- Bombay velvet -excessive smoking - 1 Update
- 'If they don't have a roof, let them die' - 1 Update
| 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 IF THEY DON'T HAVE A ROOF, LET THEM DIE By Hiranmay Karlekar Editorial The Pioneer http://www.dailypioneer.com 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: http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/edit/if-they-dont-have-a-roof-let-them-die.html Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi Om Shanti http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj |
| 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. |
