Thanks for stating Mahmood’s name– his thoughts seem really interesting,I’ll look into it.

Also, Salaam Bombay.

The movie ‘Page 3′. Very good fillum.

For example, Indians and Pakistanis generally dislike each other due to various historic, political and religious reasons. Yet both Brit Indians and Brit Pakistanis love Bollywood movies. There is also cross collaboration, for example the Pakistani film Kuda ke liye aroused much interest in Mumbai. Pakistani bands like Junoon are also quite populart with Indian audiences.

Can you name me a couple of such films? I really want to see a film made in India that is outside the realm of Ballaland: I mean, no dancing, lip-synching, cheesy dialogs, and if possible a film with a script that does not write by itself.

Rohin, yaar, not sure if you are taking my comment and running with it regarding other issues, but I never said anything about the Indian film industry. I never said that there are no good films coming out of India. I’m talking about BOLLYWOOD and decennial trends,etc

Hey, I never said Bollywood films are stupid. In fact, they are ingenious. They transmit messages about all sorts of things– socially, politically, nationally, etc. I just finished watching Veer Zaara for the second time, and really, I have to hand it to the directors to take contentious themes, deflate them, make them innocuous, and turn the movie around into something about puppy love actually coming true.

But I don’t think it’s wrong to point out the general themes that have defined each decade in Bollywood, which, Rohin, you seem to keep deflecting and not responding to! And those trends reflect the zeight geist of the times. Back in the 70′s in socialist India, the themes were different than they are now, which is a globalized, ritzy, and flashy India. Why you cannot address this point that I have alluded to in two comments is beyond me!

Bollywood is never to be dismissed, I say.

OK, Manzoor meant Bollywood when he said Indian, you meant Bollywood when you said Bollywood. It depends how you define Bollywood.

If you mean any film that comes out of Mumbai, then my point stands. Some topnotch films are being made there. Sure directions change over time but please, compared to some of the twaddle being made in the so-called golden age, it’s no worse.

If you mean the glitzy, Russian-backing-dancers, superficial, bare-waxed-torso, airhead babes films then you are applying a selection bias by using the word Bollywood. Remember this word did not exist in the 70s, the era of Sholay etc. When classics from the 50s-70s were made, they would have been classified as Indian cinema. The mindless stuff was available then too.

Manzoor is wrong. There were angry young men movies, sure. But India has always specialised in one thing – love stories. It’s central to Indian film and always has been.

Look, I hate the shitty, SHITTY films coming out of India as much as the next guy (providing the next guy really hates them). But I get fed up of people suggesting India produces no good films apart from a few independent arthouse movies. That’s not true. There are big-budget, intelligent films. Their audience is growing. I also get fed up with romanticisation of the past.

Ravi:

“What is striking about Bollywood, is that the biggest movie industry in the world is reduced to a single genre”

True. The people most culpable of this are Indians. Educated, smart young people, whether in IIT or MIT, would rather see KKrapp by Farah Khan than something cerebral. But things are changing.

the genre i had in mind was ‘relationship’ movies .. bollywood ones, hollywood ones and even kollywood ones.

What is striking about Bollywood, is that the biggest movie industry in the world is reduced to a single genre. This, I believe, reflects Indian society today – not particularly brave to do something new, and not interested in untapping the vast potential that exists in its people and diversity.

Come on guys as if anyone doesn’t know getting into acting is hard in India – point I was making is the British industry is difficult, too – that’s why every actor leaves – and yes some go to the States and find it’s hard there, too and some go to India and find it’s harder and harder.

Desi – yes, the sleazy side to female casting is more interesting …

though still think that the reason why it was a meaningful statement on relationships is because there is nothing meaningful to learn about relationships – boy meets girls-boy meets boys – that’s all there is to it. Those other movies that look at those issues – what’s the one set in Paris ( Before or After Sunrise) same plot and story line…. No meaning but good entertainment …

Based on highly trustworthy and reliable sources, it’s not so easy if you’re a struggling female star to make it if you’re willing to do the casting calls on the couch, and personally audition for the badmaashes that make or break you.

“Maybe you think so because you are not reading the comments all the way through! ”

Just to let you know, I wasn’t trying to be snarky. I ain’t got no bones to pick with you, so don’t want to step on your toes (but still make my point). Smooches.

Halima:

“It wasn’t me – it wasn’t me, it wasn’t me …it was all the people that told me this was a statement on modern romance”

This is a filthy lie. I remember someone spending a good 30 minutes on convincing me why Hum Tum was a ‘meaningful’ film about relationships, and that it made you ‘think’. The only thing that the film made me think was ‘What a bunch of baqwaas, yaar’.

It wasn’t me – it wasn’t me, it wasn’t me …it was all the people that told me this was a statement on modern romance … and I believed them, until I watched the Baywatch re-hashed scene on the beach….no, no, no, keep your clothes ON!