Shah Rukh Khan Is Likely Glorifying A Terrorist In His Next Movie, And We Need To Talk About It

[nair]

Why target SRK??? He is just an actor and playing a role given to him by his director.... If you have prob then it should be taken to director script writer

 

[Shajida Khan]

Why target SRK??? He is just an actor and playing a role given to him by his director.... If you have prob then it should be taken to director script writer

I will say why target any of these folks. If you have problem just ignore the movie OR make another movie with what you want to show.

 

[nair]

I will say why target any of these folks. If you have problem just ignore the movie OR make another movie with what you want to show.

lol true.....

 

[AshishDelhi]

lol true.....

With social media and so many news channels it has become easy to show such things like SRK playing this or that.
There should be some action against such individuals who target anyone on basis of religion etc. Anyways raees might not be that good, waiting for dangal.

 

[Shankranthi]

WOW! So when a Kashmiri Pandit plays role of seeking retribution by the way of Gun, it is alright! Great just great!

How many people actually know that he is allegedly a Kashmiri Pundit?

Btw, Hrithik Roshan is NOT a Kashmiri Pundit. He is a Punjabi Pundit and his grandfather was born in British Punjab (now in Pakistan) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roshan_(music_director)). He was born in Mumbai.

ok. So Hritik roshan is not a pandit. Even if he was, there is no record of any kashmiri pandit taking up the gun to seek "retribution" as you so glibly put.

Talk to me when there is even ONE record of any such action.

If you wanted to take names, you should have taken the name of Shahid kapoor who played a terrorist in Haider and glorified terrorism.

Only his mom happens to be a muslim so you choose Hritik roshan.

BTW do you know what a "red herring" is ? another logical fallacy where you drag in unrelated stuff to distract the reader. That is what this is.

Coming to SRK,
So what if SRK felt victim? If a Bihari felt marginalized in Maharashtra and he complains about it, what will you tell him or her? "Stuff it!" ?

if a Bihari flaunts his "bihari heritage" and attempts to speak about being a bihari in India, then he has already put himself as a spokesperson for biharis and not the rest of India.

So if SRK feels he is a muslim and hence a victim, and speaks as a "muslim victim" he has already taken a stand as a muslim spokesperson. Then he does not speak for non mslims and non victims / perpetrators.

He always had a choice to speak up for general equality for all Indians. But he choose not to do that, he choose to play out his "muslim" heritage and hence the victim-hood.

His article was not called "Being a Indian", it was called "Being a khan". So his choice was clear without any ambiguity.

Majority of terrorism in India is Islamic so all Muslims are terrorist, right? And we all should apologize about it, right? And you invoke rationality and reason! Such hypocrisy!

THIS is precisely what is called a "Strawman argument".

Cooking up a concocted enemy and then knocking it down to claim a victory ....... better still call others Hypocrites based on your own cooked up strawman argument. LOL.

"Movies like 'Apharan' create mass awareness about the kidnapping industry in bihar and helped in its demise." So why no attempt the same with terrorism, heck, why not target Islamic terrorism. If someone is making movie about it, what is wrong with it?

Any movie that targets islamic terrorism is welcome, not glorifying it by making the HERO play the role of a particular real life terrorist.

That is the same reason "heroes" do not smoke in movies (if they do, its mandatory to post warnings against smoking) or rape girls. The "villain" does that.

What I guess you are not understanding is that Sharukh Khan is not just Khan he is also an Actor and he does all kinds of roles in movies -- Like any other actor, such as Hritikh Roshan. Singling him out because of one or few roles he played is simply bigotry.

What YOU do not understand is SRK is an actor as a self admitted "khan". Nobody "Labelled" him, he labelled HIMSELF. So irrespective of any number of movies he does playing the good guy, a movie that has him glorifying a terrorist will be singled out for condemnation.

Again talk to me when Hritik Roshan speaks up for Hindus and not muslims. Talk to me when Hritik Roshan writes a article that "Being a Hindu" and claim victimhood.

To deny this reality is the real bigotry and Hypocrisy. I do not plan on practising it.

1. Do you even know what Strawman argument even means? What is logical fallacy you are blabbering about?

2. I tried to bring to everyone's notice that he has played more non terrorist/positive roles INCLUDING role of a patriot. You are incapable comprehension.

There are no chickens coming home to roost here!

You are factually and logically wrong.

I have proved that you consistently used the strawman argument , probably because you do not know what it really means.

The logical fallacy is hence proven since you cannot seem to make any post without using a strawman or a red herring. Both of which are logical fallacies.


His playing a non terrorist role is no excuse for now glorifying a terrorist. That is what you do not seem to comprehend. Its as foolish as claiming that just because a man has not been raping anyone for 20 years, any new rape done by him should be ignored. Ridiculous.

Why target SRK??? He is just an actor and playing a role given to him by his director.... If you have prob then it should be taken to director script writer

So when there is a movie review about SRK then its good and not "targeting" SRK ? When news is full of what SRK did or what dress he wore or which place he visited, its not "targeting".

its "targeting" only when something bad is published ?

Amazing hypocrisy.

Since SRK gets the majority of the praise and recognition and flowers and the money for the movie, he is entitled for the majority of the blame too.

Your "secularism" just does not cut it.

 

[Peaceful Civilian]

Oh common, movie is just for entertainment, and sharukh is actor, sometimes he becomes terrorist, sometime enemy agent or sometimes soldier of army.
Don't bring your dirty politics on movie.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

The national anthem is screened first thing, before any of the ads or trailers even.

Its not as if after the last jaya he you start getting heavy breathing action.

Pehlay khud khara Ho ... Baad mein woh khara hoo ..

 

[padamchen]

Pehlay khud khara Ho ... Baad mein woh khara hoo ..

Well, as I pointed out to @User a few days back, the Times carried the front page headlines "SC: All must stand"

 

[Shajida Khan]

ok. So Hritik roshan is not a pandit. Even if he was, there is no record of any kashmiri pandit taking up the gun to seek "retribution" as you so glibly put.

Talk to me when there is even ONE record of any such action.

If you wanted to take names, you should have taken the name of Shahid kapoor who played a terrorist in Haider and glorified terrorism.

Only his mom happens to be a muslim so you choose Hritik roshan.

BTW do you know what a "red herring" is ? another logical fallacy where you drag in unrelated stuff to distract the reader. That is what this is.

Firstly, I never even claimed any Kashmiri Pundit, IN REAL LIFE, took up arms against any injustice. I was merely pointing to your bigotry in claiming that it is alright for a Kashmiri Pundit to PLAY A ROLE IN A MOVIE of a terrorist taking up arms. BTW, IT WAS YOU who even brought Kashmiri Pundit point to begin with. You will do better if you learn how to read properly.

THIS is precisely what is called a "Strawman argument".

Cooking up a concocted enemy and then knocking it down to claim a victory ....... better still call others Hypocrites based on your own cooked up strawman argument. LOL.

It is not! It is the response of your ridiculous comment

"Especially since majority of the terrorism in India is islamic terrorism and they make no apologies about it."
Somehow you assume that 'they' are responsible for islamic terrorism in India.

Any movie that targets islamic terrorism is welcome, not glorifying it by making the HERO play the role of a particular real life terrorist.

That is the same reason "heroes" do not smoke in movies (if they do, its mandatory to post warnings against smoking) or rape girls. The "villain" does that.

Have you seen the movie Apharan? The hero is the one who leads the gang conducting kidnapping in Bihar. It was also inspired by one or more gang lords. If, as per you, it was raising the social awareness then why SRK's movie should be treated any different?

Have you seen the movie the movie Mission Kashmir? Hint, Hirthik Roshan is the hero in the movie and yes he becomes a terrorist to seek vangence.

Both are apt.

I have proved that you consistently used the strawman argument , probably because you do not know what it really means.

The logical fallacy is hence proven since you cannot seem to make any post without using a strawman or a red herring. Both of which are logical fallacies.


His playing a non terrorist role is no excuse for now glorifying a terrorist. That is what you do not seem to comprehend. Its as foolish as claiming that just because a man has not been raping anyone for 20 years, any new rape done by him should be ignored. Ridiculous.

You still do not understand! Let me re iterate it one last time. SRK is an actor and he plays all sorts of role. A number of roles are quite positive and if in some movie he plays a role of a terrorist then it is ridiculous to blame him for 'glorifying terrorism in a movie'. He is well, merely playing a role in a movie. Secondly, All this HERO and VILLAN talk is non-sense. Movies do not need to have well defined heros or villians and heros need not be completely good as well. We have seen mixed characters in other movies as well, such as Apharan.

 

[Kaniska]

In all likelihood, Shah Rukh Khan is playing, and glamourising, a character based on Abdul Latif in his next film, ‘Raees’. Latif, for those who don’t know, was a convicted and dreaded criminal in Gujarat in the 1980s and 1990s.

At some point in his or her career every film superstar across each generation that they best define have played the bad guy or gal on the screen. One of the reasons why most actors desire to play the not-so-goody-two shoe characters is the belief that these offer more complex shades as opposed to the traditional 'hero.' So, be it a Paul Muni in Scarface (1932) or Edward G. Robinson in Little Caesar (1931), Ashok Kumar in Kismat (1943) or Dev Anand in Baazi (1951) or Jaal (1952), Amitabh Bachchan in Don (1979) to Kangana Ranaut in Revolver Rani (2014), the lure has been there ever since films existed. Of course, any leading man or woman (read superstar) playing the villain simply inverts the concept of the protagonist and the antagonist and the end result is one often where the killer, the criminal or in the traditional definition of the word, 'evil' is celebrated.

This becomes more alluring if the said character is based on a real-life criminal and you can see this in - Amitabh Bachchan's Vijay in Deewar (1975) believed to be based on Haji Mastan; Kamal Haasan's Velunayakan in Nayakan (1987) loosely based on the real-life Bombay underworld don Varadarajan Mudaliar; Ajay Devgn’s Haji Mastan-inspired character in Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai (2010) and Dawood Ibrahim in Company (2002); Vivek Oberoi in Chota Rajan mode in Company and then Maya Dolas, member of Dawood Ibrahim's D-Company in Shootout At Lokhandwala (2007). Shabana Azmi’s Godmother (1999) too was said to be based on life of Santokben Jadeja, who ran the Mafia operations of Porbandar in the late 1980s and Akshay Kumar played a Dawood-esque character in Once Upon ay Time in Mumbai Dobaara! (2013).

Almost all these characters, that include some convicted felons, dreaded killers and even the one of the most wanted man in the world, have been glorified. They are hailed and even pushed to be emulated for their little known human facets such as Devgn's Haji Mastan in Once Upon a Time In Mumbaai saying 'duaon mein yaad rakhna' (remember me in your prayers) to an extent where not only does the narrative distort facts but also allow an emotional getaway for committing heinous crimes. Up until now the three Khans - Aamir, Salman, and Shah Rukh would have been the only leading stars of their generation who had not portrayed a real-life criminal on the big screen but this is all set to change early next year.

In a career spanning almost two and a half decades, Shah Rukh Khan has played a multitude of characters. Khan was one of the last actors who graduated to superstardom after starting out on TV and playing the second lead or even straight out villain in Darr (1993). In the past, Khan has on one other instance played a character inspired by real-life. In Chak De! India (2007) he played a character fashioned on Mir Ranjan Negi, the goalkeeper of the Indian national men's hockey team when India lost to Pakistan 1-7 in the 1982 Asian Games, who later made a comeback as a coach and guided the Indian women's hockey team to win at the Gold at the 2004 Hockey Asia Cup. In Raaes (2016), Khan plays a character that is rumored to have been modeled on Abdul Latif, a known aide of Dawood Ibrahim and someone who was believed to be a key suspect in the 1993 Bombay blasts. Said to be politically very well connected, Latif used to wait on tables in gambling dens and started serving liquor as a teenager. From there he went on to become a small-time bootlegger and rose to be the kingpin of the illegal liquor business in Gujarat. By the time Latif was killed in an encounter when he tried to escape from Sabarmati jail in 1997, he had 97 cases lodged against him in which over 40 were cases of murder and almost a similar number of kidnappings.

When the film was announced and also all through it's making it was said that Khan was playing someone inspired by a character who was a petty bootlegger in Gujarat in the 1980s, While the filmmakers may or may not have forgotten to mention Abdul Latif, the chances of many people knowing the extent of Latif's crimes were remote. The Internet was not the thing when Latif died in 1997 and in this day and age two decades is akin to a lifetime when it comes to forgetting someone. Even a few weeks ago there was hardly anything on Latif on the Internet barring a Wikipedia entry and it was only when the teaser followed by the theatrical promo appeared that the name 'Abdul Latif' came into the spotlight.

There is nothing wrong with an actor playing a stylised negative character but the manner in which Raees stylizes the eponymous characters is in a sense insidious. In order to understand the subtle incendiarism that Raees seems to portray one needs, to begin with, a look at a leading star at the crossroads of his career and looking to, if not, reinvent, then reestablish by shifting gears.

Raees is Khan's Ageneepath (1990) moment where Amitabh Bachchan teamed up with a younger filmmaker, the late Mukul S. Anand, in order to reinvent himself. Bachchan has previously played the bad guy, and… well, he was the one who truly made the anti-hero come alive with films such as Parwana (1971), Namak Haraam(1973) and the often overlooked Saudagar (1973), but he indulged in a Brain De Palma's Scarface (1983) inspired gangster flick where he could not only play his age but also a character that seemed different from the ones that he had played until that point. More than a star, Khan has always been someone who seems to enjoy the offshoots of being a star and how something can transform from a mere moment to a point in history. He had once joked that he was happy that he got injured during the shooting of some film and thanks to that he might have his 'Coolie' moment where the screen would freeze and a title card would proclaim that this is the point where Shah Rukh Khan was seriously hurt. This is perhaps also the reason why he was thrilled about reprising Amitabh Bachchan's role in the remake of Don (2006) because he simply craved the 'Amitabh Bachchan in and as Don' title. With Raees Khan manages to check two boxes - playing a real-life criminal and his own 'Shah Rukh Khan in and as Raees' super title.

Watching Raees' trailer there can be no doubt that Raaes Alam (Shah Rukh Khan), the one supposed to have been modeled on Abdul Latif, is the hero of the film. A career criminal, who is also said to have harbored communal hatred, Aslam might be troubled and flawed but he is the hero nonetheless. And the reason is simply this – Shah Rukh Khan is playing him - and Khan, cannot not be the hero even if he is the villain. The manner in which the trailer unravels with slow motion shots of Raees (Khan) emerging from a literal smoke screen where people are fighting each other ostensibly during a riot or a gang clash is the stuff of cinematic legends. Even the so-called dialoguebaazi, the typical Hindi film one-upmanship, where a robber Raees Alam and a cop ACP Ghulam Patel (Nawazuddin Siddiqui) exchange notes are centered around how the bad guy will, in the parlance of our times, kick the sh*t out of the one who has promised to uphold law.

Directed by Rahul Dholakia, who had previously made Perzania (2005), Raeesneeded a convincing 'supporting' actor such as Siddiqui to portray the perfect nemesis to Khan's Alam and they might have even gone out of their way to woo the actor. Every Ram needs his Ravan and every Thakur his own Gabbar and Siddiqui's taali-seethi ensuring one-liners, which he delivers with gusto, add more gravitas but ever wondered why Khan didn't find the cop's role as inviting? Imagine the title - 'Shah Rukh Khan in and as Ghulam' and this ghulam pips the badshah of crime.

At times every star wants to throw caution to the wind and play a character just for the heck of it. More so in the case of a star such as Shah Rukh Khan, who has been compelled to be a victim of his own image and very rarely manages to do a film that allows him to come out of a safety net. In the late 1990s when the casting for American Psycho (2000) was underway the original choice to play the lead, Christian Bale, was about to be replaced by Leonardo DiCaprio, who post-Titanic(1997) had become one of the biggest stars in the world. The then 20-something DiCaprio was eager to sink his teeth into a role, which could be best described as a misogynist Wall Street serial killer. The film was based on the Bret Easton Ellis book and is a tale of a yuppie psychotic killer who had a tendency to mutilate his dates and the stomach-churning tale was reviewed as a how-to manual on the torture and dismemberment of women. There was a great backlash from many social organizations that urged DiCaprio to not do a role that might somewhere make his onscreen act invited to be emulated keeping his popularity in mind. The one person who led the opposition was the film’s director Mary Harron, who believed that it was just inappropriate to cast someone with a huge fan base among 15-year-old girls.

The film was ultimately made with the director’s original choice Bale. Despite the upsetting content it is confounding how the lead Patrick Bateman has endured being as much an idol as Wall Street’s (1987) Gordon Gekko, who was not supposed to be the hero but many young men identified with the character’s ‘greed is good’ mantra.

There is far greater fun in humanizing a criminal than finding the demon that resides within some good men. The real Abdul Latif's son, Mushtaq Shaikh, however is not as kicked as those who made the film and fans who are eagerly awaiting the 'return' of King Khan. Shaikh insists that his father had been misrepresented in Raees and while his father might have been a bootlegger, a terrorist booked under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), he at no point ran a brothel or used women for delivery in his bootlegging operations, which he believes are depicted in the film.

With Raees Shah Rukh Khan in all probability would end up eulogizing Abdul Latif. Irrespective of whether the end may show the triumph of the good over what may in fact, be outright evil, Khan’s flamboyance could sow the seeds of something totally different. It could wash away the past of a man who has committed crimes that have cost lives. Ironically enough the city of Mumbai, where Khan has a massive fan following, would in all likelihood celebrate an actor considered to be a role model playing a character who literally aided in the deaths of hundreds during the 1993 serial blasts in the same city. Irrespective of how the film fares it would also end up becoming a reference point for the future whenever the name 'Abul Latif' springs up in any conversation.

For the enormous number of Indians under the age of 25, in other words born after Latif's time, they would see him as the character that Shah Rukh Khan played, and SRK is the man. Some might argue that such a stance could be attributing too much importance to Shah Rukh Khan or a typical Bollywood film. But it may not be too out of the way to suggest that films in India have a tendency to create truths that have changed the socio-political course. It was through their films that superstars like M.G. Ramachandran (MGR) or N. T. Rama Rao projected themselves as the messiahs who needed to be voted in to change things. It was not until the runaway success of Jai Santoshi Maa (1975) that the goddess managed to become a part of the pantheon of other deities and similarly, rituals such as Karva Chauth could not have become as popular if not for Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (1995).



http://swarajyamag.com/culture/shah...n-his-next-movie-and-we-need-to-talk-about-it

Guys..yes, every one has right to discuss about it, it will be a pure vandalism if some one stands in front of movie hall or threaten Sharukh Khan....Man..there is a limit to madness...Patriotism should allow ourselves to express our dissent too..Otherwise, we will end up with another...I do not want to name it here..but our guys knows it...

Allow the movie to be judged by people, rather than some Shiv Sena or Vandalism people to dominate their opinion on us....If you ask me, i may not like the movie...but that does not mean, i will force every one to not to see the movie.

 

[Shankranthi]

Firstly, I never even claimed any Kashmiri Pundit, IN REAL LIFE, took up arms against any injustice. I was merely pointing to your bigotry in claiming that it is alright for a Kashmiri Pundit to PLAY A ROLE IN A MOVIE of a terrorist taking up arms. BTW, IT WAS YOU who even brought Kashmiri Pundit point to begin with. You will do better if you learn how to read properly.

It will do better if you can remember what you wrote.

It was YOU who dragged in hritik roshan for acting in a movie about terrorism. Only like I pointed out, neither did the movie glorify terrorism, (in fact spoke against it) nor did it promote terrorism due to the image of the actor.

It is not! It is the response of your ridiculous comment

"Especially since majority of the terrorism in India is islamic terrorism and they make no apologies about it."
Somehow you assume that 'they' are responsible for islamic terrorism in India.

If by "they" you mean MUSLIMS then you are right. Or are you saying that Hindus are responsible for islamic terrorism in India ?

Have you seen the movie Apharan? The hero is the one who leads the gang conducting kidnapping in Bihar. It was also inspired by one or more gang lords. If, as per you, it was raising the social awareness then why SRK's movie should be treated any different?

Have you seen the movie the movie Mission Kashmir? Hint, Hirthik Roshan is the hero in the movie and yes he becomes a terrorist to seek vangence.

Both are apt.

In both movies, the hero deprecate kidnapping and terrorism.

In one the hero kills the villain mastermind of the kidnapping industry and then himself dies, in another the hero renounces terrorism and kills the other terrorists. Its the VERY OPPOSITE of Glamorise.

It sends the message that both are bad and will end up in your death, not to mention accompanying misery.

NON of the character in the movie was an imitation of a real life criminal or terrorist.

You still do not understand! Let me re iterate it one last time. SRK is an actor and he plays all sorts of role. A number of roles are quite positive and if in some movie he plays a role of a terrorist then it is ridiculous to blame him for 'glorifying terrorism in a movie'. He is well, merely playing a role in a movie. Secondly, All this HERO and VILLAN talk is non-sense. Movies do not need to have well defined heros or villians and heros need not be completely good as well. We have seen mixed characters in other movies as well, such as Apharan.

SRK is playing a real life Terrorist who was accused in the Mumbai Bomb Blast by providing the bombs to Dawood Ibrahim and killed 257 people. A man who had 40 charges of murder to his name.

Its not a fictional character that SRK is playing.

And he plays this role as a hero and the lead in the film.

To compare this is a fictional character in Apharan is ridiculous, because the character SRK is playing is NOT FICTIONAL.

Much like the role John Abraham played in the movie "Shootout at Wadala". Thankfully John Abraham also did not dabble in politics nor did he attempt to speak up for hindus or christians.

SRK DID. See the difference ?

Once you pretend to be a "brand ambassador" then you also take the onus of living up to those standards.

Also SRK is NOT A CHARACTER ACTOR. He is a Film STAR, a HERO and that is the image he has cultivated.

He is no Naseeruddin Shah who can play a terrorist and no one will feel he glamorised the role.

Guys..yes, every one has right to discuss about it, it will be a pure vandalism if some one stands in front of movie hall or threaten Sharukh Khan....Man..there is a limit to madness...Patriotism should allow ourselves to express our dissent too..Otherwise, we will end up with another...I do not want to name it here..but our guys knows it...

Allow the movie to be judged by people, rather than some Shiv Sena or Vandalism people to dominate their opinion on us....If you ask me, i may not like the movie...but that does not mean, i will force every one to not to see the movie.

Since we are all spinning strawmen, let me too add to the din.

I also say that ISIS and ISI and Taliban should not dominate our opinion and should not promote this movie. Dawood Ibrahim must stay away from promoting this film ..... I mean that would be madness. We should not let IPL to be shown during this movie either.

Also Arvind Kejriwal must not force everyone to watch this film. That is just not done in a free society.

Also Mulayam singh yadav must do the bhagda.

 

[jaunty]

Why target SRK??? He is just an actor and playing a role given to him by his director.... If you have prob then it should be taken to director script writer

"swarajya magazine"

 

[padamchen]

I think SRK is ok. It's Amir I have my doubts about.

 

[Shankranthi]

"swarajya magazine"

So its ok if the article is published in ToI ?

 

[Divergent]

Isn't a Hindi version of Narcos?