Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Digest for rec.arts.movies.local.indian@googlegroups.com - 2 updates in 2 topics

habshi@anony.net: May 19 06:06PM

Truly a sickening movie. Almost every frame has a character ,
hero , villain , police , everyone smoking and inhaling deeply.
If a movie gets cig sponsorhip then it should say onscreen.
This movie will be seen on tv soon as it has been a flop at the
theaters and millions of gullible young Indians will take up smoking.
Surprised that Ranbir Kapoor , Deepika and Karan Johar would go along
with this nonsense.
Yeh film makers nahin sudrehenga. The Indian govt should ban
smoking in films altogether or only allow one or two depictions with
warnings of the dangers of smoking.
Movie is about a gangster who wants to be a big shot and is
manipulated by the rich men of Bombay in the 50s to shoot their
rivals. Liked the scenes of trams in Bombay , apparently taken out on
the whims of a politician.
alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj): May 19 04:38PM

By Hiranmay Karlekar
The Pioneer
Saturday, May 16, 2015
The insensitive response in the Salman Khan case by the
actor's supporters shows a disturbing trend. The harsh
fact is: Hatred and contempt for the poor are now
integral to the mindsets of many affluent Indians
To many, the explosion of thunder and snuffle over the
Salman Khan case is now old hat, given the ephemeral
lifespan of news items. Yet aspects of it, particularly
the reactions of a significant section of India's
'beautiful people', merit attention. These reminded me of
the incident on the eve of the French Revolution in which
Marie Antoinette, told that the people were clamouring
for bread, asked why did they not eat cakes instead. On
reflection, however, the Queen of France was much kinder.
Her fault was ignorance of the fact that people desperate
for bread could not afford cakes. There was no animus
against bread-seekers.
On the other hand, implicit in what some of the actor's
fans said, and the actual words that at least a couple of
them used, displayed a distinct hatred for the poor. One
of them even asserted stridently that those who slept on
pavements deserved a dog's death! For one thing, no dog
deserves to be run over for sleeping on a pavement. For
another, people sleep on the pavement not out of choice
but for lack of the money needed for sleeping elsewhere.
The author of the obnoxious remark that the pavement-
sleepers deserved to die like dogs was either not aware
of this or justified such an end for them even though he
knew of their plight. The first possibility could only be
right if he generally lived in the midst of clouds and
occasionally visited terra firma to serve Bollywood, a
state of affairs which would not perhaps seem credible to
even the most believing mind. The alternative, that he
knew but still said what he did, indicates either or both
of two things -- his own contempt and hatred for the
poor, and the general worldview of his peer group which
made him believe that people would see nothing wrong in
his assertion.
Continues at:
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.arts.movies.local.indian+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

No comments: