John3b
Junior artiste
Just waiting for the next music item to start.....
Posts: 59
|
Post by John3b on Dec 17, 2013 1:55:12 GMT
Rather than a horror vibe, the poster carries a revenge vibe for me. It reminds me of Kali iconography, which is a goddess associated with female power and who brutally subdues her enemies. Sounds like an appropriate comparison considering the subject of the movie. My fingers are crossed it will be good! That's the way I saw the poster as well, but some of the earlier write ups may have predisposed me to that view. But am looking forward to Madhuri in this, she seems like a good pick for this and was credible in other roles calling for a no nonsense kick ass female.
|
|
|
Post by Ally Kumari on Jan 9, 2014 7:37:08 GMT
TRAILER!!!
EDIT: They took it down but it should be back up at midnight so I will post it again.
|
|
|
Post by Ally Kumari on Jan 9, 2014 18:22:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ally Kumari on Jan 9, 2014 18:33:47 GMT
|
|
odadune
Star of the item number
not around much due to stuff in my personal life.
Posts: 1,494
Favorite actor: Currently a certain Kumar, but I like most of them
Favorite actress: whoever's in films I'm interested in this week
|
Post by odadune on Jan 9, 2014 23:50:10 GMT
Finally got a chance to watch the trailer, and yaaaay! Where has this movie been all my bollywatching life? Dancing, buttkicking wirefu-using heroines in a female-centric movie, alongside bad women who aren't just about being vamps; nice location shooting and rather decent songs...what's not to love? It falls at a time of year when it's kind of difficult for me to justify getting out to the Big Theater Far Away (I grumbled about this regarding another Bollywood film that was scheduled for March at one point), and my usual viewing partners tend to understandably squeamish about movies that are angsty or have violence against women, but dangit, I want to see this now. Only potential causes for concern I can see is that the way the trailer's cut feels like it doesn't give a good sense of how the movie will flow, and the question of whether people will go to the theater to see a female-centric movie with action/masala elements, with that genre beginning to fade out. I think there will be, for a couple of reasons: -there's a shock value in seeing women, especially ones who are seen as kind of sedate and dignified nice, do things like this. There was an entire subgenre of "psycho-biddy" horror movies in 1960s Hollywood about actresses in their forties and fifties-people who had been favorites of the hippies' parents-going off the deep end. Clearly Juhi and Madhuri are not psycho-biddies, and this is hopefully not a horror film, but I think there's a similar frisson or "whoa factor" for young people here, married to the empowerment theme. -the shock of value of so-and-so kicking butt and taking names is precisely what most of the new masalas trade on, Shahid in R...Rajkumar being the most recent example. I think Salman's the only one who's really manage to parlay it into a permanent thing.
|
|
victoria
Dancing in the chorus
Posts: 48
|
Post by victoria on Jan 10, 2014 23:15:01 GMT
1. I'm very excited about this and hope it succeeds at all costs, whether it's good or not, because I think it's an important film for feminist-y reasons. 2. However, I've seen some criticism about it, and I'm just wondering what others think, because I'm not sure what to make of it. The film is very obviously based on the Gulabi Gang, who are mostly made up of low-caste, disenfranchised women. A lot of people seem to have a big problem with the casting of Madhuri and Juhi, who are fair-skinned, upper class, upper caste women. From a practical standpoint, there was no way this movie was going to get made with anyone who doesn't basically fit that description (although maybe people like Nandita Das and Konkona Sen would have been a bit easier to swallow...still, they're not the stars that Madhuri and Juhi are, and that name value gives the film a little extra insurance that it'll kick up interest from the masses). The other complaint is that the Gulabi Gang was not part of the process of this film in any form, and doesn't stand to benefit from it in any way. That, I think, has a little more merit. The people whose voices need to be heard on a wider platform aren't being heard, and even though it'll generally be good for women (especially women in the film industry) if this film succeeds, will it directly affect the people whose story they're taking for profit? Probably not. I wonder if there's any plans to donate any of the proceeds to the real Gulabi Gang or any other activist groups, but I doubt it considering they've flat out denied any affiliation with the Gulabi Gang (which is downright ridiculous, imo, but...).
Just wondering what you guys think. None of the above makes me any less excited about the film, but it does make me question whether this is exploitation and whether they should have gone even farther with this film.
|
|
odadune
Star of the item number
not around much due to stuff in my personal life.
Posts: 1,494
Favorite actor: Currently a certain Kumar, but I like most of them
Favorite actress: whoever's in films I'm interested in this week
|
Post by odadune on Jan 11, 2014 2:00:10 GMT
As far as the casting goes, Juhi's character is a politician (ie, someone likely to be upper class, upper caste etc), so Madhuri's really the only one who doesn't look like what her character is probably meant to be, and it seems like the story was developed with her in mind. If they specifically wanted a major actress of that particular generation, and specifically wanted one who could sell both the leadership role and the action scenes, I don't think they could have found a better alternative to Madhuri-Kajol and Rani would be somewhat more believable as village women, and could summon the righteous anger and force of personality needed, but they don't have Madhuri's martial arts training, and their careers are somewhat dependent on the whims of their menfolk. And even if they went somewhat younger, there's not a ton of better alternatives if the action-y stuff was important to the filmmakers: Nandita, Konkona, Chitrangda, etc. don't strike me as being that athletic. I personally don't have a problem with Madhuri being cast, but I think people can be legitimately concerned about appropriation, etc in this case, especially given the other issue you mention.
I've seen conflicting stories about whether the filmmakers approached the leaders of the Gulabi Gang and got blown off or talks about collaboration started and stalled out, or they just went behind the Gulabi Gang's backs. Personally, I think as of the point they were doing a vaguely commercial/masala-ish film that loosely drew on the Gulabi Gang's story without being a docudrama, they'd have been better off going for a different name, and a different gimmick rather than the pink saris. But I haven't heard about any renewed fuss from the Gulabi Gang leadership since the early stages of production, which to me implies that they came to some kind of agreement under the table.
|
|
|
Post by rose on Jan 11, 2014 8:17:00 GMT
fair-skinned, upper class, upper caste women. Well, that's Bollywood in a nutshell isn't it? Fair, of an upper caste, and rich basically described almost every who is a lead (save for a few born poorer). On every level, when you look, Bollywood has a staggering representation issue. So, of course while that criticism is very, very, valid, it can be be applied to most films. And most of those do not have the counter balancing positive aspects that this one has. That new poster is righteous; the trailer is awesome. I'm def going to enjoy this! I already find the dynamics between Mad's and Juhi characters to analyst worthy. And I barely understood word.
|
|
muska
Tussaud icon
Posts: 4,930
Favorite actor: Shashi Kapoor, SRK, Ranveer Singh, Fawad Khan
Favorite actress: Madhuri, Sridevi, Rekha, Nandita Das, Tabu, Waheeda Rehman, Vidya Balan, Deepika Padukone
|
Post by muska on Jan 11, 2014 21:59:41 GMT
Can I just start off by saying that I am absolutely thrilled that these two lovely ladies are back? I really miss the days when Juhi and Madhuri were the leading heroines in mainstream Bollywood films, and the fact that these two are finally starring in a movie together makes me happy.
With that being said, I do think some of the criticisms about this movie regarding casting and not consulting with the Gulabi Gang are very legitimate. They should probably include a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, that it is just loosely inspired by the actual Gulabi Gang, out of respect. However, I will still watch the film whether it turns out good or bad, simply because of the fact that I adore Juhi and Madhuri.
ETA: I think I should add more to my comment, because upon re-reading my comment and the subsequent comments, mine kind of comes across as insensitive towards the valid criticisms of this movie. I sincerely apologize for that. It came across as if I was treating the problematic issues with this film lightly, rather than focusing more about it, especially regarding the point that the filmmakers neglected to include the actual Gulabi Gang as consultants (which was extremely disrespectful). That issue shouldn't be ignored and it is very important, and since I've learned that the Gulabi Gang won't benefit from this film in any way, it has sort of dampened my expectations for this movie.
|
|
rubicon
Junior artiste
Posts: 97
Upcoming release you're most excited about: Rangoon, Udta Punjab
|
Post by rubicon on Jan 11, 2014 23:18:56 GMT
Well, that's Bollywood in a nutshell isn't it? Fair, of an upper caste, and rich basically described almost every who is a lead (save for a few born poorer). On every level, when you look, Bollywood has a staggering representation issue. So, of course while that criticism is very, very, valid, it can be be applied to most films. And most of those do not have the counter balancing positive aspects that this one has. While I'd like to see better representation in all Hindi films, a film that attempts to highlight the inequalities in society should be held to a higher standard. After all, what good is such a film if it recreates the very marginalization it criticizes? 1. I'm very excited about this and hope it succeeds at all costs, whether it's good or not, because I think it's an important film for feminist-y reasons. 2. However, I've seen some criticism about it, and I'm just wondering what others think, because I'm not sure what to make of it. The film is very obviously based on the Gulabi Gang, who are mostly made up of low-caste, disenfranchised women. A lot of people seem to have a big problem with the casting of Madhuri and Juhi, who are fair-skinned, upper class, upper caste women. From a practical standpoint, there was no way this movie was going to get made with anyone who doesn't basically fit that description (although maybe people like Nandita Das and Konkona Sen would have been a bit easier to swallow...still, they're not the stars that Madhuri and Juhi are, and that name value gives the film a little extra insurance that it'll kick up interest from the masses). The other complaint is that the Gulabi Gang was not part of the process of this film in any form, and doesn't stand to benefit from it in any way. That, I think, has a little more merit. The people whose voices need to be heard on a wider platform aren't being heard, and even though it'll generally be good for women (especially women in the film industry) if this film succeeds, will it directly affect the people whose story they're taking for profit? Probably not. I wonder if there's any plans to donate any of the proceeds to the real Gulabi Gang or any other activist groups, but I doubt it considering they've flat out denied any affiliation with the Gulabi Gang (which is downright ridiculous, imo, but...). I agree with both of the critiques you've mentioned. There is little to no Dalit* representation in Hindi cinema - both in terms of narratives and actors, directors etc. In addition to this lack of representation in the film world, there are still major inequalities that Dalits face in society at large. When a film - that directly deals with Dalit characters and is inspired by a real-life situation concerning them - contains little to no Dalit input or representation... it warrants scrutiny and criticism. It implies that these marginalized people are not even worthy of telling their own stories. In addition, the casting of a fair-skinned, high-profile actress in the lead role implies that stories dealing with Dalits are only palatable if they're spearheaded by upper-caste, upper-class people. Perhaps, the rebuttals to this argument (that this is a film and a well-intentioned one at that) would have more weight if shadeism and casteism did not continue to be such major issues in Indian society. Moreover, many rebuttals to this argument assume that acting and filmmaking is a neutral activity - that Madhuri Dixit is merely playing a character and we should judge her performance on her acting alone. At the risk of sounding abrupt, I think that such a view of cinema does not correspond with reality. In particular, for such a star-crazed nation like India, Madhuri's casting (over a lower-class Dalit woman, for example) will overshadow any social critique the film is attempting. Yet again, the elite and privileged people from the film world will benefit from a film that appears to be about the marginalized in society. No disrespect to anyone who enjoyed the trailer or is looking forward to the film. I just think it's important to acknowledge the shortcomings of this film, particularly because it concerns the issue of caste which is still highly prevalent in Indian society but is rarely spoken of. *In my comments above, I do not mean to imply that Dalits are a monolithic group.
|
|
|
Post by rose on Jan 12, 2014 4:41:16 GMT
While I'd like to see better representation in all Hindi films, a film that attempts to highlight the inequalities in society should be held to a higher standard. After all, what good is such a film if it recreates the very marginalization it criticizes? I agree with both of the critiques you've mentioned. There is little to no Dalit* representation in Hindi cinema - both in terms of narratives and actors, directors etc. In addition to this lack of representation in the film world, there are still major inequalities that Dalits face in society at large. When a film - that directly deals with Dalit characters and is inspired by a real-life situation concerning them - contains little to no Dalit input or representation... it warrants scrutiny and criticism. It implies that these marginalized people are not even worthy of telling their own stories. In addition, the casting of a fair-skinned, high-profile actress in the lead role implies that stories dealing with Dalits are only palatable if they're spearheaded by upper-caste, upper-class people. Perhaps, the rebuttals to this argument (that this is a film and a well-intentioned one at that) would have more weight if shadeism and casteism did not continue to be such major issues in Indian society. Moreover, many rebuttals to this argument assume that acting and filmmaking is a neutral activity - that Madhuri Dixit is merely playing a character and we should judge her performance on her acting alone. At the risk of sounding abrupt, I think that such a view of cinema does not correspond with reality. In particular, for such a star-crazed nation like India, Madhuri's casting (over a lower-class Dalit woman, for example) will overshadow any social critique the film is attempting. Yet again, the elite and privileged people from the film world will benefit from a film that appears to be about the marginalized in society. No disrespect to anyone who enjoyed the trailer or is looking forward to the film. I just think it's important to acknowledge the shortcomings of this film, particularly because it concerns the issue of caste which is still highly prevalent in Indian society but is rarely spoken of. *In my comments above, I do not mean to imply that Dalits are a monolithic group Yes, hypothetically a film like this should be made with higher standards. But we're still dealing with a mainstream industry that is not moral. It's not driven by right or wrong, it's driven by profit. They will not invest in a project unless they think it'll be successful; they have a bias against anyone who isn't a typical Hindi Hero and a bias against any movie that doesn't tell his story. And they hold all the cards. It's all very similar to Hollywood. A bunch of execs who never green light any movies that divert from the White Male POV, and then use lack of box office success to justify not green lighting movies that divert from the White Male POV! I think any film that diverts from that is step in the right direction. Even if it's just a baby step. I'm a just progressive at heart, it's in me to be happy at any sign of it. I didn't mean to imply that people shouldn't criticism it's short comings, they should! I'm happy with progress but I'll always push for more.
|
|
|
Post by dancelover on Jan 12, 2014 19:19:45 GMT
It's not quite so bad as that, Rose. In 2012 Sridevi's English Vinglish and Vidya's Kahaani were big hits. But Kareena's Heroine flopped, and Rani's movie was a disaster. So plan to go see Gulab Gang on March 7! Dancelover [snip - d] A bunch of execs who never green light any movies that divert from the White Male POV, and then use lack of box office success to justify not green lighting movies that divert from the White Male POV! [snip - d] Rose
|
|
rubicon
Junior artiste
Posts: 97
Upcoming release you're most excited about: Rangoon, Udta Punjab
|
Post by rubicon on Jan 12, 2014 20:18:46 GMT
While I'd like to see better representation in all Hindi films, a film that attempts to highlight the inequalities in society should be held to a higher standard. After all, what good is such a film if it recreates the very marginalization it criticizes? I agree with both of the critiques you've mentioned. There is little to no Dalit* representation in Hindi cinema - both in terms of narratives and actors, directors etc. In addition to this lack of representation in the film world, there are still major inequalities that Dalits face in society at large. When a film - that directly deals with Dalit characters and is inspired by a real-life situation concerning them - contains little to no Dalit input or representation... it warrants scrutiny and criticism. It implies that these marginalized people are not even worthy of telling their own stories. In addition, the casting of a fair-skinned, high-profile actress in the lead role implies that stories dealing with Dalits are only palatable if they're spearheaded by upper-caste, upper-class people. Perhaps, the rebuttals to this argument (that this is a film and a well-intentioned one at that) would have more weight if shadeism and casteism did not continue to be such major issues in Indian society. Moreover, many rebuttals to this argument assume that acting and filmmaking is a neutral activity - that Madhuri Dixit is merely playing a character and we should judge her performance on her acting alone. At the risk of sounding abrupt, I think that such a view of cinema does not correspond with reality. In particular, for such a star-crazed nation like India, Madhuri's casting (over a lower-class Dalit woman, for example) will overshadow any social critique the film is attempting. Yet again, the elite and privileged people from the film world will benefit from a film that appears to be about the marginalized in society. No disrespect to anyone who enjoyed the trailer or is looking forward to the film. I just think it's important to acknowledge the shortcomings of this film, particularly because it concerns the issue of caste which is still highly prevalent in Indian society but is rarely spoken of. *In my comments above, I do not mean to imply that Dalits are a monolithic group Yes, hypothetically a film like this should be made with higher standards. But we're still dealing with a mainstream industry that is not moral. It's not driven by right or wrong, it's driven by profit. They will not invest in a project unless they think it'll be successful; they have a bias against anyone who isn't a typical Hindi Hero and a bias against any movie that doesn't tell his story. And they hold all the cards. It's all very similar to Hollywood. A bunch of execs who never green light any movies that divert from the White Male POV, and then use lack of box office success to justify not green lighting movies that divert from the White Male POV! I think any film that diverts from that is step in the right direction. Even if it's just a baby step. I'm a just progressive at heart, it's in me to be happy at any sign of it. I didn't mean to imply that people shouldn't criticism it's short comings, they should! I'm happy with progress but I'll always push for more. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, then, because I don't find anything progressive about a privileged group succeeding at the expense of a marginalized one. I'm usually the first to acknowledge that actresses get the short end of the stick in the Hindi film industry, but it is important to remember that they are still part of an elite and privileged segment of society. Applauding this film because it provides two 40+ actresses with lead roles, and not criticizing it for doing so at the expense of a marginalized group in Indian society, does not sit right with me. I'm all for films that deviate from the upper-class, upper-caste male norm but not when it's done like this. Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this thread now to avoid derailing it further. I'd be happy to continue this conversation via PM if you're so inclined.
|
|
|
Post by rose on Jan 12, 2014 22:49:05 GMT
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, then, because I don't find anything progressive about a privileged group succeeding at the expense of a marginalized one. I'm usually the first to acknowledge that actresses get the short end of the stick in the Hindi film industry, but it is important to remember that they are still part of an elite and privileged segment of society. Applauding this film because it provides two 40+ actresses with lead roles, and not criticizing it for doing so at the expense of a marginalized group in Indian society, does not sit right with me. I'm all for films that deviate from the upper-class, upper-caste male norm but not when it's done like this. Anyway, I'm going to bow out of this thread now to avoid derailing it further. I'd be happy to continue this conversation via PM if you're so inclined. I don't think this talk is derailing the thread at all; it's a real issue with the film and the industry and unless it's talked about it won't change. Because they didn't have to use the Gulabi Gang as inspiration, and they never did reach out to them :/ (I too thought the parties had worked something out long ago, but they haven't) Gulabi Gang chief raises danda against film, says makers yet to take her permissionRead More
|
|
|
Post by Ally Kumari on Jan 14, 2014 21:37:44 GMT
The makers are adamant and keep repeating their film is not about Sampat and her gang. And that she doesn´t own "gulaab" under copyright. I don´t know if that is true and I suppose until I watch the film I won´t know.
|
|