Advertise
(4 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...
Where is our George Clooney?
I have to say, of all the people/stars in Hollywood right now I admire George Clooney the most. The kind of work he is doing as an actor/producer/director is unlike anyone else. His gang includes Steven Soderbergh, Brad Pitt among others, are all doing a fantastic job of trading their blockbuster films with serious indie movies which have very relevent issues in today’s world. I think it all started with OCEAN’s 11. For a Ocean’s 11, Soderbergh goes and makes a BUBBLE. Brad Pitt’s production house PLAN B shops at Sundance regularly. George Clooney not only acts in the films he believes in, he infact directed one of the most anti-establishment film Good Night, and Good Luck. He also starred in the only anti Gulf War film financed by a major studio THREE KINGS(The credit for that must go to the madman director David O Russel).
He is one of the more outspoken Hollywood stars when it comes to Politics, his films say enough about his politics. I’m writing this post after watching his amazing new film MICHAEL CLAYTON. Infact it was the conversation before going to the movie that prompted me to write this. I have been commenting about how our stars have no inclination or desire to help indie films for a long time. In Hollywood its always been a tradition. But Robert Redford is one guy who went all out to help Indie films with his Sundance Projects. Now we have a generation of stars who keep helping independent films.
Which Indian star has really tried to make a difference? Aamir Khan is the only guy who comes close to anything. But he produces only his own movies. I don’t think he supports anything that is completely indie. Even the studios work that way. They all use their blockbuster money to fund all these independent cinema. Every Studio has its own Independent Division. We had this discussion among PFC authors few days back. Found out that UTV’s Spotboy Productions is doing that kind of work.
Clooney faced his conscious early in his career when he was touring to promote BATMAN & ROBIN. This is what he said at this years Toronto Fest -
“It was really hard, because I knew it wasn’t a very good film, and it makes you a liar, sort of, but you have to, because it’s your job to promote a film.” Then he found Soderbergh during Out of Sight. They have been the smartest filmmakers in Hollywood so far. Using the system & its money to make the kind of films they believe in. Thats what I would call “Being in the System and making a difference”
He further adds
“You start going, OK, well these are films I would go see. I’m proud of them. I think they’ll last longer than an opening weekend. I get it now. I have to focus on the script first and foremost, then I have to focus on directors. If that means working with Steven Soderbergh as often as possible or Joel and Ethan as often as possible, I’ll do it. If it means directing them myself, I’ll do it. Because at the very least, if I’m going to bomb, it’s going to be my call, and I’m OK with that. If it doesn’t work, then you go, ‘Hey, it was my decision.”
When will we have actors like that? Where is our George Clooney? Who do we have? Stars drowning in their inflated egos! Which star has consistently supported independent cinema? Anil Kapoor recently produced that Gandhi film for his redemption. Shah Rukh has never done anything. The closest they come to it is producing a film they consider offbeat, but starring in it & thereby killing the project even before it takes off. What I would like to see is that all these Khans/Roshans/Deols etc having their own production houses which make or help truly low budget independent films. Because I don’t see the corporates doing anything for art. They are all about money. The 1st thing they did was sign million dollar deals with stars like Hritik & Akshaye. The old style producers have no clue about art. Actor/stars can make a huge contribution in this regard. Films have given so much to them, there has to be a time when they should feel like giving back something too. Am I asking for too much? I don’t know.
There are some examples of our stars having artistic desires.
Saif Ali Khan - Being Cyrus, Omkara, Ek Hasina Thi.
Aamir Khan - Raakh.
Shahrukh Khan - Maya Memsaab
Amitabh Bachchan - Boom
So do you think Bollywood will have people like Clooney & Harvey Kietel some day?
53 Responses to “Where is our George Clooney?”
Leave a Reply
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
- Singh is Kinng… reviews begin….
- 1 year - 1 story - 1 minute
- Films to Watch Out for in 2009
- Announcing PFCOne 2008 : Call for Entries
- AapKe Deewane : Ram and Raheem love Sameera in the debut film of Hritik Roshan
- Announcing PFCOne 2008 : Call for Entries
- Singh is Kinng… reviews begin….
- 1 year - 1 story - 1 minute
- Films to Watch Out for in 2009
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
I guess our so called stars have also burnt their fingers a tad too much now, they know its not working, their populist approach to indie is way too evident. In fact some of the promo events are so superficial and phoney, reflective of their confused state of mind. I don’t want tp launch a diatribe against them, we are equally responsible. When I spend 200 bucks on a Partner or a Hey Baby, and talk highly of the new wave on forums, there is something wrong somewhere.
I guess what Ashwin wrote recently is a way out, to inspire the new talent so that they don’t go the archaic path. Fortunately things ARE looking up, Abhay Deol is a glaring example. It is a never ending discussion but I would say sister production houses are the way, short film competitions throw new talent, grab them young, give them the money, and let them make what they have got. People like Kukunoor should also trudge the waters carefully, people are looking up to them. If they go ‘that’ way, same might happen to all our indie torchbearers. I would still laud an Anil Kapoor or a Jackie Shroff who do take up projects that might not work from the word go. My wife’s murder didn’t work. big deal. I would stand by it anyday. Boom didn’t work, Daud didn’t too. Big deal.
I like your point about how included they are in these projects, they should practise distancing themselves as and when required. I am alos looking at Ajay Devgan, he doesn’t mind burning his fingers much either.
Do these actors have to be male? How about Shabana-ji, Nandita Das and Konkona Sen Sharma making a difference in the film world, now and then?
Evelyn Tu.
I agree. It doesn’t have to be. But Male stars usually have much more power to make a difference. I’m talking about producing Indie films here. Not just acting in them. I met Nandita Das at IFFLA last year. She is planning to direct a film next year. I’m eagerly waiting for it. Konkona is finding the perfect balance I think. Shabana Azmi ofcourse is a legend. In the end(Unfortunately) we like it or not its a very Male-Dominated industry.
Tushar - yeah Ajay Devgan did do some really great films in 2003-2004. Then he went back to Qayamat/cash mode.
*******
Last Film - Station Agent (7/10)
Okay, then, how about Pooja Bhatt’s Dhoka? It didn’t screen here, but it sounded fairly alternative and realistic. She was an actress and is now directing.
Just a quibble, but the male stars did get credit above for having artistic desires just for starring in movies they didn’t produce. :w;
And Pooja’s movie may not count as an independent, since it’s from the Bhatt camp, so much as it is alternative. I guess those two concepts are separate.
Evelyn, I would say when we talk of an alternative, it shouldn’t be just for the sake of it. That ways Mahesh Bhatt can boast himself to be indie taking Imraan Hashmi in every film or Pooja Bhatt with her own brand of ’sensitive’ films that fail to attract all and sundry…
I am still waiting to see the freshness of an Arth or even a Dil Hai ki maanta nahin in all their current assembly line products.
Agree on all counts on Tabu, Nandita Das, Shabana Azmi, and even Deepti Naval. I would love to see a mainstream actress however standing up for financing these films, if not promoting them through and through.
Very true. Only actor I see trying to do different and support indies is Abhay Deol. But I also think that if every AB, SRK, Hrithik starts doing indie, they will bring down the whole new wave. Saif is good and has the potential but lets see what he has to offer.
@E Tu, You should watch Dhoka before putting it into indie bracket. Its less corny and no more.
[...] Kaisa, CBB Contributor wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptHis gang includes Steven Soderbergh, Brad Pitt among others, are all doing a fantastic job of trading their blockbuster films with serious indie movies which have very relevent issues in today
How could you ever forget Kamal Hassan ? I cannot imagine his name being missed out !!!! I guess the author is completely ignorant of Kamal’s genius and brilliance
Eveylyn makes a great point. Maybe our George Clooney is Shabana or Nandita. Clearly they have more balls and interest than the male “stars”. I don’t think they have to produce the films per se - if they form alliances with cool indie directors and make movies they feel will make a difference that is a great start.
Women actors in Bollywood have always been told that they can’t “carry a film”, so maybe they say then screw the system, I’ll go outside.
Maybe the problem is that it is such a “male dominated” industry, Mainak - clearly they males are not trendsetters in this regard though!
abhay’s name should not be even considered here. he’s not a star… yet. he’s a newcomer who is choosing to do the offbeat films. that deserves respect, sure, but to call him a star is far-fetched, IMO.
bottom lines here are budgets and egos. clooney and pitt have no ego issues when it comes to doing the indie stuff bc they know they’ll get the big bucks doing the studio films solidifying themselves as “stars”, and so they’re more than happy proving their “actor” side in the indie films like GN&GL for clooney and babel for pitt. they’re willing to take that paycut. ask SRK to do a film for a few lakhs and he’ll more than likely laugh in your face. same goes for the rest of our hyped up “stars”. people like tabu, shabanaji, nandita have no egos however. that’s why we can see shabanaji doing a film like LOPP. i can also include nana patekar. the man is a star in his own right, having been in the industry for years. om puri is kinda there.
in hollywood, let’s talk CHRISTIAN BALE. i love this guy. he looks and talks like he’s got chewing tobacco in his mouth, but the dude can ACT. he started off in smaller indie films, but when nolan gave him batman begins, he DEVOURED that role like nobody could. and he continues to do the indies. he’s the next clooney, IMO, once he gets more films under his belt.
an important point to bring in here.. this is where the unions actually play a HUGE role. SAG (screen actors guild) supports everyone from stars to featured character actors to extras. i know a couple of people who are more than happy getting a paycheck as extras, and believe me, being under the union, once you get enough extra [i.e. junior artiste] roles under your belt, you can earn upto a $1000 a day.. i kid you not. organizations like SAG, AFTRA etc provide health insurance and all sorts of benefits for their members.. they even have an indie division for indie filmmakers who want to use stars. if the stars really love a script, they sign a SAG-indie agreement which basically means that the production company doesn’t have to pay them their “star” wages. they are totally cool with taking a paycut.
and forgot to add mainak… great post!
To be able to think cinema one has to get out of insecurities and believe in the story they are about to tell. but here the first and foremost thing most of the inhouse people think are monies, and manoeuving the story around it to play safe..we have to get out of our bolllywood safe zones to make real cinema… i loved manorama, sadly the film didn’t do well… but hats off to the conviction of people behind it… i don’t know if another newcomer will be backed with a similar project.. since the industry drives with the herd mentality… so its important tat people in the position of power take a step, and understand the need of the hour.. or all the good filmmakers will get killed in India..
Ladies…
My apologies if my post turned out sexist for you. I had no idea or any intentions of doing so. But my post was about the biggest stars who can bring audiences with just their presence. Nandita, Shabana & Konkona for me are true artists not stars. They like naseer & Om Puri are actors who are in it for acting & not glamour. I was talking about people who achieve major stardom & have enough power to support a film just with their name.
Arun for me no matter how big Kamal Hassan becomes he is always a great actor first & then a star. So if I have left your favourite actor maybe its a good thing. :)
***********
Last FIlm - The Station Agent(7/10)
Mainak,great post and cud not agree more. forget about promoting good films,these so called biggies are not even willing to listen to new directors’script. they want everything big. so a shit like Dhoom gets made and people go ooh-la-la. and ofcourse,u need balls for that! Konkona n Shabana can act in these films but ofcourse they r not in a position to promote in big way, what Mainak meant by his post.
I would go to a movie just because it had Tabu or Konkona. And, I pay $10 a ticket.
But I know what you mean: you want a star who can bring some of the masses into an important or otherwise independent movie. Saif may be your man, then.
Page 3 had none such stars; its writing is what brought people in.
Mainak,
I have to disagree with you on a few things although your overall point is well taken. I like Clooney too.
The whole definition of Indie cinema has changed in the US with all the major studios getting in on the game with their independent arms. The heyday for Indie cinema was early to mid 90s, when Tarantino, rodriguez, David o’Russell, both andersons, Payne, soderbergh, singleton all these guys came out of the woodwork. every one of these guys made their debut film in the 92-95 period, so imagine what a fertile ground it was. the funding for these movies came from outside the hollywood system, made with no stars or stars working on scale (keitel in reservoir dogs) but once these movies were made they were distributed by the studios.
There is an ongoing movement to attempt to distance Hollywood studios from content creation but be involved in what they are good at - just the P&A, marketing and distribution of the finished film. Funding will come from independent sources and writers will have voices/ownership since they will be the ones initating projects. If this will ever happen, I don’t know, but there is a tendency to move towards this.
The current indie scene and Sundance in Hollywood is pathetic (compared to its heyday) with movies like lucky number slevin made at $40 MM and starring bruce willis, josh hartnett, freeman and Gandhi being called independent. Why that movie is independent, i’ll never understand. Also independent has come to mean quirky dysfunctional family dramedies like Little miss, squid and other seafood, running with scissors, igby goes down, all wes anderson movies etc etc.
These dysfunc family dramedies have sadly become a genre unto themselves and none of these movies push the envelope in any way and that’s why the studios continue funding these movies with their indie arms, because there is no risk. When Reservoir, bottle rocket, sex lies videpotape, boogie nights, spank the monkey, citizen ruth, boyz in the hood etc came out, no studio wanted to make them because they were very different from what was out there and they were risky.
GNGLuck is hardly an anti-establishment film. It is exactly the kind of middlebrow Hollywood production that has prestige picture sheen, seems important and does not say anything that will offend anyone while still seeming controversial. I mean it had McCarthy as a bad guy. There are 2 people in the US/Hollywood that are unilaterally and unanimously considered evil. Hitler and McCarthy. This movie was a no-brainer in terms of risk. It was a talkie and had no explosions and was aimed at an adult audience and not a chicks-blowing-shit-up adolescent wet dream.
Three Kings was definitely not an anti-gulf war film. There was no anti first gulf war sentiment in the US or around the world. Back then Americans were the heroes. I lived in the middle east during the first gulf war, and they were cheered wildly. Three Kings had what, American soldiers trying to steal saddam’s gold and then end up rescuing the Iraqis and giving them asylum…hardly anti gulf war or anti US. It was a thoroughly entertaining caper with some insights but calling it an anti-war film is doing movies like platoon, Casualties of war and eastwood’s recent films a disservice.
A better example would have been the Clooney produced/acted and soderbergh directed Solaris. As for Pitt, he has consistently acted in and produced offbeat movies after becoming a star. Speaking of indie or risky films, Seven was a heck of a risk. A bleak movie with a downer ending! When New Line was getting ready for the release of 7 and they had a screening, all the execs were shitting in their pants. They were like we made a $30MM art film. Brad Pitt was on the rise then, he wasn’t the star he became after 7 and fight club and freeman was just coming into his own as the go to guy for voiceover/narration/God.
In terms of recent indie films, i would say that Roth’s Cabin Fever and Hostel were truly independent in terms of funding, content, budget and lack of stars. They were both theatricals and Lions Gate laughed its way to the bank on both pictures.
In India, of all your examples i think the only ones that are valid are Saif in being cyrus, srk in maya does not count since he wasn’t a big star then, kapoor’s gandhi, the godess triumvirate nandita, konkona, shabana’s movies. Although the 3 of them have been in some god awful movies.
In Tamil, you have 2 production houses, Shankr’s and Prakash Raj’s. Shankar is notorious for directing big budget spectacles but is a very shrewd producer and produces low budget indie films with no stars, and debutant directors. Kaadhal, Veyil, Pulikesi etc etc. Can you imagine anyone making a satire with Johnny Lever in the lead in Hindi? Prakash Raj has also been doing the same thing, producing movies with newcomeers and doing character roles in them. I’m not saying they are producing great cinema, but their heart is in the right place and one of these days, they may just create a marvel if they find the right talent.
There used to be a saying in Hollywood that for stars/actors, you do one for them (studio/public) that would be a money spinner and you do one for yourself (push urself as an actor). Kamal Hassan definitely used to do that because he would alternate a mass comedy with a more serious and non-glamorous role. I don’t think he does that anymore and Kamal should seriously stop being a hero and move over to character roles or be the kinda hero he was in Vettaiyadu.
In hindi, i feel like had vivek oberoi risen to the star status he was capable of, he may have produced indie cinema (just speculation from what little i know of him). Saif should do more movies like cyrus although cyrus was quite terrible. I wish they had a better sense for picking scripts because once bitten, twice shy right?
Why don’t amitabh and srk dance at a few weddings and use that money to produce a seriously hatke jhakaas movie under 1 crore starring Irrfan Khan? They can do a cameo if they want.
My other concern with the crop of so called indie movies in india right now, is that they go to the same actors over and over again and a sorta staleness is setting in. vinay pathak and ranvir are in every one of these movies. as is konkona, irfan and increasingly shiney. i like all these actors but it would be nice to cast a little out of type. i haven’t seen JG yet, but the casting is refreshing.
anyways, done now.
SRK has himself stated that his presence adds fat to a film and the perception of the film changes. So, in a way, its good that he is staying away from the indies. Indies wont remain indies, if they get ’stars’ in them .. Glaring Example - ‘Paheli’.
(And that applies to Aamir Khan as well).
Omkara was no way an indie - it was a full-blown star vehicle, so lets not say Saif is ’supporting’ indie films on the basis of that. Saif (and again, Aamir as well) is finding projects that allow him to flex his ‘acting’ muscles. Not necessarily, bring a good story/film onto the screen.
Its a thought .. Maybe SRK might promote indies in a later stage of his life, when his stardom has waned, which like the inevitable armageddon, will happen.
Mainak - I didn’t find your article sexist, don’t worry. You were calling out the realities of the industry as it exists (so, if anything, it’s the industry that is sexist).
That said, it is a really good question as to why no Indian male “star” seems interested in indies. Could it be that even with crores in the bank, they only care about money? Could it be that they love the glamor and $ more than the act of “acting”? Could it be that they really don’t care about the story or the impact the movie makes as long as it is a hit and doesn’t tarnish their image?
Honestly, don’t know. But I agree with you that I hope some of them at least pick a great script and use their star power to make great indie movies…
Turtle
My article was primarily pushing the stars to produce the indie films & not act in it. Supporting a indie project by acting in it would be the second option because then its not indie project anymore(unless its Being Cyrus).
Dabba
Your comment had more words than my post:)
You are the 1st guy who mentioned Bottle Rocket in PFC so far. That made me more excited than your great comment. Have you seen it? I love that film.
The Golden Period of 92-95 that you are talking about is also when Indie died. At the hands of Soderberg & Tarantino. Actually Tarantino killed Indie Films with his Reservoir Dogs. Before that film(also Sex, Lies & Videotape) Indie films were these low budget films which were not expected to make their producers rich. They were made for the stories to be told & just recover the money. These two movies changed everything. Harvey Weinstien started picking up movies from Sundance like a addicted gambler. Everyone was looking for the next Reservoir Dog. Expectations rose so high that it wasn’t about the film anymore. It became business again.
To know about the rise of Indie Films through Sundance & Miramax please read this amazing book -
Down & Dirty Pictures by Peter Biskind
http://tinyurl.com/28nk7l
But I think there are some really good indie films being made. Last year I saw most of the films nominated for the Spirit Awards & some of them were really awesome. They just never become surprise hits. Which sometimes is not a bad thing :)
Dabba -
BRILLAINT analysis!!
You should be writing on this space… would be more interesting to read than this bickering!
“Page 3″ and “Pooja Bhatt”??!! Grow up kids!
Mainak,
Sorry for the long comment on ur post.
Interesting observation. I don’t know if that’s from the book or your own analysis. Either way, makes sense. The parallel is how the death of intelligent mainstream Hollywood cinema and the glorious 70s (there were some really really bad movies made in the 70s too but people seem to overlook that) is attributed to Spielberg and Lucas. They made excellent movies that made so much money that they had to crteate a word to describe that phenomenon and hence the word Blockbuster.
Jaws, Star Wars and finally Raiders. These films sealed the fate of studios and executives and filmmakers. Spectacle targetted at 13 year old boys. I guess Tarantino/Weinstein did the same thing.
I watched Rushmore first in 1999 and then watched Bottle Rocket. It has sort of become a habit. Every time I discover a filmmaker, I watch their first movie and as much of their filmography to see how they have grown and what themes, techniques etc they repeat.
Bugs, thanks.
It would be helpful if someone could define the relationship of “middle cinema” and “parallel cinema” to independent filmmakers. Are there production houses making or distributing middle cinema now, or is it still left to the independents?
Also, I’d like to know why we’re longing for more George Clooneys on both sides of the Pacific Ocean. Wouldn’t we want any kind of movie to take more risks, touch more hearts, and open our minds to something new? Or is it only possible without too much corporate money?
With money comes a responisibility to the investors and a need to maximize returns. That can be done by making a movie for a very broad audience (4 quadrant picture as they call it - hitting all demographics) and then the budget does not really matter (spiderman, LOTR etc), or if you want to make a movie about adivasis and how their culture is being eroded due to deforestation, then make it for a reasonable budget because only the filmmaker, his/her grandma and some rabid pfc folks will watch it.
as for parallel, middle cinema etc, i haven’t a clue and I think they are rather vague terms.
Bottle Rocket! First DVD I ever bought..
A friend who joined us for opening night of Darjeeling Limited at the NYFF has lent me Bottle Rocket. I have the box in front of me now.
Dabba, thanks for the explanation.
Maybe I’m just asking why independent movies are considered so holy but bigger budget movies can’t also strive for a higher plane. After all, they might surprise us (Chak De! — not perfect, but hey, it had some very smart pacing and dialogue).
Having a low budget does not guarantee a coherent or original thought — any more than corporate financing rules it out. However, having unlimited resources does make it harder to be creative in some ways. Sometimes, a dilemma forces you to come up with an original solution, for example.
Also, I didn’t want Mainak to think his post came off as sexist, either. Just remember your saviour may not be a man. It could arrive in the form of Bipasha!
Dabba
You can write as much as you want. You have very interesting perspective on film, which comes from watching a lot of good films. And I can always learn things from you.
The observation is mainly from the book, which I kind of agree with. I highly recommend that book to you. And its weird that you would mention how Spielberg & Lucas changed everything in the late 70s.
There is another book by the same author -
Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock ‘N’ Roll Generation Saved Hollywood
http://tinyurl.com/37q3xa
I agree with your way to looking at 1st film to know the journey that filmmaker has taken. Wes Anderson is still playing with similar hipster sense of humor. I’m guessing he is ready for his bad film now:)
Isnt the love story in BOTTLE ROCKET one of the cutest love stories ever? Ines! I love that sub-plot.
—-
Evelyn have you seen Dhoka? I have not but i’m very intrigued that you included that movie in this discussion. Because I never heard anything good about the film anywhere.
I just saw this really pathetic film called
BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEES from HBO Films. It was really bad.
Do you like Claire Daine’s work? I got her THE INTRUDER(2004) & I CAN”T SLEEP(1994).
*****************
Last Film - Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee(4/10)
Dabba
You can write as much as you want. You have very interesting perspective on film, which comes from watching a lot of good films. And I can always learn things from you.
The observation is mainly from the book, which I kind of agree with. I highly recommend that book to you. And its weird that you would mention how Spielberg & Lucas changed everything in the late 70s.
There is another book by the same author -
Easy Riders, Raging Bulls:
I agree with your way to looking at 1st film to know the journey that filmmaker has taken. Wes Anderson is still playing with similar hipster sense of humor. I’m guessing he is ready for his bad film now:)
Isnt the love story in BOTTLE ROCKET one of the cutest love stories ever? Ines! I love that sub-plot.
—-
Evelyn have you seen Dhoka? I have not but i’m very intrigued that you included that movie in this discussion. Because I never heard anything good about the film anywhere.
I just saw this really pathetic film called
BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEES from HBO Films. It was really bad.
Do you like Claire Daine’s work? I got her THE INTRUDER(2004) & I CAN”T SLEEP(1994).
*****************
Last Film - Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee(4/10)
I think it is silly to say that Konkona Sen and Shabana Azmi are promoting such form of film-making by acting in films like 15 park avenue or loins of punjab because they will hardly find an audience anyways..and to be honest no actress in India commands a position to carry a film on her shoulders let alone promote a brand of film making.
The problem lies with the opportunistic productions houses that we have today…read yash raj where they cash in on any form of success/talent and mould them into crowd pleasers
But you do have people who make fillms because they beleive in such films and not ust for the sake of it..read Vishal Bharadwaj and Vidhu Vinod Chopra..who must be lauded for having the courage to take on so many newcomers like Binod Pradhan (parinda),Shantanu moitra,raju hirani,abhijat joshi,pradeep sarkar,swanand kirkire,natraj subramanian,Vidya Balan just to name a few..no other producer has the balls to make the kind of films he does
talking about where our george clooney is,one can say the closest we have to george clooney is Shah Rukh Khan..for he has the courage to make Asoka and Paheli even though the reasons behind those films might be entirely different..but last heard he was trying to buy land for a studio facility to match hollywood standards..
And to be honest given the cut-throat competition in India where most stars are still trying to pove themselves I dont think anyone has the courage to really back other smaller stars
YEah Abhinav
I think people missed my point. I was only talking about the Blockbuster Stars & their responsibilty towards cinema. I didn’t mention Naseer or Om Puri or Nana Patekar. These guys like the actresses that are being mentioned are real actors/artists not Stars!
mainak u have very valid points, but your message is about bollywood and not indian cinema in general..in malayalam films mammootty and mohanlal the megastars actively supported the arthouse and middlestream filmmakers which has benefited them mutually and ultimately it has enriched cinema as an art…i still cherish those middlestream movies of malayalam of the golden age of 70s and 80s…..if a similar support could be extended by SRK, SK, etc….(AK is already doing his part) then we could see a big difference….but no one is interested in trying to the full potential..
here i would like to mention Ashwin’s post..”all the worlds a stage”…we are very much proud of our industry but in fact we have achieved much little cinematically, compared to our potential…and these stars could influence a lot in raising the levels, be it in subject selection, technical perfection, better narrative styles etc….
Most of the stars be it hollywood or indian stars use indie films to propel themselves as versatile actors “who are not apprehensive about issues which are contentious or whatever”. Supporting an indie film is different story altogether. Thats like becoming a part of social cause. Two different things.
BTW Mainak..i like the signature of your posts
Last Film-XYZ(@/10)
Cheers
@ abhinav: Binod Pradhan was not a newcomer with Parinda. VVC and Pradhan were batchmates @ FTII(correct me if I am wrong) . Infact his first movie was Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron as a cinematographer where VVC himself acted as Dushaashan in the all famous last scene of the movie.
Mainak
Great post there, and u perfectly echo my views. None is gruding SRK or KJo or YRF their success, but we would love to see that ploughed back to support movies which are not necessarily big budget extravaganzas but are excellent.
This was something most of our older movie stars did.
Hrishida’s first movie Musafir was an experimental venture and it flopped. He came back with more conventional main stream ventures like Anari and Asli Naqli, and he put that into movies like Anupama, Anuradha, Satyakam.
Till Bobby, RK films used to come out with a Jaagte Raho or Boot Polish for every Shree 420.
I guess it was the disastrous failure of Mera Naam Joker, that forced Raj Kapoor to go totally commercial.
A much maligned Jeetendra, balanced his masala movies with Parichay, Khushboo and Kinara.
And years before Dharam Paaji was saddled with the “kutte kamine” image, he appeared in movies like Satyakam along side the numerous potboilers he acted in 60’s or 70’s.
At the height of his superstardom while playing the eternal lover boy in Kati Patang and Aradhana, Rajesh Khanna also appeared in movies like Aavishkar, Ittefaq and Safar.
But as of now, we dont seem to have that breed of actors willing to sail on the two boats at least in Bollywood.
Hi Mainak, ok it is a nice sentiment to wish for a George Clooney in India..but as Dabba mentioned what he has done is not really ground breaking filmaking or pushing the envelope in social or political issues but rather playing it safe to fullful his vanity..err maybe i’m being too cynical.
The parallel of George clooney type already exists in India with swadesh, Chak de, Lagaan etc..
Yes, what we need is more independent production houses savvy enough to exploit or create a market for the (at the present time) non existent intelligent ground breaking new wave of INDIAN movies.
It could be not just aping the american independent scene but digging deep into Indian movie traditions and coming up with clever homage or exploitation movies.
But for that the new generation has to get rid of the mai baap culture, shoddy work ethics and plain incompetence in the industry..and awaken the passion for good cinema.
I dont think it has anything to do with stardom or superstardom, it has to do with attitude. Raj Kapoor or Dev Anand or Rajesh Khanna were as big a star as some of the stars today, but yet they did not shy away from a Teesri Kasam or Jaal or Aavishkar.
When Jeetu could shake off his Jumping Jack image to do movies with Gulzar and a Rajendra Kumar could do a songless thriller Kanoon, what prevents some of our present day actors and stars to venture out. Why are they so comfortable in their own cocoons?
We all love to make fun of Mithunda, but remember he has worked in more off beat movies than any 1 of the so called established stars, and when i say off beat, i mean as in genuinely off beat, not some standard masala movie trying to pass off as offbeat.
And down South Kamal does it, he acts in a total masala movie like Apoorva Sahodaragal as well as a Raja Parvai.
mainak i have given the examples of Jeetu and Mithunda, as these are actors whom we love to make fun of, but yet they have gone ahead and taken the risk.
@Travis
Well i think Syriana did push the envelope to an extent. It was a scathing expose of the American manipulations in Mid East.
As of now i think VVC is one of the few MSM makers, who is doing a juggling act as a prodcuer.
ah Syriana..yes a good movie indeed..but still i don’t think he is pushing the envelope here just pandering to the growing opposition to the war and the Bush coterie.
Instead i would have liked him to make a stinging satirical black comedy along the lines of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.
:d
But i loved syriana..by the way who is vvc and what is MSM.
Travis VVC as in Vidhu Vinod Chopra and MSM as in Mainstream Movie Makers.
Ratnakar:
Definitions of MSM on the Web:
* a term created to include MSM who do not identify as gay or bisexual.
gmhc.org/health/glossary3.html
But I like the way you think…By the way, the popular usage of MSM in the web is “Mainstream Media”, NOT Mainstream Movie Makers..
To be more blunt, according to GHMC.ORG, MSM means Men Who have Sex with Men! haha!
In that case KJ too is definitely one of the few MSM
makers, who is doing a juggling act as a prodcuer.
;)
hahahaha!! I am sure that’s a tough act!
Travis
Yeah KJo is a path breaking MSM maker. He alternates between KANK and path breaking off beat stuff like Kaal, where tigers are chased away by a Ghost, and NGC producers drape pythons around their necks :d
Travis: I guess Ratnakar did not get the point! :d
Mainak,
Good article. Proud of you.
ARUNABHO
Travis
Thats asking too much. Expecting Clooney to make something like BORAT. When I saw Clooney I mean that whole gang. How everyone is helping each other. Now I agree with Dabba that he is not doing really amazing work. But they are trying. They are definitely using their stardom for something good. Till few months back there was no one in Hollywood who was making Iraq films. They were the only people making discent films. How even a movie like THE KINGDOM got made.
This whole MSM conversation is getting hilarious!
Sourav you should also sign off like that. I tried to force it in PFC. But I failed.
*********
Last Film - I THINK I LOVE MY WOFE(6/10)
Mainak say-s I think people missed my point. I was only talking about the Blockbuster Stars & their responsibilty towards cinema. I didn
Alone. I get your point.
But I don’t think anyone disagree’s Omkara is Art. What they disagree is that Omkara is not a indie film. Its a medium budget film with some big stars. Presence of stars does not make any film less of an art. It just doesn’t remain a indie film anymore.
I loved SWADES. It is my fav ShahRukh Khan film. But I have to say if you replace ShahRukh with Naseer the film will be quite interesting too. :)
And Dabba & Travis you can argue with me about George Clonney but then you are missing the point.
I agree there are people who are doing much more interesting work of art. But thats missing my point. I just used his example to make a point regarding our own Bollywood Stars. But I think George is much more interested in political & social issues than ART. And for me he is doing the best he can. Thats fine by me.
BTW why is writing about that DAAG movie?
cheers
Mainak,
Maybe you should start a new thread on why they have stopped making the so called art movies.. iam not talking abt hatke movies but art movies..If u ask me I personally feel OMKARA was like BANDIT QUEEN and iam not saying this just coz there is lot of gaali in both these movies.. The feel of the movie is the same and somehow i dont think it stands anywhere close to the art cinema in the 80’s.. infact i dont remember any after salaam bombay .. if anyone does please let me know..Or maybe IS RAAT KI SUBAH NAHI and in recent times MOKSH had a tinge of it..But these movies were still not in league with Salim Langde pe mat ro etc..
Sorry i wud say last was MAQBOOL and this came after a huge gap
See Alone.
For you OMKARA is such a great movie. I liked that film a lot but I liked EK HASEENA THI even more. So it finally comes down to personal tastes.