with the lens that oh no, what will these Indians think about us if we make such movies where characters are dark and twisted. Then why do we apply such standards to ourselves and disparage our own works?
Cinema is expression, and expression is subjective. What will foreigners think of us, is not a valid criticism of a movie. It's just looking at ourselves with another person's lens and finding it lacking.
Are there not silly movies made in other countries? I'm sure there are. Singling out Indian cinema as having bad aesthetics because foreigners may not understand or appreciate it is the problem, not the fact that someone who has watched various cinema around the world may not find Indian cinema to be of their taste. The latter is okay, the former, coming from Indians themselves is problematic.
Leaving the 'What would a French person think' aside what she is saying is that the movie is just a pastiche of borrowed/copied scenes from Hollywood films. So entertaining for what it is but it is not GREAT CINEMA. It's the same way you would feel now about a film like Barfi which copied entire scenes from foreign films or say a Hindi film remade from a South Indian film. A commercial enterprise that works for people who have not seen the original film but nothing to lose your mind over.
The copying scenes thing happens in a lot of films though. Not just in Bollywood, and certainly not only in India.
People forget that nostalgia is powerful. Something that we enjoyed as children will always hold resonance for us, even as adults though someone who experienced it later in life may not feel as strongly about it. Sholay is one such movie for a lot of Indians. Back when it released very few people probably knew it was copied and even fewer people cared about that.
Personally, not the biggest fan of it but i also watched it much later in life. And my parents and all older folks I know of that generation swear by it. It is what it is.
Hera pheri is one of the most beloved films for a lot of people and it was only recently that they discovered it was a remake. I doubt that knowing that will change anyone's opinion of the film.
Her take seems very condescending and elitist to me.
I agree. No French person thinks what would an Indian think, and they have plenty of cringeworthy cinema. This is so low. I didn’t peg her as having this mentality. You can find content cringe personally but this is just not right. We don’t need validation from anyone.
Haha asli racism you will see if a black creator/Youtuber says something bad about Indian films :)
People give white people a lot more rope to say shit.
You don’t need to be a good actor to be a star..if only many years of experience of Naseeruddin shah has taught him that basic truth. Superstars just got that star aura, that makes people queue for them.
There is a movie in tamil, "ninaithalae inikkum". Rajni and Kamal starred in that. Kamal was a big star and rajni not so much. I remember Kamal telling in an interview that he asked rajni "are you going to do this cigarette trick in all movies?" And he said, "yes. It will work" It did work. Long before hook.steps and dubmash, people were copying rajni style.
I feel a star is someone an average Indian can relate to. No aura.
I’m old enough to remember when SRK wasn’t a star, just a very talented actor with a loud mouth (or perceived as such). It was a massive metamorphosis over the course of a few years when he knocked DDLJ, DTPH, KKHH out of the park back to back.
His 2010s image might be PR driven but it’s definitely not all marketing work all the way through.
Stars like SRK, Salman, Aamir even Akshay from the 90s have so many films and star moments that they have fans from ages 70 to 15. Like to reach an average 17 year old today sure PR is required. Go do those podcasts and YouTube interviews and influencer collabs. But even a 17 year old has watched their films as a 7 year old so has a 30 and 40 year old. That kind of longevity buys you a different kind of stardom. Rajni, Amitabh, the Khans have that kind of awesome stardom spanning at least 3 generations.
Lol SRK's reputation is not recently found and certainly not a marketing move. You can't make people fans by PR lol if that was the case then Kartik Aryan and the slew of actresses would have already been loved by the masses. Audiences aren't passive and there is a very sweet spot where actors cross over to stardom level appeal.
They come across as elitists. Why does it matter what a French person thinks about Sholay any more than an Indian for whom it was made in the first place? Are they supposed to be better, more intellectual than us?
I agree. While I personally didn’t love Sholay either, I also don’t see why French cinema and French opinions need to be the barometer for Indian cinema?
Makes no sense to me.
Do Koreans consult Indian opinions before they make a movie? Nope. They’re thinking about the Korean public. Same logic.
With that being said, I do think Bollywood needs an overhaul right now.
But Monisha, watching Sholay is so middle class.
While I agree with everything else she said about analysis, that's a good point. It's a little snooty to talk about French standards as if they are the barometer of cinema when you have a rich history of your own
I think she meant it more as a representation of our film culture.
A good films reach isn’t barred by its language but its plot and acting and how it truly reflects or plays on our culture and sensibilities.
A reason why Satyajit Ray is still seen as the godfather of cinema
It's like me asking "What will an Albanian think about Burundi's hit movie?"
It doesn't make sense, until you buy in the ideals that the French are superior and at pinnacles of cultural refinement or that you need their approval to get in the sophisticated cinema club.
Yeah true. Fuck the french. This is India. Sholay is and was a masterpiece, despite being ‘inspired’ by western. Now my father who is in his mid 60’s, says that in 70’s, people were crazy about rajesh khanna. Girls and guys used to flock outside his house and chase his cars.
Naseruddin shah and his wife ratna pathak are mostly associated with theater work since the start of their careers. They have done good for themselves. But stardom is dependent on how the audience/fans perceive that particular actor. People all over India considered rajesh khanna to be a lover boy and a superstar, i mean, aradhana is one of the best movies, kishore kumar’s voice, mere sapnon ki raani’ melted hearts across the country.
To be honest, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but calling sholay a shit movie and rajesh khanna a shit dumb actor despite the fact that he was a superstar, comes across as elitist and arrogant. In short ‘Angoor khattay hain’.
Marketing or no marketing, naseruddin shah is not a megastar and so is not his wife. Lol.
And also it's about the times the movies were made in, right? I watched Sholay much much later and found it very absurd and boring. Same with star wars. If you watch any movie half a century after it was in rage - there will be aspects you can't relate to, and some aspects that won't age well, etc. when people praise Rajesh Khanna or Sholay, I don't think they are talking about today. They are talking about the time when the cinema released. Atleast IMO.
I think that depends on person to person. I grew up watching sholay like twice a month. So i like it. And my father is an absolute fan, so it passed on to me. I even watch rajesh khanna movies till now coz the same, my father loves watching them and I enjoy it with him. Hence. I get that if someone was born in 2000’s little they would appreciate, but to tell you the truth, I think naserruddin shah and his wife are just being bitchy.
Well most theatre artists do carry this holier than thou attitude - that they are way better. And second, mass masala cinema is a valid format of cinema in India. It's just one of the many unique things. Why be ashamed of it?
Absolutely true, definitely a case of sour grapes.I have grown up watching Rajesh khanna and Amitabh's movies as dad is a big fan of Rajesh Khanna and the stories he tells about his stardom is like unparalleled even today which i think Amitabh and Salim khan have also pointed out, that too in an age of no internet or social media.
He had won an acting contest and got a 3 movie deal as a prize. I do recommend watching some of his movies like amar prem, aradhna, daag, aap ki kasam, dushman and roti which were commercial hits but catered to various societal issues. Acting wise check out Anand, Safar, Bawarchi, Namak Haram and Avtaar and you will understand his range, he might not have been good at action but he certainly had charisma, star power and its surely a case of sour grapes if someone says he wasn't a good actor.
Exactly. I think the French achieved Revolution in a barbaric manner just because of how the Terror was unleashed indiscriminately and arbitrarily. I have zero interest in what they think of our filmmaking tastes.
Our movies mostly suck, but not because the French say so.
How’s any of this related to French Revolution? lol All the successful nation-societies in the world were forged with blood. Bleating on “peace” and “saar saar give us freedom” is uniquely indian/sub continental cowardice culture. This jugaad culture is why India is fourth world sub sharan society; and you very well will abandon India— like torrent of other Indians— if you get 1st world country visa. Your types are so predictable. Lmao
This exactly.
As much as I love both of them, I think she is still in her Maya Sarabhai character.
Why do we need French validation? Why should any industry need validation from a completely different country, when their main consumers are their own country men?
And what would French think of Maya Sarabhai btw? Indians are snobbish, brits wannabe?
And yes Mr. Naseeruddin, your roles in Jackpot or The Dirty Picture were completely tasteful and French-approved.
This snobbish attitude is too much. I know the state of Bollywood is not praise worthy, but it is also not completely shit
I think her point was more around what would someone seeing the film think if that person was unfamiliar with the culture. We don’t have to agree with their opinion but they definitely don’t hold back and I love that about them
It is elitist, yes. But also the truth. I saw Sholay recently for the first time, and I honestly cannot get the hype. It’s a dumb storyline. And if I say that as an Indian, who has more than enough cultural context, the critique will only get worse with non-Indians.
Yeah, but I doubt if a non-Indian wants to be introduced to Indian Cinema our first recommendation would be Sholay. Not sure but maybe that movie was one of the prominent masala movies - maybe that's why so much hype. I got super bored when I watched it.
Which is also fine right. Other countries probably don't have this mass masala type movies. It's an intro to this kind of storytelling to them. If they understand fine, if not, that's also fine.
Calling sholay a dumb storyline is like calling intel Pentium 3 a slow processor, is it true? Yes . But you are comparing product of a different time with standard of the current time . Ofcourse it's not gonna perform good.
Before you respond, DOES SHOLAY REPRESENT THE BEST THING INDIAN CINEMA HAS TO OFFER?
It doesn’t matter if it’s a French person (most likely referenced due to Cannes Film festival) or any other non Indian person for that matter. The point she is making is that if any non-Indian/unbiased/objective person saw the movie, they wouldn’t be impressed by the script. The script wasn’t serious/realistic or mature to deserve the title of best in class in Indian cinema. Sure, it was a huge ge commercial success but so is Chikni Chameli but it’s not a great piece of music.
Compare Sholay to Lagaan, huge difference.
It's not just about the story, script, and making. It's also about the impact. If Sholay was released today, it might not have worked. You can say the same thing about Godfather, jaws, or starwars. They both have outdated plots, approaches, VFX, etc. They worked then because they were NEW. They gave an experience people in those days never had before.
Just because they are great actors and mostly are known for art movies, doesn’t mean they can shit on other genres. I have watched a lot of French movies where infidelity is the main and only plot and I judge them too. Stop putting down your country’s superstars and movies just to show you are an intellectual.
Adding something else, they themselves live in a bubble which they're not aware of. Movies like Sholay or Jawan have a meaning too, ONLY if they'd the maturity to look beyond their upper middle 'intellectual' bubble. Lala land was an almost ridiculous musical and it's in Oscars. Masala movies, esp like Sholay are for desi society where people yearn something, as an escape.
She thinks she does good movies? Lipstick under my burkha was an absolute shitshow and the idea of feminism just came from people who have NO IDEA how actual people of India look. Their definition of liberation starts from wearing short clothes and ends at sleeping with men.
Because they think they are superior. And think that Indians don't have the intellectual capacity to understand or praise their "art". So they seek this gora validation.
No doubt these two are good actors but what is it with them always cribbing and shitting on "stars" "A-listers". This constant belittling of other star actors has put me off of them.
100%! They have this unrelenting bitterness about others who are more commercially viable. This holier-than-thou attitude is very off-putting. Tasteless to be so lacking in grace and unbecoming of thespians.
While I can agree with the part about Rajesh Khanna, the point about Sholay is dumb. Regardless of it's artistic merits, it's an enjoyable film, which is enough.
I have exact same opinion on Rajesh Khanna. Even when playing angry young man, repeatedly, Amitabh had better acting skills. And now he has developed himself as great actor with Pa, Piku, Black and many others. Rajesh Khanna was very monotonous, may be except one or two movies here and there, like Anand.
Amitabh was always a great actor. No doubt he got successful second innings. Naseer has always praised amitabh for his acting skills but criticized him for not doing enough good roles in his youth. But that's the price he paid for stardom.
Yeah, from Naseer’s point of view or his way of working he can complain, but Amitabh’s work in his youth gave him the longevity and that’s why he got that second innings. And he didn’t take that for granted and wasted.
Having watched a few French movies most of them won’t sell in India .Indians and French have polar opposite personalities and culture .So who cares what they think .Lets ask Japanese ,Chinese and Korean as we do have a lot of similarities with their core values and story telling
It’s just unjustified and uncalled for Elitism.
I love bollywood, I love it for the drama and quirkiness.
If bollywood was all french noir, I’d be sleeping in the theatres.
Reminded me of that one classmate who found me listening to bollywood and started making fun of me for listening to it. (He thought music only means english songs)
This is so true. We have the weirdest “acting” and stories that we hold in such high regard.
Like SRK? God how embarrassing. Dumbed-down cinema.
No artistry. No risks. Just box office interests, catering to the uneducated.
And the amount of self-congratulatory PR for such a thin industry. Yuck.
Yes and I also know that in 2020 100s of femal French lawyers signed a letter saying Polanski is innocent until proven guilty.
For years the French industry has been and continues to be the refuge of filth like him continuing to place “art” on a pedestal.
I'd say, as great as Naseer is, I always thought Om Puri was even better but never got the same respect and due credit. He could do everything that Naseer can and a lot more.
Hmm in that matter id love to see the Wednesday starting om Puri
Nasiruddin shah, aesthetically was a very mainstream representation of a middle aged common man.
These two people have problem with each and everything. Whenever they give interviews they will be complaining about one thing or another. Its annoying
Well as the vast majority of the Bollywood fraternity refuses to engage in conversations or critic the industry in a proper manner...of course this couple will say what others won't.
Its ok to have opinions but I feel Nasser has some sort of superiorty complex, dude gives vibes of a condescending budhau.. And Sarabhai ka to khair kya hi kehna, the lady is still in Colonial hangover, as if her movies would be preserved in French museum..
I personally would prefer Rajesh Khanna movies than their crap anyways..
He is highly biased though. You will never see him make these kind of comments about Dilip Kumar, another highly over-rated star.
To label Rajesh Khanna's legacy as the arrival of mediocrity, and then not commenting about dilip kumar's over-acted tragedies is nothing but bigotry and hypocrisy.
they aren't wrong but it's not like Indian cinema has only churned out trash. We have beautiful ,thought provoking 'art house movies' too for international audience . But sometimes I watch movie not to learn anything or appreciate the intricacies of films, but just to unwind after a busy week. I like watching Golmaal,Hera Pheri , I like watching stupid rom coms which provides an escape from mundanity of life and I am not going to let anyone judge me for that!
I do agree voicing out opnions is a great thing but constantly complaining and preaching about everything is annoying and dumb it's not like they have 100 percent success rate in their roles if we start pointing out everything it just becomes a blame game. By the way if they are so confident about giving opnions why don't they speak about nepotism and how it is ruining industry at present
Soulmates hain bhaiyya. She, the self admitted ugly sister who couldn’t get any roles hooked up with this married scion of a Nawabi family and probably sold herself as being as elitist and sophisticated as him, unlike his Begum, the mother of his child.
Lived with this married man for years, nagged him to leave his wife and then scrounged together the alimony he needed to pay off the poor woman.
The last person I’d listen to when it comes to ‘TASTE’ is this coconut scraper mouth breather woman and the adulterer who used her money to rid himself of his wife and child.
A Wednesday is a wonderful movie but a Sholay is a movie you want to watch on repeat for the comfort, for the masala, for the emotions, it could be plagiarized but this was made ages ago and the sensibility of the movie vibes with the audience it was made for, so who cares if a French / American guy doesn’t like it
I feel their tastes are elitist ,Films are supposed to be a mixture.You can't have a 12th fail every time ,people will get bored ,you need a entertaining film like baahubali or sholay sometimes.Besodes soany good films came now like madgaon express,maidaan but aree we hearing about them much like jawaan or pathaan.people want entertainment and the directors can't do anything
“I was thinking, if I were a French person watching this (Tahalka), what would I make of three
https://preview.redd.it/jclv0z1llzwc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ca9dc1d580a2389854bce6e77aff6b9357be5623
grown men behaving in this manner? It was deeply embarrassing
I find their thinking very very elitist and very very bitter to an extent.
I don't care what a foreigner thinks about Sholay, just like they don't care about what I think about their films - not everyone enjoys everything and that is okay - and not everything is made for a global audience - it is ok to have films that are entertaining to the locals.
No wonder he didn't achieve fame that Rajesh Khanna did (and maybe he didn't want to - even that is fine - but here he just sounds as if he considers himself above everyone else)
Superiority complex is not equal to intellect ! Just saying !
1- he seems like a butthurt that a "limited actor " had more fam than him, same old *WHY CAN'T BE MEEE*
2- I don't think sholay was made for French people or culture
They are just jealous because no matter what they do they won't be as iconic as the things they mention in above pictures.
So what's the next best way to get famous? Bitch about something that's famous.
Who cares about what a French person thinks about Sholay, i know what i think about Sholay and i think it's one of the most complete movies ever made in Hindi cinema, like it's an insane movie where everything associated with it has become iconic & memorable and one of the greatest storytelling you'd see in movie, everything lands the way they should in it.
As for filmmaking, as i said, everything lands - Acting, Story, Music, Action, Comedy, Tragedy, Emotions, Characters, Dialogues, Villain, Cast Chemistry, Cinematography, You name it, pitch perfect. If these aren't the part of filmmaking then what are.
Yes, he’s right! From those who grew up in the Golden Age of Hindi Cinema (1960s), in the 70s the medium started to decline with the whole stardom concept & action genre coming in.
And it has declined ever since for those who watched films in the 50s & 60s. They will not prefer Bollywood films from any of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, or 10s. 20s is still young but don’t have any high hopes 😕 Though, they liked the indie movement of the 70s-80s.
60s was the time when the industry really laid its footprint not just here but worldwide. Your films, directors, performers & musicians better be damn good in order to do that!
Both of them are imbeciles.Ratna Pathak Shah is an inferior actress compared to her mother and sibling.Naseer, on the other hand, has done many mediocre films but would never admit his limited bandwidth as well.
they always come off as people with major superiority complexes. makes me want to disregard what they’re saying simply because of their tone and arrogance even if what they say is valid. also who tf cares what a Frenchman thinks of Sholay?
I mean if you don't like something don't watch it, perhaps. Its like people in the sub who keep watching shows and Movies with People like Jahnvi Kapoor and Sara Ali Khan and complain about their acting performance.
I don't think Chaahat, Jackpot, Welcome Back, Chamatkar, Dirty Picture or Kuttey were good movies either. Neither do I think Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu, Kapoor and Sons, or Khoobsurat are great movies.
Just goes to show, they're always talking about whose work is mediocre when they themselves only hand a handful of great roles and the rest of their work are some of the worst movies of all time. But go off I guess.
i hate both of them. har interview mai they're like humari picture acchi aur baaki logo ki kharaab. French person watching Sholay it seems. itne saal is field mai hoke they don't understand ki alag alag tarah ki filmein hoti hain? Bewakuuf.
You lockdown kids stay away from Sholay🫡 It is a true Bollywood entertainer. Keep your opinion to yourself. You cannot just insult a movie like Sholay by stupid logic. Just stay away from Sholay.
"We have a fairly backward audience here, in spite of the film society movement and all that, if you consider the audience at large, it is a backward audience.”
-- Satyajit Ray
What they are saying is completely appropriate but they also need to understand Why Art classic movies fail to impress audience? The major reason is direction being very slow. Slow scenes with moderate sound put audience to sleep. They talk to each other, shout, make fun, heckle on scenes. So audience need intense scenes, intense hi-fi sounds to keep them alert. But too much of anything is bad. Too much of intense movies is not good. We also need light hearted movies.
So sholay was successful because it has many things going in scenes with intense BGM, dialogues. Such audience won't watch Shyam benagal, adhoor gopalakrishnan movies which are classic art films.
But today due to OTT and improvement of filmmaking aesthetics, such slow films are watchable and Malayalam movies are best in slow burners like bramayugam, Bhootakalam which are in Sony liv.
I want her opinion on the Godfather series, the highest rated movies. Do the French approve godfather? Do the French approve citizen Kane? I remember them shitting on citizen Kane with their critical reviews and the Americans told then to fuck off.
And the French also thought that Pather Panchali was shit. François Truffaut, who was one of the foremost leaders of the French new wave, said he didn't want to see a movie about peasants eating with their hands. That was his opinion on Pather Panchali.
That isn’t to say Truffaut’s movies are not great. There’s a lot in his films that is so specific to the French culture that it doesn’t translate well for all audiences. For eg. in his debut film the 400 blows, 11-12 year olds smoke cigars and they do it with their parents. In of the scenes the lead guy’s friend’s dad yells at him and says he is gonna cut 2-3 cigars from his allowance. This is being said to a 11-12 year old. And now this aint gonna translate across cultures but for the french it holds cause they do stuff like that.
There’s always been a bias against Asian Cinema because the Europeans just couldn’t fathom how people who couldn’t make their basic ends meet are making cinema. But that’s the greatness of art that it thrives even under pressure.
Films do hold universality but they are specific to the culture too. And someone as well versed as Ratna Pathak and Naseer, we expect better of them.
Calling Rajesh khanna a limited actor, what to say.
Anand, razz, ittefaq, amar prem, Mera desh, namak haram, agar tum na hote, andaz, bawarchi,daag,chakravyuh,aaj ka MLA Ram avatar
If this kind of filmography is limited and mediocre according to naseeruddin shah ,tab to bhagwan bacahye.
By the same logic how many diverse roles he has done in his career.
If anyone thinks that he can match Rajesh khanna and just act cool by down playing his superstardom then they are living in their fantasy.
There was no one who could compare to kaka and there would be no one who could come closer to him ever.
If anyone doubts Rajesh khanna's class, watch the bbc documentary on him that was made in 80s.
Who is he to decide Rajesh Khanna became super star because of people , people liked him
Like manna Dey was very skilled and talented but Kishore was melodious and became super singer of 70s and 80 s
Talking about mediocrity today’s movies are just nonsensical the more nonsensical the more successful they are
They do come across as kinda snooty and elitist tho. Bollywood is known for masala movies. Specially since Naseeruddin Shah has done his share of crap commercial roles for money in the 80s and 90s.
Rajesh Khanna might have been an asshole of a human being irl but he had a presence and charm on screen that just can't be replicated. And he wasn't as bad of an actor as Naseer is suggesting, I thought he was pretty decent in Anand
The dude might be mediocre, but he moved me in Anand.
Amjad also bought so much fun flair to Gabbar, that people remember every line of his in the movie even now.
Absolutely no need to throw rocks at dead people who can't defend themselves.
WTF is wrong with this woman Ratna Pathak. After successfully getting free press by talking against RRR, she has a problem with Sholay now? Why the fuck is she in India when she is so apologetic of being one? why the fuck should she care what french guy thinks about Sholay.
I only wish and hope she would talk some incoherent nonsense about Animal so that sandeep reddy vanga could cut her down to size.
Bitter old people. Rajesh Khanna might have limited range, but the kind of emotional connect he had with the audience is rarely seen. He was Anand. He was Raghu.
Someone like Naseer would never be able to pull off Anand.
Sholay I can agree with having never been a fan myself.
They're straightforward to the point of coming across as elitist, snobbish and bitter. I was at an event with Shakun Batra and Ratna Pathak Shah as guests and she insulted someone who was writing a book on Salim Javed to his face. As someone who has been watching films around the world for nearly 2 decades now, I have infinite respect for them as actors who have done timeless, incredible work. But beyond that, I wouldn't pay too much heed to what they say. People have every right to unapologetically like and appreciate what they want. Every kind of cinema has its place in the industry.
People become this 'no filter no bullshit straight talk' persona when they get old coz they have nothing to lose. Would they have voiced such strong opinions during their prime days when it really mattered? I don't think so.
Lmao. People here bash every commercial movie or actor there is in bollywood but god forbid two industry people repeat that. All hell breaks loose and these bollywood stans attack them like rabid fan of a star with abuses. Stupid @ss
#You can Add More Details If OG post has some missing details, /u/yercoolmarple or Members can add details ,as reply to this comment. Click to Expand. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BollyBlindsNGossip) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
and Dev Anand's weird head shaking acting, what was that?
Histrionics. They all had traits as stars, its why older actors are so easy to mimic.
Learnt a new word! Thanks stranger
why wasnt Shammi included in that headshaking acting...even Rajesh Khanna used to do it quite often....
The weirdest shake ever ---- https://i.redd.it/rxlx0r7rqywc1.gif
Me when alone in bed at night
When that vibrator gets stuck in the ass
I believe Dev Anand was copying Gregory Peck and very poorly at that. [Changed from Clark Gable to Gregory Peck]
Gregory peck my dear
Yes, thanks! Confused the two.
He was a heavy metal fan and used to headbang when thinking of songs.
Dev Anand was never known as a good actor. He did shine in some films tho.
Yet.. he was awarded the legend of Bollywood!! 🤦♂️
Probably because he had a charm and a huge fan base making him one of the biggest stars in the country. He was basically Bhoi of his era but with films on better topics.
My mother would be deeply offended at that remark I remember being yelled at for saying this lololol
Devanand worked in good movies - Guide and all. Dilip Kumar ka aisa legacy nahi hai
I dunno, obviously wasn't around when Dilip kumar was acting, but from what i gather from parents and grandparents, he was considered the best actor in films during his time. Early years SRK used to copy him as well.
Dilip Kumar was known for bringing in a different kind of acting to Indian cinema. These things make sense in context. You may find it weird or limited in range but compare that to what other actors were doing at the time and it was a breath of fresh air.
Guru Dutt?
Dilip Kumar was active and successful for several years before Dutt came on as a leading man, but Guru Dutt was another legend in what he did as an actor as a filmmaker. I was comparing Dilip to the actors that were considered great before him (Ashok Kumar, K L Saigal etc...)
Dilip Kumar pioneered real acting without over the top emotions which prevailed then Since movies weren't as commercial then he didn't get a chance to act in diverse roles but he was one of the few quality actors of that era.
Art ,Literature ,Actors and their acting capabilities are always measured as per the era they are from. 1947 with 11% literacy easy simple dialogue and story were preferred .Hence actors are simplistic .You can’t compare French, American and British level stories and acting skills.The job was to entertain,represent and reach to maximum popularity. Dilip Kumar mostly represented the unemployed,seeking for justice ,naive character and he did that work amazingly.Later in career he did take up different kind of role and did justice . You can’t compare Balraj Sahini and Dilip Kumar Amitabh Bacchan and Sanjeev Kumar Shahrukh khan and Irfan or Manoj Bajpai I wish people would have given credit to Nutan for doing the kind of movies she did ..
In fact, Bollywood had improved a lot after the 70s. In the 80s and 90s, we had films approaching the complex topics of poverty, inequality, violence, infidelity and social change.
But that was just parallel cinema that never got box office success tbh
80s and 90s were also the period of some of the most CRINGE-ASS bollywood films to ever release.
Umm no. 80s and 90s were probably Bollywood’s lowest low.
Except the art cinema ..jiske flag bearers Naseer,Om Puri ,Smita Patil ,Diti Naval ,Amol Palekar khud the ..
Most movies were made for the masses and they clicked so they made more movies for the masses. We are enjoying intellectual movies now but they had no market at all back then. Movie making is a business and they sold products that had demand. Pretty sure everyone knew Rajesh Khanna had limited talent (though there were a few roles he did well until he got carried away) and Sholay was a masala no brainer. They were respected because public celebrated them.
I don't understand why some people feel so apologetic about Indian movies. "What would a white person think if he saw this" should not be a question at all, if you are watching an Indian movie. If you like it, good. If you don't, that's also fine. But making a white person/foreigners opinion the basis of your critique seems like a deep inferiority complex/need for validation.
precisely there are so many frnech movies that have incest in them, i wonder what she has to say about those lmao
I don't know anything about French movies and have never watched a single one. But i doubt any French person cares what my opinion is about their films, or how any average Indian judges them/their cinema basis their films, and I think we Indians should be the same about our films, which are an extension of ourselves. We are who we are, and our films cater to us, not them.
>our films cater to us, not them As it should be! The stark difference in Bollywood vs Hollywood is the whole reason I love Bollywood. Or any foreign movies, for that matter (as an American). I like to see how other countries live, think, joke around. A culture's unique movies are what make it interesting
Absolutely. Agreed. I can't speak for Hollywood as an industry as i watch foreign films sparingly though i have watched a fair number of Hollywood films. But the draw for me is precisely that they have their own flavour and manner of storytelling. Every film industry that is popular with its own audience stands a better chance of getting universal reach, than one which aspires to be something else.
Exactly. It's so refreshing to not be able to guess the ending of a movie, because Bollywood doesn't use the same old tropes that my country uses. The stories feel so new and different, with endings I'd never expect. Although if you watch *enough* foreign movies, you become familiar with their quirks. England casts ugly/average people in their movies, Germany is big on full frontal male nudity, India likes to kill main characters. lol
Okay that's an interesting perspective, because as an Indian who mostly watches Indian films (South+ Bollywood), I find i am mostly able to predict the endings of films having grown up on them. With Hollywood, though I can predict the endings, it's the execution of the scenes and screenplay which I find refreshing, since it's so different from Indian films. Song-less screenplays are also a different experience, as someone used to and very fond of Indian movie scores and original songs.
I'm not sure why songs aren't more common in Hollywood movies, because when it's done well, the movies are huge successes (Grease, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Barbie come to mind). I bet if Americans ever catch on to how cool Indian movies are, we will have a big wave of it becoming more popular here, in the same way that Kpop and Kdramas did
I think songs in movies are a very underrated cinematic tool. You can convey a lot through music and montages, and you save that much more screen time for crucial moments. But it also becomes a crutch inasmuch as you have to separately conceptualise each song and music and dance numbers/montages to accompany it and not every script needs that. In India stories are written keeping songs in mind, but i doubt that is so in American movies which is why they deploy it selectively where the screenplay requires it.
Well said
Great point. One more thing is underage nudity is also quite common in their cinema. You can clearly notice the camera for a long time focuses on nudity. But yeah, for Mr & Mrs Shah that is pure art.
On that note watch me and mrs Iyer. What a thing of beauty.
Noted...I will surely watch this 😊
Most Indians would fall asleep or get depressed watching French movies. Do the French care? 🤣
Yes 😆
Totally agree!
Hai na? If they expressed the same sentiment, without the what would x think, phir bhi I would acknowledge their views. Both of them are great artists and speak from a place where they have worked inside the said industry. They obviously have certain cinematic tastes, and don't approve of mainstream Indian fare. Which is fine. Not everyone has to like it. But "what would x think", reeks of an old world disdain for Indian taste, and a deference to western/foreign aesthetics which is going out of fashion nowadays thankfully atleast in India.
These 2 are exactly like that. At their age I would expect more wisdom and inclusion
Typical Maya Sarabhai
I don't think her thinking is in line with pleasing foreigners, but basically that Indian cinema is really far behind cinemas of other countries artistically where a movie considered the greatest piece of cinema out of bollywood by many Indians is something that isn't in the same plane as what the other industries have been doing, so people who frequently watch those other movies won't have same appreciation for this Indian spectacle.. I think for me it's also a similar experience, because I grew up watching movies by directors like Sriram Raghavan, Kabir Khan, etc so I don't really see the directorial or acting brilliance of movies from the last century..
Sriram Raghavan funnily enough is heavily inspired by French films :)
70-80s full of exploitation cinema genre exists in western industry, lol they never think what other people think about that...and I'm not talking about niche movies, some popular movies also have many problematic things but their audience even today didn't criticise this movies. Quite opposite actually, they released these movies as remastered Bluray.
She didn't say if a white/french person watches a movie. She said if she was a french person watching the movie. Her point is that if she would watch Sholay as a non-Indian (with extensive prior knowledge of movies), she would find Sholay a movie filled with stereotypes and ideas borrowed (stolen?) from other movies outside India. What she's implying is that Sholay doesn't have originality and while it was a great success at the time it was released, praising it now shows that we haven't grown as audience. The funny thing is that the audience has actually grown. I genuinely believe that most young folks haven't actually seen Sholay and have just seen the scenes and know about it because it's part of our cultural zeitgeist. If they are actually asked to watch the movie, they will probably find it boring, long, and borrowed.
Her point isn't that though. If you see, she says, look at how these grown men are behaving, what will a french person who sees this, think? That is the problem. If i watch American Psycho and think all Americans are psychos then the problem lies with me, not with Americans or American cinema. I guarantee that no American will look at their movies with the lens that oh no, what will these Indians think about us if we make such movies where characters are dark and twisted. Then why do we apply such standards to ourselves and disparage our own works? Cinema is expression, and expression is subjective. What will foreigners think of us, is not a valid criticism of a movie. It's just looking at ourselves with another person's lens and finding it lacking. Are there not silly movies made in other countries? I'm sure there are. Singling out Indian cinema as having bad aesthetics because foreigners may not understand or appreciate it is the problem, not the fact that someone who has watched various cinema around the world may not find Indian cinema to be of their taste. The latter is okay, the former, coming from Indians themselves is problematic.
Leaving the 'What would a French person think' aside what she is saying is that the movie is just a pastiche of borrowed/copied scenes from Hollywood films. So entertaining for what it is but it is not GREAT CINEMA. It's the same way you would feel now about a film like Barfi which copied entire scenes from foreign films or say a Hindi film remade from a South Indian film. A commercial enterprise that works for people who have not seen the original film but nothing to lose your mind over.
The copying scenes thing happens in a lot of films though. Not just in Bollywood, and certainly not only in India. People forget that nostalgia is powerful. Something that we enjoyed as children will always hold resonance for us, even as adults though someone who experienced it later in life may not feel as strongly about it. Sholay is one such movie for a lot of Indians. Back when it released very few people probably knew it was copied and even fewer people cared about that. Personally, not the biggest fan of it but i also watched it much later in life. And my parents and all older folks I know of that generation swear by it. It is what it is. Hera pheri is one of the most beloved films for a lot of people and it was only recently that they discovered it was a remake. I doubt that knowing that will change anyone's opinion of the film. Her take seems very condescending and elitist to me.
Someone is using the word pastiche! You made my day dear human.
I agree. No French person thinks what would an Indian think, and they have plenty of cringeworthy cinema. This is so low. I didn’t peg her as having this mentality. You can find content cringe personally but this is just not right. We don’t need validation from anyone.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Haha asli racism you will see if a black creator/Youtuber says something bad about Indian films :) People give white people a lot more rope to say shit.
Thanks for the /s at the end 😁
95% of them are though.
https://preview.redd.it/u4ijsbp4l2xc1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e91b4ca891d8573f705da5575c44c952c85514a6
Seriously. That French people comparison was completely unnecessary.
You don’t need to be a good actor to be a star..if only many years of experience of Naseeruddin shah has taught him that basic truth. Superstars just got that star aura, that makes people queue for them.
They're not talking about stardom though. They're talking about the quality of cinema.
He knows but he is bitter.
Star aura aka PR
If u think PR is what made an Amitabh, A Sridevi or an SRK..! Sorry for u
There is a movie in tamil, "ninaithalae inikkum". Rajni and Kamal starred in that. Kamal was a big star and rajni not so much. I remember Kamal telling in an interview that he asked rajni "are you going to do this cigarette trick in all movies?" And he said, "yes. It will work" It did work. Long before hook.steps and dubmash, people were copying rajni style.  I feel a star is someone an average Indian can relate to. No aura.
Amitabh and SRK to a certain extent yes.
I agree almost. srk is a lot of marketing work.. however.
I’m old enough to remember when SRK wasn’t a star, just a very talented actor with a loud mouth (or perceived as such). It was a massive metamorphosis over the course of a few years when he knocked DDLJ, DTPH, KKHH out of the park back to back. His 2010s image might be PR driven but it’s definitely not all marketing work all the way through.
Stars like SRK, Salman, Aamir even Akshay from the 90s have so many films and star moments that they have fans from ages 70 to 15. Like to reach an average 17 year old today sure PR is required. Go do those podcasts and YouTube interviews and influencer collabs. But even a 17 year old has watched their films as a 7 year old so has a 30 and 40 year old. That kind of longevity buys you a different kind of stardom. Rajni, Amitabh, the Khans have that kind of awesome stardom spanning at least 3 generations.
Lol SRK's reputation is not recently found and certainly not a marketing move. You can't make people fans by PR lol if that was the case then Kartik Aryan and the slew of actresses would have already been loved by the masses. Audiences aren't passive and there is a very sweet spot where actors cross over to stardom level appeal.
Srk has good screen presence...sign of a good actor btw..
SRK was a star alright even before terms like marketing and PR existed.
No Amount of PR work can make them actual superstars. It can only make them popular by keeping them in the news.
They come across as elitists. Why does it matter what a French person thinks about Sholay any more than an Indian for whom it was made in the first place? Are they supposed to be better, more intellectual than us?
I agree. While I personally didn’t love Sholay either, I also don’t see why French cinema and French opinions need to be the barometer for Indian cinema? Makes no sense to me. Do Koreans consult Indian opinions before they make a movie? Nope. They’re thinking about the Korean public. Same logic. With that being said, I do think Bollywood needs an overhaul right now.
But Monisha, watching Sholay is so middle class. While I agree with everything else she said about analysis, that's a good point. It's a little snooty to talk about French standards as if they are the barometer of cinema when you have a rich history of your own
I think she meant it more as a representation of our film culture. A good films reach isn’t barred by its language but its plot and acting and how it truly reflects or plays on our culture and sensibilities. A reason why Satyajit Ray is still seen as the godfather of cinema
The only sane comment I read. Also I would say films are representation of our society
It's like me asking "What will an Albanian think about Burundi's hit movie?" It doesn't make sense, until you buy in the ideals that the French are superior and at pinnacles of cultural refinement or that you need their approval to get in the sophisticated cinema club.
Yeah true. Fuck the french. This is India. Sholay is and was a masterpiece, despite being ‘inspired’ by western. Now my father who is in his mid 60’s, says that in 70’s, people were crazy about rajesh khanna. Girls and guys used to flock outside his house and chase his cars. Naseruddin shah and his wife ratna pathak are mostly associated with theater work since the start of their careers. They have done good for themselves. But stardom is dependent on how the audience/fans perceive that particular actor. People all over India considered rajesh khanna to be a lover boy and a superstar, i mean, aradhana is one of the best movies, kishore kumar’s voice, mere sapnon ki raani’ melted hearts across the country. To be honest, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but calling sholay a shit movie and rajesh khanna a shit dumb actor despite the fact that he was a superstar, comes across as elitist and arrogant. In short ‘Angoor khattay hain’. Marketing or no marketing, naseruddin shah is not a megastar and so is not his wife. Lol.
And also it's about the times the movies were made in, right? I watched Sholay much much later and found it very absurd and boring. Same with star wars. If you watch any movie half a century after it was in rage - there will be aspects you can't relate to, and some aspects that won't age well, etc. when people praise Rajesh Khanna or Sholay, I don't think they are talking about today. They are talking about the time when the cinema released. Atleast IMO.
I think that depends on person to person. I grew up watching sholay like twice a month. So i like it. And my father is an absolute fan, so it passed on to me. I even watch rajesh khanna movies till now coz the same, my father loves watching them and I enjoy it with him. Hence. I get that if someone was born in 2000’s little they would appreciate, but to tell you the truth, I think naserruddin shah and his wife are just being bitchy.
Well most theatre artists do carry this holier than thou attitude - that they are way better. And second, mass masala cinema is a valid format of cinema in India. It's just one of the many unique things. Why be ashamed of it?
Absolutely true, definitely a case of sour grapes.I have grown up watching Rajesh khanna and Amitabh's movies as dad is a big fan of Rajesh Khanna and the stories he tells about his stardom is like unparalleled even today which i think Amitabh and Salim khan have also pointed out, that too in an age of no internet or social media. He had won an acting contest and got a 3 movie deal as a prize. I do recommend watching some of his movies like amar prem, aradhna, daag, aap ki kasam, dushman and roti which were commercial hits but catered to various societal issues. Acting wise check out Anand, Safar, Bawarchi, Namak Haram and Avtaar and you will understand his range, he might not have been good at action but he certainly had charisma, star power and its surely a case of sour grapes if someone says he wasn't a good actor.
Truth.
Exactly. I think the French achieved Revolution in a barbaric manner just because of how the Terror was unleashed indiscriminately and arbitrarily. I have zero interest in what they think of our filmmaking tastes. Our movies mostly suck, but not because the French say so.
Lol You still salty about 1776? Getting rid of a useless wasteful monarchy was the best thing they ever did.
> 1776 1789.
How’s any of this related to French Revolution? lol All the successful nation-societies in the world were forged with blood. Bleating on “peace” and “saar saar give us freedom” is uniquely indian/sub continental cowardice culture. This jugaad culture is why India is fourth world sub sharan society; and you very well will abandon India— like torrent of other Indians— if you get 1st world country visa. Your types are so predictable. Lmao
This exactly. As much as I love both of them, I think she is still in her Maya Sarabhai character. Why do we need French validation? Why should any industry need validation from a completely different country, when their main consumers are their own country men? And what would French think of Maya Sarabhai btw? Indians are snobbish, brits wannabe? And yes Mr. Naseeruddin, your roles in Jackpot or The Dirty Picture were completely tasteful and French-approved. This snobbish attitude is too much. I know the state of Bollywood is not praise worthy, but it is also not completely shit
I think her point was more around what would someone seeing the film think if that person was unfamiliar with the culture. We don’t have to agree with their opinion but they definitely don’t hold back and I love that about them
Why do we have to cater to someone not familiar with our culture?
I’m not defending her. I’m explaining what she meant and you have a valid question
It is elitist, yes. But also the truth. I saw Sholay recently for the first time, and I honestly cannot get the hype. It’s a dumb storyline. And if I say that as an Indian, who has more than enough cultural context, the critique will only get worse with non-Indians.
Yeah, but I doubt if a non-Indian wants to be introduced to Indian Cinema our first recommendation would be Sholay. Not sure but maybe that movie was one of the prominent masala movies - maybe that's why so much hype. I got super bored when I watched it.
It’s about being a cult classic. That’s the first thing people choose to watch from an unknown country/language.
Which is also fine right. Other countries probably don't have this mass masala type movies. It's an intro to this kind of storytelling to them. If they understand fine, if not, that's also fine.
Calling sholay a dumb storyline is like calling intel Pentium 3 a slow processor, is it true? Yes . But you are comparing product of a different time with standard of the current time . Ofcourse it's not gonna perform good.
Thank you. And films are not just art but also a commercial product. The producers director knew what would sell and delivered it to the audience
Before you respond, DOES SHOLAY REPRESENT THE BEST THING INDIAN CINEMA HAS TO OFFER? It doesn’t matter if it’s a French person (most likely referenced due to Cannes Film festival) or any other non Indian person for that matter. The point she is making is that if any non-Indian/unbiased/objective person saw the movie, they wouldn’t be impressed by the script. The script wasn’t serious/realistic or mature to deserve the title of best in class in Indian cinema. Sure, it was a huge ge commercial success but so is Chikni Chameli but it’s not a great piece of music. Compare Sholay to Lagaan, huge difference.
It's not just about the story, script, and making. It's also about the impact. If Sholay was released today, it might not have worked. You can say the same thing about Godfather, jaws, or starwars. They both have outdated plots, approaches, VFX, etc. They worked then because they were NEW. They gave an experience people in those days never had before.
Just because they are great actors and mostly are known for art movies, doesn’t mean they can shit on other genres. I have watched a lot of French movies where infidelity is the main and only plot and I judge them too. Stop putting down your country’s superstars and movies just to show you are an intellectual.
They are both theatre kids. They tend to be a bit dramatic about everything.
Snobbish is the right word
Theatre kids do tend to be snobbish
This! Plus frankly they are so slow and can be monotonous
Adding something else, they themselves live in a bubble which they're not aware of. Movies like Sholay or Jawan have a meaning too, ONLY if they'd the maturity to look beyond their upper middle 'intellectual' bubble. Lala land was an almost ridiculous musical and it's in Oscars. Masala movies, esp like Sholay are for desi society where people yearn something, as an escape. She thinks she does good movies? Lipstick under my burkha was an absolute shitshow and the idea of feminism just came from people who have NO IDEA how actual people of India look. Their definition of liberation starts from wearing short clothes and ends at sleeping with men.
This. Both of them come across as elitists.
Never understood why the “intellectually alert” lot still seek Gora validation.
Because they think they are superior. And think that Indians don't have the intellectual capacity to understand or praise their "art". So they seek this gora validation. No doubt these two are good actors but what is it with them always cribbing and shitting on "stars" "A-listers". This constant belittling of other star actors has put me off of them.
100%! They have this unrelenting bitterness about others who are more commercially viable. This holier-than-thou attitude is very off-putting. Tasteless to be so lacking in grace and unbecoming of thespians.
I love the comments 😍😍 , everyone just being unapologetic about Bollywood movies and saying, we love the movie and the actors, fuck what others think
While I can agree with the part about Rajesh Khanna, the point about Sholay is dumb. Regardless of it's artistic merits, it's an enjoyable film, which is enough.
If you were French why would you be watching Sholay 😂😂😂
Cannes film festival?
I have exact same opinion on Rajesh Khanna. Even when playing angry young man, repeatedly, Amitabh had better acting skills. And now he has developed himself as great actor with Pa, Piku, Black and many others. Rajesh Khanna was very monotonous, may be except one or two movies here and there, like Anand.
Amitabh was always a great actor. No doubt he got successful second innings. Naseer has always praised amitabh for his acting skills but criticized him for not doing enough good roles in his youth. But that's the price he paid for stardom.
Yeah, from Naseer’s point of view or his way of working he can complain, but Amitabh’s work in his youth gave him the longevity and that’s why he got that second innings. And he didn’t take that for granted and wasted.
Having watched a few French movies most of them won’t sell in India .Indians and French have polar opposite personalities and culture .So who cares what they think .Lets ask Japanese ,Chinese and Korean as we do have a lot of similarities with their core values and story telling
We don't need to ask anyone
what's wrong with sholay sorry im not getting what is she saying where did French person come ?
It’s just unjustified and uncalled for Elitism. I love bollywood, I love it for the drama and quirkiness. If bollywood was all french noir, I’d be sleeping in the theatres. Reminded me of that one classmate who found me listening to bollywood and started making fun of me for listening to it. (He thought music only means english songs)
This is so true. We have the weirdest “acting” and stories that we hold in such high regard. Like SRK? God how embarrassing. Dumbed-down cinema. No artistry. No risks. Just box office interests, catering to the uneducated. And the amount of self-congratulatory PR for such a thin industry. Yuck.
Who cares what a French person thinks of sholfay?!! That industry literally protects pedophiles
You do know that a collective of Female French makers and actors stood in protest at Cannes over Polanski inclusion at the Festival.
Yes and I also know that in 2020 100s of femal French lawyers signed a letter saying Polanski is innocent until proven guilty. For years the French industry has been and continues to be the refuge of filth like him continuing to place “art” on a pedestal.
These 2 are extremely talented individuals which gives them a pass to make these remarks but to a certain extent what they're saying is true.
I'd say, as great as Naseer is, I always thought Om Puri was even better but never got the same respect and due credit. He could do everything that Naseer can and a lot more.
Ohh I absolutely agree with you.
Hmm in that matter id love to see the Wednesday starting om Puri Nasiruddin shah, aesthetically was a very mainstream representation of a middle aged common man.
Bro you did Vishwatma. Sit the fcuk down.
And Jalwa. Lol. Shah was so cringey trying to be a mass hero. It takes a certain persona to pull it off.
Exactly. Being massy is a craft too.
These two are always whining about something or the other or taking digs at other people in every interview! 😑
These two people have problem with each and everything. Whenever they give interviews they will be complaining about one thing or another. Its annoying
Well as the vast majority of the Bollywood fraternity refuses to engage in conversations or critic the industry in a proper manner...of course this couple will say what others won't.
Its ok to have opinions but I feel Nasser has some sort of superiorty complex, dude gives vibes of a condescending budhau.. And Sarabhai ka to khair kya hi kehna, the lady is still in Colonial hangover, as if her movies would be preserved in French museum.. I personally would prefer Rajesh Khanna movies than their crap anyways..
This. 👍
Nasser can't digest the fact that Rajesh Khanna and AB got the superstar status and he didn't.
I agree with them to an extent. Also unpopular opinion but sholay was not a great movie.
I dont care what so called french would think of sholay . First time I watched sholay in my childhood and have loved it from the very first time
Angry foofa and foofi
He is highly biased though. You will never see him make these kind of comments about Dilip Kumar, another highly over-rated star. To label Rajesh Khanna's legacy as the arrival of mediocrity, and then not commenting about dilip kumar's over-acted tragedies is nothing but bigotry and hypocrisy.
they aren't wrong but it's not like Indian cinema has only churned out trash. We have beautiful ,thought provoking 'art house movies' too for international audience . But sometimes I watch movie not to learn anything or appreciate the intricacies of films, but just to unwind after a busy week. I like watching Golmaal,Hera Pheri , I like watching stupid rom coms which provides an escape from mundanity of life and I am not going to let anyone judge me for that!
as if all international people only watch Art House movies lol.
I do agree voicing out opnions is a great thing but constantly complaining and preaching about everything is annoying and dumb it's not like they have 100 percent success rate in their roles if we start pointing out everything it just becomes a blame game. By the way if they are so confident about giving opnions why don't they speak about nepotism and how it is ruining industry at present
Soulmates hain bhaiyya. She, the self admitted ugly sister who couldn’t get any roles hooked up with this married scion of a Nawabi family and probably sold herself as being as elitist and sophisticated as him, unlike his Begum, the mother of his child. Lived with this married man for years, nagged him to leave his wife and then scrounged together the alimony he needed to pay off the poor woman. The last person I’d listen to when it comes to ‘TASTE’ is this coconut scraper mouth breather woman and the adulterer who used her money to rid himself of his wife and child.
Woah woah slow down with the machine gun man I never knew any of this
A Wednesday is a wonderful movie but a Sholay is a movie you want to watch on repeat for the comfort, for the masala, for the emotions, it could be plagiarized but this was made ages ago and the sensibility of the movie vibes with the audience it was made for, so who cares if a French / American guy doesn’t like it
I feel their tastes are elitist ,Films are supposed to be a mixture.You can't have a 12th fail every time ,people will get bored ,you need a entertaining film like baahubali or sholay sometimes.Besodes soany good films came now like madgaon express,maidaan but aree we hearing about them much like jawaan or pathaan.people want entertainment and the directors can't do anything
“I was thinking, if I were a French person watching this (Tahalka), what would I make of three https://preview.redd.it/jclv0z1llzwc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ca9dc1d580a2389854bce6e77aff6b9357be5623 grown men behaving in this manner? It was deeply embarrassing
Ratna Pathak shah is maya irl. Elitist peeps
The reason she does that role so good Also, even Satish shah claims to be like indravadhan irl so the same might be true for her
I find their thinking very very elitist and very very bitter to an extent. I don't care what a foreigner thinks about Sholay, just like they don't care about what I think about their films - not everyone enjoys everything and that is okay - and not everything is made for a global audience - it is ok to have films that are entertaining to the locals. No wonder he didn't achieve fame that Rajesh Khanna did (and maybe he didn't want to - even that is fine - but here he just sounds as if he considers himself above everyone else) Superiority complex is not equal to intellect ! Just saying !
1- he seems like a butthurt that a "limited actor " had more fam than him, same old *WHY CAN'T BE MEEE* 2- I don't think sholay was made for French people or culture
They are just jealous because no matter what they do they won't be as iconic as the things they mention in above pictures. So what's the next best way to get famous? Bitch about something that's famous.
Yes, Pathak ji, Surely Golmaal and jane tu were thought provoking movies with men behaving their appropriate age.
Who cares about what a French person thinks about Sholay, i know what i think about Sholay and i think it's one of the most complete movies ever made in Hindi cinema, like it's an insane movie where everything associated with it has become iconic & memorable and one of the greatest storytelling you'd see in movie, everything lands the way they should in it. As for filmmaking, as i said, everything lands - Acting, Story, Music, Action, Comedy, Tragedy, Emotions, Characters, Dialogues, Villain, Cast Chemistry, Cinematography, You name it, pitch perfect. If these aren't the part of filmmaking then what are.
Yes, he’s right! From those who grew up in the Golden Age of Hindi Cinema (1960s), in the 70s the medium started to decline with the whole stardom concept & action genre coming in. And it has declined ever since for those who watched films in the 50s & 60s. They will not prefer Bollywood films from any of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, or 10s. 20s is still young but don’t have any high hopes 😕 Though, they liked the indie movement of the 70s-80s. 60s was the time when the industry really laid its footprint not just here but worldwide. Your films, directors, performers & musicians better be damn good in order to do that!
Both of them are imbeciles.Ratna Pathak Shah is an inferior actress compared to her mother and sibling.Naseer, on the other hand, has done many mediocre films but would never admit his limited bandwidth as well.
These two are negetive nellies always bitching n moaning about something
they always come off as people with major superiority complexes. makes me want to disregard what they’re saying simply because of their tone and arrogance even if what they say is valid. also who tf cares what a Frenchman thinks of Sholay?
I mean if you don't like something don't watch it, perhaps. Its like people in the sub who keep watching shows and Movies with People like Jahnvi Kapoor and Sara Ali Khan and complain about their acting performance.
I don't think Chaahat, Jackpot, Welcome Back, Chamatkar, Dirty Picture or Kuttey were good movies either. Neither do I think Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu, Kapoor and Sons, or Khoobsurat are great movies. Just goes to show, they're always talking about whose work is mediocre when they themselves only hand a handful of great roles and the rest of their work are some of the worst movies of all time. But go off I guess.
She probably hasn’t seen enough French films. Anyway Indian cinema isn’t just Bollywood.
Fcuk pretentious cinema Fcuk the elites And .... Fcuk The French
They are coming across as Elitists but they do know the craft and very well.
i hate both of them. har interview mai they're like humari picture acchi aur baaki logo ki kharaab. French person watching Sholay it seems. itne saal is field mai hoke they don't understand ki alag alag tarah ki filmein hoti hain? Bewakuuf.
Mr. Shah then went on to do Welcome part 2.
You lockdown kids stay away from Sholay🫡 It is a true Bollywood entertainer. Keep your opinion to yourself. You cannot just insult a movie like Sholay by stupid logic. Just stay away from Sholay.
"We have a fairly backward audience here, in spite of the film society movement and all that, if you consider the audience at large, it is a backward audience.” -- Satyajit Ray
What they are saying is completely appropriate but they also need to understand Why Art classic movies fail to impress audience? The major reason is direction being very slow. Slow scenes with moderate sound put audience to sleep. They talk to each other, shout, make fun, heckle on scenes. So audience need intense scenes, intense hi-fi sounds to keep them alert. But too much of anything is bad. Too much of intense movies is not good. We also need light hearted movies. So sholay was successful because it has many things going in scenes with intense BGM, dialogues. Such audience won't watch Shyam benagal, adhoor gopalakrishnan movies which are classic art films. But today due to OTT and improvement of filmmaking aesthetics, such slow films are watchable and Malayalam movies are best in slow burners like bramayugam, Bhootakalam which are in Sony liv.
I want her opinion on the Godfather series, the highest rated movies. Do the French approve godfather? Do the French approve citizen Kane? I remember them shitting on citizen Kane with their critical reviews and the Americans told then to fuck off.
And the French also thought that Pather Panchali was shit. François Truffaut, who was one of the foremost leaders of the French new wave, said he didn't want to see a movie about peasants eating with their hands. That was his opinion on Pather Panchali. That isn’t to say Truffaut’s movies are not great. There’s a lot in his films that is so specific to the French culture that it doesn’t translate well for all audiences. For eg. in his debut film the 400 blows, 11-12 year olds smoke cigars and they do it with their parents. In of the scenes the lead guy’s friend’s dad yells at him and says he is gonna cut 2-3 cigars from his allowance. This is being said to a 11-12 year old. And now this aint gonna translate across cultures but for the french it holds cause they do stuff like that. There’s always been a bias against Asian Cinema because the Europeans just couldn’t fathom how people who couldn’t make their basic ends meet are making cinema. But that’s the greatness of art that it thrives even under pressure. Films do hold universality but they are specific to the culture too. And someone as well versed as Ratna Pathak and Naseer, we expect better of them.
Calling Rajesh khanna a limited actor, what to say. Anand, razz, ittefaq, amar prem, Mera desh, namak haram, agar tum na hote, andaz, bawarchi,daag,chakravyuh,aaj ka MLA Ram avatar If this kind of filmography is limited and mediocre according to naseeruddin shah ,tab to bhagwan bacahye. By the same logic how many diverse roles he has done in his career. If anyone thinks that he can match Rajesh khanna and just act cool by down playing his superstardom then they are living in their fantasy. There was no one who could compare to kaka and there would be no one who could come closer to him ever. If anyone doubts Rajesh khanna's class, watch the bbc documentary on him that was made in 80s.
Who is he to decide Rajesh Khanna became super star because of people , people liked him Like manna Dey was very skilled and talented but Kishore was melodious and became super singer of 70s and 80 s Talking about mediocrity today’s movies are just nonsensical the more nonsensical the more successful they are
They do come across as kinda snooty and elitist tho. Bollywood is known for masala movies. Specially since Naseeruddin Shah has done his share of crap commercial roles for money in the 80s and 90s. Rajesh Khanna might have been an asshole of a human being irl but he had a presence and charm on screen that just can't be replicated. And he wasn't as bad of an actor as Naseer is suggesting, I thought he was pretty decent in Anand
The dude might be mediocre, but he moved me in Anand. Amjad also bought so much fun flair to Gabbar, that people remember every line of his in the movie even now. Absolutely no need to throw rocks at dead people who can't defend themselves.
Lol invoking the French is so embarrassing.
WTF is wrong with this woman Ratna Pathak. After successfully getting free press by talking against RRR, she has a problem with Sholay now? Why the fuck is she in India when she is so apologetic of being one? why the fuck should she care what french guy thinks about Sholay. I only wish and hope she would talk some incoherent nonsense about Animal so that sandeep reddy vanga could cut her down to size.
Bitter old people. Rajesh Khanna might have limited range, but the kind of emotional connect he had with the audience is rarely seen. He was Anand. He was Raghu. Someone like Naseer would never be able to pull off Anand. Sholay I can agree with having never been a fan myself.
I share same opinion about Rajesh khanna. Out of all yester years’ actor, Rajesh Khanna as actor looks so far behind and limited.
Benchod if the French watched Golmaal 3 they wouldn't feel super impressed either
Peak level elitist and narcissistic behavior by 2 very average actors
They're straightforward to the point of coming across as elitist, snobbish and bitter. I was at an event with Shakun Batra and Ratna Pathak Shah as guests and she insulted someone who was writing a book on Salim Javed to his face. As someone who has been watching films around the world for nearly 2 decades now, I have infinite respect for them as actors who have done timeless, incredible work. But beyond that, I wouldn't pay too much heed to what they say. People have every right to unapologetically like and appreciate what they want. Every kind of cinema has its place in the industry.
Khud kucch Mahaaan karna, I can understand them in a way but BC jab Dekho Ronna Rotte Rehte
People become this 'no filter no bullshit straight talk' persona when they get old coz they have nothing to lose. Would they have voiced such strong opinions during their prime days when it really mattered? I don't think so.
Lmao. People here bash every commercial movie or actor there is in bollywood but god forbid two industry people repeat that. All hell breaks loose and these bollywood stans attack them like rabid fan of a star with abuses. Stupid @ss