15 maggio 2012

Madhuri Dixit compie 45 anni

La divina Madhuri Dixit compie oggi 45 anni. L'articolo Mad about Mads di Rahul Gangwani, pubblicato da Filmfare, ripercorre la carriera della celebre attrice e ballerina attraverso le sue coreografie migliori:

'A breathtakingly beautiful girl dressed in pretty pink dancing benevolently on the 70 mm screen. The year was 1988 and the film was Tezaab. And the nation was in love. There was enchantment in her smile, charm in her moves and exuberance in her personality. In brief, it was pure magic. We are talking about a phenomenon known as Madhuri Madness. (...) There is no explanation on how a simple Maharashtrian would-be micro-biologist became one of the biggest names of Hindi Cinema. Madhuri Dixit’s journey in the movie business is as enticing as her aura. She is one woman who can attract the fantasy of nine year old as well as a nonagenarian. M.F. Husain’s fascination for Madhuri is a story well known and goes on to prove her alluring magnetism.  
Madhuri Dixit is the epitome of grace. There are many attributes which contributed in the making of the Superstar. But the one factor which still dominates her personality is her dancing flair. Dance is Madhuri’s X factor. Boy she can dance and how! (...) Her moves serve as a perfect confluence of poetry and music. Her dance beautifully amalgamates method with spontaneity and make for a visual epiphany. She is one actor who can be a picture of poise and at the same time steam up the screen with her seduction. Maverick film-maker Sanjay Leela Bhansali once famously said that one can go mad watching her dance. We concur that'.

Sapete qual è l'origine di dhak dhak girl, l'affettuoso soprannome con cui viene identificata la star? Ecco soddisfatta la vostra curiosità: si tratta del brano Dhak Dhak Karne Laga, tratto dalla colonna sonora del film Beta del 1992.

Salman Rushdie: On censorship

L'11 maggio 2012 The New Yorker ha pubblicato On censorship, l'intervento di Salman Rushdie del 6 maggio al PEN World Voices Festival. Ovviamente l'argomento trattato riguarda il celebre scrittore molto da vicino: 

'No writer ever really wants to talk about censorship. Writers want to talk about creation, and censorship is anti-creation, negative energy, uncreation. (...) Censorship is the thing that stops you doing what you want to do, and what writers want to talk about is what they do. (...)
The creative act requires not only freedom but also this assumption of freedom. If the creative artist worries if he will still be free tomorrow, then he will not be free today. If he is afraid of the consequences of his choice of subject or of his manner of treatment of it, then his choices will not be determined by his talent, but by fear. If we are not confident of our freedom, then we are not free.
And, even worse than that, when censorship intrudes on art, it becomes the subject; the art becomes “censored art,” and that is how the world sees and understands it. (...) At its most effective, the censor’s lie actually succeeds in replacing the artist’s truth. That which is censored is thought to have deserved censorship. (...)
You will even find people who will give you the argument that censorship is good for artists because it challenges their imagination. This is like arguing that if you cut a man’s arms off you can praise him for learning to write with a pen held between his teeth. Censorship is not good for art, and it is even worse for artists themselves. (...) So perhaps we can argue that art is stronger than the censor, and perhaps it often is. Artists, however, are vulnerable. (...)
Even more serious is the growing (...) agreement that censorship can be justified when certain interest groups, or genders, or faiths declare themselves affronted by a piece of work. Great art, or, let’s just say, more modestly, original art is never created in the safe middle ground, but always at the edge. Originality is dangerous. It challenges, questions, overturns assumptions, unsettles moral codes, disrespects sacred cows or other such entities. It can be shocking, or ugly, or, to use the catch-all term so beloved of the tabloid press, controversial. And if we believe in liberty, if we want the air we breathe to remain plentiful and breathable, this is the art whose right to exist we must not only defend, but celebrate. Art is not entertainment. At its very best, it’s a revolution.

This piece is drawn from the Arthur Miller Freedom to Write Lecture given by Rushdie, on May 6th, as part of the PEN World Voices Festival'.

Dibakar Banerjee: Emraan Hashmi wanted to look ugly

Emraan Hashmi in Shanghai
Chi avrebbe mai immaginato che un giorno Emraan Hashmi, il serial kisser di Bollywood, sarebbe stato scritturato nientemeno che da Dibakar Banerjee? Eppure per Shanghai è successo. Vi segnalo Emraan wanted to look ugly: Dibakar Banerjee, una divertente intervista concessa dal duo a Priyanka Jain, pubblicata oggi da Hindustan Times:

'What do you like about each other's brand of cinema?
Emraan: When I saw Khosla Ka Ghosla, I was impressed. Later, I came to know this strong and conceptually brilliant film was made on a miniscule budget. When Dibakar first messaged me, saying he wanted to meet to discuss a possible film, I had already decided to say yes. I had to work with him. He makes unique films that others would shy away from, and yet manage to strike a chord with the audience. Shanghai, though different from his usual films, does have his stamp on it. It’s a thriller, a whodunit and entertaining as well. The film is profound but it’s not preachy.
Dibakar: I have liked Emraan since his debut film Footpath (2003). He had little to do in that film, but he stood out from the rest. Despite the glam-heavy films he has done, you can see how his eyes speak a lot. I love how they can emote so much. Emraan always clicks with the audience instantly. He is so relatable in the films he has done that your heart goes out for the character.

So far, both of you have explored diverse sides of filmmaking. How has working together benefited both of you? Also, tell us more about each other's contributions to the film.
Emraan: There is a certain way in which Dibakar envisions characters in his films, a quality that is very unique to him. I haven’t seen things like that before in the films I have done so far. There is a certain subtext to every performance and role. He goes into the complexities of what each character is thinking - where it’s coming from, where it’s going and what it’s going through. That means even more hard work for the actor. He does a lot of prep work.
Dibakar: It is a winning formula for both of us. We were diametrically opposite, but what is more important is the coming together of Abhay Deol and Emraan Hashmi on screen. That is the odd, unique combination; people don’t know what to expect. A lot of people told me I had gone mad casting these two together and warned me against it. But I enjoy going against the grain.

Emraan, will being in a Dibakar film help you shed the serial kisser tag and let people take you seriously? And Dibakar, will Emraan’s mass appeal help you get eyeballs for your films?
Emraan: I don’t sign films with directors simply because their previous ventures had a Rs 50 crore opening. I don’t do south remakes just because it’s the trend now. I don’t jump onto those bandwagons. I like people like Dibakar Banerjee, Raj Kumar Gupta who are make interesting and unique cinema. I want to be part of their films. It’s not the need to shed a tag but the desire to do more. I take my films pretty seriously, be it Jannat 2 or Shanghai.
Dibakar: Of course. Emraan has a pull with his audience. However, we aren’t totally counting on that because we have cast Emraan in a non-sensual role. In fact, Emraan was excited when we told him: ‘You won’t look hot on screen!’. He jumped up and down in excitement when I said :‘We will make you look ugly.’ In this film, you will see a very repulsive and grotesque Emraan as Jogi Parmar.

Emraan, was it challenging to work with a director known for his strong subject-oriented films and maverick style of filming? Dibakar, was it daunting to cast Emraan in a non-glam avatar?
Emraan: I had to go through ten workshops with Dibakar’s team. It breaks you as an actor! He hurled me into the fire with this one. Jogi is not even five percent close to who I am. The character is someone I don’t understand at all. The whole shooting experience has been a discovery of sorts for me.
Dibakar: The audience is in for a surprise from Emraan in this film. He was initially uncomfortable and nervous about becoming Jogi. But he has put in a lot of hard work. Which other established actors would go through acting workshops to get into character? The first day when he came to the sets after the workshop, the crew was abuzz about how they saw Jogi in him and not Emraan!'.