Showing posts with label Kareena Kapoor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kareena Kapoor. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 29, 2024

Crew: Girls just wanna have fun and break the law – Bollywood finally gets it (Review 801)

 

Release date:

March 29, 2024

Director:

Rajesh A. Krishnan

Cast:

Tabu, Kareena Kapoor Khan, Kriti Sanon, Rajesh Sharma, Saswata Chatterjee, Kulbhushan Kharbanda, Kapil Sharma, Diljit Dosanjh, Trupti Khamkar

Language:

Hindi 

   


Why are women-centric films always about serious issues? Why don’t we get to act in crazy comedies of the kind routinely made for guys? I remember Madhuri Dixit Nene raising these questions in an interview she gave me about 20 years back while I was with The Indian Express. Back then, blue moons would pass between goofy, fun flicks revolving around women, such as Seeta aur Geeta (1972) starring Hema Malini, Khoobsurat (1980) with Rekha, Chaalbaaz (1989) headlined by the great Sridevi, and Dixit’s own Raja (1995). The Hindi film industry’s approach to comedies is still unfair to women, but it has improved in recent years, owing considerably to the producer Rhea Kapoor whose latest screen adventure is Crew, jointly produced by Ektaa Kapoor, directed by Rajesh A. Krishnan, written by Nidhi Mehra and Mehul Suri.     

Starring Tabu, Kareena Kapoor Khan and Kriti Sanon, Crew comes not far behind 2023’s Thank You for Coming! in which Bhumi Pednekar’s character (spoiler alert, hehe) attained sexual nirvana at her own hands after years of trial and error in bed with men. In Crew, Geeta Sethi (Tabu), Jasmine (Kapoor Khan) and Divya Rana (Sanon) have settled for their respective Plan Bs because Plan A has not (or not yet) worked out. They are flight attendants on a sinking ship called Kohinoor Airlines run by the stinking rich and corrupt Vijay Walia. The minimal effort invested in disguising the real-life entities referenced here is just one of the sources of amusement coming at us from all directions in Crew.  

 

Geeta has long wanted to use her PF to start an eatery in Goa with her husband (Kapil Sharma), but Kohinoor is not paying up. Jasmine is waiting for her business idea to find takers. Divya was an academic achiever and ace athlete in school whose actual aim was to be a pilot. As Kohinoor gradually goes under and the friends see their dreams receding further into the distance, they decide to break the law in a bid to improve their bank balances and ultimately, to also get back at the unscrupulous Walia. Their mini scams culminate in one big fat heist.  

  

Crew has no pretensions to being intellectual. The tone is determinedly flip for the most part. To dismiss it as mindless would be wrong though. In a cinematic universe where Dixit Nene’s hope for women is still only being fulfilled in baby steps, Crew’s significance lies in the way it defies the industry’s tradition of equating “women-centric” with “grave” and “weepie”.  

  

Discrimination, harassment and violence are intrinsic to the experience of being female in most cultures, but laughter is one of the tools that helps us survive – and finally, finally, the Hindi film industry seems to be getting it. Crew is part of the emerging trend sparked by this realisation. The bonus here is that, as with other women-led Hindi film comedies so far, the director and writers of Crew too demonstrate that it is possible to elicit laughs without being sexist in the way makers of mass-targeted men-centric comedies usually are.  

 

After years of crass quips about women’s bodies and rape jokes in men-centric comedies, it is a pleasure to see the agency in a film’s humour being handed to its women characters, and to watch these women crack up as they toss double entendre about themselves at each other without trivialising violence or themselves or women at large. When a passenger gets handsy with one of the trio in Crew, his conduct is not humourised. What is humourised is his shock at a woman striking back. And guess what, Dudes Who Write Sexist Comedy? Team Mehra & Suri have written an entire women-centred comedy film without a single wisecrack about the rape of men. 

  

The lesson from Crew for the likes of Indra Kumar (the Masti series) and Sajid Khan (Housefull 2) is this: you can joke about sex without demeaning other genders, without making light of violence, and without lazily aiming at the oppressed and their oppression. 

  

The film is high on energy owing to its unrelenting plot developments and infectious music, in particular the reboot of the blockbuster number Choli ke peeche from Subhash Ghai’s Khalnayak (1993) and Sona kitna sona hai remixed from David Dhawan’s Hero No. 1 (1997). Geeta, Jasmine and Divya are spunky, funny and flawed. Though they have a mountain of troubles on their plates, their ruminative and sorrowful moments are never maudlin.  

 

Crew’s script and craft could have done with some polishing up though. There is, for instance, an awkwardly shot post-interval scene in which the three women hide behind a luggage trolley, and for some seconds, it looks like a decapitated Kapoor Khan’s head is on top of a suitcase. Sanon does not come off much better in that frame. If this was intentional, it would have been a hoot, but it comes across as unwitting. Greater finesse would have made Crew a better film and a different film but as things stand, it is both entertaining and thoughtful, despite its rough edges.  

  

I want to believe that Crew’s and Laapataa Ladies’ simultaneous success at the box office marks an important turning point for the representation of women in mainstream Hindi cinema. For the record, both are very different. Laapataa Ladies is sublime and finessed. Crew is rambunctious (in a good way) but some of the writing also feels hurried. The heist, for instance, is simplistic. What makes it work nevertheless is that the narrative pace and the cast’s conviction leave little time for analysis. Frankly, I have felt no differently about most heist films I have watched. This genre tends to demand a suspension of disbelief. A filmmaker’s challenge is to convince the audience that the film is worth that effort. Krishnan is very much up to the task. 

  

Geeta, Jasmine and Divya get equal treatment and space in Crew’s screenplay. Cinematographer Anuj Rakesh Dhawan has also shot them without celebrating one body over the other, without being sheepish about any one’s girth or complexion, without de-emphasising any one’s age.  

Tabu is now reportedly 52, Kapoor Khan is 43, Sanon is 33. The camera does not make any visible distinction between them. Any concessions made have been made unobtrusively.  

 

Dhawan’s work in Crew, no doubt in keeping with Krishnan’s vision, is a reminder that, as I wrote in The Economic Times in the context of Laapataa Ladies, “‘The male gaze’ is not merely ‘the gaze of a man’. It is the gaze of a man who lacks empathy... Likewise, ‘the female gaze’ is not merely ‘the gaze of a woman’. It is the gaze of a woman who possesses empathy.” Illustrating this premise, the women in Crew are treated as people, not mere bodies. That each in her own way has a fabulous body is a bonus, which too is celebrated unapologetically. 

 

Given the care that has gone into these choices, I do not see why Crew’s soundtrack is dominated by male voices or why the heroines are shown lip syncing to a male singer’s voice in the end.  

 

In an interview she gave me after Veere Di Wedding, Rhea Kapoor had explained why she got Badshah to sing Tareefanfor the central female quartet: “The idea came from this Beyonce-Jay Z video where Beyonce has kind of taken on Jay Z’s mantle and kind of raps for him – there’s something so f*cking empowering about that.” The problem is that a woman singing for a man has been used over time as a comical device in films, so describing the reverse – a man singing for a woman actor – as “empowering” comes from the same subconscious conditioning that has got even progressive women equating the “balls”, not the uterus or vagina, with courage. 

 

This discordant note particularly stands out because Kapoor, Krishnan & Co have got so much else right here. Quite unusually for an overtly commercial film, Crew’s scriptwriters do not view the presence of a male romantic partner as mandatory to complete a woman. The leads don’t measure their self-worth in such terms either. Geeta has a warm relationship with her spouse that is unconventional going by society’s expectations of who ought to be the income provider in a family. Without batting an eyelid, the writers write Jasmine as a single woman, while Divya bumps into an old flame (Diljit Dosanjh).  

 

There is so much that Crew does unobtrusively while doggedly entertaining us, that its politics could easily be underrated. Its attitude to women apart, note how a turbanned Sikh is not only the romantic interest of a glamorous woman, Dhawan’s camerawork and Dosanjh’s vibe in the role purposefully make the man sexy. This is not a lens that usually falls on Sikh men in Hindi cinema who have for decades been positioned variously as boisterous, patriotic, dutiful, loyal, comical, buffoonish, innocent and loveable, but rarely as hotties. Nice touch.  

  

Krishnan’s first film, Lootcase (2020), too dealt with a primary character’s questionable morality and ill-gotten wealth. It was well begun but half done. In Crew, he lives up to the initial promise of a lark right till the end without once treating the audience like idiots or insensitive jerks.  

 

The smart script is elevated by Tabu, Kapoor Khan and Sanon’s crackling chemistry. The casting coup goes well beyond their stardom. The three come across as real-life friends who had a blast while shooting this film. Their enjoyment is contagious and makes for a cracking combination with their natural affinity for comedy, adding yet another feather to Rhea Kapoor’s expanding filmography of resolutely women-centric, resolutely hilarious-not-stupid Hindi cinema.  

      

Rating (out of 5 stars): 3.5   

 

Running time:

120 minutes 

 

Visuals courtesy: IMDB 

 

RELATED LINK: Read my column in The Economic Times on Laapataa Ladies and the female gaze published on February 18, 2024

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/et-commentary/engazing-with-empathy-through-the-female-gaze/articleshow/107783299.cms 

 

Saturday, March 26, 2016

COMMUNITY STEREOTYPING IN BOLLYWOOD / PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU BUSINESSLINE

Wherefore Art Thou, ‘Madrasis’?

The non-caricatured portrayal of Punjabis and Tamil Nadu in Kapoor & Sons is unusual in a Bollywood otherwise ridden by community stereotypes if not exclusions

By Anna MM Vetticad


Imagine a Hindi film revolving around a Punjabi family, with not a Bhangra in sight. Imagine a Hindi film set in Tamil Nadu, with not an “aiyyaiyo” or an oily-haired, clownish ‘Madrasi’ prancing around in the vicinity.

Actually, imagine a Hindi film set in Tamil Nadu where a song and dance is not made about the setting, but it just happens to be what it is because — believe it or not! — Tamil Nadu is in India.

If you have watched Shakun Batra’s Kapoor & Sons (Since 1921), you need not strain your imagination because all these elements — rare though they are in Bollywood — converge on this one canvas. The film has received glowing reviews, audience acclaim and excellent opening collections. Hopefully, its success will be a message to the rest of the film industry, that viewers are open to an unexaggerated depiction of the multi-cultural Indian reality served in an intelligently entertaining package.

There are two issues at hand here: first, the stereotyping of certain communities on screen; second, exclusion.

Though Punjabis have for decades dominated the Mumbai-based Hindi film industry a.k.a. Bollywood, the community has been inexorably caricatured by Hindi cinema, with Sikhs getting the worst of it. A foreign viewer of this fare is likely to assume that all Punjabis are loud, boisterous, unsophisticated, prone to dancing the Bhangra at the drop of a hat and punctuating their speech with the exclamatory “balle balle”.

“What’s wrong with the Bhangra and balle balle?” is the most common response to this criticism. Answer: nothing wrong at all. But a stereotype is a stereotype even if it is not negative, because it ignores the heterogeneity inherent in all communities. When perpetuated long enough, it can also be annoyingly reductive to those at the receiving end, even when accompanied by goodwill.

Unfortunately, most of us do not see this until we are at that receiving end.

A Malayali friend once told me of how he called out, “Oye Sardarji, ki haal hai? Balle balle!” when he passed a Sikh gentleman on a Thiruvananthapuram street. “They are jolly people, you know,” he said with evident warmth. All I could think of though was that he sees Sikhs as “they”, not one among “us”; and how irritating it has been for me, as a Malayali born and brought up in Delhi, to constantly hear stupid questions from seemingly educated people. “Are you a Madrasi?” … “Aishwarya Rai is so fair, how can she be south Indian?” … “You said you are a south Indian so what do you mean by saying you are not a Madrasi?” … And from the slightly well-informed lot who are aware that south India is not a single state, this: “Are you a Malayalam?”

Again, there is nothing wrong with being from ‘Madras’ (except that I am not) or being dark-skinned. Just as there is nothing wrong with being brilliant at mathematics, but is it not silly for a white American to assume that all Indian kids are great at maths? A stereotype is a stereotype, however positive it may be.

Sadly, most of Bollywood remains disinterested in portraying multi-culturalism realistically although it is the Indian reality. Sixteen years into the 21st century, the inclusion of a non-Hindu, non-north Indian or non-Maharashtrian character in a mainstream, commercial film is usually engineered with a pointed purpose.

Muslims? Explanation: secularism or lately, terrorism.

Parsis, Gujaratis? Explanation: comic relief.

Sikhs? Explanation: secularism and/or comic relief.

Four years back, when Shakun Batra named the leading lady of his first film, Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu (EMAET) Riana Braganza, he recalls being asked by several industry folk, “Why does the heroine need to be Goan Catholic?” Reason: his script did not typecast her as a quasi-foreign, skimpily dressed, sexually available cabaret dancer, secretary or gangster’s moll who could barely speak English, which is how most Christian women were once portrayed by Hindi cinema.

Bollywood dropped Christian characters in the 1990s, when it became socially acceptable to dress Hindu heroines in small outfits, get them to dance sexily and make them sexually active before marriage. It is not the Christian stereotype that has disappeared from Hindi cinema (that would have been a cause for celebration); what has disappeared is the community itself. It goes without saying then that EMAET’s atypical Riana seemed pointless to Bollywood in 2012.

Some critics slammed Chennai Express (2013) for caricaturing south Indians. Me? I was relieved to see it. If it was OTT, it was equitably so with all its characters; it did not revive the nauseating ‘Madrasi’ cartoon from an earlier era, exemplified by Mehmood in Padosan (1968); and it did not laugh at anyone, it laughed with. Besides, it got north India to watch a supposedly Hindi film replete with Tamil dialogues — without subtitles!

In any case, clichés can only be born of repeated, repetitive portrayals. With south Indians, the problem now is exclusion. Like Dalits, people of the Northeast and Christians, southerners too have now virtually disappeared from mainstream Bollywood films. It is hard to decide which is worse: absence or a trite presence?

It is only fair to state here that Bollywood is not the only Indian film industry guilty of such crimes. Discussing the misrepresentation of north Indians by south Indian cinema, for instance, would require more space than is available here. Try convincing a ‘Madrasi’ filmmaker of that though.

(This article was first published in The Hindu Businessline on March 26, 2016)

Original link:


Photo captions: Stills/posters from (1) Kapoor & Sons (2) Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu (3) Chennai Express

Photographs courtesy:



(3) Disney UTV


Tuesday, September 22, 2015

KAREENA KAPOOR INTERVIEW / PUBLISHED IN THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS

(This interview by Anna MM Vetticad first appeared in The New Indian Express on September 25, 2011.)
HEADLINE: “I can’t keep doing performance-oriented roles like Jab We Met”

HEADLINE: “Having something substantial in a Salman Khan film – that hasn’t happened to any actress in the last five years!”
Kareena Kapoor’s friends say that her famed lack of diplomacy has been tempered by her relationship with Saif. Fortunately her frankness remains intact, as Consulting Editor Anna M.M. Vetticad found during this interview:
How did you get involved in Bodyguard?
When Salman saw the original film, I think the first thing that he told his sister was, if we’re making this movie I want Kareena to play this character. When I watched the original Malayalam film I loved the girl’s role. Having something substantial in a Salman Khan film – that hasn’t happened to any actress in the last five years!
So it’s important to you that your role should be substantial?
Absolutely. Golmaal 3 had so many male characters but I was very sure that the female lead has to be the focus. After a decade in the industry, the most important thing for me is that I must have an equal role to the male in my movies.
Is it easy to find substantial roles as an actress?
Not when you constantly focus on the fact that you want performance-oriented roles. And I don’t mean to sound stand-offish or cocky but the fact is that you’re offered work on the basis of your talent, because ultimately you have to act, you know.
Have you interpreted your role differently from the way Nayantara did in the Malayalam Bodyguard?
The Malayalam film was made for the south Indian palate. We’ve tweaked it for northern audiences.
What is the difference between the southern and northern palate?
People here like to see action with a bit of the typical Salman comedy. All that has to be incorporated into a Salman film. The treatment of our films is different to what the south does. Though I feel some of the south Indian scripts are fantastic, they’re ahead of their times, especially Malayalam. They’re better than our Bollywood films.
You watch a lot of Malayalam cinema?
I don’t, but I’ve seen a few films of Priyan (Priyadarshan) and Siddique has told me about films he’s written. Their ideas are ahead, they’re forthright. It’s more interesting than what we guys come up with.
How was the response to the Hindi Bodyguard in southern India?
No Indian film has had the kind of collections that Bodyguard has had in south India.
No Indian film or no Hindi film?
I mean no Hindi film has got the collections that Bodyguard has got in certain places in south India.
Have you ever been offered roles in southern films?
Yes. But I have a thing that when I don’t understand the language, I don’t think I’ll be able to perform my character. So I’ve constantly stayed away from languages that I don’t understand.
The position of women in Bollywood was better in the black and white days than it has been since the 1970s. Are we returning to a phase when heroines will have more longevity than in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s?
I think so. It’s also on the basis of talent and how you look. Yes there is a longer innings for women of this generation for sure.
After a long time we’ve had someone like Aishwarya who did not slow down on her career post-marriage. Since the 1990s it’s been assumed that if an actress got married she’d slow down for 5/10 years, then maybe come back. Do you think Aishwarya’s career track has opened doors for younger heroines like you?
I completely come from this school of thought, the Meryl Streep school where your talent will take you places. If you can work for 25 years and still do Bridges of Madison County and The Devil Wears Prada, then why not? I hope our cinema will be like that some day.
Has your attitude towards marriage changed? I remember you once saying in an interview, “I won’t be one of those actresses who gets married and still continues acting” and “what’s the point of getting married if you do that?”
When I am married I want to give more time to family and to the person I love. I think I can manage. I mean I’m the only actress in the last decade who has balanced her professional and personal life. I’ve managed beautifully till now, touchwood. I am absolutely proud of the fact that I clearly do have a life apart from films. I sleep, breathe, eat films when I am on set, but I enjoy a life apart from this. My passion is films, but I am also passionate about love, so I balance both and I want to continue doing so forever.
You think you are the only actress of your generation who has managed to balance her personal and professional life?
Not everybody is open about a relationship. I don’t know of any actress who has ever said, I am going out and I do have a personal life, the way me and Saif are. For some strange reason nobody likes to be as public as we’ve been. For me love is a celebration and I would want everyone to know when I am in love because there is nothing wrong in it.
Salman is on a high right now, but Shah Rukh has not had a release for 19 months and in between he did a TV show that didn’t do well. Any concerns on that front?
These things keep changing from Friday to Friday. Somebody’s film will work on a particular Friday and somebody else’s will not, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that they are superstars.
Why didn’t you accept Heroine when you were first approached for it?
I was busy.
Was it not because you couldn’t agree on the money?
I didn’t reach that stage. I was shooting five movies together, so it was impossible to do the movie at that point.
Did it have anything to do with disagreements over the script?
Not at all.
You were approached again after Aishwarya was dropped from it. She’s Abhishek’s wife and Amitabh Bachchan’s daughter-in-law. Since there’s a very small pool of talent in the industry, do actors need to worry about such things?
I said yes to the movie on the basis of the script. What happened is not my concern. I hope actors sign movies on the basis of their script – that’s what I do. There are movies that I haven’t done that somebody else has done, how does that matter? We’re here to do our work, not to hold hands and sing in the park.
But there’s a difference between Heroine and films that you have not done which others have accepted in the past. The parting of ways with Aishwarya was very public and unpleasant. Are you not worried that your acceptance of this role will affect your relationship with Aishwarya, Abhishek or Amitabh Bachchan?
I don’t see it in that light at all. It’s quite shocking that people would think that. They have their own life, and the Kapoors have the deepest and utmost regard and respect for the Bachchans and vice versa, so this is not something that has crossed my mind for a minute.
Is a film like Jab We Met more creatively satisfying than a Bodyguard?
Yeah, of course but we must balance every kind of film. It just so happened that Shah Rukh, Salman, Aamir, Saif all happened to want me in their movies in one particular year. And I can’t keep doing performance-oriented roles like Jab We Met. I must balance the small films, the big films, do a mix of everything.
Is it infuriating that when films fare brilliantly at the box office, the industry and the country as a whole tend to credit the success primarily to the hero?
India and our industry in particular are male dominated, but with me there’s always been an exception. Bodyguard, for instance, will always be a Salman Khan-Kareena Kapoor film because the girl had such a strong character. It wasn’t just that I was showing up in the songs. I would never want to do that.
(Anna M.M. Vetticad is on Twitter as @annavetticad)


Related link: Kareena Kapoor profile
Photograph courtesy: https://www.facebook.com/BBThisEid

Note: This photograph was not sourced from The New Indian Express