Should Hrithik Roshan rule?

Publié le 27 Juin 2007

HR-rules.png
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…

 

                           HR.jpg                Hrithik-at-Cannes.JPG

 

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). 


 k3g6-copie-1.jpg









 
  

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! 

lakshya1.jpg
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.

 
lakshya.jpg








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?)

HR1.jpg

Rédigé par yves

Publié dans #Bollywood Talk

Commenter cet article

paro2006l 07/07/2007 00:03

Salut yves,Tu deviens poète ma parole tu nous fais tout un roman, pas mal

Beth 01/07/2007 00:59

I'm back! I've been thinking about that quote, so I went looking to see if there is more. This page http://www.hrithikrules.com/interviews/IndiaToday.htm (the first question) has the interview the quotes comes from, and he comes off as less materialistic and shallow there. It's not a very interseting interview, and I'm not entirely sure it's been transcribed (or maybe translated) to get his full meaning.

yves 01/07/2007 18:36

Thanks Beth, you know I had quoted that line without having read the rest of the interview: the people responsible for that Hrithik website had posted it on their portal, and I'd only seen that line, which had intrighed me. But after having read the whole interview, you're perfectly right: Hrithik come out as a very thoughtful person, and this comforts me in my opinion of him. Anyone playing like he has in Lakshya cannot but be sensitive to the important values of life and people. For example, he says: "Giving money away makes me feel good; so I am actually doing it for selfish reason. But its not bad selfishness; it's going to help someone else. It makes me feel good. You have to be a good person to feel good about it."  This is a problem which I am have often thought about, this ambiguity of being generous. I find it really perceptive that he expresses himself in this way. I think I'll try and make an article on BW stars and money soon. Great exchanging with you.yves

Beth 30/06/2007 21:58

I do like Hrithik - while he's not my favorite actor by a long shot, in the movies I've seen him in (which is not all of his performances), he's solid. He's got a sweet smile and expressive eyes, and there are times when he shines in small comedic or romantic moments. I'm shocked you can talk about him without mentioning his dancing, which I think is phenomenal and seems for millions to be a very big part of his appeal. What do you think of his dancing?I personally find his physique to be over the top, but he doesn't seem as smug about his looks as Salman. And he certainly knows how to use his body - one of an actor's major tools, after all - to its best advantage much of the time. As for your question about Lakshya on my site...I've only seen it once, but I remember thinking that the performances from Hrithik and Preity were very good but that I had some quibbles with the idea of a person developing character through military service. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I just don't like it and the values that military services generally instills are not attractive to me. I love that their romance is reconciled _before_ his fighting, though, because the linking of violence and agression to romance is creepy to me. His character, Karan, is very sweet, and except for the military stuff I think the character is well-written - he's a fairly uncomplicated guy yet not stupid. Just young and gentle and affectionate but trying to figure things out - which is my general impression of lots of early-20-somethings.

yves 01/07/2007 18:09

Thanks Beth for your intereting thoughts.You're right, Hrithik IS a very good dancer. I s'pose I didn't put it in because I'm half embarassed by all that display of body... In men, it really makes me feel uneasy. Perhaps because his dancing goes hand in hand with his way of exposing himself which I don't appreciate. Probabaly different for women?Developing character through the military, well, I've nothing against that, but I see why one might not like the idea. On the other hand, Karan would also have developed his character in another environment, such as the medical field, or as a teacher: these are callings where you can equally commit yourself totally. The character of his colonel (played by AB) plays a great role: himself and his chums are frequently referring to their awe at how well he leads them. I'm not a pro-military, but neither am I an anti-military. The army, the military, even war is something I believe is indispensable, and even justified sometimes. Anyway, nice talking with you.yves

A2line 30/06/2007 16:02

Hi Yves ! thanks for your comments.I don't really like Hrithik Roshan neither. IMO he is a good dancer but really can't act.If I were you I wouldn't waste my time watching Fiza, which is a little boring (I wrote a review here :http://bollyblog-films.blogspot.com/2006/09/fiza-2000-rambo-djihadiste.html ) - but it seems that we like different kinds of movies. Mission Kashmir is a little bit better, but nothing more than a standard action movie.Thanks for that interesting article,Adeline

yves 01/07/2007 18:12

Thanks A2line, I'll go and look at your review all the same.If we like different kinds of movies, I'm sure nevertheless we'll find some that we can share!PS: are you like me, half English, half French? It's nice to be able to cross the barriers like that!