Category Archives: Bollywood

Ram Setu review – Last 1 minute somewhat saves Akshay Kumar’s movie

Despite starring in different genre of films in the last two decades, Akshay Kumar is known the most for his action roles. This is the first image he acquired among his fans and he remains to be a specialist in this form of cinema. Although he plays an archeologist in Ram Setu, he gets more than a chance to showcase his action skills yet again.

But overall, the film falls more in the adventure and mystery zone. Akshay’s stunts are kept simple because of the profession of his character. Ram Setu is not one of his best acts. However, the actor has a knack of carrying a film on his shoulders even while giving decent performances. He has done the same in this film as well.

Ram Setu is a period film that takes place in 2007. Dr Aryan Kulshreshtha (Akshay) is a successful archeologist married to a professor (Nushrratt Bharucchha). He is an atheist who only believes in facts and science. He is sent on an expedition in Afghanistan to restore Buddhist statues that were destroyed by Taliban terrorists.

It is also the period where India’s then government refuses to believe that the Ram Setu bridge between India and Sri Lanka wasn’t made by Ram’s vaanar sena [army of animals] and that it is formed naturally. A wily businessman (Nassar) also has his eyes set on the bridge in order to make a project over there that will benefit him immensely.

The Ram Setu matter goes onto the Supreme Court. Aryan’s next assignment involves studying the bridge and filing a report on the findings to conclude whether Ram Setu is the same as mentioned in the Ramayana.

It was obvious from the trailer itself that Ram Setu is intended to please people from a particular political inclination. The whole film makes it even clearer by taking subtle jibes at the Indian Government of 2007 without taking the name of the party running it.

Talking about the content and the craft, Ram Setu regularly takes creative liberties and shows disregard for logic. You might lose count on things happening so conveniently for the protagonist and his team. This includes Aryan’s escape from the clutches of Taliban, which is not even shown; we are only made to assume.

Despite this, Ram Setu does have a positive point in the form of its engaging and entertaining narrative. The events are lined up in such a way that there is just no scope for boredom.

But what saves Ram Setu the most from falling more is the twist in the very last scene of the climax related to one of the prominent characters. It comes as a surprise and is sure to please the worshippers of the heroes of the Ramayana like lord Ram and Hanuman.

After Akshay, south actor Satyadev Kancharana, who plays Anjaneya Putra aka AP, rules the film with his confident performance. Nassar’s potential as a quality artiste isn’t seen simply because his character is quite one-dimensional. Pravesh Rana, another negative character, fares better.

Also read: Adipurush teaser has triggered opposite political reactions

Nushrratt Bharuccha lends good support but her role doesn’t offer much. Jeniffer Piccinato shows promise. Jacqueline Fernandez struggles but this is hardly surprising now.

Overall: Ram Setu is somewhat rescued by the twist in the climax and the fast-paced narrative. The film would have appeared little better if it had released before the Telugu movie Karthikeya 2, a similar spiritual adventure thriller and much better.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Director: Abhishek Sharma

Producers: Cape Of Good Films, Abundantia Entertainment, Lyca Productions and Prime Video

Writer: Abhishek Sharma

Cast: Akshay Kumar, Nushrratt Bharuccha, Satyadev Kancharana, Nassar, Jacqueline Fernandez, Pravesh Rana and Jeniffer Piccinato

Aye Zindagi review – An incredible real story narrated convincingly

1 Reply

Director Anirban Bose’s Aye Zindagi initially appears like just another story about a person struggling against a terminal illness.

The film begins in 2004 when the 26-year-old Vinayak (Satyajeet Dubey) is being diagnosed with severe liver cirrhosis. He works in Lucknow but visits a hospital in Hyderabad to check if he can undergo a liver transplant because he has only six to seven months to live. Over there, he meets Revathy (Revathy), a grief counselor. Her job also includes encouraging people to go for organ transplant.

Although Vinayak stands a chance for getting a liver transplant, the process has some major financial and emotional challenges in store, including his own deteriorating health. His elder brother Kartik (Sawan Tank), a medical student, keeps his studies aside to look after Vinayak. While undergoing treatment, he develops an unusual bond with his doctor and nurse, played by Hemant Kher and Mrinmayee Godbole respectively.

Despite the storyline, Aye Zindagi is much more than what we expected it to be at half point. It’s based on an incredible true story that took place in India some years back. This is a rare film where the makers haven’t tampered with the real tale and kept it as it is. However, there was no need for this since the real story itself is highly emotional and dramatic, which we get the know in detail once the film ends.

In a film relying on as much reality as possible, it was necessary for it to shine during its various emotional moments and that’s exactly what happens here. The narrative is filled with moments triggering different emotions and each one moves you. The best one happens when there is a major twist in the tale. This particular incident keeps haunting you long after the film is over.

It is vital for such films to be high on performances in order for the audience to feel for the characters. Aye Zindagi doesn’t disappoint on this front too. Satyajeet Dubey provides a dedicated act where we constantly feel for him as he goes through a whirlpool of emotions. The scene where he breaks down with his brother and the climax deserve special mention.

As one would expect from a seasoned artiste like Revathy, she is thoroughly impressive. Hemant Kher, Mrinmayee Godbole and the rest of the actors too contribute positively.

Also read: When SRK did a Panchayat 33 years ago

Aye Zindagi comes with its share of minuses as well. The film’s length, which is 105 minutes, could have been reduced further, especially during the ending moments. The character of Revathy’s son should have been given more importance, in order to increase the impact of the basic storyline.

But the positives easily override the negatives making Aye Zindagi a surprise package of the year where Hindi cinema has been criticized a lot for its content.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Director: Anirban Bose

Producer: Shiladitya Bora

Writers: Anirban Bose

Cast: Satyajeet Dubey, Revathy, Hemant Kher, Mrinmayee Godbole

Adipurush teaser has triggered opposite political reactions

1 Reply

Filmmaker Om Raut’s Adipurush has been one of the keenly-awaited films ever since it was announced more than a couple of years back. The filmmaker’s Hindi debut Tanhaji: The Unsung Warrior, his previous effort, had become a runaway hit at the box office, so there was anticipation on what he would offer next.

Apart from the cast of Prabhas, Saif Ali Khan and Kriti Sanon, the major reason why Adipurush made heads turn was because of its adaptation from the great Indian epic Ramayana.

But the reaction to the long-awaited teaser finally released more than a week back would have taken the team of Adipurush by a rude surprise. The initial footage has been panned on social media for more than one reason.

Firstly, the VFX has been criticized as the visuals didn’t impress the viewers. But more than that, the look of Saif Ali Khan’s character of Raavan has been literally lambasted for it doesn’t match with what people imagine the character to be.

Not just that, the looks of Prabhas and Devdatta Nage, who play Lord Ram and Hanuman, along with the depiction of the Vaanar Sena have also come under criticism.

It was gradually realized that the teaser has given rise to opposite political reactions.

Om Raut started off his career with the Marathi movie Lokmanya: Ek Yugpurush in 2015. Apart from narrating the life story of Bal Gangadhar Tilak aka Lokmanya Tilak, the film also gave special footage to the protagonist’s efforts in writing Gita Rahasya, his own interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita.

Adipurush starring Prabhas and Saif Ali Khan — Prabhas and Saif Ali Khan in Adipurush (Source: YouTube teaser screenshots)

His next Tanhaji, his debut in Hindi, was about the achievement of the Maratha warrior Tanaji Malusare.

In other words, both the films were appreciated by the Indian Right Wing. Of course, the movies weren’t aimed at them specifically but their subjects were such that they naturally found takers in people from that particular political side.

The announcement of Adipurush naturally excited the Right Wingers since the film is based on Lord Ram. Plus, Raut’s social media posts are also appreciated by them, especially the ones about the upcoming Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

Another reason for the excitement for Adipurush for them was the casting of Prabhas as Ram. The actor has formed a fan base among the Right Wingers after the mammoth success of both the Baahubali movies. The films are considered pro-Hindu because of their content, although they were appreciated with people across political opinions.

Unfortunately for the makers, it is the Right Wingers who have been offended the most by the teaser of Adipurush. Although Prabhas is facing criticisms for his look as Ram, it is the portrayal of Saif that is receiving the maximum flak for him allegedly looking as a Mughal ruler or Alauddin Khilji. Despite being evil, Raavan was a learned scholar and, as per the reactions, Saif isn’t appearing like one in this get-up.

But that’s not all. Quite a few ‘pro-Hindu’ groups have started protesting and calling for a ban on the movie. The teaser has also triggered one such group to demand ‘Sanatani Censor Board’ to ensure that Hindu gods aren’t portrayed in a ‘derogatory’ manner in movies. A few BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) leaders too have slammed the teaser. Right Wingers on social media have also been trending boycott against the movie.

The film’s teaser was launched at a grand event in Ayodhya, where the much talked-about Ram Temple is being constructed currently. Ironically, the chief priest of the same temple has demanded a ban on the film.

On the other hand, the liberal crowd or those against the Right Wing have been providing full support to Adipurush since they believe there should be freedom of expression for the makers to portray any character the way they want. Their main argument is that nobody knows how the characters present in the Ramayana looked in real.

Before the teaser came out, not many would have expected a pro-Hindu movie made by pro-Hindu stars to be slammed by the Right Wing and supported by those having an opposite political view. The moral of the story is that trying to please people of any political ideology can backfire.

We can just wait and watch what happens when the full trailer of Adipurush is released.

Vikram Vedha review – Does the Hindi remake of the iconic Tamil film work?

When SRK did a Panchayat 33 years ago

10 Replies

Shah Rukh Khan is not only one of the biggest stars in India but also world over. But the actor has had to work his way up through hard-work from scratch. After doing theatre in Delhi, he migrated to Mumbai to continue the profession.

During his initial days, he was seen in quite a few Doordarshan shows like Dil Dariya (1988), Fauji (1988), Intezaar (1989), Adhuri Zindagi (1989), etc.

One notable work Shah Rukh Khan did during those days for the same channel was in the show Ummeed in 1989. The serial featured different stories that used to run for two episodes. In one such segment, Khan featured in the role of a young bank employee.

A noble soul with the channel name of ‘Super Tuber’ uploaded the two episodes of the show on YouTube three years ago.

As soon as I started watching the first episode, I was instantly reminded of TVF’s Amazon Prime Video show Panchayat. The web-series saw Jitendra Kumar play Abhishek Tripathi, an engineering graduate forced to take up the position of a secretary at the panchayat office in the small village Phulera, Uttar Pradesh.

Shah Rukh Khan in Ummeed and Jitendra Kumar in Panchayat

The city-bred Abhishek gets a culture shock by the life in the village. But there were ruder surprises in store for him when he takes a look at the panchayat office. It turns out to be a basic office which, must to his dismay, also doubled up as his residence. Abhishek also finds it difficult to adjust to the workings of the village due to the politics and age-old attitudes.

Coming back to Ummeed, Shah Rukh Khan plays the character of Anand Gupta who is ‘promoted’ as the branch manager to the bank’s newly-opened branch at Bhingri. In reality, Anand’s superior was under tremendous pressure from his senior to send someone at the said branch since nobody was willing to relocate to the place.

Anand’s happiness turns sour as soon as he lands at the bank’s branch in Bhingri. The place is located in a no-man’s land and is completely empty; no staff and just one helper. In fact, the helper and Anand are the only members of the staff.

This is similar to Abhishek’s situation in Panchayat. And just like that web-series, Anand’s personal room is also inside the office, just a few steps away, and this one too has a set-up for making tea near the window.

That’s not all though. Just like in Panchayat, Shah Rukh Khan’s character in Ummeed too forms a bond with the people of the village after, initially, going through a nightmare.

This is in no way stating that Panchayat was lifted from Ummeed. A city-based officer facing challenges after being transferred to a rural area is a common theme around the world.

Ummeed featured a very innocent and raw version of Shah Rukh Khan. He perfectly fitted the role of a common man from a middle-class family required to work hard to rise in his career. In other words, he made a clear announcement of his acting talent very early in his career; something we got to know in the following years.

Also read: Exploring Gehraiyaan’s selfish character in James Hadley Chase manner

Ummeed was written by Mukesh Sharma. I couldn’t find any other work by him after doing a Google search. Vikas Desai, as per IMDB.com, before directing this show, had acted in quite a few parallel films like Arvind Desai Ki Ajeeb Dastaan (1978), Giddh: The Vulture (1984), Andhi Gali (1984) and Anantyatra (1985). There is no record of what he did after that, except that he acted in Ketan Mehta’s Aar Ya Paar (1997).

Rajat Kapoor is named as one of the assistant directors on the show. It is not known whether he is the same one of Bheja Fry (2007) fame.

Ummeed was produced by Joint Publicity Committee, Public Sector Banks. It is interesting to see a show produced by the banking sector showing the sorry state of banks in rural areas.

Watch both the episodes of Ummeed below:

Why actual ‘anti-national’ statements never face BOYCOTT?

1 Reply

India is all set to celebrate 75 years of its freedom from the British, which they got in 1947. However, it is ironical that just when the country is reaching the important milestone related to its freedom, a section of the population is busy promoting curtailment of the same.

The whole #BoycottLaalSinghChaddha ‘movement’ is not just unfair but plainly silly. One of the main reasons why the film is being boycotted is the supposed ‘anti-India’ statements made by the film’s lead actor and producer Aamir Khan way back in 2015.

Messages are being circulated claiming that the star said that he wants to leave India as he is feeling unsafe. This is nothing but a fabricated version of what Khan actually said.

As you can hear from the above video, Khan said that his then wife Kiran Rao asked if they should move out of India. Firstly, it wasn’t suggested by Khan. Secondly, the very next thing the actor said was, “Now that’s a disastrous and a very big statement for Kiran to make to me.” Khan himself said on record that what she said was “disastrous” but not many of us paid heed to that, either knowingly or unknowingly.

Funnily enough, the statement came out in 2015. Following this, Khan released three of his films in the following years, Dangal (2016), Secret Superstar (2017) and Thugs Of Hindostan (2018). Except Dangal to some extent, no other film faced boycott. But today, seven years after that statement, there is a massive campaign against the actor for his film Laal Singh Chaddha.

Source: YouTube screenshot from Koffee With Karan promo

This isn’t the only reason why the film is boycotted. Somehow few months before the release of the film, fake messages and memes are being circulated claiming that Aamir said in his show Satyamev Jayate that we shouldn’t pour milk on the Shivling and should instead use that money to help the needy. Some messages are also claiming that he said the same thing in his earlier film PK (2014).

As it is proved in one of my previous articles, Aamir has never made any such statement on the Shivling, either in his show or in the movie. Instead, it was Akshay Kumar and Paresh Rawal who have made exactly the same statements (read the article and see the videos HERE). The former made it in the movie OMG Oh My God (2012) and the latter while promoting the same film. In fact, Akshay also went onto criticize the practice of pouring oil on Hanuman’s deity on Saturdays.

Hear both of them out in the videos above. Did anyone of you ever come across any boycott calls for Akshay or Rawal?

Even if the boycotters argue that out of these, the statement made by Aamir in 2015 about Rao asking if they should leave India are problematic, it is still hypocritical. This is because they are completely ignoring Kangana Ranaut comment made last year, which is many times more controversial and offensive than what Khan said.

Speaking at a summit organized by a news channel, she described India’s independence from the British in 1947 saying, “Woh azadi nahin thi, woh bheek thi. Aur jo azadi mili hai woh 2014 mein mili hai.” Watch the video of the same below.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MbEVUsH1b-4

Now, I don’t need to spell out how problematic this statement is. In a single sentence, the actress has questioned the sacrifices of all those freedom fighters who fought for India’s freedom. It is also clear that the comments made by Aamir are nowhere near to what she said. Plus, she has had a history of making comments of this nature. Comparing Mumbai with PoK is just one other example.

So, if you are deeply offended and incensed by Aamir’s comments but have no problems with what Ranaut’s said, you know what that makes you. More so if you are celebrating India’s 75years of freedom without having issues when someone said that that wasn’t actual freedom.

What Aamir Khan said about Shivling & why is his film boycotted?

5 Replies

Over the last few years, every time an Aamir Khan film gets ready for release, one particular message or meme related to him starts circulating on social media and What’s App. As you must have guessed, it’s shared by the Right Wing fanatics with an appeal to boycott his upcoming film.

With the release of Laal Singh Chaddha not being far, the same message has started circulating again.

The message claims that Aamir once said in his television show Satyamev Jayate that instead of pouring milk on Shivling, it is better to use that money to feed a poor person. Hence, the message appeals to the audience to boycott his next release and use the money you would have spent on the ticket to help the needy.

How true is the message?

The message is fake. Aamir has never said that in Satyamev Jayate. In fact, a topic related to religion or religious beliefs was never addressed in that TV show. Some messages also claim that the actor made that comment in his blockbuster PK (2014). This claim is also false.

Still, if someone can find a video of him saying such a thing, please pass it on. Not that him saying such a thing would justify the boycott, more so after you read below.

Aamir Khan boycott — Aamir Khan in PK and Paresh Rawal in OMG Oh My God!

Who said it then?

Interestingly, the message against pouring milk on Shivling was given by Paresh Rawal’s character Kanjibhai in his film OMG Oh My God (2012). In fact, the character in the movie shares an in-depth and hard-hitting opinion on why it is futile to pour milk on the Shivling, as can be seen from the scene below.

But it doesn’t end here. During the promotion of the same movie, Akshay Kumar, who plays Lord Krishna in it, gave a bold personal opinion on why one shouldn’t pour milk on the Shivling. In fact, he didn’t stop at that. He also criticized the practice of pouring oil on Lord Hanuman’s deity on Saturdays. Watch the video below.

Those spreading communal hatred on the internet and social media have turned a blind eye at Rawal and Akshay’s comments. It is impossible that they are completely unaware about the comments made by these two actors, considering how much research their IT cell carries out.

But don’t expect any such boycott messages for these two actors since their surname isn’t Khan. As we all know, Rawal is also a member of the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) and an MP (Member of Parliament). Akshay’s fondness for the party is known far and wide.

We are reminded of it every time we eat a mango.

Also read:

Rann keeps getting more relevant and that’s not a good sign

Samrat Prithviraj is a cinematic version of a What’s App forward

Why south films are dominating? Is Bollywood on the decline?

3 Replies

The last six months, ever since theatres re-opened all across India at the end of last year, have seen some major box office hits in India. The top three of them have been from the south Indian film industry. These include the likes of Pushpa: The Rise, RRR and KGF Chapter 2.

Interestingly, apart from their original languages, these films they have also done phenomenally well in its Hindi dubbed versions in the Hindi belts of India – regions where predominantly Hindi films work.

They have also outperformed quite a few big-ticket Hindi films that were expected to do well. This is forcing a lot of people to ask the question as to why south films are working big time in the Hindi markets these days, especially on social media.

Going by the films that have succeeded, the answer to the question is simple. These films are finding massive audience base because these are entertaining films. Over here, entertaining means absolute mass entertainers.

These are films where a popular hero (or heroes) with a good amount of fan following plays a rough and tough character who can beat the hell out of the bad guys, gets to mouth some heroic dialogues and shake a leg on fast dance numbers. Pushpa, RRR and KGF fall in these categories of films and were decent content-wise too. Hence they have achieved massive success all over the country.

This is also giving rise to the question whether Bollywood or Hindi film industry is on the decline. It is being said on numerous occasions that south industry is all set to dominate and put behind the Hindi industry. I read a lot enthusiastic comments on social media daily where someone or the other states that Bollywood is slowly getting finished or is sinking.

I personally feel these are baseless statements. One needs to understand that there has been a change in the way audience consumes films in the post-pandemic era. People are visiting theatres in large numbers only for massy commercial films that provide larger-than-life entertainment.

That’s the reason why the aforementioned south films have done so well. And that is also the reason why Rohit Shetty’s Sooryavanshi became a runaway hit and that too at a time when there was uncertainty at the box office. After all, it was the first big Hindi film to release post-pandemic and the producers themselves weren’t sure how it would perform. But it had non-stop entertainment and this was enough for the cash registers to start ringing.

The same can be said about the success of Gangubai Kathiawadi. It might be a film about the life of a sex worker but it was narrated by Sanjay Leela Bhansali in a larger-than-life and entertaining manner. It was also helped by the presence of superstar Alia Bhatt who showed as much confidence and swag as any hero in a hero-centric massy film.

The Kashmir Files is an exception as it’s not a typical Bollywood movie. It created massive interest for people of a particular political ideology who felt it’s their duty to watch this film in theatres. This doesn’t mean that those with a different political view didn’t see the film.

On the other hand, films like Chandigarh Kare Aashiqui, Badhaai Do and Jersey have failed despite getting positive reviews and word-of-mouth. This is because they were sensible, content-oriented films and not the larger-than-life masala entertainers.

Hence, as per the change in audience consumption, they didn’t do well in theatres. People are preferring to watch such type of films on OTT [over-the-top] platforms. Now, a film worth watching in theatre has to be a big-screen experience. A major proof of this change is that even someone like Ayushmann Khurrana, who was considered a bankable star before the pandemic, couldn’t help the cause of Chandigarh Kare Aashiqui.

Of course, Satyameva Jayate 2 was also aimed as a massy entertainer but the film got rejected because of its terrible content. The film at least needs to be decent to be successful. Because of the same reason, the Hindi version of Radhe Shyam sank despite the presence of the Baahubali actor Prabhas. The same was the cast with Vijay’s Beast. So it’s not at all big south films are doing well in Hindi.

There’s no denying that the quality of Hindi films in recent times hasn’t been up-to-the-mark or at high standards. The industry has been criticized for its obsession with remaking successful south Indian movies over and over again.

But this certainly doesn’t mean that Bollywood is sinking or is on the decline. It’s just that only commercial films with big stars and decent content are doing well right now because of the change in audience’s manner of consumption.

The big commercial films lined up for release from here onwards are expected to do well if the content is decent enough. Can’t say the same about films that are thought-provoking and not aimed at the masses as these films are now considered worthy only for OTT.

This will go on at least till the near future. After that, things may or may not change.

Also read:

Can we stop giving unreal reasons for 83’s box office failure?

Political ideologies & caste have divided audiences of Hindi & Marathi cinema

1 Reply

Cinema, like other art forms, is celebrated in India. In fact, this has been the most popular medium of art since time immemorial in various languages. It is considered to be a medium that is enjoyed by people in groups of large numbers. In other words, it has united people of India over the decades; be it of different languages or regions.

But in the recent past, there has been an increasing division among the film audiences in terms of political ideologies and caste.

This has been seen the most with Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri’s The Kashmir Files. No, this article isn’t about whether the film is good or bad. What’s noteworthy here is that people are divided in two sides of the fence when it comes to this film.

Agreeing to disagree is something that doesn’t happen much on social media. Those who haven’t liked the film or are critical of it, be it film reviewers or general public, are hated and abhorred by those who have loved it. I agree there have been reviews and views that appear biased against the movie.

However, even if someone genuinely doesn’t like that film, he or she is considered to be insensitive towards the plight of Kashmiri Pandits. They just don’t take into account that a person can dislike a film for its craft and other filmmaking aspects like screenplay, dialogues and direction. Not liking The Kashmir Files doesn’t mean one doesn’t care or sympathize with the Kashmiri Pandits.

Similarly, if a person genuinely likes that film, he is considered to be from the Right Wing.

Hence, now Hindi films are looked upon as ‘ours’ and ‘theirs.’ Films that are critical of the rivals of the ruling party or the ones that have references to Ramayana or Mahabharata are considered Right Wing movies. On the other hand, those critical of the ruling party and the ones that feature the Khans or the ‘nepo gang’ (as they are called) are considered belonging to the ‘other’ side.

Unfortunately, the curse of division has entered among the Marathi cinema audience too. Here it’s not based upon political ideology but caste. Yes, we are seeing caste-based divisions even in 2022. In fact, it is seen the most this year.

For people like us, films like Jhund (it is a Hindi film but it’s aimed mostly at Maharashtra) and Me Vasantrao are great films. However, because of the caste identity of the protagonists in both the films and its makers, they are labeled as films for the ‘lower castes’ and ‘higher castes’ respectively.

Hence, if a person from the ‘higher caste’ doesn’t like Jhund, he is considered to be anti-‘lower caste.’ On the other hand, if a person from the ‘lower caste’ doesn’t like Me Vasantrao, he is accused of being anti-‘higher caste.’ In both scenarios, if that person happens to be a film critic, he or she is trolled and bashed online. We have now reached a stage where the caste of the critic is taken into consideration before taking his or her views seriously.

Over the last 1-2 months, I have come across plenty of comments and long opinions on social media on the division between Marathi films on the basis of ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’. This segregation had started mildly few years ago but it has reached dangerous levels this year.

This division among Hindi and Marathi audience couldn’t have come at a worse time. This is the era of pan-India films. South is leading the way with movies like Baahubali (1 and 2), KGF Chapter 1, Pushpa, RRR and KGF Chapter 2. These films are dubbed in Hindi and they do tremendously well all over India.

Being an admirer of both Hindi and Marathi cinema, I would want films in these two languages to do well pan-India too by getting them dubbed in various south languages or through any other way.

But looking at such a staunch division among the primary audiences of films of both the industries itself, this appears like a dream right now.

Also read:

Can we stop giving unreal reasons for 83 box office failure?