May 9, 2008

SUNDAY LETTERS

Recently, I wrote a letter to the Editor of Hindustan Times regarding Anbumani Ramadoss's delightfully entertaining statements concerning the Indian film industry and the adverse influence it has on the health of the Indian audience.

____

Vir Sanghvi's The Publicity Hound article (May 4th) gives a penetrating insight into the psyche of our illustrious Union Health Minister. Anbumani Ramadoss's fifth-grade arguments as to why Indian cinema should not portray actors who smoke, drink or even eat potato chips for that matter, are stupid in their entirety.

It is silly to believe that the audience would blindly mimic everything that the actors do in movies. We are sensible, capable, thinking individuals—the actors puffing cigarettes on screen definitely cannot have a drastic affect on our so-called 'impressionable' minds.

It seems attacking the movie icons is Ramadoss’s only passport to making it to the headlines, and unequivocally he has been successful. Our Health Minister should focus on more crucial concerns such as drug abuse, providing hygienic conditions in government hospitals and ensuring proper availability of medicines, and leave us to decide whether or not we should buy the next packet of chips.

*

I do intend on writing more on this topic, and shall return once I'm done tackling my entrance exams.

39 comments:

Mystique said...

chips, even?
now THAT'S stupid.

Unknown said...

That response was fantastic. I believe they published it. To be honest with you, I do not see anything wrong in that, albeit, I should say that some kids, as was reported, in Bhopal, started doing the 'stunts' Hrithik Roshan did in Krrish. And that's not good.

All the way, Bollywood has come a long way and has complete set of good actors who shouldn't be censored for anything. What's the essence of hiding to the public what's known to the public? I mean, we smoke, why can't we do it onscreen?

This is unacceptable and you will have to write more on it. Thanks.

five_silver_rings said...

Mystique: Yep, chips as well... Apparently he made a remark that Saif, who endorses Lays chips, recently suffered from a heart stroke... and therefore, encouraging people to eat potato chips can be detrimental to the health of the Indian masses.

Onyeka: I agree, stunts have been imitated.. However, the smoking or drinking scenes on screen, I believe, merely reflect society. If such scenes are deleted from the face of Indian cinema, then whatever 'little' reality films show, would cease to exist.

Moreover, if the audience *did* imitate the smallest things the actors do in movies (or small screens for that matter), we would all be good daughters to our mothers, would live by the stereotypial social mores, always be 'good' since "good *always* prevails over evil", and every 'saasu maa' would detest her daughter-in-law and conspire against her!

And honestly, I think not endorsing potato chips is asking for a bit too much. That way, actors shouldn't be even endorsing aerated drinks, for after all, they too are *harmful* to our health. I say, while we're at it, why don't we go ahead and ban every unhealthy product existing in the market as well!

The point I am trying to make is that, no matter what actors do or say, at the end of the day, we are responsible for our own body. I think people would still smoke, drink or even eat chips, irrespective of what is shown on television.

Anonymous said...

Does he mean I can sue Rajnikant till his undies for adding fuel to my smoking habit? :D

El said...

so right, that guy is now a joke, no one takes him seriously anymore.

but, :sheepish grin:, confession - all those smokers onscreen, esp. Winona Ryder in Girl, Interrupted, way coool when I was 13, and the whole bunch in Almost Famous.

Unknown said...

Exactly! I see so much sense in what you've written. I don't know, but people should know that this is a FREE WORLD. We are free to do anything that's natural. I was born a Christian, but the way Christians see everything as immoral mesmerizes me and that's why I've decided to step out of religion/God/gods.

I watched Churider Chadha's Bride and Prejudice recently and said to myself, 'Why was there no scene of smoking and heavy drinking?' I can't remember if there is any. In Swades, Mohan tries to tell us that the whites have cultures and traditions as well. But we, in Africa and Asia will always say our own is the Ultimate and we take it as our refuge when we are been defeated. Culture can still prevail when we 'act'.

I see something serious coming up with this letter. There should be an uprising to demand that no one censors anything. Look at the film Sin, Bole and Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children. These are just mere artworks that have threatened religious fundamentals. But all the way, we must respect people's beliefs. But for him to say that even CHIPS, oh la la la, I don't agree with him. It sounds like a very cheap joke.

And let him not make the outside world think of India as inferior.

Whether Priyanka Chopra or Aishwarya Rai, Bollywood stands out and must be allowed to boom!

I doff my hat!

Unknown said...

Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verse, please. Midnight's Children has eaten me up! LOL

five_silver_rings said...

Alok: My dear boy, you're crazy :P

El: So, you were influenced by Winona Ryder and Almost Famous? Hmm.. see the thing is, as kids, there IS a very good possibility of that happening.

However, I feel getting influenced by movies is something that is entirely subjective. For instance, though I love watching movies, I am aware of the (thin?) line that exists between reality and tv screens. Can't say I was ever influenced therefore. But I do get your point :)

Onyeka: Bride and Prejudice? You know, I actually don't remember a single drinking or smoking scene in the movie.. And the movie was still did brilliantly well. Hmm... Maybe Indian cinema *can* do without such scenes and still be successful.
Perhaps... perhaps...

Anonymous said...

Well, there is the educated audience and the less discerning audience, is there not? 'tis a privilege to belong to the former.

No idea about this article you speak of; I'm sure it's a mess. Hindustan Times isn't exactly a paragon of journalistic virtue.

In any case, thought I'd say hello. :)

five_silver_rings said...

Starry: And a jolly hello to you as well Stary :)
Indeed, it sure is good to belong to the more privileged lot, so what I propose is, certain awareness/informative sessions that need to be given out to the public, rather than outright banning almost every 'anti-social' thing on television, yeah?

And yes, Hindustan Times may not be the paragon of journalistic view, but I think Sanghvi's article, addressed an issue which needed to be attended to--which is what prompted me to respond to it. Now, while many may not agree with him or even I, it all boils down to the matter of different perceptions.

I'm assuming you're as well. What's your blog address? :)

five_silver_rings said...

Opps, sorry to mis-spell your blog name--Starry :)

vanilla sky said...

i don't have so much grudge against the comments on smoking as much as i have against his comments that the ipl team name royal challenge-er provokes alcohol consumption ..!!

five_silver_rings said...

Vanilla Sky: Haha.. Hmm.. True.
I think our dear fella loves being in the news for some reason. He likes to knit-pick each and every darn thing that exists in our so-called flawed society.

Honestly, if Ramadoss has such major issues with Mallya's team name, I suggest our Health Minister should jolly well go and close down all stores and shops in town which sell alcohol to begin with!

Besides, it's intriguing to know that our politicians see the IPL and what the teams supposedly endorse as a matter of utmost importance, rather than concentrating on something more immediate and crucial, like the food crisis, farmer suicides, the almost (now) non-existent Nuclear deal, to name a few.

Our dear chappy, Ramadoss, just needs tiny openings, so as to ensure that he remains in the news headlines as bloody long as possible.

Frankly, I don't buy the nonsense he offers so generously.

Unknown said...

No, no. I didn't say Bride and Prejudice wasn't good. It was a great movie, with all the trappings of multiculturalism and all the layers of what people call cross-over cinematic feel. I liked the movie from the beginning to the end and it's one in a million. But at least, since it has characters of different colours, traditions and cultures, there should be a real deal for smoking and drinking. I didn't say without it, good movies won't be made. But they should be added. We are humans and the actors onscreen portray the way we live our lives...

I think the one about chips isn't that brilliant. He should have said something more funnier...

Dhoom 2 is another movie I like. But if Hrithiki Roshan were to repeat those stunts again, he should have been able to depicted as someone who does ordinary things, like smoking. His character in that movie is shallow and sketchy. It could have been done well, with everything attributed to a bad guy. Yes, he was a baddie in the movie. In Krrish, let's believe that he played the role of a village guy, who couldn't have been easily introduced into such, but here it should have been done well.

Here in Nigeria, people keep asking me, 'Why don't Indians kiss onscreen?' I hope I get the answer from your end, Radzie?

kyamaloom said...

All these matters are as stupid as they can get. Bunch of dolt jerks!
You wrote a letter?
Fine enough!
Wish it could shower some sense.
Though I doubt.

AG said...

heyaa

exactly my sentiments girl !!!
luck with ur entrances

cheers

RiĆ  said...

really nice post!i completely agree wth wht u hav said.....i simply dislike this man who can only think of bringing up such issues rather than focusing on the serious ones!!absolutely ridiculous....and btw good luck for ur entrances...i suppose u mus b done wth them by now!!

Vipul Nanda said...

I don't recall who it was, but it was the information and broadcasting minister after AXN was banned from India for showing the World's Sexiest Advertisements late at night.

A TV interviewer asked the representative of the people whether he was imposing his morality on everyone. I remember watching this with great clarity. His expression changed to one in which he seemed annoyed at the question, and he said -

"Of course I am. Who else can do it?"

I think, therein, lies the problem.

five_silver_rings said...

Onyeka: Kissing scenes? I think you need to watch more of Indian cinema than you usually do. Look up on Malika Sherawat (hope I've spelled her name right!), and Celina Jaitley... These women add that *slice of life* to Indian cinema. Besides, if you *have* seen Dhoom II, our new Mrs. Bachchan kisses Hrithik Roshan in one scene as well.
So erm, I don't think Indians shy away from kissing on screen now days. Times are changing, so are the people--barring a few, of course.

Sutta: Truthfully, I believe no letters, no articles, nothing can change a traditional perspective, except for self-will.
Before objecting to on-screen smoking and blah... Ramadoss should understand the times we are iving in and the culture the present genreation celebrates. I still think, if he wants a change, he should begin form the grass root level--EDUCATE the kids! I know, it may be quite challenging and perhaps be 'asking for too much'... but every change requires a struggle.

Aditi: Thanks hon! :)

Ria: Unfortunately love, I am not done with them. Have one the day after tomorrow.

Arawn: I just don't get it. Why does India shy away from reality? Banning the broadcasting of the World's Sexiest Advertisements is like pushing certain aspects of life you don't want to acknowledge or accept, conveniently under the carpet.
I mean doing so will prove what, exactly? Banning one advertisement will not stop men from (admiring?) women elsewhere. The internet is accessible to everyone, men will still watch porn if they bloody well have to!
So the question stands: Is this a regressive society or a progressive one? As far as facts tell me, India is trying too hard to remain conventional and uphold its 'values', unbudging for a change. Modern India, we say? I don't think so!

Vipul Nanda said...

There is a schism in the modern India as we understand it, and as it exists for a lot of other people. Yes, a large number of people might have access to internet porn. But they're a frightfully small minority in comparison to the people with televisions, generally.

The State can't control those who are aware of their freedoms. These measures are designed for the *other* lot. The ones who vote. The ones who fight for what they believe is a mythical bridge across Palk Strait. The ones who kill in the name of religion.

We're on the other side. We get to watch through the bars. The question is - are we in the cage, or are they? We have so little impact upon policy, even though we are the loudest vocal minority. Reservations happen. Censorship happens. Movements also happen, but with an abysmal success rate.

Democracy, and tyranny not of the majority - of the people who control the majority.

Unknown said...

Achcha! I've watched Dhoom II and I mentioned that above. Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan kissed. But it's few. And this is what they argue. I don't have a problem with that. The boosy Malika does wonderful things on screen.

I've taken the liberty to answer some of the questions your letter has raised in my novel. I wish it had been released before you wrote this. Vimala (a character in my book) advocates for a modern India, keeps telling people to stop wearing sari, salwar kameez and churider. But I don't think the problem is with 'upholding the values of India', but how far the media gets to giving publicity to blatant statements as that of the Health Minister. They have to be ignored, and as you said, this is his passport to hitting headlines by attacking movie icons.

I've been following Amitabhji's blog since the past few weeks and I think Indian actors are more closer to their fans than Hollywood counterparts and anyone trying to tell them what to do must be heading for abyss.

Thank you so much for starting this debate. I hope many people learn from this.

five_silver_rings said...

Arawn: Small minority of internet users you say? Agreed. Many may not have access to the internet, but let's take a look at print media (magazines, in this case). There were (and still are) magazines which sell porn. And mind you, everyone has access to that. Low budget porn movies too are accessible to the common man. Advertisements contribute a miniscule part to it. Truth is, if it's in the market, it's everywhere.

And cenorship is not certainly designed for the *other* lot, for we too are affected by it. Fact is, conventionalism prevades society, and we need to take a step back and look at things from a broader perspective. If you want a progessive society, we need to allow our minds to breathe a bit, think rationally rather than blindly chanting out religious sentiments, and saying that a particular bridge should not be destroyed.

Now honestly, the Ram Setu is a different issue altogether. I too, to a certain extent, am against the destruction of it--but my argument stands purely on the grounds of it being a historical monument, nothing more. However, I *can* understand the Centre pushing for its destruction, for it translates into having a shorter, more convenient shipping route between Sri Lankan and Indian ports. But I still think that Ram Setu should not be done away wth. And honestly, the Centre's affidavit stating the non-existence of Lord Rama was a bit too harsh on the traditional Hindu sentiments, if you ask me.

Hmm.. remind me to start a debate on this issue later on :P

Onyeka: Media is giving Ramadoss publicity, as far as *I* think, to humour him. It perfroms two functions: a) To communicate our Health Minister's protest against the on-screen behaviour of Indian actors, b) Allows journalists through the same medium (media), to communicate their protest against the Health Minister. That way, two opposing parties are able to voice their views on a particular issue.

As for *ignoring* Ramadoss, truthfully, that is only possible to a certain extent. As our Health Minister, sadly, we are obliged to take his statements in all seriousness, even though we might wish to do the contrary.

As for Amitabh Bachchan's blog.. Hmm.. fans do seem close to their actors, but then again, *that* is the reason why they are called 'fans'. Now, I haven't come across his blog, but as far as I have heard comments about his blog, people have said that he comes across as quite different and irrational--an image quite contrary to his on-screen self.

Vipul Nanda said...

I didn't meant that censorship doesn't affect us, and is meant to prevent others from access - I meant to say that it is designed to have its full impact on the others. The 'masses', so to speak, who are imagined to care especially about non-issues such as these. Which is why I used the Ram Setu analogy. Instead of determining whether or not it *is* a historical monument or a naturally occurring phenomenon, intentions and characteristics shall be bandied across both sides for the sake of votes and politics.

The magazines and all exist, but they're not as easy to get to as the internet makes it for us. The entire point is that those in power seek to be able to show that they are doing something, and banning channels for 'inappropriate' content does that, while not really causing much difference to anyone - the viewership of that programme was probably quite low, and possibly AXN got a lot of publicity out of that entire issue.

The conventionalism is a part of a certain section of society, but it is pandering to their beliefs (whether ostensibly or otherwise) which causes such nonsense. Most people actually fall for Ramadoss' 5th standard douchebag lines, and so he sits pretty up there. We can poke fun at him or generally condescend and speak of the awareness of the public with lines like "Yeh sab jaanti hain", but it unfortunately doesn't work out that way.

Vipul Nanda said...

Ouch. I read that again and realise I sound like one of those damn 8th standard debates.

*Sighs*.

Occasional Brilliance said...

i love what you have written. i cant imagine why the guy even gets the exposure that he does. it is extremely naive of him to think that the publics going to ape any and everything that that is shown on the silver screen... as for the section of the audience that might actually do so, a warning or a message from the star himself before or after the movie would actually help...

Smokin Joe said...

Yup, i do agree on a lot of things of what u have written (not entirely)
Here are my addons...

1) A major study done shows that cigarette ads dont normally provoke any new person taking up smoking, it only helps a smoker to change his brand

2) Ramadoss definitely has better things to do, as you rightly said, and that thing is civil health. Smoking only aggravates an already happening problem, it normally doesnt create a problem of it own (unless its chronic and we are talking about cancer)

3) Whats the point in asking the superstars to stop smoking on cigarette, if u have the power, ban the cigarette companies.

4) Chips was ridiculous. And saying on top of that that saif got a heart attack because of that.. DAMN!

Unknown said...

Alright, this is Amitabhji's blog link: http://blogs.bigadda.com/ab/

It's a nice one. Thousands of comments.

Anyway, I think we are even giving publicity to the Health Minister here. He will surely think he deserves it.

I do not agree with anyone on censorship...

Gonecase aka. Shutter Singh said...

Genuine topic and I never agree with politicians....it surely is publicity gimmick. But I bag to differ with a point or two, people do imitate. You are considering well-educated city people but what about small town wannabes ??

five_silver_rings said...

Arawn: Your point being?
(Sorry, I got lost somewhere in that long post :P)

Firewhiskey: You know, *that* is a very interesting idea. I think actors should do that; it will indeed help.

Smoking Joe: In case you haven't noticed, barring your first point, all the others that followed were points I had already mentioned (in blog or in my comments).

Onyeka: Haha, Ramadoss sure is getting publicity on this page! :P

Gonecase: True, people do tend to imitate--not those who are educated, but the 'small town wannabes' just might--but a caution or a warning in both Hindi and English given by the actors (like firewhiskey suggested) would work wonders.

Sigh, our country really needs to *grow*--not in terms of population (I think we've already mastered that), but intellectually. There is a tremendous scope for improvement. Tremendous. And I sigh, again.

metal-militant said...

Well,to a certain extent,yes,its very dumb how he thinks Indians will blindly follow everything.But you assume too quickly that every Indian is as educated as you are.Though most Indians won't do so,there are still those lower class people who wear pink shirts and yellow pants,dye their hair light brown and yellow and wear HUGE,fake goggles just to look 'cool'.These are the guys who get on to buses and say staff.And they will also turn to ther biggest inspiration,bollywood,for their habits as well.So,I'm not saying that this is a good move by Ramadoss,but people WILL take inspiration from Bollywood to smoke.But this is no way to control it.

What Ramadoss COULD have done was introduce the printing of those pictures of the gory results of smoking i.e blackened pus-dripping toungues,blood vomit etc on cigarette packs.This will strike enough fear into smokers' hearts and 'inspire' them not to smoke.It worked in Germany where they not only printed them on cigarette packs but showed such pictures before EVERY movie in the halls.GENIUS,absolutely.

And I have a personal grudge against Vir Sanghvi for printing totally senseless trash against Star Wars in Brunch.

crasiezt said...

Loved the letter. I wonder if it will make a difference though...
Ramadoss is an ass.

Unknown said...

Yes, really! He doesn't deserve this, honestly.

He should go see some government hospitals that need rehabilitation and not movie icons!

Unknown said...

One of the primary features of society is the heavy mistrust it has upon its members.

Authority (be it in parents, schools, colleges, workplaces, government) seems to mistrust our ability to make a rational choice. They mistrust even our ability to learn from a bad choice.

With parents not trusting their children, how do you expect a child to trust himself/herself? Same goes about government and the people.

Result: People mistrust their own rationality, follow what's "cool". Smoking and drugs, for example. And then something new needs to be banned.

Fools and Hypocrites, Authority in India is full of them. They're just completing the vicious cycle and help keep it going.

Macadamia The Nut said...

There no actual black or white here. What you say makes a LOT of sense to me and I agree 100%. But that's only under the supposition that everyone thinks like You and I.

Unfortunately, that's not always the case either. There are naive impressionable idiots(?) floating around in larger numbers than we think.

Then again, maybe we need more statistics

kyamaloom said...

You need to pour more words over here!

Unknown said...

You've left us for how many weeks now!

IncorrigibleV said...

Mann aka Bubbles' new post
she asked me to drop the link to everyone on her blogroll

kyamaloom said...

MUMBAI?

Kyun?
Kahan?
Kaise?
Kab tak?

:O

kyamaloom said...

Check your mail!