Have you visited this website ? It’s got this quote : « for most people money becomes the end in itself. People want money for the sake of having money. For me it’s a means to an end. I want to work hard and make a lot of money.”
What do you think? Materialistic? Obnoxious? Or welcome frankness?
I somehow used to cringe away from Hrithik Roshan, don’t know why! Could it be that the display of bulging flesh displeases me? Could it be that I’m not enough of a female? I can almost hear the screams of delight at each of his bare-chested appearances (I’m resisting the temptation of categorising HR in the “take off your shirt and sit down” class of actors) and I’m also wondering if there isn’t something the matter with his nostrils…
Okay, so off we go, my favourite activity: examine the foundations of my feelings concerning certain BW phenomena (does this sound VERY pretentious?). I’ve seen three of his films: K3G, Koi mil gaya and Lakshya. I’m told that I shouldn’t waste my time seeing Dhoom2 (read this plea, for example), and apparently HR doesn’t do much to save it! Then there’s Krrish, in which Carla (her blog) tells me (here), she loved the “innocence of its main character (clearly Hrithik); his purity and guilelessness, even if ephemeral”. Naresh Kumar Deoshi from ApunKaChoice.Com writes it’s “a wholesome entertainer that will appeal particularly to teenagers and kids”. Well, maybe. In other films he is said to be good too, Mission Kashmir, or Fiza, if I judge by what A. Gowariker says (here).
When I started wanting to make this review, I had seen only K3G and Koi mil gaya. I thought Hrithik Roshan had done rather well in K3G: it seemed to me he was playing the role with dedication and a certain amount of inspiration. In Koi mil gaya, although I didn’t click with the retarded schoolboy act, there were good moments. So I probably suffered more from the fan-fuelled hysteria than from the star’s performances!
Then I watched Lakshya. And that film changed everything. It’s perhaps boisterously nationalistic, unashamedly pro-military, who knows? I’ll leave that to those more in touch with the political realities. But in Lakshya, Hrithik Roshan delivers a great job. He’s at ease, focussed, almost effortlessly unaware of himself as a star. He’s become Karan Shergill, first in his Delhi aimless youth persona, and then very convincingly so, as the war-zone lieutenant whose “objective” he means to fulfil until the end. No muscle-taunting there, no winning smiles, (the film contains only three music pieces during which he thankfully doesn’t use his playboy charms): HR does indeed charm us, but by sheer professionalism. I especially appreciated the bum he plays during the flashback, for which he let his hair grow, because this endangers his sexy looks, and enables us to appreciate him more as an actor and less as an icon.
One word about Preity Zinta too, in this film. She’s perfect. I mean as an actress, and as a woman. I just stared at her chubby round face, with her fantastic haircut, her determined ways, and even if I’m not sure every aspect of her character is realistic, she pleased me tremendously. Great role-playing by Big A, too, and nice composition from Om Puri, very dependable gentlemen, these.
Well: back to that question of sovereignty! Undoubtedly Hrithik Roshan has talent, he knows what it means to be an actor (I’ve read about his preparatory sessions for the roles he has to perform), and he doesn’t mind divesting himself of his more pleasing self (if there’s one thing to be said about his KMG role, it’s that one): all commendable assets. So why the trouble? After all, this is Bollywood; I know about the (very) physical impact of BW stars on their audiences, and the temptation it represents for directors to use that aspect. With HR, I’m sure there’s 100% benefit (200%?) to be drawn in financial terms from making him use short sleeves and a groomed haircut. And, even if he does oblige a little (I’m told it’s more than that in Dhoom2), one might say that he can also do a good job. Which, if you compare him with his “competitors” (John, Salman,…) does say a lot. Er, let me finish with what Confucius once said: muscles are made to serve people, not people to serve muscles. (You don't believe me?)