Billu Barber/Delhi 6

Billu Barber

I look for something remarkable in every movie that I see. Something novel or something different. I don’t always succeed. However, if I do, I am happy with the filmmaker, even if the movie in entirety is a big let down. That little thing can compensate for the overall disappointment with the film.

In Billu Barber, for example, apart from the last scene where Shah Rukh Khan gives his speech in school (very emotional, like Al Pacino’s in The Scent of A Woman), there is this scene in the beginning of the movie when Billu applies for a government grant to refurbish his barber shop. Great way to introduce and reveal the main character. Of course, the government grant is never made. Billu has no money to grease the palm of the bureaucrats to get his loan sanctioned. Later on, we learn from an angry Om Puri (the rich moneylender in Billu's town) that Billu was the only one who had refused a loan from him and hence his shop was in a bad shape.

This is a micro level example of the debt trap that Billu perhaps was aware of. This brings me to the subject of debt-led growth model. India was not growing at a blazing rate before the economy's liberalization in 1990. Reason? Capital was not available for borrowing. Then everyone got access to easy credit. Since fiat money is created out of thin air, there is no dearth of it. But is this model of growth sustainable? Even before the Wall Street crisis and global recession that we are witnessing today, I knew something was wrong with this model. At that time, I didn't know about finance, fiat money, the inverse pyramid model of debt-based growth.

Will the whole of humanity be enslaved by the financial institutions (Master/Visa/bank mortgages for individuals and WB/IMF for countries)? That's what Billu's little act of defiance reminds me. Any way, in the old Hindi movies, the villains were the village moneylenders.

Delhi 6

God is you…he lives in your heart. Tujh me rab basta hai. I think that was one of the messages of the film, Delhi 6. And it was made brilliantly obvious by the shots in the closing credits. In the temple, there is a mirror. All characters (actors) come to the temple and see their image reflected in the mirror, in the temple’s sanctum sanctorum. Great message!

I think the film did not work because of the principal character. There was not much background provided on him, nor was there a transformation in him--creating less empathy with him. We never see how his childhood was. What formed his thoughts and beliefs? The film did not convey that.

When I discussed the film with scriptwriting guru Syd Field, who had advised Rakyesh Omprakash Mehra on the script, he said that the main character was passive. Too many cooks (three writers in this case) spoil the broth and despite good intentions, this is what happened with Delhi 6.

Akshay, Katrina and Singapore's Billu Barber

Ever since ST Life! correspondent Deepika Shetty wrote about Bollywood film director Priyadarshan's shooting schedule in Singapore, she says that her life has become miserable.

"Since last week, my mail box has been filled with requests, my cell phone has buzzed so many times that I've been forced to switch it to a perpetually silent mode. Random folks call my office line pretending to pitch stories, when all they want is a brush with the stars" she writes in her ST blog. "Acquaintances have re-surfaced almost as dramatically as they had exited from my life. I have open-ended invites to lunches, to dinners, to drinks, even to salons to get my hair done."

Well, perhaps Deepika did not realise that there is price one has to pay for being able to be up, close and personal with celebs! I was not surprised at all at the reaction she got. "People are generally star-struck and the reaction you are getting is bound to happen when it comes to Indians and Bollywood stars" I told her.

Given the topic, I have two points to make here:

1. In the age of YouTube, when theoretically every one could be a star, why are people still so star-struck? Stars used to be demigods but in the age of Blogs and Twitter, they come across as savvy businessmen plying their trade. Let them be, folks--that's what I want to tell people! Let the stars do their job. Watch their craft, if you have to, but with a distance, and let the journalist do his or her job in peace. What's the point of basking in reflected glory by being photographed with actors?

Many actors and filmmakers now connect with their fans through blogs and other social networking sites. You can connect with Shah Rukh Khan, for example, on Twitter. Why not do that? You can even send him a direct message!

And since so many Indians are so web savvy, can't anyone do what Natalie Portman is doing for Hollywood with her social networking venture, MakingOf!

2. I have seen that some newspapers (even in Singapore) have their journalists pictured with stars (Hollywood/Hong Kong/ Musicians) and these stories (with the star struck journo standing by the side of the stars) getting published with a clear regularity. Their writings are also so fan-like. I believe that when a journalist is interviewing someone, for that moment, he or she is on par with the interviewee. The job needs certain seriousness--if you are not serious (in purpose) you are not being fair with the interviewee who is giving you his/her time. Displaying the behaviour of a fan does not suit a journalist. In private life, yes, (in a blog, yes) but not as a journalist of a serious newspaper.

Is my opinion too old school?