Drop It Like It's Pop

We drop weekly social critiques of movies. music, art, beauty, and other pop culture trends to keep you woke folks up to date!

[dropitlikeitspop]

Wake Up Sid: Life and/in Mumbai through the privileged eye

By Vartika Rastogi

[Promotional Poster for Wake Up Sid. Photo Credits: Dharma Productions]

Ayan Mukherjee's Wake Up Sid, released just over 10 years ago, is known as one of Bollywood's finest feel-good, coming-of-age movies with its brilliant cinematography, perfect soundtrack, and ofcourse the chemistry between its leading actors. But while I loved the movie growing up, rewatching it in my current circumstances — as a post-graduate relocated to Mumbai — has made me realise that the movie has not aged well at all. 

In fact, Wake Up Sid is a prime example of what happens when privilege is allowed to tell the story. Indeed, the protagonist Sid Mehra (Ranbir Kapoor) is the poster boy for spoiled slackers everywhere, a manchild whose story revolves around (barely) realising his need for independence. In a classic case of Bollywood being problematic, this independence comes from his unhealthy dependence on Aisha Banerjee, a struggling writer from Calcutta (played by Konkona Sen Sharma), whom he barely even knows! In hindsight, we should've been able to figure out what a brat Sid is very early in the movie. When he fails his exams (because he never really studied for them), he reacts exactly how one shouldn't — by blaming his academically sound best friend, Rishi, for caring about his future — How dare Rishi pass when I can't? The fight ends with Sid throwing a tantrum, and ending up estranged with his friend. Later in the movie, he also subtly shames his friend Laxmi for her weight, disguising it as harmless banter. Yup. Worst friend ever. But if he treats his friends badly,  Sid is even worse with his family: not only does he recklessly spend his father's money, he is also especially unkind to his parents. Despite his mother's pampering and efforts to befriend him, he rebukes and pokes fun at her for her lack of education and broken English. An old adage says that we must judge a man by how he treats his mother — and how right it would be, in this case!

Sid's blindness of privilege also comes with the characteristic lack of originality or personality. When Aisha asks him to show her the most beautiful part of glorious Mumbai, he takes her to Marine Drive — seriously! Of all the diverse wonders the city has to offer, Sid offers her the biggest, most overdone, most obvious cliché. 

Perhaps this is why he's so adamant to help Aisha find a flat to rent, which brings us to another privileged distortion in the movie. Mumbai is infamous for its land crunch, matchbox-sized flats, and nightmarish rent prices, making it one of the hardest cities to live in despite all its other excitements. Most Mumbaikars are familiar with the horrors of renting a flat in the city. However, Aisha is able to find a gorgeous, spacious, airy, and most importantly, affordable 1RK house to rent, and that, too, on Chapel Road in Bandra! How Aisha affords to rent this house without a flatmate or a job, and to redecorate it lavishly enough to inspire an entire generation of youngsters, is a mystery to everyone. 

[Aisha’s Flat in the movie. Photo Credits: Pinterest]

Even more unbelievable is that when Sid fights with his dad, runs away from home, and virtually moves in with Aisha (again, a girl he barely even knows)! Not only does he start living with her, she bears all his expenses too — another exploitation of the classic problematic trope of the woman as a rehabilitation centre for inept and immature men. 

As mentioned before, the entire arc of Sid's independence depends on Aisha. The only reason why he gets an internship with the hip Mumbai Beat magazine (modelled after the Time Out! Magazine) is because Aisha already works there, and because she aggressively recommends Sid to them. It's nothing but *cough* nepotism *cough,* something that Sid is not in the least alien to (after all, his college seat and the job he turned down in his rich dad's firm were also favours not available to most people). However, the most unbelievable part of the movie is its ending: despite Sid's immature, irresponsible and bratty behaviour throughout the movie, Aisha — who is vastly different from him both in terms of responsibility and taste — falls in love with him! You know, because his effort to make a poached egg makes her believe that she can some day reform him (perhaps this movie would be better titled Wake Up Aisha!). Perhaps it's time to get over this movie.

[dropitlikeitspop]

Schindler’s List: Is it a flawed list ?

By Tushar Kanti

An adaptation of Thomas Keneally’s historical 1982 novel, Schindler’s Ark,  Schindler's List recounts the story of Oskar Schindler, a businessman and Nazi Party member who, by the end of the war, had saved hundreds of Jews from extermination. Shot in documentary-style, going to extraordinary lengths to be factually accurate and historically authentic, and using a high profile cast (Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley and Ralph Fiennes), it was a powerful drama that brought the Nazi genocide into sharp focus.

[Picture Credit: Haaretz]

The film was possibly a part of wave that helped to inspire national educational curriculum changes, the growth of Holocaust degree programmes, the institution of an annual remembrance day in the United Kingdom and the setting up of museums and memorials across the globe such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington in 1993. As a result, it is no longer respectable in Western countries, in public at least, to deny the Holocaust.

However, the film has been criticised for its sexualisation of female suffering. For example, Jewish death camp prisoner Helen Hirsch (played by Embeth Davidtz), is shot from the front, her bosoms obviously noticeable through her insignificant shirt.

In another instance, a group of women inmates are forced to strip and forced into a large chamber labelled “Bath and Inhalation Room”. Thinking they are about to be gassed they panic. Although they survive this ordeal, the sequence makes us very aware of their nudity, which many argued was unneeded. 

[Picture Credit: SBS]

Some feel the film, which won a best picture Oscar, narrated a version where Jewish were showed as weak and passive and almost always as undeserving victims. The film was also criticised for over-focusing on those who survived. 

Ace filmmaker Stanley Kubrick once said: “Think that was about the Holocaust? That was about success, wasn’t it? The Holocaust is about six million people who get killed. Schindler’s List was about six hundred people who don’t.”

One of the unforeseen consequences of the movie was that it has embedded the Holocaust genre firmly into filmmaking. The Holocaust is now used either as a plot device in such exorcism horror films as The Unborn (2009) and The Possession (2012), or as a throwaway line. 

[Picture Credit: Purple Clover]

So the question still pertains, can Schindler’s List’s faults be forgiven because it informed a mass audience about the Holocaust who would otherwise have remained ignorant ? Or it gave that very audience a false view of the genocide of the Jews? It is an issue that film-lovers will still be debating for the years to come

[dropitlikeitspop]

NIRVANA WERE A FEMINIST VOICE IN THE 90s MUSIC SCENE

By Vartika Rastogi

While frontman Kurt Cobain’s lyrics were often misunderstood and laced in controversy, Nirvana was always as much about social activism as it was about music. Watch our video to know all the reasons why the grunge icons were way ahead of their time, and all the more iconic for it!

[dropitlikeitspop]

The musical journey from originals to remakes!

By Shatakshi Saxena

The Golden Era of Bollywood music was home to legends like Kishore Kumar, Lata Mangeshkar, Manna Dey, Rajendra Kishan, Anand Bakshi, R.D Burman, Mohammad Rafi, Asha Bhosle and many more. Each song written and sung was a masterpiece, leaving a lifetime imprint on the listener’s heart. From ‘pal pal dil ke pass tum rehti ho’ to ‘dum maaro dum mitt jaye gham’, the unmatched music, the magical voice of legendary singers and the thoughtful scene setting made these songs the masterpieces they are. In the past decade, Bollywood has chosen to remake some of these old classics. The introduction of more peppy music, objectifying portrayal of actresses and mismatch between lyrics and context have made remakes a disaster. The iconic ‘Ek Chattur Naar’ sung by the maestros Manna Dey, Mehmood and Kishore Kumar is the finest song produced in Hindi cinema. The classical beats and comical lyrics add to the beauty of this song. The remake for this song was released in 2017 in the film Machine. The new version was nothing but too many peppy beats with elements of DJ and rap, filmed in a party setup. It is technically a spoilt hip-hop version of the most classic Bollywood song. 

Original

Remake

Similarly, the famous ‘Mere Angne Mein’ sung by the living legend Amitabh Bachchan is still remembered for its lyrics and the drag performed by the Mr. Bachchan. The mood of song was very vintage and comical. It was just a week ago that the remake for this song was released by T-series, starring Jacqueline Fernandez and Asim Riaz and sung by Neha Kakkar and Raja Hasan. The remake completely changes the concept of the song and adds a more objectifying touch to it. It also finishes the comical aspect of the song, destroying its core identity.

Original:

Remake: 

The remake of the iconic ‘Laila Mai Laila’ originally starring the glamorous Zeenat Aman lost its beauty when its remake was released in Raees (2017). The original was shot in a more sensible gathering with no objectification unlike the remake which portrays a cheap gathering of alcoholics, hooting with every objectifying move of Sunny Leone. The remake has been made the typical ‘Bollywood item number’ when originally it wasn’t the same. While Zeenat Aman added glamour to the original, the remake made it a point to be sexist in its approach. The objectification of Sunny Leone was a selling point for the makers. It was disrespecting towards women and the original track.

Songs like ‘Mere Angne Mein’, ‘Laila Mai Laila’, ‘Dum Maaro Dum’ and many more are classics for a reason. Creating new versions of such songs destroy the feel of the original, also highlighting the fact that Bollywood is unable to produce new songs! Old songs had an everlasting shelf life because of the lyrics, music and how contextual the songs were. The remakes destroy that very element; concept and music. Even though the lyrics remain the same, the song doesn’t sound good because it loses its essence. It is also an insult to the lyrics for their originality is severely affected. 

For example, the remake of ‘Pal Pal Dil Ke Pass’, a classic romantic song sung by the legendary Kishore Kumar was released in the film Wajah Tum Ho (2016). This is possibly the best example of how the most beautiful lyrics can lose their essence when combined with irrelevant depiction and context. The lyrics were written around the concept of two lovers longing to meet each other. The original portrayal was absolutely simple, heart-warming and revolved around something as beautiful as love letters. The remake, without understanding the concept of the lyrics, made the song extremely sensual and objectifying. The depiction is completely different from the thought of the song and comes out as a disaster. It is one of those sensual songs made to sell the film. The lyrics of an amazing song have been misused in the worst manner.

Making remakes of songs is not a problem, if it is done with respect. One should realise that certain songs are fit for a particular scene and context. Also, not every song can be made peppy, objectifying or sexist to gain box office numbers. It is important for the new age music directors to understand the depth of old classic songs before destroying their quality. If Bollywood continues to make disastrous remakes like this, the future generations will never know about the original classics.

[dropitlikeitspop]

Old is Mould: Our society’s obsession with youth

By Apurva Talluri

[Photo credits: Taapsee Pannu]

If movies, social media and TV shows are to be believed, ‘old age’ begins at the ripe age of 30 and the only interests older people have include obsessing over the young ones, whether it’s  their own children or their neighbours’ children. In a youth obsessed culture, older people are either reduced to stereotypes or are completely erased from popular imagination. 

Most stories feature protagonists in their twenties, navigating the challenges of life, with major ones being posed by the older people they know As mummies, papas, dadis, chachas and chachis, older people are the supporting characters in a young person's life, sometimes villains, but never the heroes of any story. 

On social media, older people, especially women are targeted for ‘age inappropriate behaviour’, like Malaika Arora Khan. Khan routinely receives vitriolic comments on her Instagram, sometimes for her risque outfits and sometimes for dating a younger  man, Arjun Kapoor. Desi Girl Priyanka Chopra has also been targeted for her marriage to Nick Jonas who is 10 years her junior.

[Photo Credits: Bollywood Bubble] 

[Photo Credits: Orissa Post]

The comments are colourful. They say that Khan, a mother, should not ‘dress like a teenage girl’, that this ‘buddhi’ and Kapoor look like ‘mother and son together.’ There are common themes that underpin these comments: older people must act their age and how one dresses and behaves should ‘match’ their chronological age. 

It is common for actors to portray much older characters as if there is a death of older actors in the industry. Sometimes the parents are as old as or just a few years older than their on screen “children”. TV is no stranger to this phenomenon. Shweta Tiwari, who played the iconic character, Prerna, from Kasauti Zindagi Ki is only an year older than Karanvir Bohra, her on screen son, Prem. Kumkum Bhagya’s Sriti Jha and Shabbir Ahluwalia play parents to girls in their 20s. It is bizarre to see thirty-something actors play parents to 20-somethings. One finds it difficult to differentiate between the parents and the children. 

[Photo Credits: Rediff]

The silver screen is notorious for its ageism. Saand Ki Aankh, a film about 60-year-old sharpshooters Prakashi and Chandro Tomar was questioned by netizens for casting the much younger Taapsee Pannu and Bhumi Pednekar as the leading ladies. In a country like India where elderly people are revered, it is difficult to understand why nobody wants to see or hear their stories. 

Neena Gupta, whose performances in hits like Badhaii Ho and Shubh Mangal Zyaada Savdhan were acclaimed, quipped on Twitter, “Hamari umar ke role toh kamse kam humse kara lo bhai.” Older actors rarely come across roles that don't involve them playing parents or grandparents. These characters often want nothing for themselves but everything for their children. Prototypes of well-meaning Indian elders, their happiness lies in their child's happiness. While books offer a more diverse set of characters, stories of older people are not often on the bestsellers’ list on Amazon. 

The belief that a woman is ‘past her prime’ after 30 is illustrated by the fact that Rakhee Gulzar went from playing Amitabh Bachchan's mashooqa to playing his maa in the 1982 film Shakti. This journey from mashooqa to maa is one many actresses tread. Reema Lagoo, who became the most well-known face of Indian motherhood in 90s Bollywood, first played a mother to adult children at the age of 30!

The representation of older men is not that much more nuanced. Older male actors routinely play characters 20 years younger, like Aamir Khan in 3 Idiots. They rarely play their age and the actresses cast to play their love interests are usually 20 years younger. 

The obsession with hiding wrinkles, grey hair and the visceral disgust youngsters have towards being called uncle or aunty illustrate that youth is aspirational and ageing much-reviled. Even the gods (with the exception of Brahma) are ever youthful with no fine lines on their divine faces, permanently 25. All of society wants to drink from the mythical fountain of eternal youth. ‘Cause once you’re old, you’re mould.

[dropitlikeitspop]

Why are only female actors targeted for their low IQ?

By Anjali Kochhar

“Who is the President of India?” asked Karan Johar on Koffee with Karan in 2014. “Manmohan Singh,” prompted Varun Dhawan. “Prithvi Raj Chauhan,” said Alia Bhatt. While both the answers were wrong, Alia Bhatt became the favorite person of the trolls. A convenient blind eye was given to Varun Dhawan. Tiger Shroff also failed to answer the same question. But we are sure, you haven’t even heard about it because Shroff was not as grilled as Bhatt. The gender bias always stands for trolls. Varun Dhawan compared his movie Dilwale with Inception during a press conference. He was also spared. If we start nitpicking, then we can find many more such interviews targeting the actors. 

[Photo Credits: YouTube]

Last year, when Sonakshi Sinha answered wrong an Indian mythology question on KBC, trolls grabbed the opportunity. 

[Sonakshi Sinha’s reply to her trolls. Photo Credits: Quora]

A twitter user @iamtejas wrote

Names of few people from #SonakshiSinha 's family: Shatrughan (Dad) Luv (Brother) Kush (Brother) Ram (Uncle) Lakshman (Uncle) Bharat (Uncle) Name of his father's residence: RAMAYANA Now watch this video to know why #YoSonakshiSoDumb is trending.

@iamtejas and many others, we dare you to take a mythology test. Can you answer these simple questions for us without using Google? 

What was the original name of Mahabharata?

What was the condition Vyasa laid down for Ganesha to write Mahabharata?

Forget GK, trolls didn’t spare Ananya Pandey for her spelling mistake on twitter. How carefully do the trolls read the posts of the male actors, we doubt. 

Sonam Kapoor was also trolled for failing to solve a puzzle on twitter. The troll army made fun of her weak mathematics. We mean, are the trolls expert at mathematics? 

Varun Dhawan and Tiger Shroff’s reaction on not getting trolled:

Talking of gender bias, India becomes the obvious answer for this mentality of the trolls. In India, females are laughed about in any situation. Remember the line, “Ladki hai, Gadi chalani nahi ati islie jaane do” (She is a girl. Let her be as girls can’t drive) Trolls need to read about Danica Patrick. 

The portrayal of women in the movies is traditionally done as someone dependent on their partner physically and mentally. 

We can’t expect everyone in the industry to have a good IQ but trolls targeting only the female actors are not acceptable. It leaves an impression on the people that only the ladies have a bad IQ. In general, it leaves low IQ with the female gender. 

It is not right to mock the ladies for not getting the spellings or for not getting a mathematical puzzle right. Judge them for their acting skills, not for their IQ. They haven’t participated in any international Olympiad. They are here for entertainment. What do you think?

[dropitlikeitspop]

The Evolution of the Smart Girl on Screen

By Vartika Rastogi

We all are familiar with the smart girl trope – think Hermione Granger from Harry Potter or Jo from the more recent movie, Little Women. But the smart girl always depends on her era, what it means to be smart at the time, and what kind of values society holds dear in its women. This women’s day, here’s a lookout for the development of the Smart Girl character in TV and Movies through the ages!

As early as the 1930s, the Smart Girl featured in witball comedies like Theodora Goes Wild (1938) alongside dominant male leads. Here the Smart Girl mirrors the male characters to hold her own, because brains = masculine, and she’s an exception.

[Lobby card of the movie Theodora Goes Wild. Photo Credits: Columbia Pictures]

Enter the 1940s and 50s with Film Noir: Here, the smart woman was the femme fatale as in Double Indemnity (1944), who uses her feminine charms and intelligence to lure men down a dark path, implying that there was something dangerous about smart, assertive women.

Well, ofcourse – this was a time before the Women’s Movement took hold in the US in the 1960s and 70s, when women were still overwhelmingly and conventionally considered secondary and accessory to men. But this is not to say that there were no smart women back in the day. Today’s Smart Girl trope finds some positive ancestors in characters such as Nancy Drew from Nancy Drew, Trouble Shooter 1939). Over the years, Nancy Drew was joined by many sharp girl detectives, such as Velma from Scooby Doo (but she was overshadowed by the attractive Daphne – more on that later!)

It was in the 1980s and 90s, after the Women’s Movement for equal rights in America, that the Smart Girl trope rose to popularity as we know it – and it has evolved a lot since then, too!

Smart Girls in the 80s – like Carol from Growing Pains and Jesse from Saved by the Bell – were a response to the 80s teen movies’ glorification of the male nerd character type. Some, like Andie from Pretty in Pink (1986) were both smart and femininely well put-together (pretty – in pink!). However, they were not explicitly valued for their academic prowess. In fact, when The Breakfast Club (1985) dissected the high school class system, the girls were either a princess 

or a basket case 

...while the smart one was a boy. These empowered female characters owned their mental superiority and asserted their academic merit but were almost always clumsy and bespectacled like Velma.

It was in 1989 with the movie Say Anything that a Teen Movie featured a smart girl who was also the conventional romantic lead – behold Valedictorian Diane Court!

But in the 80s, the Smart Girl was still a trope laden with classic trope-yness: from the 80s onwards, as women became more dominant in the workforce. Thus, while career ambition became a staple of the Smart Girl trope in the 80s, it came at a price: the smart girl, like Lisa Simpson from The Simpsons, would almost always be a perfectionist – trying so hard to be perfect that she’d crack under pressure. That’s because women still had to compete fiercely with the men in the workforce, because men had strength in numbers and were  better preferred. Thus, even in 1993, in shows like Boy Meets World, the Smart Girl came with an obsessive competitive streak, which was often plain annoying.

In the 1990s, with the onset of Third Wave Feminism and the Riot Grrrl movement, teens and women were encouraged to advocate for rights over their lives and bodies, and to point put systemic oppression of and prejudice against women. Thus, characters like Daria Morgendorfer came to the fore, who were smart, bookish, cynical, and not afraid of questioning authority and reveling in their smartness. 

The characters around this time also became more multidimensional, not defined merely by their bookishness: while Jane Lane from Daria and Haley from One Tree Hill had a creative streak, characters like Betty Cooper (Riverdale) took on athletic prowess too!

In 2000, Gilmore Girls gave us 2 contrasting types of the Smart Girl trope: the sweet, perfect Rory, who had her mind set on going to Harvard,

 and Paris, with her Type A personality and Straight A record, who would step on anyone and anything to stay on top. 

But slowly also came characters who would accept their occasional fault or defeat and grow into a more self-assure, mature individual – welcome Hermione Granger!

But like Hermione with Cho and Fleur at the Yule Ball, the brainy girl was still in the shadow of the Cool Girl, who was conventionally pretty – every Velma had to have their Daphne! Slowly, from Beauty and Brains being a limiting, either/ or situation for female characters, shows such as Legally Blonde brought out women’s ability to do both to the screen, and with shows like Oceans 8 with its Black Nerd Girl character, the Smart Girl became more diverse.

Finally, with Booksmart (2019)’s Molly, who sees that popular kids are also going to Ivy League Colleges, the Smart Girl’s uniqueness is no longer limited to bookishness, social isolation, romantic unfitness or the like – it has been declared that there is no one size to fit all smart girls!

It can really be said that now, the Smart Girl trope has begun to break out of its trope-yness. Women can truly be themselves – even on screen!

[dropitlikeitspop]

The Tikli and Laxmi Bomb revolution

By Shatakshi Saxena

[Photo Credits: IMDb]

'Prostitution' or 'sex work' are words that are not considered fit to be used in a formal social setup. Moreover, prostitutes or sex workers are considered unfit to live in what people call “intellectual society”. Even after being one of the oldest professions in the country, the struggle for basic human rights and professional respect continues for these women. The ignorance from the entire legal and political system has motivated illegal activities prevalent in the profession. Soliciting, trafficking, sexual and physical abuse and pimping are a major part of the profession. Women are dominated by unscrupulous men subjecting them to all forms of violence and atrocities. While the system is unwilling to notice these issues, films have taken up some responsibility of at least talking about ways to deal with it legally. 

Tikli and Laxmi Bomb, directed by Aditya Kriplani, was released on Netflix and can be considered a revolutionary film for the approach it adopts. The protagonist, Tikli (Chitrangda Chakraborty), is the perfect example of a feminist and progressive ideology. It is through her character that the film brings in the concept of doing sex work without any 'middlemen'. The fact that it is the woman's body, her pain, her life and her money has been addressed through Tikli's character. She speaks not only for herself but also for the entire community; reminding them that they do not owe a single penny to the pimps or police officers. The film targets the system of paying bribes to pimps, police officers and even local politicians in order to avoid raids and unnecessary harassment. The core idea of the film is to get rid of this system of paying unwanted bribes to men for they have no right on it. They are not the ones selling their body and therefore have no authority to live on the earnings of sex workers. 

[The Cast of Tikli and Laxmi Bomb. Photo Credits: livewire]

Laxmi Bomb (Vibhavari Deshpande) is the complete opposite of Tikli. She has faced the harassment and abuse inflicted by pimps and police officers and therefore is usually heard mentioning that the world is run by men. It takes her a while to acknowledge that she needs to raise her voice against those men who live lavishly by subjecting women like her to extreme brutality. Her realization leads to the formation of the 'Tikli and Laxmi Bomb Gang', a group of sex workers who decide to run their own business, without any 'middlemen'. They figure out plans to handle the police, to make sure the women are safe and to eventually deal directly with the local politician.

The film targets the corrupt system that surrounds the profession, leading to exploitation of women. There is a strong commentary on the fact that pimps, though live on the earnings of sex workers, never guarantee their safety. Women end up being sexually assaulted by clients and in worst cases, even by the police. That’s the reason why the new 'Tikli and Laxmi Bomb Gang' prioritize the safety of their gang members above everything. They eventually form a business setup, with no intervention of men. Mumbai has been used as a metaphor to portray the real situation of the profession. Mumbai is always referred to as 'she'. 'She' is the exploited woman on whose earnings the men establish control over the society. The metaphorical use of Mumbai as an exploited woman is a very clever, creative masterpiece. The film targets misogyny, patriarchy and the illegal setup of prostitution. This film leads on the debate of making prostitution legal in all forms, with no exploitation of the women who deserve to be treated as workers and not as undignified individuals in the society. 

[dropitlikeitspop]

Tarantinoland: Pop Culture References in Cult Classics

by Tushar Kanti 

Quentin Tarantino is an American filmmaker and actor whose films are characterized by nonlinear storylines, satirical subject matter with reference to popular culture. Pulp fiction is one of his best works and cites many references from pop culture. It makes it a worthy read to understand how pop culture influences cinema and how two different forms of communication can impose such great impacts upon each other.

Tarantino's movies have collected both basic and business achievement. He has gotten numerous industry grants, including two Academy Awards, two Golden Globe Awards, two BAFTA Awards and the Palme d'Or, and has been assigned for an Emmy and a Grammy. In 2005, he was remembered for the yearly Time 100 rundown of the most powerful individuals on the planet. Movie producer and history specialist Peter Bogdanovich has called him "the absolute most compelling executive of his age.

Tarantino has a habit of working pop culture references to his movies. Pop culture has influenced and embraced Tarantino in a way it does to few other filmmakers, making him a figure head overnight and a touchstone source for all things kooky and cult-y. From Uma Thurman and John Travolta’s unforgettable dance in Pulp Fiction to the bloody ear silencing scene in Reservoir Dogs and to Leonardo DiCaprio crushing a skull in Django Unchained.

In his most celebrated work, Pulp Fiction, characters Jules and Vincent talk about Big Macs; we hear references to the band Flock of Seagulls and even Kung Fu. There is even Jack Rabbit Slim’s where every 1950 Pop Culture icons is on display from Zorro to Buddy Holly. In fact the film title itself refers to the Pop Culture in which Tarentino is talking about the meaninglessness of contemporary American life. Pop Culture proliferates in the scripts of Tarentino.

In Reservoir Dogs, many references such as that of John Holmes from the early 80’s cannot be forgotten. The movie also has characters that themselves have references to pop culture such as Marlon Brando and Charles Bronson. The black suits worn by the dogs are a tribute to the very popular John Woo action vehicle, “A Better Tomorrow”.

Both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction acculturate wretched characters by indicating them visiting about the most modest things possible. Tarantino commenced Reservoir Dogs along these lines, with a long discussion about Madonna's "Like a Virgin," and Madonna gets another gesture here when Fabienne discusses how Madonna's gut glanced in "Fortunate Star." The mainstream society references continue coming in Pulp Fiction, however not to the degree of, state, a Family Guy scene. Tarantino makes a lot of obvious suggestions to mainstream society such as the Ed Sullivan impersonator, Marilyn Monroe, Steve Buscemi spruced up like Buddy Holly (which may be a meta-joke, since Buscemi's Mr. Pink in Reservoir Dogs uncovered he didn't have confidence in tipping waitstaff). It's postmodern totally. In any event, throwing Travolta was illustrative of this.

Tarantino has maintained his trademark style and has used them again and again in movies like Jackie Brown, Kill Bill and Death Proof. If you've seen more than 30 seconds of a Tarantino film, you'll be aware that he likes to pepper his work with references to popular culture. It's one of his trademarks and it's one of the reasons that he's one of the few directors that can sell a film on his name alone.

[dropitlikeitspop]

Veere Di Wedding Vs Pyaar Ka Punchnama Series: Why this furor?

by Anjali Kochhar

[ Why this furor on VDW? Photo Credits: The Indian Express]

“A happy woman is a myth!” Remember Kartik Aryan’s monologue from Luv Ranjan’s Pyaar Ka Punchnama series? Of course! It got all the cheers and applauds from the audiences. Pyaar Ka Punchnama released in the year 2011 became a hit. The male bonding and especially the bashing of women became a subject of laughter amongst people. The movie promoted the idea that it’s ok for boys to bash women when they are having their “boys talk” and got applauds for the same. The movie was so much appreciated that Ranjan came up with its sequel Pyaar ka Punchnama 2 three years later and, it was a huge success too.

 [Pyaar Ka Punchnama. Photo Credits-Adgully.com]

Give it a thought! When it’s ok for a male-centric movie to bash women and is taken more lightly then why this furor when in a woman-centric movie, a woman bashes a guy? Why Shashanka Ghosh’s Veere Di Wedding received hatred and not acceptance? Neither of the above is appreciated but why one thing is fine and fun for a male-centric movie but is stated “unrelated and irritating” in a women-centric movie? A YouTube channel Yogi Baba having 208K subscribers created a video titled, ‘Veere Di Wedding in a Nutshell’ and condemned the movie, scene wise. #veerediwedding started trending on Twitter just after the movie hit the theaters and for all bad reasons. Tweets like “Bloody contractors of society values,” “bullshit movie,” became the talk of the internet. Where were the society values when women were given names in the Pyaar Ka Punchnama series? 

Twitterati after the release of Veere Di Wedding

 “There are only two type of people watching #Veerediwedding: Braindead women feminist women and their Mangina Boyfriend/Husband.” A twitter user wrote.

 “Please don’t waste your time with @vdwthefilm-absolute garbage, decadent and degrading to the women of this country. Rubbish movie. 0/10,” another tweet said.

[Pyaar Ka Punchnama 2. Photo Credits-rediff.com]

It seems like Indian society has set some norms for men and women where a man can say or do anything in public places but a woman should behave in a ‘certain manner.’ Imagine a scenario where a woman shouts the ‘F word’ in a market place. How many heads do you think will turn to give a hostile look to that woman? Well, we think many! Now, imagine the same scenario and replace the woman with a man. Forget turning of heads, people will just move ahead ignoring everything they heard or saw. Why? Because it’s “normal” for a man to behave that way! 

[Veere Di Wedding bashed on twitter. Photo Credits: The Week]

Asked if Veere Di Wedding was a reversal of Pyaar Ka Punchnama in a DNA interview, Sonam Kapoor, said, “The Pyaar Ka Punchnama series is great but it’s very sexist. VDW is not about women discussing men and putting them down or discussing what they are going through. It’s quite different.” Rightly so! The character Rishabh played by Sumeet Vyas is not at all degraded in the movie and, he comes out as a man who has all his support for his fiancé. We can’t think of a scene in the Pyaar Ka Punchnama series where a woman’s character is appreciated. Both the series end on a note where men feel cheated. 

 Well, that’s ok if you watch it as a Bollywood movie solely made for entertainment. And that’s what people did! Then, we are still not sure about Why this furor on Veere Di Wedding? Are you? 

[dropitlikeitspop]

Daal Mein Kuch Bala Hai: Why Bala is hypocritical, not empowering

by Apurva Talluri

Bala is a film about self-love. Its message is that one is much more than the sum total of their blemishes and beauty spots. Unfortunately, when delivered from the artificially darkened face of Latika, played by Bhumi Pednekar, this much needed message comes off as no more than lip service. 

Bala chronicles the life of a man who struggles with his self-esteem due to male pattern baldness; it is one among a genre of movies that pack a socially relevant message with small town candour to deliver a feel good film. It is also one among a long line of films that engage in brown face and appropriate brown people’s stories without allowing them to narrate their own stories. 

Actors like Ranveer Singh, Hrithik Roshan and Alia Bhatt have been hailed for playing underdogs: fighting for a chance to prove themselves. All had their skin darkened to portray the ‘struggle’ and ‘poverty’ of their circumstances. While a Ranveer or an Alia can scrub off the bronzer at the end of the day, those who are actually dark skinned can’t wipe off their melanin as and when they desire. Bizarre explanations have been offered to justify brownface. Zoya Akhtar, who directed Singh in Gully Boy, offered up this gem to the Huffington Post: “He came from a holiday in the Maldives. He came back toasty. So, when we started shooting that’s how he was looking but he started fading. Now we had to keep him toasty to keep the consistency.” The irony of Singh’s Maldives tan acting as a stand in for the sun-scorched, working class complexion of his character, Murad is not lost.

[Photo Credits: womensweb.in]

Bala preaches self-love but doesn’t care to cast an actually dark skinned actor to play the role of a dark skinned girl. It says colour does not matter—except when casting a dark skinned actor. Darker people are not even considered good enough to play themselves.

Actor Nandita Das, who has launched campaigns like Dark is Beautiful has spoken about the prejudice dark-skinned actors face. In interviews, she has detailed how her skin tone is not a problem—an advantage even—when playing marginalised characters from tribal communities or the working class; it turns into a handicap when playing upper class characters. Directors have asked if they could lighten her skin tone to make her ‘look upper class’. 

[Photo Credits: Prodip Guha/Hindustan Times/Rex Features]

It is a tale as old time. Many dark-skinned people across the country have lived through bullying and being called names like kaali/kaali (blackie). India is a brown country that hates brown people. 

Therefore, Pednekar’s Latika is artificial, a caricature. She is a competent lawyer, embraces her dark skin and makes all the right noises. However, Pednekar’s ‘colour-blind’ casting reveals what the makers actually think of colourism: a plot point to be profited off. New generation ‘woke’ films tackle topics that remained in the shadows. Do they really make a difference when they indulge in the same practices they decry?

True representation means casting dark-skinned actors in roles so that young children can have role models who look like them. Maybe they should make a film called Kala and actually cast a dark-skinned actor. It would save them the money spent on creating dark skin.

Our reaction to Bala and its colourblindness: