I am suddenly missing the
romantic distance with the world of films which existed even fifteen years
earlier. It has been replaced with an intimacy, or an imposed familiarity in
recent years, which has robbed the celluloid world of its magic. News channels,
tabloids, newspaper supplements have exposed the stars and their everyday lives
to such a degree that their enchanting charm has remarkably weakened. As I was
musing how Madhuri Dixit’s willing return from a self-imposed exile amid
strident media clamour has done her more harm than good, the openness to which all
the stars are willfully subscribing is rendering them ordinary. Ordinary people
with ordinary aspirations! When stars are a click away, they do not remain
stars. But that does not seem to affect their projected stardom at least
apparently. When everyone is hankering for media attention and is ready to make
commercials out of their own lives and put them up on billboards, the
definition of stardom must have undergone a transformation. The more you are
visible, the more is your popularity, replacing the old definition that the
less available you are, the greater is your stardom. But is that really so? Some
old golden rules are sometimes hard to break, I suppose.
That secrecy and enigma are the
hallmarks of stardom is realized the hard way almost every Friday. A film’s
fate is decided on the basis of the first day’s collection and stardom is
enjoying a very short lease at the theatres. Perhaps, we cannot have another ‘Sholay’
or another ‘Hum Aapke Hain Koun’ again: I mean films which picked up through
word-of-mouth publicity after suffering a not-so-delightful start. The general
public does not need to dwell on any one star, nor does it have the time to do
so. Every star is equally always, already available, so, where’s the scope of romanticizing
about them? And, if we miss them at the theatres, why the films will be aired
within a month on the television or well, the DVD will be available much too
soon. Although the industry profits are now tied up with the private channels
and DVD companies, and no one is perhaps suffering remarkable material loss,
what is being lost is the magic of stardom and its long-lasting spell.
As far as Bombay cinema is
concerned, this trend of stars abandoning ivory towers of mysterious lives and
stepping on to the earth is perhaps contingent upon the changing themes of
current films. The larger-than-life hero is dead; and the virtuous maiden waiting
for her lover has found her place in the curio shop of Bollywood. Films are
brushing more closely with reality or life as we live it. Filmmakers have to
hide behind the new generic label of ‘Superhero films’ if they have to make
their heroes larger-than-life. Therefore, stars are no longer inaccessible
dreams, but lived realities. Although films such as Dhoom or Jab Tak Hain Jaan
have still kept the world of fantasy inviolate, every film is at least
attempting to imitate a semblance of realism, if they cannot afford be too
realistic. But stardom as it is traditionally understood is bound to die: I
mean why Naseeruddin Shah was never a star as Amitabh Bachchan was or still is?
Shah was always the man of the neighbourhood, while Bachchan was that superhero
who exists only in fantasies. While films are gradually becoming realistic,
that traditional star is steadily counting his days. With one exception,
perhaps: Salman Khan? Right? But then, he is no exception indeed, if we probe a
little deeper. Although he is still larger-than-life, in fact, almost
super-human in every film of his, none of his films enjoy a long life at the
theatres. He too is a victim of availability.
Just a thought! Share
your views!
