Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Those Amrikan NRIs and the movies-shovies....

What's with these NRIs and their holier-than-thou defensive attitude? Esp those who stay in US?
Aseem Chhabra, assumedly an NRI who resides in New York, takes great pains to point out in his KANK review that 'KANK has nothing to do with New York.'
He explains:
'Johar and his crew camped out in our city for a few months and so I began to believe that the film was a tribute to the desi New Yorkers and our adopted hometown. KANK was about our lives and it was our movie.

So I have a word of warning for the New Yorkers and other NRIs who still have not seen the movie..................KANK has nothing to do with New York. Yes, the film was shot here and there are some stunning scenes of Manhattan...But KANK could easily be set in London, Sydney and definitely in Mumbai. Infidelity and adulterous behaviour -- the main theme of the film -- does not come naturally to desi New Yorkers.'

He then proceeds to point out other differences between the movie and reality in New York.

Now, what's the big idea?
Since when have movies, especially candy-floss ones like the ones made by KJ, been taken so seriously and referred to for authentic information about a place?
Did any Mumbaite take pains to point out that though Munnabhai MBBS focussed on Mumbai, all hospitals around the country have the same problem with queues to fill up forms during admitting a patient? Or that, it's not only in Mumbai that you find rich-spoilt kids a-la-Dil Chahta hain, but that they were found everywhere?
So, why do NRIs in New York jump up at the first instance and start proclaiming that they are not 'natural infidels'? Seems like the classic case of 'Chor ke dadhi me tinka'?
It could have well been said Aseem is a stray incident, had I not chanced upon the comments section of the same review and found him getting ample support from other New Yorkers who say:
'I have lived in USA for a long time and I know how Indians live here. Infact kids who grow up here are fed more Indian values...'

On a parting note, Mr. Chhabra seems to have had an arranged marriage, because he gets very irritated with Karan Johar for his observation against the seemingly weird concept:
'As the young filmmaker explained in the liner notes of the film's CD...there are three types of married people in the world - one, those who have an arranged marriage (and Johar displays his arrogance, ignorance, and lack of life experiences, by saying he just doesn't understand why people do that)...'

I am still wondering if he would have rated KANK higher if it had showed New Yorkers, esp NRIs having a totally blameless, exemplary lifestyle...but I'll stop before another NRI from Australia starts clarifying that unlike what they showed in 'Salaam Namaste', NRI girls in Australia do not live-in and pregnant by their boyfriends....makes me want to give credit to Kunal Kohli for basing 'Hum Tum' in so many countries so as to confuse them all...


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wed Aug 16, 11:15:00 PM  
Blogger M (tread softly upon) said...

I haven't watched the movie and therefore have been trying hard not to read any reviews. But I know what you are saying. I guess people tend to take things a little personally. Has something to do with being a little too vain :)

Thu Aug 17, 06:55:00 AM  
Blogger Aparna said...

Oops...I hope I didn't hurt or offend you in any wasn't intended :)

Thu Aug 17, 10:25:00 PM  
Blogger Anshuman Ghosh said...

no amount of coaxing, forcing, trickery, brute force can make me watch KANK :-D

Fri Aug 18, 08:30:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home