Bachchan’s Waterloo
With an inexhaustible reserve of patience for mainstream Bollywood, the NYT says of Jhoom Barabar Jhoom:
Jhoom begins in Waterloo Station in London with Bollywood’s restless éminence grise Amitabh Bachchan, the film’s Greek chorus (and chorine), doing what he does best: dancing and commanding the screen. His costume and person are wonders. With his double-necked guitar, feathered hat, necklaces, coat of many colors and jeans tucked into high boots, he’s part Sufi mystic, part gyrating Cossack, part George Clinton… [Link]
And part Oaktown pimp. Didn’t double-necked guitars go out in the ’80s?
Jhoom seems at first like the silliest and slickest of trifles: boy meets girl, waiting for a delayed train. Complications. Song and dance. (Repeat.) … suffice it to say that Jhoom, laden with in-jokes, brims with confidence and the courage of its own loopy style. [Link]
This is a better review than usual. The NYT usually shrugs, unwilling to say ‘this movie sucks’ for fear of being culturally insensitive and settling for ‘maybe you’ll like it if you’re brown.’
on Saturday, June 16th, 2007, 9:07 am in Fashion, Film, Media › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
When will he realise he just shouldn’t be dressing up like this anymore?
I dunno, he seems to be having fun. He went from angry young man to gaudy old. Longest adolescence ever?
He looks like Willy Nelson in that photo.
you should the clips in the youtube, apparently this dress style was inspired by Johnny Deep in the Pirates.
Ah, that rotten smell in the theatre must Amitabh bringing back Clinton’s funk.
I love the Times review: “…and a charming can-do, why-not-the-kitchen-sink spirit” and I love your description of the standard Times review of Hindi films.
Now are you going to cover the biggest event in Indian film history ever?
I’ve chatted with Rachel Saltz. She studied Sanskrit (!) in college and has a big interest in India, plus a love of Bollywood movies. If memory serves I think she mentioned she actively lobbied at the Times to do their B’wood reviews.
Actually, of several of the folks who’ve reviewed Hindi movies over the past few years, all that I talked to were very enthusiastic about both them and AB père…
For my two cents, I thought JBJ was great fun, and just as with B aur B, I’d happily watch it again.
On Rajni, the longest line at the desi multiplex by me this past Friday night was for Sivaji, not JBJ.
Filmi, they may be Bollywood fans but the reviews don’t show much knowledge of Bollywood backstory or the significance of certain films. They’re very shallow. And they pull their punches, like the positive review of the vapid Dhoom 2.
I got the sense that the NYT folks do know some of the history, but I’m wondering if they refrain from including mentions of, say, all the filmi references in JBJ, going on an assumption that most (non-desi) readers may be tempted to see the movies, but may not necessarily appreciate so much background. Just guessing…