- Posts tagged Karan Johar
- Explore Karan Johar on posterous
Why Bollywood Talk Show Hosts Should Host Less
Recently two celebrity talk shows that once reigned supreme have returned to television in a brand new avatar. Simpering, buttering and at best cajoling their guests into letting go of certain inhibitions to guarantee TRPs.
Lately, Simi Garewal – famous for her Rendezvouz With Simi show, where she played agony aunt to all her celebrity guests – got them to cry on her shoulder, laugh and reminisce all while holding their hands, giving them a chance to open up their lives, loves and unhappiness in front of the entire nation, is back with Simi selects India’s Most Desirable. This time, she uses the show to reestablish her iconic status and that of her guests. She repeats frequently in the show why she considers her guests ‘India’s most desirable.’ I think we would know why a handful of top Bollywood stars are desirable. Do give the audience some credit. She uses the show to suggest how Ranbir Kapoor, whom she is obviously incredibly fond of, possibly even charmed by, is actually really a sweet little Mama’s boy, very acceptably interested in women. What’s amusing is how Ranbir manages to charm her and keep her charmed throughout. And we shouldn't even get to the part where Mama actually comes in with her endearments for Son. Simi’s botoxed and sugar-coated avatar give the audience less of a chance to see the real person, and more of a chance to see the avatar she wishes to – or has promised her guests to – unfold before the audience. Add a reassuring tarot card reader, a live audience that is highly impressionable and possibly enamoured by star power, and you have a celebrity I’m-so-famous-that-it-hurts show.
Karan Johar’s Koffee With Karan was funny, irreverent and iconic in that he managed to make a chat show into a gossip session that allowed his guests a ‘get out of jail free’ card to be as bitchy and frank as they liked when they did their rapid fire round. This time around, KWK is like a badly made cup of weak Koffee – quoted from my earlier post Decaffeinated Koffee With Karan:
“After a long hiatus, Johar is back with season 3 of KWK, and despite being much awaited, it fails to satisfy. It is disappointing, just like his movies: dramatic without meat, one-sided and microcosmic. Where you look for incisive questions, probing analysis and incurable wit, you realize that the show now balances on Johar's relationship with his guests - so he treads on eggshells, pleases them, praises them and it becomes a mutual back-scratching hour. The questions are boring, dull and jaded - do we really care how some actors rate other actors? Do we want to know about only 5 actors - the Khans and Akshay Kumar? With only the bitchiness or sharp wit, straight-faced untruths and simpering (respectively) of Kareena, Saif, Ranbir and Priyanka provide some entertainment or relief, the show falls completely flat for the same reasons his movies fail to excite: they remain relevant to an older time, they assume only 5 people of either sex exist in the industry or Karan's world, the format hasn't got updated with anything but blatant in-show marketing of advertisers and sponsors.”
Note: Deepika comes into Simi’s show advertising blatantly for Neutrogena. She goes to Karan’s show taking Nescafe breaks – another one of her brands. Simi and Karan openly advertise these brands on their show. Maybe the hosts/ channels are afraid they won't make the TRPs or the advertising revenue the normal way, so need to add this extra marketing to the mix?
What is it about these smart, savvy and experienced talk show hosts that they find themselves sinking into mediocre hosting? Pressure from that fact that they are a part of the same industry? Wouldn’t it be far more interesting if an outsider quizzed these people, without having to worry about having to make movies with them in the future? Or to not have to face that odd, cringing feeling when the guests have to choose from a list of tired-and-famous directors, and when the talk show host puts himself on that list. In a spectacular display of self-preoccupation. So the hosts are full of themselves, the guests are full of themselves, the hosts are insisting on the popularity of their guests with audience clips, accolades and praises – and in all of that, the viewer is left feeling…very-taken-for-a-starry-ride-to-nowehere-ish. Oh snap.
The Unromance of Realism
With sexting and instant messaging, relationships have become just that – instant and ephemeral. Books and films have emulated these real-life changes with often not-so-interesting results. Has the romance in art – and relationships – died?
What defines society today is words and connections. What separates this generation from the ones before is the power of the spoken word. We think that technology is what has changed us, made us the people that move faster, think faster and behave fast. While that may be true in some part, what has empowered technology has been content – online jargon for words. Thoughts, bubbles, discussions, emoticons, replies, retorts, criticism, feedback, conversations, investigations, observations, retweets, status updates…the list goes on. This generation has increased communication by communicating less and with fewer words. It faces the task of dealing with information overload while constantly putting out more information. The oxymorons define the mindset of today – a generation that wants everything, wants everything super quick and instantly accessible, and doesn’t really have the time or the patience to sift, read, ponder. That is where texts, BlackBerry messages, tweets and status updates are the de facto means of communication. It is rare for anyone to pick up the phone and have a good old-fashioned chat, in the generation that prefers to stick to a far more impersonal, but rapid form of communication. It has it’s own personal vocabulary: insistent abbreviations – often indecipherable to the uninitiated – and instant communication. You find people with heads bent, eyes darting and fingers moving rapidly in practiced synchronisation: rarely able to maintain eye-contact for more than a couple of minutes, rarely can a conversation run it’s natural old-fashioned course without interruption, as we move into an era of distracted and continuous communication and therefore, erratic and easily dismissed short-lived relationships.Popular culture represents the dialogue and relationships of today: faster, more impatient and often meaningless. Younger film-makers have updated their scripts to emulate real life. While underworld films picked up the nuances of the underbelly through actions and dialogue, romance in the arts has been for the longest time linked to a larger-than-life drama. Case in point: the cinema of Karan Johar or Sooraj Barjaytya. Where they update the clothes and the music, the dialogue often remains over-dramatised and pedantic. While some may argue that romance needs the dramatisation, a striking example to contest the argument is that of Saathiya – where the dialogue is rapid, off-the-street and yet, is a powerful story. There is a strong resonation with the viewer, an easy relatibility, which carries the film from run-of-the-mill to sensitive and meaningful. Farhan Akhtar’s Dil Chahta Hai made the trend a popular one, taken up by film-makers like Kunal Kohli (Hum Tum) and Imtiaz Ali (Jab We Met and Love Aaj Kal).It is the language of frankspeak or straightspeak. Where once “You complete me” was the sigh-generating dictum, now, “I need a break” is easily said, without much angst, furor or thought. Quick answers, rapid and sometimes thoughtless decisions and a sense of bubbling impatience mark the dialogues that often don’t lead anywhere special. This is the nature of relationships of today and the conversations emulate them. Easily said, easy to bed and quick to leave – all takes place faster than a thought, and what is left are non-events. How does this make and fill the artistic and aesthetic space of a film? While Kohli-directed Hum Tum talks about a meandering relationship, When-Harry-Met-Sally-style, he pumps the story with events – which hold the weight of the relationship between the protagonists that appears to be going nowhere. In an attempt to emulate real life and their easy-come-easy-go relationships, Kohli’s recent production Break Ke Baad, directed by Danish Aslam, is a slick film that lacks a meaty story, full of 'non-happenings'. Conversations, while witty and fresh, would make a better radio play than a long commercial movie. While this may be a comment on relationships today, the art demands a certain balance between real life and cinematic license – it demands that elements, moments and events become at the very least marginally larger than life, to create entertainment, to be watchable. Ali’s Love Aaj Kal nearly crossed the line to become over-ripe with conversations, in the same quest to describe modern-day relationships. Where LAK teetered dangerously, Jab We Met remained fresh in it’s cinematic experience, particularly through the crispness of dialogue and emotion.Deepika Padukone’s character, Aaliya, in Break Ke Baad is not lovable in the traditional sense – much like Sonam Kapoor’s Aisha, she is unintentionally selfish and possibly doesn’t deserve the good guy. The industry buzz has it that Zoya Akhtar’s debut film Luck By Chance missed it’s calling because the protagonist, Vikram, was not a nice guy. We don’t feel empathy for the characters and don’t wish them to reach a happy ending. And that is dangerous ground for a film to enter in the romance genre. And it is also rather disturbing seeing that these characters have been picked from real life. Is it true, then, that we prefer the traditional romantic notion of characters that may be slightly misguided, but are nice? Even if that is not real life? So as dialogues get updated, people shouldn’t?Two recent books speak a local language, but in entirely different ways. Anuja Chauhan’s Battle For Bittora speaks real politik – the language of local and honest-to-good (sense the irony) politics, seen through the eyes of a girl of this generation. There is amusement, cynicism and wonder. While the romance remains honest to chick lit, and the dialogues are basic, matter-of-fact and emulating real life, it is the clever writing and story that lifts this novel from being mundane to a page-turner. Where Chauhan’s effortless writing excites, first-time writer, Rhea Saran’s Girl Plus One is trying too hard, as are her heroines, to become a desi Sex and the City. Saran is not wrong in suggesting, rather obviously, the fact that Indian girls today are openly emulating Manhattan’s popular TV series; however, Saran misses Candace Bushnell’s witticisms that make all the difference between real life and drama. Would a real-life Carrie really talk in continuous innuendoes? No. She simply finds a corelation between her column and her life.However art is updated to make it believable and real, it is obvious that the artistic license must be used to lift the dullness of real life to a heightened sense of real-life drama. In creating a believable sense of inclusion in a person’s daily, often mundane life, while bringing art into our homes, drawing rooms and bedrooms, we need to maintain a certain distance that allows us to appreciate the nuances of every character, story and relationship. These elements need to interesting and memorable, and often, real life is not. That doesn’t mean we need to regress and run around trees dancing amid roses, but it does mean that we need to assess the dramatic intent of the medium: does the film justify being larger-than-life? Does the book deserve to be printed and propped up on the ‘New Arrivals’ bookshelf rather than be a basic online blog? All in all, while pointing out the casual and matter-of-fact manner of everyday relationships, are we missing the romance in the written word and the spoken dialogue? And are we losing the romance in relationships?And that leads me to question - do we want the old-fashioned nature of romance, or does that not matter to us anymore? Does a quick sext or a couriered designer bag charm us more than an old-fashioned hand-written note with a love song? Are we so accustomed to sentimentalising love and romance that we are unable to accept it in it's matter-of-fact form anymore? If the written word stands for the way we think, then are we changing so dramatically that we question and often thwart sentimentality in its old-fashioned sense? Do we love, or do we 'like'? Or are we confused because it is 'too complicated'?Decaffienated Koffee With Karan
After a long hiatus, Johar is back with season 3 of KWK, and despite being much awaited, it fails to satisfy. It is disappointing, just like his movies: dramatic without meat, one-sided and microcosmic. Where you look for incisive questions, probing analysis and incurable wit, you realize that the show now balances on Johar's relationship with his guests - so he treads on eggshells, pleases them, praises them and it becomes a mutual back-scratching hour. The questions are boring, dull and jaded - do we really care how some actors rate other actors? Do we want to know about only 5 actors - the Khans and Akshay Kumar? With only the bitchiness or sharp wit, straight-faced untruths and simpering (respectively) of Kareena, Saif, Ranbir and Priyanka provide some entertainment or relief, the show falls completely flat for the same reasons his movies fail to excite: they remain relevant to an older time, they assume only 5 people of either sex exist in the industry or Karan's world, the format hasn't got updated with anything but blatant in-show marketing of advertisers and sponsors. Tsk, I'd rather watch KBC or Masterchef than my old favourite KWK. Koffee makes me yawn.
Cinema in Transition - Dinosaurs in the Park
I told myself that another review would be pointless, especially after I'd seen the movie so late. After all, I'm not surprised that I am disappointed with the film. Inauthenticity (especially to the syndrome), over-the-top performances, over-dramatization, continuity errors and inconsistency are all a part of this so-called "Bollywood cinema" that we make exceptions for. We make those exceptions because they entertain us, because they star the larger-than-life actors and because they work so marvelously with cinematography, locations and dream-scapes, that we succumb to them. All along understanding that nothing can be 100%, nothing can be perfect. Nothing that is real will translate well on screen and will make us feel good about oursleves, or send us back truly entertained. That's because 'realistic' cinema at a point of time was grimy, gritty and dark. Barjatya, Johar and others of their ilk brought a slice-of-life drama from an ordinary life and made it extraordinary with heightened emotions and colourful scapes. And there was a time when this really worked. I've seen Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, Dilwale Dulhaniya..., Kuch Kuch Hota Hai etc an umpteen number of times. Barjatya slowly realised that his kind of cinema had become a dinosaur - it was too sweet to digest, and in its inherent unreality (there may be very few families actually like the ones he portrayed), in his inherent moralising and ethical trip, he was alienting an audience that once loved him. That's because too much of a good thing can be bad, especially if your pulse remains on what you want to say, and not on what your audience wants to hear. Karan Johar brought a younger sensibility to Barjatya's cinema - a youthful exuberance, the pain of love all candy-flossed into "happy times". And he succeeded - his movies evolving with his own evolving thoughts and sensibilities, and his courage to be bolder with his themes on screen. But while his themes are generally relevant to the time and often have an important message to deliver, his films are still packaged in unreality.
But Johar remained true to what he wanted to say - that one man can be larger than life. And that man, for most part was Shah Rukh Khan. What makes it difficult, is that Shah Rukh, himself, is larger-than-life as a person and an actor. When he begins to play a character that demands that, he cannot - shouldn't - act it out - he's being himself, with some character trait variations. And if he tries to act in these situations, which he often does, he tends to go over-the-top. Both Johar and Khan then fall prey to insulting the intelligence of the audience who have now been trained to understand and accept subtle nuances and acting. Can you identify with Khan? Or do you watch him because after all these years, Shah Rukh remains emminently watchable? Does the character come alive, or does one recall Shah Rukh as Rizwan Khan? The correct role for Shah Rukh is that of underplayed emotions - that in Swades and Chak De: the kind that make you wonder what he's thinking, that make you stretch your mind to understand him; not one that is blatant and obvious. Om Shanti Om was a travesty (albeit a successful one), and unfortunately Shah Rukh associates himself with the kind of cinema that leaves his potential unexplored. Farhan Akhtar changed everything. I would blame him for the fall of unreality and the rise of realistic candyfloss. The moment Dil Chahta Hai hit the screens - a film still considered seminal in many ways - he changed the notion of what people expected from Hindi cinema. He gave them real life, real dialogues, real people, real emotions, real insecurities, actual incidents picked up from real life and then blended with just enough glamour and colour to become believable and likeable all at the same time. He still admits using everyday dialogues, often arguing with lyricist-father Javed Akhtar over using everyday language in his works. Akhtar just realised that it is important to connect with the film, and the youth that he represented would expect this, having been exposed to international (not just hollywood) cinema that creates easily-identifiable characters. Maybe that's why he wanted to recreate Don for today, and maybe that's why that is one of his most melodramatic films to date. In much the same manner, Imtiaz Ali brought a freshness to the characters and dialogues, because he picked them up from real life. Jab We Met was not larger-than-life - it was life-sized. Zoya Akhtar exorcised a ghost with her first film - the desire to spoof this very sort of over-the-top Bollywood and its myriad idiosyncrasies. Dibakar Banerjee, Vishal Bharadwaj, Anurag Kashyap, Abhishek Kapoor, Shimit Amin, Ayan Mukherjee... are all the new breed: they pick up real life and make it real on screen, even if with their own brand of cinematic overtures. Maybe, that's why an older audience still remains faithful to 'Bollywood' cinema, and in the younger audience lies the huge fan-following of this new breed of cinema-makers. After all, if you want to make epics, you do it with epic characters like the way Ashutosh Gowarikar would, or in some ways Sanjay Bhansali would; not making real people epic-sized. Even when Bhansali tried to make real people larger-than-life, it didn't work. The audience must be given some credit - they don't need things hammered into their head, they do generally, get it; and they don't identify with emotions worn on the sleeve at all times. While Johar's themes work, messages are important and cinema continues to have an audience; if he chooses to have critical acclaim rather than the loyal-popular vote and choose not to go the way of Barjatya, he must reinvent his own cinema, tone down his own emotions and learn the art of underplaying with subtlety, rather than overplaying with blatancy.'Following' the Stars: India's Celebrity Twitter Story
Verve Magazine, Social Chronicle, January 2010
In 2009 the most popular word in the English language was Twitter. This online space has seen marriage proposals, scandals and 'status updates' at the altar, but by far the most exciting thing to hit Tweeple-world was the advent of the celebrities. As movie stars, film-makers, opinion-makers and news people took their loves, lives and peeves online, there was an automatic creation of the 'twitterazzi'. The web crawlers - cyber voyeurs - have made famous people their 'friends', innocent people infamous, nobodies into celebrities and the offline media into silent, hapless observers. Sitanshi Talati-Parikh tweet talks, to see what kind of bird brings the top movie stars and opinion-makers out to play
From exclusive scoops and candid camera to TwitterVoyeurism is one of the world's deep failings. We can't help wanting to know what's happening in someone else's life. The desire to live vicariously keeps the tabloids, gossip columns and celebrity buzz alive - people have made a living (or killing) out of it. There was a time when celebrity journalists were at a premium - privy to the most private boudoirs and most exclusive soirées. With the advent of television, the paparazzi took an ugly, invasive turn, with visuals of celebs being sold for top dollar, candid cameras trailing them at every step - crawling into their homes, even into their bathing suits. There have been fistfights and media bashing - for simply not knowing where to draw the line.Then, the Internet changed everything. Vicious MMSes, scandalous sex tapes and politically incorrect tweets aside, celebrities have found a way to access a world of fans (and potential fans) hailing from all nationalities, without having to actually meet them face-to-face. After all, one person's voyeur is another person's fan. The anonymity of the Web appeals to the celebrity that is willing to stay connected to the point of involving strangers in their lives: voicing their opinions, sharing titbits about their day, their frustrations and joys, and responding to (often inane) questions. While Rangita Nandy (creative director of Pritish Nandy Communications) may believe that, "It (Twitter.com) is a new fad and people are over-assessing it," it is an undeniable fact that celebrities are ruling roost over cyber world and we have no choice but to 'follow' them.Mysterious inaccessibility or real charm?
Deepika Padukone may cling onto the good old-fashioned sense of celebrity mystery and power couple Saif Ali Khan and Kareena Kapoor may think that anyone with a life would not be on Twitter, but others are quickly finding that accessibility is more important today than it ever was. Early last year, when I first met actor Imran Khan, he remained easily accessible only to those fans that populated his unofficial fan site. Recently, he decided to dive into the vast anonymity of Twitter. We know when he's awake, if he's shooting or just playing X-box. He admits candidly, "A huge part of my appeal is my accessibility. I'm the universal 'bro' - their college buddy who made it big. It's different from a star." He continues with a deeper thought, "My mom couldn't bear the thought of anyone not liking me. She brought me up in a certain way to ensure that - and I go out of my way to be nice to people to ensure that people will like me. A lot of people feel that mystery increases star appeal - and in a certain sense it does. I try and find a balance."Shaima, Leha and Saan, the 20-something-year-old creators of Imran Khan's unofficial fan site, voice a definitive opinion, "If it's a nice person, it makes him more attractive, because then fans are not just attracted to a picture or a character but to the real person. In this day and age, if any public figure chooses to remain mysterious, it doesn't give out a good vibe." Abhishek Bachchan would easily agree. He believes that "more is better": "I think that age is gone where mystery sells - today if you are a bit of an enigma you are almost forgotten. Your audience wants to know you, your thoughts, your feelings and they want an interactive relationship - more tactile and approachable - with their actors; not just one of watching them on the big screen."Film critic and CNN-IBN entertainment editor Rajeev Masand, who prefers his global film-loving community on Twitter to the "boring incestuousness" of Facebook, seconds the thought: "It is a competitive age - there is a strong need to be quick rather than accurate with the news. It is important for a celeb to stay connected, and to put out information, correct information."The rules of interaction have changed
Priyanka Chopra is the queen bee of social presence: she has the most powerful social outreach programme, born initially out of "curiosity and interest" and later powered by Team Priyanka (spearheaded by Natasha Pal, chief operating officer, Vitcom Consulting). Think an active fan base of over 1,30,000 fans which is growing by the day. She posts pictures of herself while chatting, of the view from her room and scenes from her travels. "These kind of platforms do increase accessibility, but you have to put it into the context of how technology and social media networking have redefined relationships, including that of a personality and his/her audience," she says.“My appeal lies in my accessibility.”
– Imran KhanPrivate people, public lives
Most of these movie stars are not naturally the kind of people who would get attracted to social networking tools. Admits Chopra: "It's actually quite strange! I am a very private person and to be honest I did find it a bit difficult initially to open up." So one wonders, what makes these people take time out of their busy schedule and bare their lives - many times a day - to anonymous people online? Of course, at the most basic level lies a desire to directly reach out to global fans, whom they may not have been able to connect to otherwise. Says Chopra, "I now actually know the names and faces of so many people who have reached out to me on these platforms. Many of them are regularly in touch with their viewpoints, questions and sometimes just lovely words of encouragement."Or in another exchange, Pritish Nandy and daughter Rangita often discuss their personal lives on Twitter - with public tweets running back and forth: about feeding the dog, coming home, catching a flight, etc. Rangita doesn't find it invasive: "We choose how much personal space we want to share online. It is about being yourself, not always having to put opinions out there. We are, after all, a society of Peeping Toms. Twitter is not for an asocial person. If you can barely converse with the person sitting opposite you, then you can't say anything on Twitter. You have to be a milder version of an exhibitionist to be on Twitter."Pritish Nandy clarifies, "I am cautious about what I say on Twitter, more for reasons of security than privacy I guess. After all, when we go on a social networking site we know what to expect. There will be serious intrusions: the odd crackpot who comes at you with a slingshot, hysterical ideologues jumping out of the screen at you. There will be a whole bunch of humourless people taking offence to what you say. But that's all pretty much compensated for by the warmth and friendship of thousands of genuine tweeters having a great time out there."Sonam Kapoor gamely accepts it as a professional hazard: "I understand that in my profession privacy is a rare commodity and I am comfortable with these new mediums of interactivity. If Mr. Bachchan, who is reclusive, can do this, then I guess anyone can!" It actually seems to be a case in point that Amitabh Bachchan was one of the first to generate a buzz with his online presence. Often eliciting doubts about whether he is actually the blogger, die-hard fans continue to believe that the Big B is blogging daily into the wee hours of the night, from whichever part of the world he may be in. He has an avid fan base called the 'extended family' - to whom he directs his thoughts, angst, stress and pleasure.The anonymity of the online space creates a great deal of confusion about whether the online tweeter is the real star or not on Twitter. A flurry of tweets are sent back and forth, with an external party confirming that Abhishek Bachchan, for instance, has been merrily tweeting to the wrong Neil Nitin Mukesh, with the fake Neil Nitin Mukesh getting a kick out of pretending to be the actor. (It's high time the celebs all got a 'verified account' from Twitter.)“If you are a bit of an enigma, you are almost forgotten.”
– Abhishek BachchanGreater online buzz around a movie: an agenda
As we begin to wonder about stars like Abhishek Bachchan and Shahid Kapoor taking time out to get online on Twitter suspiciously around the time of a big movie release (Paa, Chance Pe Dance respectively), Bachchan apparently felt the online tug from his director-friends Tarun Mansukhani and Rohan Sippy. He suggests that, "people do end up promoting a lot of their work over there and that's fine - but that should not be the only reason you are on Twitter. It is nice to share your life with the audience, too!" While Sonam Kapoor insists that there is "no larger plan" to her online presence, we cannot miss the fact that during the good-natured online banter between Imran Khan and (Sonam) Kapoor they are unconsciously recreating the characters of their upcoming film I Hate Luv Storys, which they happen to be shooting for at the time. Inadvertently, a buzz is created surrounding their films - and what the directors and producers hope will lead to more eyeballs on the first weekend. Not surprisingly, a fan recently tweeted to Khan, 'I'm excited to watch IHLS becoz you give us day to day updates...I feel somewhere I am also connected with it.'Rajeev Masand may not be off the mark when he suggests that a larger weekend turnout for the movie Wake Up Sid was because of Karan Johar's (and Konkana Sen Sharma's) tweets. What would have happened had Ranbir Kapoor found the time or the inclination to twitter talk?Khan, on the other hand, thinks it's debatable, pointing out that Twitter can actually damage collections from the first day with the spiralling effect of a bad review.I won't promote myself online, someone else will
Twitter can easily become polluted as a space for blatant promotions and in-your-face marketing. Rangita Nandy battles with using the domain as an area to promote the films she is producing. "The noise on Twitter is revolting people. We need to clear the clutter. Marketing should be done intelligently." Actors like Priyanka Chopra, Imran Khan and Abhishek Bachchan have kept the demarcation pretty clear, with a separate handle for their personal tweets (managed by themselves via their mobiles), and a promotional fan handle for their marketing tweets (managed by their staff or fans).“I understand that in my profession privacy is a rare commodity.”
– Sonam KapoorPodium to direct public opinion
Speaking directly to this young global audience is also a perfect platform to generate public opinion or voice their own on important issues. Like voting, for instance. Chopra tweeted a picture of herself and her brother showing their voting mark, while Khan (who also lends his voice to being environment-friendly) and Sonam Kapoor urged the youth to get out and do so. Newscasters like Rajdeep Sardesai and Barkha Dutt, opinion-makers like Pritish Nandy and political leaders like Shashi Tharoor inform us about their opinions (some more strongly than the others) and thoughts on a daily basis. Gul Panag, considering herself "more of an opinion-maker than a celebrity", believes her credibility and integrity comes from not mincing words - despite who may be 'listening'.Pritish Nandy believes that the dynamic online space is not just about interaction, but about sustained interaction, and prefers to watch to see whether these celeb tweeters will stick. "Film stars can get a huge and instant fan base on Twitter, true. But can they sustain an interesting dialogue Currently I see only Abhishek Bachchan, Priyanka Chopra, Gul Panag, Riteish Deshmukh, Mallika Sherawat and Imran Khan reaching out to their fans through Twitter. Some are succeeding. Some are already getting boring."The good, the bad, and the ugly...
An autograph is so 1950. A mobile photo is dependent on being at the right place at the right time. An online chat is a rarity. But being 'followed' by a star is the new mantra for young fans who throng Twitter-world. Lording it over their friends when they get a response, fans are incessantly demanding and movie stars are responding to their demands. It takes a lot of courage for celebrities - despite the fact that they are gathering brownie points and a huge online fan base - to engage an audience that can be as fickle as they are loyal.Privy to some of the disturbing hate mail that Khan got after simply requesting people to avoid air and noise pollution via firecrackers during Diwali, leads me to see how people misuse the platform to lash out with personal angst and impolite criticism. "The downside of accessibility is that you're also open to abuse and negativity. It takes a lot to not snap and react," says the young actor, who chooses to concentrate on the landslide of positive responses. "I do feel overwhelmed, that's why I go off Twitter for a few days. There are weird people out there; people who feel that you owe them something - 'why aren't you replying to me?' or pleas of 'please follow me!'" Creators of Khan's fan site agree that even on a moderated forum, the space is deeply invasive. "The weirdest one was a guy, spamming our mailbox everyday to pass the message that Khan was in great danger and that only he could save him!"Personally-intrusive negativism aside (Celina Jaitley and Mallika Sherawat have had to fight off online pursuers); through this medium, work criticism (and praise) also finds it way easily to the eyes of actors. But maybe, as Masand suggests, the bitter pill is better digested when coming from a fan rather than a critic "The celebs are happy to respond to the praise and the criticism - they take to criticism from fans better than from critics. After all, you are doing it for them, you have to lump it!"The changing role of media
The big question is where does the media fit in? Chopra believes in its continued importance: "Platforms like this present the opportunity to connect one-on-one with the audience, with a two-way direct dialogue, with no one else in between. Currently and for some time in the future, I believe that both will continue to co-exist. The only difference is that, as with the Internet, information dissemination on these platforms is immediate, creating, in a sense, an alternative source of news and information, as many recent world events prove."Khan finds that there will always be a space for deeper interactions. "There are some people - I am one of those people - who want to know more about people they admire in some way. There are some things I won't find out through Twitter or online chat. Besides, you don't realise how many people are in places that don't have the Internet - they wouldn't know Twitter if it jumped up and bit them. It is arrogant to ignore the fact that newspapers and magazines, particularly in the Hindi language, are immense in scope."Panag has found that talking directly online means not waiting to be interviewed to share an opinion or a thought. Besides, it is an optimum place to make an announcement - replacing a press release - she finds herself quoted straight from Twitter on many occasions.One form doesn't need to be different from the other, though. The definition of media can be all-inclusive, as Abhishek Bachchan points out: "We are all part of the same medium which is media. A film at some level is also a form of media. Yes, I think artistes do have a new conduit to reach their voice, their opinion to the audience but I don't think that means they should do without the media - it is a conscience of a nation and it should forever be there." Pritish Nandy adds another dimension to the thought, "The media is a great intermediary. But intermediation does not always improve or enhance communication. Sometimes, in fact, it distorts it. For me, both media and social networking sites are crucial in today's world. They support each other and correct each other's failures."I can't help but agree. Being fatalistic about the future of media is irrelevant. Factually, we have no choice but to embrace newer forms of interaction - whether we chose to be early adopters, or the grudging lot who will squeal, drag their feet and find themselves lost in a sea of information; go online we must. Maybe for the media, the fear stems from a loss of control, even a missing sense of ownership - at a point of time the intermediary remained of paramount importance, now it becomes a bystander in more transparent proceedings. For the others, it's a whole new world out there - brave and demanding. Sharing your thoughts; and getting to know your 'neighbourhood' celeb can be deeply gratifying: find that voyeur in you, and you may surprise yourself by enjoying it.“I am a very private person and I did find it a bit difficult
initially to open up.”
– Priyanka ChopraDesi Tweeters (Follow the Verve references online...)Abhishek Bachchan Tweets vary from merely prolific (around the time of the movie release) to interesting and erudite, sometimes including the 'mrs' in his personal anecdotes. Twitter: @juniorbachchan Twitter followers: 22,263 Tweets: 1620.Amitabh Bachchan On his blog, he truly connects with his 'extended family' and talks to them, even replies to them on a regular basis. It's only when the media aggravates him that he starts a bit of a rant online. Blog: http://bigb.bigadda.com/Gul Panag Ranking among the top tweeters of India, she was asked to be the official tweeter for Delhi Wills Lifestyle Fashion Week. Her views on everything sometimes get lost in the info about her personal life. Twitter: @gulpanang Twitter followers: 32,439 Tweets: 10,307; Website: www.gulpanag.netImran Khan It's his deadpan replies to some of the quack questions he gets (on Twitter) that are really the icing. To really get who he is, read his weekly column in Hindustan Times. Twitter: @1mrankhan Twitter followers: 30,072 Tweets: 1764; Unofficial fan site www.imran-khan.orgKaran Johar His Koffee-time brilliance is missing. No great insights - rather one begins to feel it's a task he's keeping up, wishing tweeples good morning and good night, with info about missed flights and problems/ stress while shooting. Twitter: @kjohar25 Twitter followers: 46,992 Tweets: 418.Neil Nitin Mukesh Engages with his activities and polite replies to his fans. Twitter: @NeilNMukesh Twitter followers: 3,782 Tweets: 287.Pritish Nandy He has serious views on everything - and right after reading his seven daily papers, there will be a barrage of tweets online. He regularly links his weekly column to his tweets with a 'try this' - so you can't miss it. Twitter: @PritishNandy Twitter followers: 12,459 Tweets: 11,658.Priyanka Chopra Always her vivacious self, with a powerful branding machine behind her and an ever-growing fan base, it is unlikely that she will stop tweeting any time soon. Facebook; Orkut; YouTube; Official website: www.iampriyankachopra.com;
Twitter: @priyankachopra Twitter followers: 102,640 Tweets: 1182.Rajdeep Sardesai Twitter: @sardesairajdeep Twitter followers: 19,323 Tweets: 1086; and Barkha Dutt Twitter @bdutt Twitter followers: 39,580 Tweets: 4165. Are as newsy as you'd expect. It's easier than watching TV.Rajeev Masand He has managed to engage an audience of film-lovers. Watch out for his never-easy quizzes, updates on his interviews and most importantly, film preview reviews. Twitter: @RajeevMasand Twitter followers: 13,729 Tweets: 4699.Rangita Nandy Twitter's her "online diary" and the space is "a world adda for gossip and fun". Twitter: @RangitaNandy Twitter followers: 1767 Tweets: 2059.Shahid Kapoor A new advent on Twitter, sneakily close to his film release (Chance Pe Dance). The news leak of Genelia being his first Twitter mate reeks of the true purpose behind getting online. Twitter: @shahidkapoor Twitter followers: 21,009 Tweets: 486.Shashi Tharoor Claim to fame is the apparently incendiary tweet that sent cows racing. After which we only hear of his comings and goings. Twitter: @ShashiTharoor Twitter followers:525,298 Tweets: 2488.Sonam Kapoor Can be soulful and fun. Never opinionated, more musings. Check out the bravely untouched pictures of her that she uploads - always managing to look ravishing. Facebook; Twitter: @sonamakapoor Twitter followers: 33,916 Tweets: 1014.Sitanshi Talati-Parikh: @sitanshi; Verve Magazine: @vervemagazine
(Listing in alphabetical order. Data current at the time of printing.)Tweets Buzz@Imrankhan (replies)
'the thing to remember is, no one ever starts out thinking "this time, I'm going to make a REALLY bad movie. A real stinker!"'
'I take compliments where I can get them!' (in response to: After all, you don't look like a liar)@juniorbachchan
'We actors are a weird lot. Out of the thousands of well wishers and compliments and good things said to us, it takes just one negative... To ruin it all. Why are we so myopic? Wish we could focus on the positives. Takes a very strong person to block out negativity and focus.'@kjohar25
'i woke up feeling restless today...wondering if only my work defines me...do i really have a personal life?'
'Saturdays and i have a strange relationship!! they always get me down for some reason! so..'@priyankachopra
'one of those nights... decisions???!! why do we even have to take them...'@PritishNandy
'We cant afford to have both dying on us together. The integrity of media n the integrity of our art n culture. Tweeple must be vigilant.'@RajeevMasand (reply)
'Lol..we shd all be allowed our own opinions, don't u think? If u hated it, why shd I be expected to feel the same way. How foolish.'@sonamakapoor
'Feeling very lazy. Very comfy and relaxed. Sometimes being single is fun. Watching TV series and vegging out alone is really rejuvenating.'Dialogue between @kjohar25 and @Imrankhan
kjohar25: 'hey tweeple...at the office...feeling terrible for my best friend and CEO apoorva mehta...he is a huge pile of work everyday to tackle...'
Imrankhan: 'I believe that's called a Freudian slip.'
kjohar25: 'sorry...i meant he HAS a huge pile of work to tackle'
kjohar25: 'ha! ha! trust me it was a genuine language slip!!!'
Imrankhan: 'I've met very few people with better grammar than you. I ain't buying the story!'
Tarun Mansukhani: Picture Perfect
Published: Verve Magazine, Features, October 2008
Photograph by RItam Banerjee
After assisting with six films, and 10 years in the industry, Tarun Mansukhani debuts as a director with Dostana, releasing next month under the Dharma Productions banner. Sitanshi Talati-Parikh finds him full of steely determination, anticipation and solid allegiance to his mentor, Karan Johar
