Some Bollywood films have an unrealistic quality about them but they can still be massively entertaining.
In my outlook, films in Bollywood are not always realistic in their portrayal of life or society in general. For example: the story of the hit film Kaho Naa… Pyaar Hai (2000), which starred Hrithik Roshan and Ameesha Patel, shows that two young men’s faces can look identical to each other even though they are not related at all – it is an unrealistic tale but one which is an important angle of the story. Two other examples of Bollywood films which are almost equally senseless are: Rowdy Rathore (2012) and Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (1998). Bollywood films of that type though can still be massively entertaining, I think, because their big entertainment value lies with that fantasy element in the plots which these films carry and that also in an entirely real setup – the lives which film characters lead and their experiences might be disenfranchised from reality but a person who watches a Bollywood film can still form a good idea about the type of clothes that people in India wear, what they eat, how do their towns and villages look like, and so on.
Embed from Getty Images
Films in Bollywood often depict the middle class family structure very well. The middle class family in India can be described as typically a middle-income household, which may or may not be home to a joint family (plus, all the troubles that bring because some of the members of that family are people with really bad characters) and the daily struggles that life brings in issues such as romantic relationships.
Films such as English Vinglish, Udaan, The Lunchbox and Do Dooni Char, had put the spotlight on the middle class family in India and what it feels like to be a part of that family arrangement. But what is really needed is for the films to get a little bit more realistic with the depiction of the challenges in life that begets middle class people. Very often, it’s the opposite: it is people that are rich, who are portrayed as having tragically experienced struggles in life, such as in the film Devdas – the son of a rich man is forbidden his love. But that is too narrow of a portrayal of the Indian idea of challenges in life, when a majority of the Indian population are either poor or middle class; honestly, in my opinion, a much greater priority should be attached to the truer Indian story in Bollywood.
Reviews aim to act as a skilled means of providing criticism on the best films in the world
If an actor does not read reviews of their films, then it begs the question that how does that actor get ahead with scoring one film project after another in the first place? A review aims to highlight both the positive and the negative aspects of an actor’s performance in each of the film that he or she stars in. If an actor completely disregards film critics and the reviews they write, then clearly this idea gets portrayed that their opinion doesn’t count in influencing an actor’s career. But then what does? Can an actor just keep doing one film after another and never get written-off, even though their work is always really bad? That sounds like one of the most ridiculous ideas in the world ever.
An actor can certainly take a film critic’s comment and disagree with it, but it isn’t possible to disregard it. At the end of the day, a film critic most definitely knows what he or she is doing because they are skilled in the art of criticizing. What an actor should do is aim to please film critics instead – this scenario is a little bit like an actor wanting to impress the audience of their film, who are always on the lookout for a great film. An actor can do this by taking those important opinions by film critics on their work, as points to work on the next time that an actor is choosing their upcoming film project, with plenty of enthusiasm – in my opinion, that is the only way how great films truly happen.
Rural life in India isn’t always about crops and storms – it’s also about the struggles which wretched poverty brings
Mother India is one of the greatest Bollywood films ever made. Although, the movie is controversial (in the most unforgiving of manners) because of the approach it took to the fictionalization of the struggles involved in the daily lives of the poor in India, despite the fact that India had desired for independence from colonial rule, Mother India should still be considered important for its evocative portrayal of life in the villages of India. That is what makes the film so magnificent: a woman’s plight with a loan, a son who wants to murder the man who had lent his family some money and the family saga of a mother involving her sons, are few of the reasons why the film is bittersweet and thought-provoking.
Creative people, who are actors, portray this brilliant character on-screen and don’t like to reveal themselves publicly in that way – is that even real?
Do actors ever identify with the characters they play on-screen? It is a tough question to figure out the answer to. The most brilliant stories in the world sometimes come from those which are portrayed on-screen – it is where fiction seems to almost surpass fact. But no matter the genre of film-making, it is also true that fiction which is disenfranchised from reality seems really hard to connect with. It often leads me to think that maybe the actors who play these great characters in those brilliant films might have a shade of that personality themselves too, or if they are that type of actor who must only portray an entirely different person on-screen from the kind that they are themselves then maybe the character is instead more like one of his or her contemporaries instead. It doesn’t seem very difficult to imagine that at all: Kristen Dunst, in fact, once stated that her character in Bring It On (2000) is actually in the likeness of herself from high school; it was certainly a refreshing attitude to have and one that made her seem really human because on most days creative people seem to have a mantra in life that is on an entirely different level from mine – they actually publicly like to be somebody else quite a lot.