This
is a longish post and might soon drive the reader to the point of absolute boredom.
Still, I am attempting to venture on a somewhat boring dissection of Berly’spost on the Malayalam star Prithviraj. Since the author gave 9 reasons in favour
of Prithviraj, I am offering 9 disagreements to these 9 reasons.
Prithviraj
is not the first public figure who is subjected to abject sms-jokes or virtual
criticism. We have an entire session on Seedi Haji which can even be qualified as
a separate branch of literature. I don’t even want to start here on the number
of Rajani jokes most of us get on an hourly or daily or at least weekly basis.
Since someone attempted to lay out 10 (in fact 9) reasons to hate Prithviraj
which in turn serve as a criticism to those who spread jokes on him, let me think
on my foot and share with you my random thoughts!
I
want to make a distinction here which is my disclaimer as well. This is not a post
for or against Prithviraj. This, on the other hand, is a post on a post on
Prithviraj. I am not a die-hard Prithviraj
fan. Nor am I an ardent-Prithviraj-Hater. I belong to that group who likes a
good laugh. I belong to that group too, who stand tall for people who seek
justice when their privacy and honour are violated. Since Berly’s post doesn’t kindle
either of the emotions in me (for that matter, any), let me do a matter-of-fact
analysis of the 9/10 existing reasons he has so humorously articulated.
As
I already said, this is not an absolute “for” vs. absolute “against” write up
on the star in question. Instead what I am attempting here is to offer 9
reasons why the 9 reasons the author gave
are not reasons at all. These are my disagreements with the banal nature of
the reasons the author gave.
One
can take this also as an exercise of commonsense. What I share here is the
opinions that many of us expressed while laughing such jokes off over a coffee
or over office breaks.
1.
Author’s
reason: Prithviraj (hereafter referred to as P) publically announced that he is
not in love with a journalist and later married one. He didn’t seek blessings
or fall at the feet of his fans/audience
My
disagreement: I don’t think it matters much to the Malayali audience whether P married
a journalist after having denied such a relationship before. What P wants to
share with public and what he doesn’t is a matter of his personal choice. At this
point in history, we all do admit and adore personal choices and freedom. But what
appears as unacceptable is that while denying this, P made a seemingly intellectual
allegation against media. He brought in issues of media responsibility and
media ethics which were unnecessary. One can deny or hush up one’s personal
affairs, love life and personal secrets in an urge to protect one’s own privacy.
What’s wrong in it!! But why a story-length unnecessary verbal exercise on
ethics and responsibility? Isn’t that gimmicking something that pisses people
off?
2.
Author’s
reason: P speaks good English
My
disagreement: He speaks English well; many of us do. Good or bad is a question
of relativity. But I genuinely don’t think most people have a problem with
that. We are accustomed to stars speaking English. Take a good watch at the full-length-drama
filled Coffee with Karan series!! We have veteran scholars like Narendra
Prasad. Not to mention young stars like Reema Kallingal, Archana Kavi etc
etc!!!And we have stars who went abroad, settled there for a while and later
came back. And stars who went abroad and never came back. Who is jealous of abroad-return stars? Who is
afraid of Metro bred stars and abroad-educated ones? If we have to compare P
only in relation to stars who do not speak English, that is reductionism. If we
look at the larger industry picture, then there are stars, speaking English left
right and centre. And nobody makes a case for those who speak English. Nobody
makes a case for those who don’t either! Why should the author? One a lighter
note, has anyone ever applauded, off screen or on screen, the pronunciation
accuracy of Suresh Gopi!!!!
3.
Author’s
reason : P has a good body
My
disagreement: Of course he does. We enjoy watching good bodies on screen. We
lament when our so called superstars’ beer bellies came jumping off the screen.
That is not a trend initiated by P, neither in Molliwood nor in Bolliwood. A
good body is the demands of the current industry so that one will not be shown
the door. P is only doing what he has to do, to keep himself in the industry. Also,
aren’t we used to watching six-packed-stars, increasingly now that the Bollyood-Kollywood-Molliwood
or whatever wood division is being eroded?
4.
Author’s
reason: P answered questions with clarity and exhibited general knowledge.
My
disagreement: Are you referring to the same interview that many of us watched?
If yes, then our standards of clarity and general knowledge differ. I am
persuaded to think that mutual ego massaging is considered as clarity and
general knowledge in some parts of the world.
5.
Author’s
reason: He filed a case against those who “stole” Urumi
My
disagreement: The idea that piracy is staling is long been thrown out of the
window. Piracy is something that is set into motion with a particular digital
culture. Piracy culture is not seen as “bad”
or “good” these days. On the other hand there are arguments that go in favour of
piracy as piracy is an act of releasing something that is considered as “privately
regulated”. There are views that see piracy culture as posing a challenge to
the state regulations. Also piracy is the cyber way of negotiating with digital
spaces. Why reducing piracy to good or bad question at all? There are
Intellectual Property laws to protect one’s copyright interests. P made use of
it. Well and good. Why should the author bring in a moral comment on that?
6.
Author
does not have a 6th reason. So don’t I.
7. Author’s reason: P
reads books and talks about books
My
disagreement: I agree with the general argument of the author here that there
is a particular way we are tempted to look down on people who read and talk
about books. But let me be case specific. What P chooses to read is his personal
interest. What P reads does not place him above or below anyone. That cannot be
a general standard of sophistication either. I might find P interesting because
he reads certain books. Another person may find a star who is into real estate
interesting. A third person might find an actor who is into dancing
interesting. What’s the big deal? Why
should we think that it should be a general universal criterion? “Fan-hood” or “Fan-dom”
as they call it these days does not operate based on such standards of
sophistication at all. Also, why should we glorify the personal reading habit
of someone who is an ardent advocate of personal space and secrecy? Just as
much his marriage should not matter to the general public, his reading habits
should also not!!
8. Author’s reason:
He is into industry for the last 10 years and not even 30 yet!!
My
disagreement: Come on, look at Daniel Radcliff and Emma Watson. They are into
industry for 11 years and not even 25 yet!!!
9. Author’s reason:
He continues to give interviews despite the anti-Prithvi- wave!!
My
disagreement: Cinema is his bread, man!! If he has to continue in the industry
he has to ignore such things, which he is doing. What is so great about it?
This is what all our stars did in the past and are doing in the present. Haven’t we seen stars who went through great
scandals and extreme stigma and yet chose to fight and remain in the industry?
That is no news!
10. Author’s reason: Aged
stars and Torrent Downloads
My
disagreement: The point about piracy culture is discussed in one of the p
points above. I shall not detail it again.
About
the “aged” stars acting as youngsters and college goers! One of P’s celebrated
arguments is that stars should choose roles that suit their age. That point is
well taken! He can even give examples of Robert Redford and Richard Gere of
whoever! But let me point towards the short-sighted-ness of P’s argument here.
His criticism is always based on the male stars. What about female stars who
can’t remain in the industry because they lost their charm/youth? If Richard
Gere or Robert Redford acted at the age of 40/50/60 as aged characters, there
were equally aged Merryl Streep and Demi Moore who supported the plot. Does our
industry give a space to female stars who get aged so that they can be
on-screen companions to our aging super stars? Why does P, who is so concerned about the male
actors acting young, not talk about such gender biases? Is the author really
too short-sighted to see this?
At the end o all this one question remains, who is afraid of Prithviraj!!!
Note from the blog authour: For a change I am allowing a guest post ;)
