MxMIndia

Category: MxM JOURNALISM REVIEW

  • The remake of Tamil hit Thuppaki by AR Murugadoss was, as expected, slaughtered by critics, writes Deepa Gahlot

    Reviewing the Reviews: Holiday gets 1.5-2.5 stars

    By Deepa Gahlot

     

    Holiday

    Directed by: A.R. Murugadoss

    Starring: Akshay Kumar, Sonakshi Sinha, Govinda, others

     

    The remake of Tamil hit Thuppaki by AR Murugadoss (best known for Ghajini) was, as expected, slaughtered by critics, with 1.5 to 2.5 star ratings.  The general opinion was that the Southern masala has been overdone, but Akshay Kumar somehow pulls it off. Sonakshi Sinha came in for a bit of battering for playing yet another dumb bimbo. Some reviewers complained of boredom, a slow pace and the absolutely nonsensical plot.

     

    The film has Akshay Kumar playing an armyman, whose holiday is spent tracking ‘sleeper cell’ terrorists in Mumbai and/or romancing the girl, who seems to do nothing except playing every sport known to humankind, in the course of one song.

     

    Shubhra Gupta of Indian Express commented, “‘Holiday’, the official remake of the monster Tamil hit ‘Thuppaki’, gives Akshay Kumar a chance to return to full combat mode. He plays a patriotic soldier willing to stretch a few rules in the line of duty, whether it is wielding sharp shears on a suspect’s finger, or shooting bad guys point blank. Till he’s going bang bang, he’s all right; the moment he gets romancing and joshing, he slides. So does the film.”

     

    Shubha Shetty Saha of mid-day was rather kind. “The film can boast of a fairly intelligent script that doesn’t allow the narration to get predictable even for a moment. More importantly, it respects the intelligence of the audience and leaves some bits for their imagination, without getting into the rigmarole of spoon-feeding them with justifications. Director AR Murugadoss keeps the ongoing events taut and gripping through the almost three hour duration of the film. There are some particularly good action scenes, which might let you forget the popcorn in your hand for more than ten minutes.  That, I think, is quite an achievement.”

     

    Sarita Tanwar of dna found some good things about the film and some bad. “There’s two ways to do an ‘army’  film. One is about war, tragedy and human loss. Another one is to make it like a secret agent/spy thriller. This one goes the other way but lacks the pace that is needed to keep the viewer interested. Yes, it is a remake of a hit Tamil film, but there was a lot of room for improvement. The songs are catchy but you wish the director had considered if it was really needed in a film like this. You keep wishing it was more real. It’s the frills that dilute the film.”

     

    Rajeev Masand of IBNLive wrote, “That this film is still not as awful as most typical Akshay Kumar starrers, despite several such harebrained sequences, is to the credit of director AR Murgadoss, who doesn’t let something as insignificant as common sense come in the way of telling a convenient story. In Holiday, Murgadoss remakes his own Tamil hit Thuppaki and he doesn’t tinker with the blueprint at all. – Madhureeta Mukherjee with typical Times of India gush wrote, “While the core plot is compelling and finely directed, the side-tracks – like bombs needing to be deactivated and the romantic angle, waste screen-time and the songs infiltrate the plot too often. The film is too long and needs a taut edit. It has flaws too, but doesn’t fail to entertain. Akshay’s stunts are jaw-dropping; he’s in top form and impressively leads the show without much support from his squadron of actors. Farhad (the lead villain) doesn’t leave much impact; and Sonakshi slides in for the song and dance.This one applauds the jawans who live in the jaws of death, and is a ‘wake up’ call for all the ‘sleepers’ that abound. Bravo!”

     

    Saibal Chatterjee of NDTV.com was not enthused. “Holiday lacks the sustained intensity and urgency of an edge-of-the-seat spy thriller. The script does not allow Akshay Kumar to be the no-nonsense action hero that would have held the film in better stead. His lover boy act only dilutes the larger-than-life persona of the fearless and single-minded mean machine that he is supposed to be.Akshay strives hard to make the most of a bad deal. He wins a battle or two, but loses the war.”

     

    Raja Sen of Rediff.com found it boring. “Holiday calls itself a thriller.  And indeed there is a thumping background score and much, much malarkey about sleeper cells and terrorists. In the middle stands Akshay Kumar, with unfortunately flat hair, holding a Rubik’s Cube, and making what appear to be very random assumptions. He’s ridding Mumbai of the scourge of terrorism, and good for him. Because these are simple action movie setups that, despite their harebrained processes, can lead to slick enough thrillers. Except Holiday ticks in slow-motion.”

     

    Sudhish Kamath of The Hindu, who had seen the Tamil version wrote, “You know you are getting a crash course on sleeper cells when your sleep cells are activated listening to gems of dialogue like: “All the sleeper cells will become coma cells”. Most of the laughs come unintentionally in the climax when the annoyed deputy villain gets bored of the unending action sequence between the hero and the villain (the remake sorely misses Vidyut Jamwal) and tells his men: “Shoot them both”.

    Modern terrorism is not about guns and bombs. Bombs only destroy bodies. Films like Holiday destroy minds.

    If there is any justice left in this world – or a God – this is the kind of pop culture terrorism that should rightfully bomb.”

     

    Nandini Ramnath of Mint analysed: “Holiday is to Thuppakki what Ghajini was to Ghajini-a mostly faithful Hindi remake of a Tamil blockbuster. A.R. Murugadoss’ entertainer displays greater fidelity to its source than did his Ghajini reboot, down to the bloated running length of 170 minutes. The situations are the same, the dialogue is translated verbatim and the heroine hasn’t yet grown a brain, but the Hindi version misses out on the charisma of its leading man. Holiday’s Akshay Kumar is a poor match for Tamil superstar Vijay, who has built a career out of supplanting average acting skills with practised insouciance. Thuppakki translates into loaded gun, but although Kumar is gifted with a crowd-pleasing script and ample room to showcase his fighting skills, he is altogether slower on the draw.”

     

  • That Bombay and Mumbai both have made remarkable contributions to Indian journalism and continue to do so was most evident at the Press Club Awards on Saturday night, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Phew!

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The Mumbai Press Club’s RedInk Awards have set a standard now for journalists and journalism in India. Delhi has long considered itself the hub of journalism in India – but that is only because it is the national capital. But India has a long tradition of strong city and regional newspapers and although many of them have ventured on to the national stage, we as journalists still maintain some of our local pride – and prejudice. And Bombay and Mumbai both have made remarkable contributions to Indian journalism and continue to do so.

     

    This was perhaps most evident at the Press Club Awards on Saturday night. It was not a “mine is bigger than yours” kind of evening, the sort I have experienced in Delhi on visits there. In this I have to agree with Arnab Goswami, editor-in-chief of Times Now. We have a sort of irreverence that is very evident and yes, that famous Mumbai “bindaas” attitude. And woe betide anyone who throws around their own attitude in an attempt at self-aggrandisement. They will be brought down a peg or two before a peg or two are knocked back.

     

    Or am I being romantic? This is my last week as a resident of Mumbai after too many years to count. Next week, I shall be based in Dehradun looking at the world from a Himalayan perspective, craving the stench of drying Harpodon Neherius! All journalists after all should be cynical and sceptical before they are anything else. You believe anything too readily, you take too much at face value and you are belying the first tenet of being permanently suspicious.

     

    Back to the Press Club awards. The panel discussion on the media coverage of the general elections and the bias or otherwise towards then hope and now prime minister Narendra Modi was titled: “Elections 2014: Were we fair or did we stoke the NaMo wave” was lively and occasionally acrimonious. The moderator was Uday Shankar, CEO of Star and the other questioner was Piyush Pandey of O&M, who was part of the Narendra Modi campaign team. The “guests” – a neat legerdemain by Press Club president Gurbir Singh – were Kumar Ketkar, veteran journalist and just retired as editor of Divya Marathi, Rajdeep Sardesai, till recently editor in chief of CNNIBN and Arnab Goswami, editor in chief of Times Now.

     

    Of the lot, Ketkar was most scathing of the way journalists behaved with reference to Modi and the manner in which all manner of stories about the “Gujarat model” were swallowed whole and without question. Sardesai felt there were some logistical and such problems at work – what was unspoken was understood. Sardesai was also critical of what he called “supari” journalism and hagiography masquerading as journalism. Goswami was kinder to the tribe but did make the comment about Mumbai journalists being less in awe of politicians. Ketkar got the most applause from an audience made up mainly of journalists, even beating Goswami’s undoubted star quality.

     

    Uday Shankar was brilliant as a host. He asked tough questions, took the panellists on and there were moments when it seemed a bit like prime time on any new channel any night in India… The big disappointment was Pandey who could at best come up with some glib lines like the media didn’t create the wave but rode the wave which may sell Dairy Milk chocolates but was singularly unimpressive. He also kept harping on the fact that journalists were human beings. This assumption could have been easily countered by any one of the hundreds of journalists present. The funniest for me was when he called everyone else a journalist and himself a “writer”, sotto voce: “in advertising”. Many bitchy responses come to mind but I am controlling myself. Self-aggrandisement is an essential part of advertising…

     

    Claws retracted. Our new Information & Broadcasting minister Prakash Javadekar was dressed in his favourite pink (I won Rs 30 for guessing that right from the owner of mxmindia.com Pradyuman Maheshwari). But he also seemed a tad nervous. I have seen addressing press conferences in his own milieu in Delhi where he was confident and at ease. So the occasion, his new position or the less familiar faces of Mumbai’s journalists may have been a bit daunting.

     

    It must be pointed out that both Goswami and Sardesai’s channels can easily be accused of going soft on Modi and his gigantic claims of greatness. Goswami’s aggression with Rahul Gandhi was not to be seen when he interviewed Modi. CNNIBN as we all know has swung to the right and therefore the dialogue in the channel changed substantially.

     

    At the end of the day though, the awards were to be treasured as this is journalists honouring themselves – as the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award Mrinal Pande pointed out. Congratulations to her and to all the winners and to the Mumbai Press Club for putting on a great show that goes from strength to strength. Pande talked about the inferiority that language journalists feel when it comes to the English media and this is one notion which should be destroyed and indeed treated as nonsensical. We all do – or ought to do – the same job and the language we use to do it has to be irrelevant. The next task for the Mumbai Press Club?

     

    And finally, let’s hark back to the beginning. In his opening speech, Gurbir Singh joked that on his way to the NCPA in Nariman Point he got stuck in a traffic jam on Pedder Road caused by journalists queuing up outside Antila for jobs. It’s not a joke really, this reference to the home of Mukesh Ambani of Reliance which has just bought Network18. Corporate interference in the biggest threat that journalism faces today and we all know it and many have paid the price. Those who debase themselves now will find that posterity will be very unkind to them. As it should be.

     

  • Now that we are a month into the election results, genuflecting at the altar of government cannot be a consistent feature of a media which prides itself on being a pillar of democracy, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Time for Indian media to stand up

    Ranjona Banerji

     

    The question about the impartiality of the media has assumed larger and more significant proportions ever since the new Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party government came to power at the Centre. We already saw changes and sackings before the elections because senior editors were not genuflecting enough before the prime ministerial hopeful. We saw a whole media group changing tack after it was taken over by India’s biggest industrialist.

     

    But now that we are a month into the election results, genuflecting at the altar of government cannot be a consistent feature of a media which prides itself on being a pillar of democracy. Even countries which India pillories – like Pakistan – have a more resistant media. Let’s not forget China, where is there is a constant effort to fight a totalitarian regime. Can India afford a media that is bound to the business interests of a few industrialists who must therefore appease or stroke the ego of a “muscular” new government?

     

    The last Congress government and its ministers and spokespersons were made fun of or castigated by the media and rightly so. And this government must also now bear the burden of media scrutiny and criticism. And yet, one has heard the most remarkable excuses from people within the media – it is too early, give them time, they have so much to do. All these journalists need to get out of their journalistic costumes and start doing what they really want – become official spokespersons for the new government or work in its media offices.

     

    The same holds true for journalists who acted as cheerleaders for the last government or for any government. But in spite of all the accusations hurled at journalists for not being anti-Congress enough, the support for the BJP within the media especially by expert columnists and owners is unprecedented. Editors were not sacked and whole enterprises not overturned because journalists did not like Manmohan Singh or Sonia Gandhi. But look at Open, Network 18…

     

    “Inflation rises to 5-month high of 6%” says a Times of India headline. The blame has been apportioned to “rising food prices, below-par monsoon, Iraq turmoil”, all of which will only make matters worse. I use this as an example, since the Times of India is one of India’s most balanced, middle-of-the-road papers adhering strictly to the tenets of the Planet of Bennett Coleman.

     

    Yet, when the last UPA government had cited global, meteorological or any other reasons for inflation, it had been torn apart by the media and the opposition. And yet, the very same reasons are now apparently acceptable. Obviously, an opposition’s got to do what an opposition’s got to do but the media doesn’t really have to sit back and accept it. If the UPA government was fudging with its excuses, then so is this one and it is up to the media to call it to account.

     

    Time for the Indian media to stop crawling on its collective belly and stand up.

     

    **

     

    I am not a football fan (yes, you can take me out and shoot me later) but even I cringe on behalf of all football fans at the utter travesty of the special Indian World Cup coverage put together by Sony. The tamasha that moves around IPL should exist in its own IPL universe since IPL is a travesty of cricket for purists. But why apply those same meagre standards to poor football? If even I know that your pre-match shows are pointless annoying froth, then you are really doing something wrong…

     

  • After the dud Himmatwala, the assumption was that Sajid Khan would have learnt his lesson and at least attempted to make a half-way decent film

    Reviewing the Reviews: Maximum zero stars for Humshakals

    By Deepa Gahlot

     

    Hamshakals

    Director: Sajid Khan

    Starring: Saif Ali Khan, Ritesh Deshmukh, Ram Kapoor

     

    If there’s a universally reviled film this year, it’s Sajid Khan’s Humshakals, more so perhaps because some of his earlier films were undeserved hits, and after the dud Himmatwala, the assumption was that he would have learnt his lesson and at least attempted to make a half-way decent film.

     

    This one got the maximum zero stars, and the kindest critics gave it 2 stars. The Times of India’s 3 stars don’t count, because nobody takes the paper’s reviews seriously any more.

     

    Raja Sen of rediff.com tore into the film, “I’m not buying it, Sajid Khan. No director, I believe, can be senseless enough to think this is fine or remotely funny. Monkeys could direct a better film, and, going by what I’ve watched over the years, some have. But Humshakals couples its crude farce with a certain aggression, as if daring the audience to stay in their seats while it repeatedly spits at them. This is not filmmaking, this is sadism.”

     

    Aniruddha Guha of Time Out was scathing too, “Khan made three films before Himmatwala that some people found appealing enough for them to make money (Hey Babyy, Housefull andHousefull 2), and hence Khan decided the best way to get lucky is to get back to the old formula: The film must be set in London, a large part of which should be shot in a single house – a large mansion; there must be several characters; at least one song must be shot in the corridors of the house with the actors dressed in night suits. The climax of one of his earlier films was set in the royal palace of England, and so obviously this time he goes for the House of Commons. The interior, in both cases, resembles a room at, possibly, Chandivali studio.”

     

    Deepanjana Pal of Firstpost ranted, “The evil uncle keeps plotting against his nephew while his nephew counter plots with the help of his best friend and the three entirely ornamental heroines. All these plans and stratagems aren’t to further the plot but to provide Sajid Khan with opportunities to throw in his familiar brand of homophobic, sexist and generally offensive attempts at humour. Adding to the irritation are Himesh Reshammiya’s grating compositions and a soundtrack that is filled with idiotic sound effects.”

     

    Shubhra Gupta commented, “From past experience, you have to go into a Sajid Khan film wondering just how much of a dip there can be from the previous ones. This one is way beyond. Idiocy is a gentle term for what is unleashed upon us. You can also call it a two-and-a- half hour show reel of plot-less, witless, joylessness. I am all for political incorrectness. Silliness can be great fun. But brainless doesn’t have to translate to brain-dead, when it is done with smarts. ‘Humshakals’ has zero. Even in his really terrible moments, Sajid has managed to come up with one laugh out loud moment. Or two. Here there are none.”

     

    Saibal Chatterjee of NDTV.com wrote, “So you thought Sajid Himmatwala Khan could sink no further. Watch just 15 minutes of Humshakalsand you’d be disavowed of that notion. Even by the pitiable cinematic standards that the director has so defiantly set for himself, Humshakalsis the very pits. It scrapes the bottom of a barrel that seems to have no bottom at all. Humshakals is an execrable comedy of horrors that plumbs the depths of stupidity and crassness. If there is any purpose that this load of unalloyed trash serves, it is simply this: the film proves how delusional Sajid Khan is. He thinks this is cinema. Sorry, Mr. Khan, no matter how much money your film ends up with at the box office, the joke is entirely on you!”

     

    Nandini Ramnath writing in Mint commented, “Since everything is multiplied three times in Sajid Khan’s latest comedy, it’s totally fair to complain that Humshakals is thrice as excruciating as films in this genre. The movie, which barely improves on its trailer, is a failed over-the-top comedy in which every single moment is spelt out in skyscraper-high letters. The plot is partly set in an asylum but is bereft of the insane, David Dhawan-esque glee required to carry through its premise of triple roles. Khan pokes fun at himself in a couple of scenes, but he is unable to mine humour from the possibilities of two sets of lookalikes.”

     

    Sudhish Kamath of The Hindu wrote mockingly, “Trying to review or analyse this Sajid Khan film is like sending a child-crafted-claymated monkey for a brain scan and hoping to find proof of brain activity.If there was any justice in this world, the review for this film, as a fellow critic friend suggested, would just be a photograph of critics making farcical tongues-out-retarded-squint-faces at the camera with the caption: Hum Pagal Nahin Hai, Humala Dimaag Khalaab Hai. (We are not mad. Our brains don’t work).”

     

    Rahul Desai of Mumbai Mirror raged, “Sajid Khan and his writers produce the usual orgy of offensive, sexist and homophobic gags – including a bunch of randy midgets trying to rape three girls (the heroines, did I mention?), Prince Charles-lookalikes spouting Marathi in The House Of Commons, Cocaine Paranthas and Riteish doggy dry-humping a man’s leg.  Humshakals is a defiant film made by a man who is fast becoming a rebel without a cause. His audacity is almost frightening, but I was reassured by the pin-drop silence in the hall-one that’d accompany the screening of a gutwrenching war drama. This is, in many ways, not too different.”

     

    The review of Sarita Tanwar of DNA was one of the milder ones, “Sajid Khan is known for a certain kind of comedy. And it has always worked for him. He has his audience and he unapologetically caters to them. So while you might find the jokes corny or cheesy, the drag act a drag, and the comedy of errors a little overdone, his fans lap it up. There are many funny scenes in the film, even if it doesn’t work for you in entirety, you will enjoy it in parts.”

     

    Shubha Shetty Saha of Mid-day spoke for many when she wrote, “Imagine this. You slip and fall into a ditch. And then you get up cursing yourself for missing the step. And two steps later, you again slip and fall into a ditch. You get up and two steps later, you again slip and fall into a ditch… you are hopping mad and shocked by the end of this experience? Well, that kind of sums up one’s experience of watching ‘Humshakals’… ”

     

  • The sentencing of Egyptian journalists sends danger signals around the world, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: The dangers of dissent for Egypt’s journalists

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    An Egyptian court has sentenced two Al-Jazeera journalists to seven years in prison and another to 10 years for “aiding the Muslim Brotherhood and reporting false news”. Two other Al-Jazeera journalists have been sentenced in absentia, to 10 years each. Al-Jazeera has denied all the charges against their staff who had reported on the turbulent events after Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi’s removal from office in July last year.

     

    Is this another case of shooting the messenger or of a people wanting only news that appeals to their sensibilities being given prominence?

     

    Many Egyptians felt cheated when the Muslim Brotherhood came to power after the “Arab spring” and the removal of Hosni Mubarak. The army then removed Morsi who was seen as pro-Brotherhood.

     

    However, a democracy is all about everyone getting a chance even those you don’t like. And journalism is all about reporting on the unpleasant as it is about telling you which movie star absolutely hates wearing pink. Life-threatening stories all but someone has to do them.

     

    The Egyptian courts however seem to have confused a dislike amongst some for the Muslim Brotherhood with reporting on events around the Muslim Brotherhood. The two are neither interchangeable nor the same. Democracy is about dissent as many have pointed out and there will always be some story which offends someone’s political sensibilities. Jail is not the answer, especially when evidence appears to have been thin on the ground.

     

    This is from a New York Times editorial about the trial: “In fact, when asked by the court to display the allegedly false news reports obtained from the defendants’ laptops, prosecutors showed images of one journalist’s family vacation and horses grazing in Luxor, Egypt. That would be laughable if the consequences were not so grave.”

     

    Appeals will apparently take years and the implications for journalists who want to venture further from boring bread-and-butter stories seem ominous. So much easier to earn an easy wage than disturb the status quo, as we see many of our colleagues do with a dispensation in power? The journalistic community the world over stands in solidarity with Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed. It is the least we can do.

     

    In the Indian context, we are not yet in this position and indeed are very far from it. But it is true that dissent is not understood or appreciated by all sides of the political spectrum and this is true of journalists themselves. There is immense bitterness and anger for journalists with the community who do not toe some line or the other. However, being difficult is our birthright and we should not budge from it.

     

    **

     

    Every year I write this and why should this year be any different? How does one get through to the foreign news channels which broadcast around the world that their weather people need to have a little more understanding of local weather conditions? The BBC World Service is the worst offender here. As India struggles with a heat wave or a slow monsoon we are repeatedly told about “fine, dry, sunny weather” all over the country – with temperatures at 40 degrees Celsius this is quite heartening for us miserable natives. We understand that the UK is a nation plagued by rain and craving sunshine. But when you broadcast on what you call a “World Service” how much will it hurt to figure out how the rest of the world looks at itself?

     

    For the record then, the monsoon is vital for India’s survival. We look forward to it. It is late this year, already 45 per cent below par. The effects can be catastrophic. So, throwaway remarks about “scattered showers normal for this season” really hurt. Not everyone sees life as an opportunity to get skin cancer in the Costa del Sol. For some of us, rain is life.

     

    As a final note, I spent a miserably hot summer in the UK last year, covering Wimbledon for Mid-Day. People were dying from the heat. The weather forecasts did not then drone on and on about “fine dry weather”. Think of this Indian situation with extreme heat in some parts and a missing monsoon something like that, please.

     

  • Blaming the former UPA government appears to be the preferred course of finger-pointing in some parts of the world of TV news in India, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: How News TV (mis)treated Subramanium ire

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Gopal Subramanium had his one-and-a-half days of extreme television fame when the former additional solicitor-general accused someone in the current government of stymieing his chances of becoming a Supreme Court judge. Even worse, Subramanium accused the media of being party to this campaign by carrying planted stories to target him. TV news, always on the search for instant excitement, decided that Subramanium was the news of the day.

     

    All day, there he was on TV channels making his case. Being a lawyer, he refused to get bullied by star TV journalists and no matter what they asked him, he carried on with his version of his story. The result is that we know about his fitness regime (swimming), his religious proclivities (temples) and his schoolmates (Arun Jaitley).

     

    The stories which he claims were planted were rather odd. One apparently said that he was too religious to be a judge because he went to temples. I for one was unaware that atheism was a prerequisite for judicial ascension and indeed, I genuinely wish it were true. Another hinted at some dark dealings because he swam at a Taj pool. He says he didn’t although an offer was made. All too intriguing.

     

    The upshot was that he was amicus curae to the Supreme Court in the Shahabuddin fake encounter case which involves Amit Shah, the putative heir to BJP presidency. Obviously this makes him more like public enemy number one no matter who he went to school with. Also he once went to a temple and found that gold was being pilfered and instead of keeping quiet about it like a good devotee, he blabbed. Thus the case of the Padmanabha Swamy temple.

     

    I watched Bhupendra Chaubey of CNN-IBN and Arnab Goswami of Times Now grill Subramanium and both seemed very concerned that he was not blaming the former UPA government. As we all know, that is the preferred course of finger-pointing in some parts of the world of TV news in India.

     

    Subramanium much to their chagrin did not play ball. One TV channel (not a star anchor) on Thursday even had the newsreader allowing a reporter to read out from a bland government notice on Subramanium’s unsuitability (without giving any reasons for said unsuitability) without asking a single question.

     

    I am still intrigued by the way TV journalism works. Does any one debrief reporters after they work on stories or are they allowed to wing it live? Are newsreaders and anchors informed by producers/editors about what reporters have found out or what they are about to say on air? Or does everyone just wing it and pray that no one notices?

     

    **

     

    Gossip remains rife about changes in the editorial structure at Network 18 and particularly at firstpost.com. Mint has done a few articles about the new structure and about the roles and departures of Rajdeep Sardesai and Raghav Bahl. The Hoot has also looked at the pro-Reliance social media tweets and posts by those senior journalists who are supposed to now run the show. Willy-nilly, Network 18 has become a media test case, our biggest current example of a media house run by the marriage of big money and er, big governance? In the past divorce has been the natural result of such a commingling which is why everyone is watching closely. In between, there will be big money to be made for some.

     

    **

     

    Rebekkah Brookes former editor of Sun and News of the World gets off scot free in the phone-hacking and bribery cases which shook Britain, its establishment, Rupert Murdoch and the media a few years ago. But Al Jazeera journalists will spend seven years in jail for doing their jobs. Go figure.

     

  • For an undemanding audience like ours, Ek Villain delivers enough thrills, writes Deepa Gahlot

    Reviewing the Reviews: Mostly 2 stars for Ek Villain, but not completely trashed

    By Deepa Gahlot

     

    Ek Villain

    Directed by: Mohit Suri

    Starring: Ritesh Deshmukh, Remo Fernandes, Shraddha Kapoor, others

     

    Everybody is agreed that Mohit Suri is a decent enough director; what goes wrong with Ek Villain is that the plot lifted from much-admired Korean film I Saw The Devil is mangled into vapid romance and melodrama, studded with good music, that becomes the audience magnet.

     

    The film got mostly 2 stars, but didn’t get completely trashed. Riteish Deshmukh got most of the raves. For an undemanding audience like ours, the film delivers enough thrills.

     

    Rajeev Masand of IBNLive calls it “moderartely fulfilling,” which is just about it. “Suri, a competent director, who has a knack for ripping off foreign films and ‘Indianizing’ them by adding a romantic subplot and a superhit soundtrack, employs the same formula here. The victim on this occasion is the Korean revenge saga, ‘I Saw The Devil’. Suri and his writers tone down the violence, amp up the melodrama, throw in a love story, and give the psychotic serial killer a justification for his misogyny. It’s all very Hindi filmi, complete with corny lines that’ll make you roll your eyes in disbelief.”

     

    Raja Sen of Rediff.com criticises the very idea of a remake, “There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with the way we remake films.

     

    You know those often-hilarious South Asian DVD covers for pirated Hollywood films? Where they misspell the actor names and write a bizarre, ungrammatical and illogical version of the summary? With peculiar posters where content from two movies is often melded freakishly into one, as if all Tom Cruise movies were the same? Well, it’s becoming clearer and clearer that our filmmakers might not be remaking the films themselves but these odd DVD covers. (No, dear producers, that is not what you call a cover version.)

     

    Shubhra Gupta of Indian Express, writes, “There’s one in every love story, says the tagline of Ek Villain, and the film strains every sinew to justify it. The three main characters – Guru the loveless orphan grown into a gun-toting goon, Aisha the pretty girl busy ticking off items from a to-do list, and Rakesh the smarting-under-daily-humiliations-working-stiff — ricochet off each other, resulting in a film doused in schmaltzy romance and creepy violence.”

     

    Aniruddha Guha of Time Out comments, “It’s a pity Ek Villain is a rip-off. From the moment the trailers went on air and people started recognising similarities with Kim Jee-Woon’s spectacular I Saw The Devil, folks involved with Ek Villain have been rubbishing rumours about the plot being stolen from the Korean thriller. Which is a lot worse than not commenting at all, because when you watch the film you realise this is no “inspired” effort, but a faithful remake. But producers Ekta and Shobha Kapoor, who are set to make a killing at the box office, weren’t willing to shell out a miniscule part of their profits for the rights.”

     

    Saibal Chatterjee of NDTV.com writes, “There is one in every love story, the film’s tagline proclaims. Not true at all. Ek Villain has one too many, both among the dramatis personae on the screen and the men behind the scenes. The biggest of the villains in Mohit Suri’s Ek Villain is the screenplay itself. It is as muddled as a serial killer’s twisted mind and just as destructive. A vapid love story dovetailed into a confused psychological thriller, Ek Villain revolves around three characters that are severely damaged in varying ways.”

     

    Shubha Shetty Saha of Mid-day grumbles, “‘Ek Villain’ is touted as an intense film. It kind of lives up to it. But in its 140 minute duration, it ends up with so much relentless intensity that after a point you start looking for an escape from this heat. This is a classic example of a film that takes itself so seriously that it ends up looking manipulative and largely lacking in genuine emotions and soul.”

     

  • There is an odd silence from the Central government on the Nihalchand Meghwal case and an even odder reluctance from the media to do its usual hammer and tongs act, notes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Silence, outrage & much fawning over the PM

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    The international media, at least such as we see it in India, is not unnaturally obsessed with the new “Caliphate” of ISIS which has apportioned to itself parts of Iraq and Syria. Since it now claims to speak for all Muslims and is a group which is even further to the fundamentalist right of al-Qaeda, ISIS represents everything the West and some parts of the rest of the world fears the most about Islam, Islamism and Islamic terrorism.

     

    Of course, while the anchors and reporters are all worked up with moral outrage, most experts and commentators point to the USA’s inescapable role in the collapse of Iraq plus the effects of constant Western interference in the Middle East. Oil, as many have pointed out, has been the curse of the Arab world.

     

    Just as a passing thought, I would love just once for some non-white television journalist to walk through New York, London, Paris and say to the camera, “I have been picking up chatter on the Christian street”. No?

     

    Of the Indian news channels, Newsx appears to have someone in Baghdad. The rest are relying on feeds. Surprisingly, given the normal hyper-jingoistic nature of Indian TV news, the fate of the Indians living in Iraq has been rather subdued. One wonders why…

     

    But then when you watch the fawning over the fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was at Sriharikota to attend the launch of India’s 27th PSLV, you have your reasons. The launch, as someone pointed out, was not the news: Modi’s presence was. The PM was suitably impressed by the launch, the media was even more impressed by the PM and all is right with such a world.

     

    The best takeaway from this launch however came from the Twitter handle @PMOIndia. This informed us that the PM ended his speech with “Bharat Mata ki hai” and also, in another tweet, that the PM had indeed concluded his speech. Modi also felt that India’s space programme was a “perfect example of his vision of Speed, Scale and Skill” – a remarkable achievement on the part of India’s scientists, given that the election was won as recently as May 16.

     

    **

     

    On television, we found also found other things to concern ourselves with: Trinamool Congress MP Tapas Pal’s appalling speech about how he would get people beaten up and women raped, the continuing saga of Preity Zinta and Ness Wadia, the rising price of onions, building collapses and the failing monsoon. Railway accidents we do tend to forget about the week after they happen and we are at that stage now. What rail accident, you ask? Indeed.

     

    **

     

    The most chilling story of last Sunday’s papers was from the woman who has accused BJP MP and minister Nihalchand Meghwal and many politicians, including from the Congress, of rape: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/my-husband-wanted-power-thats-why-he-brought-men-from-both-congress-and-bjp-to-me/

     

    There is an odd silence from the Central government on this case and an even odder reluctance from the media to do its usual hammer and tongs act…

     

    **

     

    Then there’s this, which is also ripe for outrage, Goa chief minister Manohar Parrikar takes about rape in a lighter vein: http://gulfnews.com/news/world/india/parrikar-s-rape-remark-insensitive-say-women-s-group-1.1353761

     

    **

     

    While we’re looking at issues to outrage about, has there been a blackout of the suicide attempt by Tanu Sharma of India TV? Too many skeletons, allegations to close to the quick? http://news.oneindia.in/feature/suicide-attempt-when-media-insider-cries-foul-why-does-media-fall-silent-1473101.html

     

    **

     

    For those who rail against the control that big business has on the media, was one of the world’s most celebrated sports writers made to leave The Times London after 32 years because he was too expensive or because he upset the rich huntin’ fishin’ fu….’ crowd? Simon Barnes leaves The Times: http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jun/27/thetimes-national-newspapers

     

    **

     

    And finally, the most complete silence of the media on a subject which it talks about to itself. The Mumbai Press Club organised a chat about Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s new book on Reliance and gas pricing. The media attended and a “lively discussion” took place. Kalpana Sharma writes about what happened after that!

    http://thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=7614

  • Getting commentators becomes extremely difficult when our expertise at the international level is so limited in possibly everything, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: No commentators beyond cricket in our country

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    Sports coverage can be easily be one of those please-nobody pitfalls. It is extremely difficult for commentators for instance to say anything very much different about how someone hits a ball, whether with their feet, heads, bats and racquets innumerable times in the course of a few hours. Innovation therefore is sometimes called for. But to do that effectively, you have to understand your fans. Like the Olympic scoring system in events like figure skating and gymnastics, lop off the highest (uncritical) and lowest (never satisfied) scores and go with the rest.

     

    But if you really want to know how to get it wrong then Sony Six’s pre-match shows for the FIFA World Cup is the way to go. Having got the rights to this prestigious event, Sony Six obviously wanted to go all out. But it took the cricket or rather IPL route and decided that India’s football fans wanted nothing more than a bit of Bollywood glamour (John Abraham) and IPL sham (anchor Gaurav Kapoor). The show, called Cafe Rio, also had two former international footballers (just about), Peter Crouch and Mikael Silvestre as well a girl in designer togs and Keith Sequeira mispronouncing as many football names as he did tennis names on another sports channel.

     

    Fans were appalled from Day One. Football is not cricket – okay that sounds like a meaningless truism but in India at least, football has a small but dedicated following. The love for cricket has encompassed the tawdry glitter of the IPL as well as the intellectually challenging Test match. Football fans know their football and they know that they want. Pap and rubbish are not included in that list.

     

    Twitter led the campaign against the show and someone even started a petition to get Gaurav Kapoor (who was also joined by VJ Nikhil Chinappa) off the show. Eventually, Sony Six responded and changed the names around leading apparently to an uneasy compromise between fan feelings and available talent.

     

    The problem for Sony Six is easy to understand. India is not yet a sporting nation. This means that we do not have enough experts in enough fields except cricket. Getting commentators becomes extremely difficult when our expertise at the international level is so limited in possibly everything. As of now, we excel internationally – one uses the word liberally – in cricket, tennis and badminton. Our potential experts are still out there playing. Who then to commentate? Would a dedicated fan of any sport accept a player who has not even played internationally? Or a coach whose protégé has gone nowhere? Barring hockey – where our glorious past means we have several experts even Olympians around if we want them – or maybe snooker and billiards, where is our talent pool? And for football, possibly the world’s biggest sport? For viewers who are used year round to hear experts during the EPL, Champions League, La Liga and so on to be subjected to the bumbling rubbish of another fan who perhaps knows less than them during the sport’s biggest event? Unacceptable!

     

    Tennis fans for instance have been reduced to gales of laughter listening to Charu Sharma struggle to find the right terminology at the Chennai Open!

     

    Talking of tennis, one has to be grateful that Sony Six got the rights to the FIFA World Cup so that we can watch Wimbledon in peace on the Star Sports network, unlike four years ago. I have no idea why Vijay Amritraj and Alan Wilkins are not doing the commentary themselves this year. I for one am not disappointed but I know others who are. Contractual problems may be or someone decided that instead of commentary from a TV set, on court commentary was better? I for one am enjoying listening to John McEnroe, Martina Navratilova, Lindsey Davenport, Tracy Austen, Tim Henman and the rest.

     

    Ya, experts, you know.

     

  • Every critic gushed over Vidya Balan, not so much over 'Bobby Jasoos', notes Deepa Gahlot

    Reviewing the Reviews: Mostly 2.5 to three stars for Bobby Jasoos

    By Deepa Gahlot

     

    Bobby Jasoos

    Directed by: Samar Shaikh

    Starring: Vidya Balan, Ali Fazal

     

    Vidya Balan worked hard on Bobby Jasoos– both acting and promoting. Every critic gushed over her, not so much over the film. The Hyderabadi backdrop and language appealed to all, and the attention to detail was admirable, but the weak plot dampened the excitement.

     

    Samar Sheikh making his debut as director, has done quite well, but a little more work on the script would have made this film a zinger. Still, it got mostly 2.5 to three stars, and some sighs of disappointment.

     

    Shubhra Gupta of Indian Express wrote, “‘Bobby Jasoos’ works till the time Vidya Balan gets to lead from the front: the courtship with her reluctant suitor is one of the high points of the film. But I wish this amiable, light-hearted yarn had more ‘zaika’ and ‘tadka’. And the songs are strictly unnecessary and uninteresting. Post-interval, the surprises leachout. So does the fun.”

     

    Nandini Ramnath of Mint underlined the film’s Muslim milieu, “The return-to-roots message is lightly conveyed in a movie that is bereft of weightiness. Shaikh is having too much fun to get on to a soapbox, and he doesn’t let the big emotional scenes breathe enough, but he does subtly score a victory on behalf of the so-called Muslim social—centred on Muslim characters, exploring ideas, values and issues facing the community, and set in an identifiably cultural and geographical milieu. The Muslim social is now an endangered species, with Muslim characters appearing in Hindi films mostly as deracinated urban creatures with neutral names such as Kabir and Zoya, or wild-eyed and destructive gangsters and terrorists.”

     

    Aniruddha Guha of Time Out felt let down. “And it really comes down to lazy filmmaking. The third act seems to have been given step-motherly treatment, the writing team struggling to put together the pieces and dispel the confusion without resorting to shortcuts and convenient plot twists. The finale is a mess – and bizarre – undoing a great deal of expectations the film builds up to that point. You look back, then, and find loopholes every step of the way – never a good feeling to carry with you outside a movie theatre.”

     

    Paloma Sharma of Rediff.com found the film confused. “As far as Bobby Jasoos goes, don’t judge a film by its title. Bobby Jasoos is a romantic comedy/drama and although it sometimes rises to the challenge of being a mystery, it seems too confused to know where to go thereafter. Debutant director Samar Shaikh can’t seem to figure out how to handle the many subplots of his film, letting them fight for control and the editing does nothing to help. Shaikh seems more focused on the visual aspects of the film, and while the cinematographer captures Hyderabad’s essence beautifully, pretty pictures will take you only so far (and not nearly far enough). Bobby Jasoos relies entirely on its performances to keep it going.”

     

    Rajeev Masand of CNN-IBN commented, “It’s a shame then that she’s (Vidya Balan) let down by the very script itself, which — despite raising important questions about gender equality, financial independence of women, and parental obsession with marriage – fizzles out post-intermission. It needed more humor and more meat, but Vidya Balan comes out tops again.”

     

    Saibal Chattejee of NDTV.com was somewhat impressed. “Vidya Balan does more than just don multiple guises in Bobby Jasoos. She hits many high points as she effortlessly breezes through her role, bearing much of the weight of the film with aplomb in the bargain. The film does need the support of her shoulders and not only because director Samar Shaikh’s debut effort has its share of limp moments. Equally importantly, Bobby Jasoos isn’t the sort of flick that is willing to stoop to any level simply to inveigle average consumers of Bollywood kitsch. A two-hour caper film that thrives on restraint, Bobby Jasoos takes a serious turn in the second half but retains its warmth all the way through. It is consistently charming, if not particularly exhilarating, and benefits immensely from Balan’s energetic performance.”

     

    Saumil Gandhi of Mumbai Mirror raved, “Post Kahaani, it is clear that roles are now written with Vidya Balan in mind. Her spirited performance in the title role justifies this decision. Her effervescence rubs off on the proceedings and gives it an energy that drives the film. She is well supported by a talented ensemble, who show once again that casting good actors in bit roles pays off. There are few things to complain about with Bobby Jasoos. It’s a delightful caper with a lot of heart, and you root for both the film and it’s protagonist all the way till the end.”

     

    Tushar Joshi of DNA commented, “It’s a Vidya Balan film. There isn’t a single frame that she isn’t a part of. It is a role that is written keeping her mind. In fact there are scenes where her nuances and mannerism s seems to play off on their own, without conforming to the boundaries of the script. Vidya plays Bobby with full candor and sincerity. Her ability to switch from one emotion to the other in a jiffy is remarkable. Zarina Wahab, Supriya Pathak lend color and able support to the ensemble. The Hyderabadi setting, lingo, and flavour is aptly brought out by Samar Shaikh. If you haven’t visited the place, Bobby Jasoos will give you a slice of what to expect.”

     

    The views of Anuj Kumar of The Hindu matched those of the rest, “Vidya has once again made a laudable choice. A Muslim girl trying to enter a male domain, it could have easily gone the gimmicky way, but Samar doesn’t overplay the rebel theme and Vidya ensures that her Bobby doesn’t remain just another bubbly character. She is obviously the hero of the piece but apart from a couple of disguises she doesn’t unnecessarily flaunt it. Here is a heroine who has forgotten that she is being shot. The Hyderabadi dialect and setting makes the narrative all the more rooted.”

     

  • In his farewell letter, Rajdeep Sardesai hoped the new management would put journalism first. Those old enough may want to remember the Reliance experiment with the Observer. Those young enough can believe what they want, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: CNN-IBN is feeling the pinch post Rajdeep Sardesai

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    This week, Pradyuman Maheshwari’s inestimable Mediaah! column looked at whether and how CNN-IBN will survive the exit of Rajdeep Sardesai, one of Indian television’s most familiar faces, the cult following of Arnab Goswami notwithstanding. Sardesai quit – or had to quit – a channel he started after the Reliance takeover of Network18, for those who have spent the last few months in hibernation.

     

    The rumour mill suggested that both Arnab Goswami (Times Now) and Barkha Dutt (NDTV) – all products of the Prannoy Roy School of Television Journalism – were approached by Reliance and Dutt is the most likely replacement. Goswami, the gossips feel, is waiting for Rupert Murdoch’s re-entry into TV news in India and the launch of the Fox channels (via India TV) for which Goswami is seen as the best fit. A segue from the blondes who overrun Fox in the US, but we in India have our own preferences. All this is still pie in the sky (or is that Sky?) stuff.

     

    For now, however, CNN-IBN is feeling the pinch. The whole idea of primetime TV news in India is star anchors punching each other’s guts out across the airwaves and across channels. Take the debates on the Supreme Court judgment making fatwas from Sharia courts illegal on Monday night. Nidhi Razdan on NDTV had her usual well-controlled show with intelligent analyses of the issue. Just after that finished, CNN-IBN took on the subject just after at 9 pm, a Sardesai slot. Bhupendra Chaubey now anchors the show. However, whether his guests were badly chosen (half were the same as NDTV’s) or whether he himself was trying to squeeze water out of rock, he could not manage to create a controversy. All his guests agreed with the Supreme Court while he tried to twist every argument around to no avail.

     

    The next debate was going to be on the increasing number of people below the poverty line in India. CNN-IBN coined the term “An Indian poor”, which ran at the bottom of the screens and then Chaubey himself said it. I did not watch the debate but I hope they had both Indian “poors” and Indian “richs” on it. I have a feeling this line was a direct translation from Hindi and my guess also is that with the changes going on at the channel even the bare minimum quality control that TV uses has vanished.

     

    Sardesai meanwhile in his farewell letter hoped that the new management would put journalism first. Indeed. Those old enough may want to remember the Reliance experiment with the Observer. Those young enough can believe what they want.

     

    A quick run through TV however shows that they remain confused about how to treat the new government. The kid gloves are still on more or less and the desperation to search for other issues to debate is evident.

     

    **

     

    Meanwhile, here’s a worthwhile subject to debate not just on TV but in society as well: The problems relating to section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the way it is misused against men http://www.livemint.com/Politics/V1SIYdZu2IJzHgxRiLNpEJ/The-problem-with-section-498A.html

     

    Plus, here’s the India the Great and all those boring things editors would rather bury under mounds of newsprint while re-examining the Preity Zinta Ness Wadia fight: http://m.thehindu.com/news/national/poverty-child-maternal-deaths-high-in-india-un-report/article6188227.ece/

     

    **

     

    And for proof that journalists really are powerful you only have to look at the internet wars that broke out after a journalist asked tennis star Maria Sharapova whether she knew who Sachin Tendulkar was…

     

  • There is once again a need for the media to examine this manufactured hysteria about the annual budget of the Central government, writes Ranjona Banerji

    Ranjona Banerji: Boring & Silly Budget coverage

    By Ranjona Banerji

     

    NDTV threw a party, Arnab Goswami gathered his friends and relations around him and Headlines Today showcased their owner Aroon Purie plus their newest star Shekhar Gupta. CNN-IBN and NewsX stuck to the usual format. Actually they all had the usual format but the first three tweaked it a bit while the last two made no such effort.

     

    To listen to Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley’s first budget you had plenty of options. There was Lok Sabha TV with just the speech. Or there was every other channel which had the speech and 8 million boxes, pop ups, scrolls and anything else that a graphic designer on a bad acid trip could come up with.

     

    As for the Budget itself, it soon became clear that this was a “Rs 100 crore” budget. It was also clear that I was finding it hard to stay awake. And more importantly, the stock market was less than enthused.

     

    Many commentators on television felt that the budget was not so very different from the budgets presented by the UPA. Most UPA schemes – damned as populist sops at election time – were retained. TV news itself veered between its current cheerleader-for-the-Modi-government mode and some small vestiges of journalistic DNA which lead to small criticisms.

     

    Corporate guests at TV studios have no option but to be sort of nice and positive, especially to a new government which they hope will help them. So it is unlikely that they will be objective. Some however were mildly critical. Politicians of opposition parties will of course be extremely critical, so nothing surprising there either. Politicians of parties who were once friends with the ruling party and may hope to be friends will toe the middle line – like the Biju Janata Dal.

     

    At the end of all that, what do you get from watching endless television on a rather boring budget speech and a budget full of tiny details – millions of schemes which have been allocated Rs 100 crore each? You get rather boring budget coverage.

     

    There is once again a need for the media to examine this manufactured hysteria about the annual budget of the Central government. Budget Day showed just how difficult it is to sustain coverage over an entire day and night. Most people are not interested in tweaks in various schemes and cannot understand the fine print of taxation policies. And as we know from budgets over the years, you really forget when you go out to buy bindis or bobby pins whether the 0.6 per cent cut in excise duty really made a difference to your monthly beauty budget or not.

     

    Business papers obviously have a duty to their readers as do business channels. I did however find it a tad amusing that business channels which spend all day discussing the minutiae of stock market trends did not dedicate the whole of July 10 focused on the rather lacklustre stockmarket response.

     

    **

     

    Possibly the funniest front page is that of the Economic Times, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a footballer and Arun Jaitley in a supporting role. We have over the years seen some spectacular cartoons from ET as well as some really silly ones but this football-inspired front page perhaps tops the Super Silly list? The headline however hits the ground running: “Aiming for the goal, Modi hits the crossbar”. My guess is that they got the graphic done expecting the “Acche Din” budget but got stuck with this boring one so had to improvise with the headline.

     

    Swaminathan S Aiyar’s front page analysis in ET was even more damning, headlined “A Chidambaram budget with saffron lipstick”. He gave it 4.5 on 10. Now that’s really rubbing salt into it.

     

    In the Indian Express, Arnab Goswami’s go-to-guy for Modi Rah-rahs, Meghnad The Lord Desai, called this a “UPA budget from happier days”. A backhanded compliment or a sudden need to tell it like it is?

     

    The opinions of Modi supporters from Columbia University are not yet in evidence, unless Arvind Panagriya and Jagdish Bhagwati were part of the Budget team? Firstpost.com was obviously complimentary though a bit upset about all the “sops” which the tax payer would have to pay for. The Wall Street Journal bloggers will soon make up the rest of the Modi’s economic support triumvirate.

     

    **

     

    There were glimmers in this Budget coverage though that sooner rather than later some in the media will drop their pompoms and get back to be being nasty and cynical.