‘Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge’ is Overrated. Here’s Why.

‘Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge’, popularly referred to as ‘DDLJ’, is, perhaps, the National romantic movie of India. I mean our grandfathers swore by ‘Mughal-e-Azam’ in their good days and our fathers by, say, ‘Aradhana’ with Rajesh Khanna singing in a Jeep moving along a mountain road. We swear by ‘DDLJ’, a much-needed acronym for a movie from the decade famous for its long movie titles. I have ‘experienced’ the movie twice in my short life. Once as a kid from the 90s and once as an adult, horrified by the way the movie gave Shah Rukh Khan a license to act in films with their own twisted and ridiculous notions about love and romance.

I have to admit that I like the film still and it would be improper to say that the movie is ridiculous or insane. Saying so would be hurting the judgement of the audiences that have shown so much love for the movie over the years. It would be proper, however, to say that its notions are ridiculous and insane. But before exploring its bizarre notions two things need to be said.

First, the movie is overrated. And Shah Rukh Khan is not be blamed, ignorantly, for that. He acted and acted well in a movie that was offered to him at a point in his career when he was happy doing Anti-hero roles in movies like ‘Darr’, ‘Anjaam’ and ‘Baazigar’. I believe that a lot of undeserved praise is heaped on ‘DDLJ’ while films like ‘Dil Se’, from the same artist, have been underrated. And it is the audiences’ perception that needs to blamed, if at all we choose to blame anyone. As far as the artists of the movies are considered they are to be praised at all costs because while they were working on both kinds of movies, they had no idea what the future held for them. It could be a fact that Shah Rukh Khan is as surprised as me at the fact that ‘DDLJ’ has made it so far. It is still running in Maratha Mandir, a cinema hall in Mumbai suburbs, while some of his far better works have been ‘arthouse-esque’ relics, which serve his critics well when they feel like panning ‘DDLJ’.

Second, the movie’s success has a lot to do with the music of the film than its lead pair’s acting skills or the direction and screenplay. I give a huge credit of its success to Jatin-Lalit, Kumar Sanu, Udit Narayan and Lata Mangeshkar. When I watched the movie as a kid, I liked the movie locales and the songs of the movie. Raj (Shah Rukh Khan), wearing a Harley Davidson Jacket, with Simran (Kajol) in his arms in a beautiful mustard field to the tunes of ‘Tujhe Dekha Toh Yeh Jaana Sanam’. I was awestruck with the European locations, the songs and the colorful clothes of the actors, the wedding scenes. I was a kid back then and had no idea about how screenplay works in movies. I did not suffer much because ‘DDLJ’ didn’t have much of both. When I grew up and watched it again, I had mixed feelings. I had a ‘feel good’ feeling after hearing those classic songs as well as the locales and a little bit situational comedy. But at the same time, I could clearly see that why despite the acting as well as writing having notable flaws, ‘DDLJ’ is not only a hit but enjoys massive cult following.

The ‘feel good’ feeling.

I do not understand to this day that what filmmakers like Aditya Chopra mean when they bring India into their movie theme. Are they filmmakers or salesmen? It is okay if Ashutosh Gowariker brings India into a film like ‘Swades’ because he means something, a change in people’s perspective. But ‘DDLJ’ seems to me like a product sold under the garb of patriotism to Indians and, significantly, Non-Residents (NRIs) to just appeal to more crowds than the film could attract otherwise. And the justifications which the film provides for its ‘Indian-ness’ are laughable, at best.

Let me elaborate a little. What exactly are Raj’s father Dharamvir Malhotra (Anupam Kher) and Simran’s father Baldev Singh Chaudhary (Amrish Puri) doing in London? Well, Dharamvir Malhotra is a millionaire businessman (apparently a high-school dropout) and Baldev Singh is a shop-owner. Both of them are making money. But we hear them rambling almost a hundred times about the greatness of India, the greatness of its soil and its rivers. And not just them, almost every other actor, Raj and Simran especially, are blabbering some vague notions about ‘Indian-ness’. I say that why leave India if one loves it so much. It is clear that both of them left it to make more money, an unlikely proposition in India.

Raj and his father drink expensive champagne on his failing to pass the University exams. They playfully dismiss people who study hard and enjoy the wealth they have made in London. But to marry off his son, Malhotra wants an Indian bride. Thames seems a distant second to Ganges for him but he has lived in his mansion in London, a city by the Thames, his entire life. Raj apparently has seen a lot of women, is a drunkard, even cheats on a shopkeeper to buy beer, but does not touch a drunk Simran to prove his ‘Indian-ness’. He could have done better. ‘India-ness’ has a lot more to it than what Raj thinks. Baldev has a family in London but does not take well to the western culture. He wants to preserve his culture by deporting his daughter forcibly to India to marry her off to his friend’s son, whom she has never even met once. He calls it an Indian tradition. It is hypocrisy, by the way, for the lack of a better word.

Despite these twisted perspectives, these people wear ‘Indian-ness’ as a badge on their sleeves. Enjoying their lives in a different country and trying to justify their hypocrisy by labelling every ridiculous thing they do as ‘Indian’. As I said, it is a good way to strike a chord with the NRI audience as well as residents by fondling with their insane notions about ‘Indian-ness’.

Creepy is the new cool, since 1995

We all have blown whistles when Raj lets out his hand to Simran to help her board the train. But what happens next is not something worth whistling. How does one behave with a woman one just met? By flashing her bra in front of her and then practically wriggling into her. Raj almost has his head in Simran’s lap when her friend comes to her rescue. How cool is that? People might call it the way ‘it’ happens but clearly Raj sure proves that he is an ‘Indian’ by doing that. I would expect a better Raj had DDLJ been made with just a little more thought.

Love is blind and ‘stupid’ too

I sometimes wonder what the scriptwriter had in mind when he was writing the movie. Raj nags Simran for marrying a man whom she has barely met. It is completely understandable. It is quite obvious, from the way he nags her, that he is attracted to her. What puzzles me here is that how has he fallen in ‘love’ with a stranger he met a few days before and has spent one or two days with. That is basically the same thing he has been nagging about to Simran. Raj is no better than her father’s choice. Additionally, he is a proven pervert. And the way Simran responds by turning back when Raj expects her to, is equally psychic. How love happens in this movie, is as messed up as its other parts.

On top of that, Raj’s psychic instincts do not just go away like that. When he decides to go back to see Simran and tell her about his love, he finds that she has left for India. It is interesting to see how he finds that Simran loves him back too. He finds a bell hanging outside her house, the one he had given her when they had parted after their holiday. He takes it as a symbol of her love.

Really! I mean she could have left it just outside her house thinking it was useless to take back to India. How intelligent of Raj to fly back all his way to India just because he found a bell outside her house. It is no wonder that the audiences choose to ignore all of it. Because they have the ‘feel-good’ feeling.

The Convenient Ending

The climax of the movie is too much dramatic when Simran’s father lets her go with Raj on the train. But I do not get the hang of it. This is because what they both leave behind is equally messy as their supposed ‘Happily ever after’ lives would be. Let us think about Kuljeet (Parmeet Sethi). A happy man about to be married. Everyone in his family is excited, all his relatives have come to attend his wedding. Enter Raj, his friend whom he has brought home. Only to realize later that the same man betrays him and runs away with his bride. He ends up beaten, dejected and humiliated.

Baldev, a man of Indian values who has come to India to marry his daughter off only to let her run away with a stranger who had earlier lied to him to buy beer from his store in London. Preeti (Mandira Bedi), who, though mistaken, likes Raj and finds herself cheated not because Raj does not like her back but because he was an imposter looking to grind his own axe. The list goes on. Not even a convincing end to the story.

Final Word

The movie lacks realism and is notional in its conceptualization of everything: love and India, for example. The reason for its immense popularity is perhaps its music and its ‘lack of realism.’ An average cine-goer goes into the cinema hall with an expectation to watch something over-the-top and not something realistic. Realism is perhaps sought by the intelligentsia who have the time and resources to debate over movies. The common man, perhaps, wants a relief from his already sad ‘realistic’ life, he doesn’t want the same life depicted on the celluloid screen. He wants some magic. ‘DDLJ’ does that and more. It gives him the ‘feel good’ feeling.

Originally published on thecinemaholic.com on 6th October, 2017.

Podcast: Ramblings, Mostly. Season 1, Episode 2: 19 August, 2020.

A layman's look at the roots and branches of Nepotism in India. Is Indian Film Industry the worst case scenario of Nepotism ? Is it entirely the system's fault ? Maybe.

Listen to it here.

Podcast: Ramblings, Mostly. Season 1, Episode 1: 15 August, 2020. 74th Independence Day of India.

The episode takes a look at how the country has fared through the 74 years that have passed since Independence. Vital to this analysis is the 'Tryst with Destiny' speech given by Jawaharlal Nehru on the eve of India's independence.

Listen to it here.

Midnight in Paris [2011] Review: A Theme Park Ride into Nostalgia and Paris

Can you picture how drop-dead gorgeous this city is in the rain? Every city has its own character, at least in Woody Allen’s films. There are countless times when we hear that a good story must hold itself on its own, it doesn’t really matter where it takes place. That is certainly untrue if the city happens to be Paris. ‘Midnight in Paris’ is Woody Allen’s attempt at dealing with everything that is either Parisian or else something that has come to be associated with himself.

New York has been a city that Allen has portrayed a lot in his work. His best works, Annie Hall and Manhattan have a lot of the city itself in them. The hustle-bustle, loneliness, dysfunctional relationships, and the idea of a city busy with itself creep in effortlessly into these films. Midnight in Paris could well be a French arthouse film. It has a lot of elements associated with the ‘cerebral French filmmaker’. It could find itself being discussed in intellectual circles: men with receding hairlines, dark suits, thick-rimmed acetate glasses, cigarettes, and coffee, debating on its relevance. But what pulls the film out of a select audience and a monotonous commentary is Allen’s narrative and direction.

Midnight in Paris is about a couple vacationing in Paris. Gill Pender (Owen Wilson) is a jaded yet successful Hollywood screenwriter who is trying to write his first novel. His fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) is the daughter of a rich businessman and wants to live a luxurious and materialistic life in Malibu. Gill is a completely different person, though. A romantic at heart, he wants to settle down in Paris and write real literature instead of writing forgettable scripts to earn a fat paycheque in Hollywood. He has also fallen prey to what is referred to as the ‘Golden Age thinking’. The idea that the era that has gone by is far better than the times one lives in. Further down the story, he actually gets to time travel to the age he thinks is the golden age: Paris of the 1920s. He meets literally everyone from that era: Hemingway, the Fitzgeralds, Picasso, Matisse, Dali, and so on. He finds love in Adriana (Marion Cotillard), who is also prey to his thinking. For her, the best era is the Belle Époque.

The movie starts with a 3 ½ minute montage of Paris with Cole Porter’s ‘Let’s Do It’ in the background. It is easy to see that Paris is indeed a place that attracts dreamers and romantics. The cinematography of the movie is especially brilliant. The way the city is portrayed in warmer colors in all its glory makes it highly palatable. The lights that shine on cobwebbed buildings, the orange glow on the Seine, the ambiance of the 20s Paris draw even the driest viewers into the romantic daydream.

The movie explores a variety of themes: romance, existentialism, modernism, nostalgia. But essentially it is about a man trying to come to terms with a conflict he has been carrying on for a while. The conflict is a celebrated debate, though. Whether what has passed is the golden age or the one we live in? And whether an existential and materialistic life is happier than a fulfilled life following one’s true calling?

Gill finds himself conflicted not just in terms of life choices he must make but also in the love of three women. His current fiancé, Inez, a representative of his current existential life, materialistic and morose. Adriana, his passionate dreamy love from the era he longs to visit, Paris of the 20s. And then there is Gabrielle (Léa Seydoux), a fresh respite from the morose existence and the delusional past, who welcomes his idea of staying in Paris and its beauty in the rain.

The movie is not free from the clichés that have come to be associated with Woody Allen as a writer and filmmaker. He has survived for far more than his fair share of making films relevant to the times. The fact that some still manage to move audiences speaks volumes about his vision. Gill is the non-conformist protagonist who doesn’t really fit into the scheme of things as it were. Ernest Hemmingway is the feisty man who equates the absence of fear to making true love to a woman. Salvador Dali is a surrealist who would rather focus on his baritone than the problem at hand. There is humor in the chaos, soft sarcasm in difficult situations. As usual, the end is open for a new beginning, only one believes that it isn’t too late.

Midnight in Paris is a giant merry-go-round in the theme park that happens to be Paris. Everyone can take a ride, though everyone won’t be equally impressed. Allen’s ability to infuse pertinent themes of existence and nostalgia into a narrative around Paris and its history of art is certainly praiseworthy. The present in the film is a bit problematic, yet the glorious past fuses well with the narrative. This is certainly not the best offering from him, his best has long been in the past. But Midnight in Paris is a worthy contender if we consider his recent work.

Originally published on www.highonfilms.com on 11th June, 2020.

Damn you, 2020.

Dear Irrfan,

I am not including the ‘Khan’ in your name, as you had dropped it because you wanted people to know you by work and not your lineage.

Aapne ek interview mei kaha tha ke aapki aankhein gehri isiliye hain kyunki aap raat mei andhera karke mom-batti ko ghoorte the. Sach tha? Pata nahi. Log aksar actors ki movies dekhkar unke fan hote hain. Main actors ke interview dekhkar fan banta hun. Aapke interviews mei hamesha ek ajeeb smile se aap kehte the, samajh nahi aaya kya mazaak tha and kya sach.

Now that you are gone, people will talk about your films and how much you meant to Hindi Cinema. You knew people loved you. I don’t know if you saw this much love, how would you feel. Everything was going fine in your life two years ago. Your recent films were hits. You were doing a show ‘Gormint’ with A.I.B. But then you were diagnosed with a rare cancer and everything changed.

As a person, I can’t tell you how much you meant to me. I haven’t ever met you. Your movies are tremendous. But that is not the real reason. I am not going to talk about your movies, many of them are stellar. I am going to talk about your journey. I remember how you once mentioned that you used to fly kites in your hometown when your terrace didn’t even have a boundary. You fell once and broke your arm. From there, you later went on to star in some of the biggest Hollywood films, let alone hindi films. Apna Tom Hanks, wahi Forrest Gump wala, bola ke Irrfan ke saamne main feeka pad jata hun. And yet, your genuine humility and grace is just unmatched. You are a hero to me. If I make it someday in life, it will be because you were an inspiration to millions like me that we could achieve what we always dreamt about.

Your exit from the world is also as filmy as your performances. There is an audio tape doing rounds on the internet which you recorded to promote your last hindi film, Angrezi Medium. Usme kya dialogue tha ek apka. Ke jab life aapko lemons deti hai asliyat mei, toh lemonade banana thoda mushkil ho jata hai. Aur phir aapka shandaar laughter. Bilkul filmy exit. There will never be anyone like you. I wish more than your films, people look at your life and realize that films are just films, the taste is actually in the person.

R.I.P.

Irrfan (1967-2020)

The craft of Kanan Gill and his new Netflix special, 'Yours Sincerely'

Straight away, Kanan Gill is in my opinion the most interesting comedian in the Indian Stand-up comedy scene. Weirdly enough, the only other comedian which piqued my interest as much was Eddie Murphy who was a rage in the U.S. back in the 1980s. That says a lot about how much my opinion is completely biased, or rather how much comedy I have actually seen. That’s a start.

Indian Stand-up scene has come of age finally. Ten years ago, there was barely anyone doing it. YouTube was just starting. Now, the comedians are everywhere. YouTube is full of fresh content, a dozen or so artists have specials streaming on platforms like Amazon or Netflix. And this is where it gets to me, what should I watch and what I should just skip. The flood of content even in comedy, is exhausting.

Comedy, as I see it, is intelligent observation but with a catch. The observation should be relatable but not too relatable to the audience. A hint of alienation is necessary to sustain interest. And that is why the flood of content exhausts me. Mediocre jokes about the average Indian and his surroundings just bore me. Too obvious. Indian-Americans talking about their unique yet frustrating lives growing up in the U.S. are not relatable at all. A la Shashi Tharoor comedian pandering to foreign audiences by introducing them to the oddities (read cliched criticisms) of India makes me shake my head in despair.

And that is why I look forward to more content by someone like Kanan Gill. His Stand-up is mostly in English which narrows his audience a bit. His content also has a mild cerebral touch to it, he talks about Pavlovian Dogs, Julius Caesar and Pretentious Hindi movies. That again narrows it a little bit more. Gill himself admitted that a comedian’s loyalists might keep on shrinking with time if he sticks to his core, in a podcast with fellow comedian Kenneth Sebastian. Yet, he is the most popular name in India today. His shows in India are instantly sold out and he tours the world as well.

Gill started his comedy career doing a YouTube segment called 'Pretentious Movie Reviews'. He along with Biswa Kalyan Rath, another popular comedian, humorously critiqued some of our much loved Hindi movies. Stand-up comedy was next in the order. What is always interesting is that his humor is razor sharp and his content is quite diverse. Newer jokes which are relatable yet funny.

‘Yours Sincerely’ is his latest show on Netflix. It is themed on a letter he wrote as a 15-year-old to his present self. The show bounces back and forth from his current life to his past as a 15-year-old. And that is where it gets funny but like a slow burn. Everyone quite relates to his past and this where he humorously talks about harsh realities of growing up.

Kanan Gill, Yours Sincerely/ Netflix

The show packs in punches on almost everything, millennial habits, Indian aunties, silent airports and unrealistic expectations about growing up. Gill has a put a lot of himself in the show quite obviously. The bits about ‘If Possible’ when talking about love and ‘You Lose’ being a general judging statement rather than a game line get sad laughs. Sarcastic detours into Julius Caesar, writing letters in school and students being confused about metaphors suggest an ICSE school which hasn’t really changed in all these years. Sanskrit phrases draw people to their own memories of mugging them up.

The show has its hits and misses, mostly hits. It is an affectionate pat on the backs of people nearing their 30s, yet nowhere close to the lives they imagined 15 years ago. The humor is gentle and makes people wonder about the things they have forgotten themselves. There is a line in the show somewhere. “Is there anything lamer than how you used to be? Remember previous versions of your personality?” It is a good line.

Strange Days

The Corona pandemic has turned into something like the Football World Cup. The comparison is really crude, yes. But isn’t everyone behaving like a future pundit just like football pundits during the Cup? It is very privileged yet smug of me to write something from the comforts of the home, while thousands keep dying in my country and the world. The class difference as well the stars’ difference couldn’t be starker than what it is now. I am both privileged and lucky. Unlike millions.

Every Mumbaikar has at least once wished that Mumbai were this peaceful. Careful what you wish for, they said. Image by Indian Express.

Everyone is both worried and predictive about what the pandemic might actually turn into. As of now, it is turning into a giant monster just getting bigger and bigger every day. The toll of deaths is increasing each day supplemented in equal measure by conspiracy theories. China, they say, leaked the virus from a lab in Wuhan. Well, if there is an iota of truth in this rumor, then it is the dawn of a new era. The era of biological war. And since U.S. has been hit the worst, it fits into the scheme of things. China and U.S. were embroiled in an intense trade war for over a year or two, thanks to Mr. Trump’s imprudent protectionist policies.

It sometimes sends me into a thinking spree as to the current fate of the daily wage laborer in a country like India. With the poorest social security, thanks to humongous corruption even in these times, he is doomed. He has to actually see his family die slowly because there is simply no work outside. No medical facilities, no shelter, some are trapped in alien cities left to their own fate. Then there are layoffs in the corporate sector and more will follow. Meanwhile, Police and Administration are working day and night even at the risk of catching the virus. The only silent heroes.

I don’t think that the mere eradication or containment of the virus will serve any purpose. Sure, things will at least start rolling. But it will take a long time to really cope up with the losses the world will see. And this world is globalized. Every part of the body will share the pain. The industry, particularly energy, transport, manufacturing et al will have a real hard time and governments would have to reluctantly pump in money. The borrowings and the subsequent vices might turn Corona into an economic crisis as well. The monster has its body deep in the ocean.

Also, once it is all done, we selfish people will return to every bad habit which got exposed during the episode. I still can’t believe people burnt crackers at the behest of the PM to light diyas instead. SSI-Seriously Stupid Indians, that is what they are. Isn’t it more obvious, that our own misdeeds have led to this catastrophe? Overpopulation, lack of civic sense, pollution, waste dumps? I just dread at the thought that what if India had been as deeply infected as the U.S. Given our serious population and no considerable measures or infrastructure of containment, would we have survived even a month? Yamuna is cleaner after the lockdown than it ever was. And yes, millions were spent to clean Yamuna with poorest results. So, it is true? That the enemies of nature are indeed humans.

What will India do to better face such situations once it is done? I am not quite sure. Everyone will go back to the old ways after celebrating. And then we will go on, waiting for the next catastrophe to strike. We might need a new scapegoat, though. Because China won’t serve us long. Look at how well they did. By the way, the strange resurgence of the Ramayana and Mahabharata on television these days still puzzles me. Is is just a way to calm the nerves with some divine presence? Wait. Don’t tell me. No. Do we hypocrites believe deep down that the Gods might help? I don’t think so. They left this place long ago.