For a long time now I have been wanting to actually speak about Rani Mukherjee: suspicious, no? I had been doing these comments about all these books and films, which have nothing to do with her, and at the back, there had always been that lingering need to bask in that light, the light of her smile. I suppose it’s more than that: it’s really exposing myself in the act of dealing with her, baring my interest in her…

Anyway, here goes: what I Reeeeaaallly like about her is that SMILE (and that Voice)! When I think of her, that’s what come to my mind immediately. It’s silly, because I know it’s false, but isn’t she ALWAYS smiling in her movies? (well anyway, she always has that amazing voice!)

 

Much of what I love in Bollywood is because of her. There are so many sources of enjoyment in Indian cinema that it would be very sad to restrict my pleasure to her, but she’s there, today, in a position of her own, with her class, her charm, and that is the reason why I am writing.

I know that I am partly manipulated, and that I love perhaps more that public, madeup image she gives of herself, than her “true”, non-madeup self. But that’s perhaps only normal, I tell myself. All this is fantasy, anyway!


I’m here in France, involved in my everyday little problems, and she’s in her world, her life, and what brings us together is that glitzy world of cinema, glamour, and advertisements. What I know of her is through this prism, I can’t help it. It’s true for all the cinema stars and many public figures, of course. But I’m made sensitive to it, perhaps, because with her (as with other stars) I feel (and resonate with) another personality that I divine under the mask, behind the prism.

I realise that what I’m saying is nothing very original, and corresponds probably to everybody’s experience of star-adulation: we believe we “know” something more about our favourite stars, something of their private person that we can sense from their public appearances. And of course, we learn about their character, well, at least the one journalists and interviewers bring out…

So I must confess: I don’t know much about Rani the private woman! I know and enjoy that mask of hers she wears to appear in public. And yet! And yet, I used to be the one that said that the actors we see in Bollywood films are more or less the same as their real selves, that there is much less acting in the Western sense. You know, like Dustin Hoffmann, who spends months in advance learning to be the role he’s going to play. In Bollywood, I felt, things are simpler: when you see Sharukh Khan on the screen, it’s a fair assumption that that’s how he is in his office or with Gauri and the boys. But amazingly, this preparation is something Rani has done for Black, according to Sanjay Leela Bhansali (link): “I’ve read all I could about her[Helen Keller] and her life. That has been my inspiration. I realised that in comparison to hers, my hardships and sorrows are negligible. […] Rani (Mukherji) has been living the role for the past six months.”

I have also watched Chalte Chalte again: there is nothing sensational in that good little film. It’s a nice entertainer. (One must quickly skip the narrative frame of the “friends who are telling Raj and Priya‘s story, though) But as soon as she’s there, walking, dancing, fussing with Shahrukh, there’s a freshness, a charm, a femininity…As Debbie (dmul53) says on Imdb (and she prefers SRK!):
Rani Mukerjee, in my opinion one of India's best actresses, is stunning, both in appearance and in her acting. She exudes a warmth, a naturalness and a realness that makes you want to be her best friend, or her lover. With her exotic amber eyes and husky voice she is spellbinding in all her scenes, an intriguing mixture of sexy sophistication and little girl charm rolled into one."



There, that’s exactly how I feel!  I wouldn’t have said that “little girl” thing, though, because I feel she’s totally a woman, totally feminine, and not a child any more. Not that she has lost anything in relinquishing any childishness she might have had, but her warmth and charm is above all lover-like and mother-like. I hope I’m not putting anyone off by suggesting her motherhood. Let’s hope it materializes with Aditya Chopra…(although I hear she’s not marrying) But if you’ve seen her with children, you know it’s evidently part of her.

Well, that’s it for now. I’ve had my little Rani moment. Feeling better!

Er, BTW, I found this picture: wouldn't you say this is what she'll look like in fifteen years? (just kidding!)

One might say the 21 year old glamgirl called Ayesha Takia is rather young to be commented upon at great depth; one would be wrong, because there is a great deal to be said about and around her. Let’s start with the beginning: a few months ago, I wrote this article about Sex and Bollywood. And two of the photos I found to illustrate what I had to say on the subject were (perhaps a hasty choice?) of Ayesha Takia in very suggestive poses (little voice: nothing hasty there! Lots of preparation). No nudity, mind, but we all know that sexiness goes much beyond skin exposure. In fact, true eroticism needs clothes to suggest what an exposed body can’t do, because it doesn’t hide anything anymore. So, anyway, in my mind, the young lady was henceforth categorized as not much more than a bimbo. So when I recently came upon Daddy's girl's blog speaking about her fascination for Ayesha, I exclaimed: “has she got a soul?”… “Of course”, said DG. And so I started on my quest for her soul!!

 
First stop: Socha na tha. In that little movie, that I quite appreciated (I admit: so did I), she’s a serious young woman who tries to live her life the best she can, and knows that she’s doing something she doesn’t completely approve of when she lets herself fall in love with a boy who’s already somebody’s boyfriend. But, like all of us, she half-lies to herself, as we see when she defends herself in front of her parents, and at the same time, she’s truthful: she could stop this pleasant relationship, and she does, in fact, when she sees it’s becoming too complicated. Ayesha Takia plays reasonably well, and the way she deals with her character shows a personality which certainly is not that of a sex bomb (again, have to admit it). This is corroborated by what she says herself:

"I cannot do what Meghna Naidu, Mallika Sherawat or Neha Dhupia did in 'Hawas', 'Murder', and 'Julie' respectively. Neither can I do a 'Girlfriend.' Yes, I can wear short tops and minis, but I would be uncomfortable wearing anything more revealing. And don't forget Bhagyashree and Juhi Chawla never did any bold and brazen stuff in their first ventures to get noticed. 'Taarzan' will get noticed, and then, so will Vatsal and me."(link)

 
Then I saw her in Dor, another very nice film where her character is of course very far from any suggestion that she (or the film-maker, producers, etc) is using her body or looks to attract more spectators. She’s in fact quite remarkable for an actress of her age, very confident, very convincing. She pulls off the difficult task of seeming both a widow, with all it means in terms of suffering and frustration in that region of India, and a girl who realises she does have a right to life and pleasure, that what she feels in spite of the guilt pressed on her, is not wrong at all. Her round face is beautiful only when she smiles, and without any makeup she strikes us as a rather ordinary young woman. What she says here is I believe a reflection on that attitude:

“There’re things that I wouldn’t do, like kiss and wear certain kinds of clothes. And yes that does put me at a disadvantage. But I’m very happy with the work that I’m getting. After Dor, I’m being taken seriously as an actress.”

Her saying no to kissing, is however, causing her to lose out on parts but Ayesha says, “But I don’t mind losing out on roles. At least ten years from now I don’t want to look back and cringe at anything. I’ve a family and a boyfriend. And I don’t want to embarrass anyone.”

What she does in films – from what I was able to judge - is indeed in keeping with those words. But the pictures that we see here and there on the net tell another story (don't they, too!) :

She has obviously accepted to play the game of submitting to the male dominated star-system. A system which needs her for example to add some padding in her bra… And needs to see her in positions and clothing that male fantasies appreciate much more (arched back, uplifted arms, etc.) 

And so that’s my examination: why does she seem to make such a difference between how she shows herself in films and outside them? Does she understand the impact she makes? (little voice: course she does, come on!) Is she blissfully unaware, or carelessly neglectful? One possible answer is that “today’s values have changed”. Witness what this article says about Preeti Jhingiani, in a discussion intended to explain the issue with Ayesha Takia:

And while this mum takes her daughter's job as just that, a job, Govind Jhingiani, Preeti Jhingiani's dad, feels that exposure in films is just a part of an evolving society. "There's a lot of skin show now as compared to the yesteryears. But change is a natural process and competition exists everywhere. Preeti has a flair for acting, so we gave her liberty to enter this field." But considering the fact that Preeti was the first one to enter films in their family, wasn't it difficult for her parents to give her the green signal? "Not having a filmi background puts us at a disadvantage actually. If we had connections in Bollywood, we would have known the industry better. Nevertheless, Preeti took an individual decision, and we decided to guide her," adds Govind. (Ayesha Takia Fan Site)

I believe there’s some truth here. But I’d also say that, at barely 22, Ayesha Takia is still playing, playing with her image, playing with the media. She’s looking at herself in the mirror, and enjoying what she sees, as much as all of us. She probably thinks there’s no harm in playing the bimbo as she does in these photos. Let’s say she’s manipulated by our sex-ridden society, then, where skin and suggestive poses are trivialised. But on the other hand, saying as she does that she doesn’t want to embarrass anyone and not wear certain types of clothes is rather naïve: she doesn’t embarrass a society who is only too pleased to set eyes on her tight outfits and buxom shape! She’s already started “adapting” to her public image, and pandering to the tastes of lusty males isn’t difficult. Perhaps she’s not consciously doing that yet, but in our star-obsessed media-run society, there are so many subtle suggestions and temptations that she can submit to without needing to admit that that’s what she’s doing! We can compare her to other Bollywood actresses like Rani Mukherjee or Kajol: they’ve not submitted to that level of “sexposure”, even if it’s of course a question of degree.

Bollywood is of the XXIst century, there’s no need to deny that, and I have no desire to go back in time. I openly appreciate girls like Ayesha Takia, and don’t see much harm to her attitude. But in her openly modern image, there’s something of our contradictions that linger: we are satisfied with women’s relaxed attitude towards their bodies, in reaction to centuries of male oppression, but on the other hand, we still recognise that there is something degrading in reducing women to their physical appearance, and fantasizing about some predefined shapes which dictate their measurements to young and old. The trouble is with all of us. In fact, we could even say the way Ayesha Takia deals with that contradiction is a rather refreshing one. She accepts to appear in front of the cameras and strike poses that men around the world will gorge upon, but she resists doing anything sexy in films. So much so that somebody has said: “she is the most decent girl in bollywood i know” (Ayesha Takia - Biography)!! 


                                                                                  (yeah! we've finally found her soul!)

Let's start by saying I don’t like Aamir Khan. I don’t like him because he’s bossy, because he’s arrogant, because he’s superior. Somehow I never feel at ease with him. He makes me tense; he obliges me to rise to his level, whereas I prefer actors who descend to my level. I have the feeling that I’m always asked to notice how good he is. Perhaps this is due to his reputation: he’s famous for concentrating on one film at a time, refusing scenarios that don’t have any content, involving himself in his roles totally, and even if this attitude should normally speak in his favour, it still doesn’t work. He’s too elitist, probably, too proud. And the fact that this superiority goes along with what I’d call a personality cult (he’s got all those Aamir Khan blogs you know) is a sort of confirmation that he’s grinding an axe: perhaps that happy go lucky Bollywood that is so lavish and just for the fun of it? One more thing: when I watch him in most of his films – the ones I’ve seen at least – there he is, aggressive, virile, ironical. And you can’t escape him, he’s got the main role. There just isn’t enough self-humour and he takes himself far too seriously. Perhaps it’s a sign of immaturity (I was going to write: immunity!)? But he’s already 43! We rarely see him in a negative light, let alone a self-pitying one. Rather he has his image to uphold, his manly task to do. Then again, perhaps it’s my problem: I don’t fancy too much manhood. That manhood.

  Okay, so now I’ve spat all my venom, let’s see if I can be more constructive… Aamir Khan. As a westerner, I should like this guy. He’s hard-working, dedicated, he tackles serious issues, he’s done good films, he’s not interested in money for the sake of money; he doesn’t do masala and all that cheesy sentimentality, that gaudiness (although when he was younger, he dappled in it aplenty) (that’s probably my secret grudge, I like all this myself so much!!!). One might say he’s grown into a respectable actor and director. Being choosy about what one does in Bollywood is so rare that it has to be noted. He’s modern, reachable, he believes in himself and he takes risks. He’s a versatile, clever little man who has not only acted and directed but also sang as a playback singer and produced his recent films. 

  One thing nevertheless that I am still worried about is, why don’t we see him in movies alongside other male stars? I looked for him in that funny all-stars sequence in Om Shanti Om, but I didn’t see him, nor do I remember seeing him in other Unbelievable Worldwide tours next to the other Khans - Saif Ali, Salman, Shahrukh, you know, all those boisterous, superficial, muscle-flexing machos. Okay, he’s with some of them in Dil Chahta Hai, you nailed me. But in that film where he condescends to be with Akshaye and Saif, he’s that brooding Akash who doesn’t believe in love! I admit he plays quite well, you can’t take that away from him, but precisely, what a symbolical role. Chosen friendship, and then love, but grudgingly. How far this all seems from the colourful, unrestrained, wider-than-life fantasy of so many Bollywood extravaganzas! And yet Aamir can have fun! He can dance and sing, and rave. But he must be at centre stage! I realise that this is in fact quite typical of the hero-oriented Bollywood mainstream. Yet I think Aamir needs this position more than others, whereas he strikes me as capable of shining without asking for it.  Given his comedian’s skills, he could safely grace any film without necessarily lording it all that much. 

Aamir is a perfectionist; we read this all the time. He’s a real professional. He’s interested in the important issues, and probably he sees his career as a mission. His culture, his country can benefit from an intelligent and committed activist like him, or let’s say that anyway, he has things to say to address the problems he feels deeply about, and he’s using the cinema to do that. Fine. Let’s take the example of Rang de Basanti, by Rakesh Mehra. The film has lengthy, cliché bits, but it undoubtedly tackles real problems that plague modern India, and it does so in an original way. That Aamir is part of that significant way of joining an understanding of the past (thanks to acting), to a consciousness of the ills of the present, that’s a sign he’s definitely choosing his films well. His involvement as producer in Lagaan is also interesting. Not only is he (as actor) a powerful mouthpiece for Gowariker who is clearly addressing some of India’s social problems (cf. Swades), but he (as producer) enables the cinema to be reckoned as a political weapon. In Fanaa, by Kunal Kohli, he puts on a very good show too. He’s first that bratty tourist guide who half-heartedly falls for the innocent blind villager girl, and then he’s that hardened nationalist or ideologist who must deal with the moral problems of being also a father and a husband. He’s sometimes betrayed by the film’s contortions, but on the whole, he’s very believable, and his performance is great. 

So I think now I’m bound to say that he’s a good actor, even a very good actor, by Bollywood standards, and not just an actor. He’s an activist, an intellectual and even if he does all this by trusting himself and his image more than I appreciate, I can’t really hold it against him. That’s what they all do, only they don’t all have his talent and his determination.  They have a better sense of companionship, on the other hand. Aamir Khan’s Bollywood is a militant Bollywood. He refuses to let people go back home and bask in the pleasure of complacency. He’s a questioner: what India do you guys want for tomorrow? His recent directing venture, Taare Zameen Par, might well ask this question once again, being as it is centred on children and education.  

I was wondering whether I should « do » something for Ash’s birthday… Well, as you can see, I am, in spite of misgivings coming from … various parts.

Looking for something to say, I have watched some videos again, and… there! I thought that if you didn’t know it, you would be pleased to watch her interview with Simi Garewal. It’s not very recent, but it’s very good.

Okay, my main misgiving came from the fear that I would appear too partial, too silly in my interest for Aishwarya Rai. Well look, watching this interview again more than half reconciled me with myself. Even though she’s self-conscious in front of Simi, even though the interviews are probably very prepared, even though she’s calculating her effects, surprise: she emerges as very pleasantly down to earth, at ease, strikingly moving and funny. She has a feminine intelligence, an honesty, a gentleness, a restraint… which I find simply endearing, yes, even remarkable. You watch, and tell me for yourself (there are 6 parts, sorry!) (1)

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4X83nV1aL4

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU1NtV4UC8Q

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI_pzyj__Uw

4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9De_dCp4O0

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HAx42f-_fA

6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v3Vh_tzWIU

    (1) And it does pay to watch the whole lot!