It has been some time since we’ve mutinied over Ms. Aishwarya Rai, the Bollywood bombshell who in her past couple of film ventures hasn’t had too much luck conquering the western film market. Rai, who made her Hollywood debut in the somewhat successful English ode to Bollywood, Bride and Prejudice and flopped in the poorly executed (yet visually exciting) Mistress of Spices, may have scored a nice role and hopefully a better foray into the west with her role as Mira, a sword-wielding warriorete, in Doug Lefler’s, The Last Legion. The film, which stars Sir Ben Kingsley and Colin Firth –Rai impressively receives third billing — is the story of twelve-year-old emperor Romulus Augustus, who in the midst of the fall of the Roman Empire, escapes to join up with a small band of survivors who make their way to Britain in search of the chotu ruler’s ultimate legion, one of which I take is Miss Rai.
 |
I have to say after seeing the trailer (I know, it is just the trailer) Aishwarya’s performance looks quite good (link). The role is completely different than anything she has been in before, the cast is stellar (Ben Kingsley was Gandhi!), and Ash as an ass-kicking, sword handling fighter is a nice contrast to the usual, happy-go-lucky, Bhangra-circle dancing Ms. World that we are used to seeing. It can only be a good thing that she is moving away from doing the strictly desi themed film and towards playing a non-ethnic role. A well-received performance here, in an actual mainstream film, has the potential to really catapult her to the Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz levels, and on top of all that, Rai has extra incentive for this film to be successful, she bought the Indian rights. The Last Legion rated PG 13 is being distributed by MGM and the Weinsteins, and is set to release sometime in 2007 (I’ve seen both January 19 and April 27 as potential release dates).
hot. hot. hot.
that is all
Did I fail to mention that?
I think it may have been under-emphasized
I was not impressed by the trailer.
No doubt Aishwaryia Rai is very pretty, has a strong presence, and is a good dancer. However, as an actress she is quite limited. She does OK if the role is simple in definition, and very Indian. I think Choker Bali is her best work. She is not as complex as Suchitra Sen or Sharmilla Tagore or Smita Patil. But in Bollywood, I think she’ll do well for another 4-5 years.
In most likelihood, she is not going to be Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, Sophie Loren, Ingrid Bergman (all distinctly phoreners) – their reporterie is/ was more broad, and more willing to experiment. Maybe, Ms. Rai could turn around in Hollywood (and proove me totally wrong) if she finds some brilliant directors coaching her in acting (Bergman) or being universally saleable (Cruz, Hayek) , it ain’t going to be Gurinder Chadha and likes.
I agree that for her to go mainstream Hollywood, it will be through series of huge costume dramas.
Dude, you forgot to mention John Hannah! And the kid from Love Actually who ran through the airport for his girl plays Romulus.
Also – I love the caption.
she looks ravishing and puts in a creditable performance in an otherwise sub-par remake of Umrao Jaan. she’s definitely a director’s actress in that her performances show a marked difference according to who the director is.
some thoughts.
meandering thought #1 : The woman needs to do some isometric exercises. her tendons dont have it. you can see it in her limb movements. the shoulders move but the forearm follows a little too slow. there’s no zip to the swing.
meandering thought #2 : the fall of the roman empire… there are many hypotheses for why this powerful, accomplished empire vanished into rubble… one reason i heard the other day was … rome could no longer bear the demands of a bloated military industrial complex which was stretched to the point of catastrophic collapse through a mix of fiscal mismanagement and an energy crisis. the energy crisis in the sense of grain – the bio-fuel needed to keep the army moving and the outposts in check.
meandering thought #3 Hey… WGIIA… just thought i’d say hello. you missed a good party the other night.
hello hairy_d. i would wish you a happy thanksgiving but that would be a month late (as i found out years ago when a friend and i showed up in toronto for a long weekend without realizing it was canadian thanksgiving. put a damper on things but still enjoyed the city). hope the walrus doesn’t go under.
as for the roman empire, obviously they fell apart because of asterix and obelix and getafix and co. and that magic potion 🙂
I never thought I’d say this, but Go Ash! She looks solid, and I think this is going to be a positive step for her carer.
That said, she doesn’t seem to “work it” like other period film vixens have in the past. Women’s roles in Hollywood Greek and Roman period films have especially been that of seductive and dominating sexual deviants that take up a lot of space (either visually or plot-wise). It’s not about Ash’s more masculinized ass-kicker role, or her looks, it’s about how she works it. Basically – all the right looks, not enough sexual tension in the acting, and hence, not enough heat for her role. Maybe it’s bad directing – not enough male gaze* – the camera should linger at her face and other curvy parts. I know it was just the trailer, but trailers traditionally make the female leads stand out in all their sexual glory (far more than they do in the actual film)… and, well, Ash just doesn’t stand out.
*Trust me, I would never put a woman down for not catering to the male gaze – I’m just talking about how the game is played. I think that if films want to resist the male gaze, they’d have to come away from the Hollywood film paradigm with something that shines brilliantly on a different dimension (that’s my kinda film, btw). But The Last Legion has a pretty run-of-the-mill plot, and if a player wants to make it, she has to play the game.
I actually noticed that myself.
realizes it’s 8:45 on a Friday night
…Shruti and hairy_d need lives.
Shruti: You are right, these are important aspects for this kind of film, and sure it is hard to gather a full picture from trailers and stills, but I feel like the linger and gaze are definitely evident in the picture above. I hope that this will shine through in the film.
🙂 and it’s probably sadder here since it’s midnight right about now :-/ … but not so bad, because i am actually taking the weekend off. how about that… and I am so looking forward to trying out your okra recipe tomorrow Shruti.
g’nite folks.
no worries. it actually is a happy time for me – cuz my US clients are going slow this time – so buddy gets to put his feet up and take it easy for a few days… well there’s still those bleeping travel expenses.. but one thing at a time, eh!
She can’t hit Hollywood until she drops her act to play prude and not kiss a man on screen. And, if rumour serves true, she’s scheduled to wed Abhishek in Feb-ish (reported from India as the relationship is still on). She can’t wed the heir to the Bollywood throne and do Hollywood roles, which will require more skin and lesser limits to acting. The Provoked trailer is up as well. The Last Legion is set for Jan 2007 as a desi journalist interviewed Sir Ben Kingsley on the film and his thoughts on her and Bollywood. Salma was a soap opera actress in Mexico before hitting it big in Hollywood and Cruz was the most popular actress in Spain before crossing over. BUT, neither had their cultural limitations to live by as desi actresses do. Once Ash crosses into mainstream Hollywood, there’s no going back to bahu, beti roles of Bollywood,
Bride & Prejudice was a “somewhat successful English ode to Bollywood”
Tired & Repitious was a success? By which metric…
…the eastern roman empire did not fall.
It looks a lot like another Last Days of Rome movie, which had Keira Knightley in the Amazon warrior role…
Looks like the film will be a succes in India,at least….Too bad you did not say anything about COLIN FIRTH,his partener in this film………….
If she’s not supposed to be ethnically identifiable, I wonder why her skin seems to have been darkened?
Looks like there’ll be plenty of male gazing if the dip-in-the-water scene is anything to go by.
Colin Firth looks delicious – something for everyone! Rather like the new Bond flick in which we girls get eye candy too. I like this new trend.
Blah… looks like a cheesy sword and schlock film from the 80s. DOA in the US. May do modest business in other markets. A step up for Ben… though anything is better than Bloodrayne.
Who can forget Colin Firth’s breakout performance in the Amanda Bynes classic “What a Girl Wants” (Part of marriage is compromise and for every cheese ball action movie, football game, etc I have to watch Gray’s Anatomy, Gilmore Girls, Felicity)
Looks very similar to King Arthur, with Colin Firth in the Clive Owen role and Ash in the Keira Knightley role. If this films holds true to form then Ash will die at the end of the movie, leaping in front of an arrow or dagger that was intended for Colin Firth, right before the climactic final battle scene between Colin Firth and the head, evil bad guy. After Colin kills this guy he will run over and hold a dying Ash in his arms. She will say something noble about self sacrifice and love before breathing her last breath. He will then clutch her head to his chest and scream out “Nooooooo! don’t you leave me!” as the camera pans skyward. Voiceover narrative exposition by either Ben Kingsley or Emerpror Augustus in the style of the ending of Conan the Barbarian (talk about a letdown of an ending…”In time I became King.” The End).
I think this is a very interesting idea. What I sense here is the Diaspora non-white woman corrolary to non-white male emasculation. Forgive me for being presumtous. One worries that Ash is not “sexy” in the way Hollywood actresses are “sexy”. I actually think its all for show in these movies and its a phyric victory. In her day to day behavior I am sure Ashwairya Rai would leave 99% of “male gazers” slack-jawed. To the extent her behavior has to do with restrictive mores in India, or some other kind of binding of female sexuality in India, it may be a concern that Ash doesn’t smolder in the action-movie genre fashion. But to the extent she is just not attuned to playing the Hollywood game where female sexuality is commodified and often falsely shown to be empowering, I think its not worrisome.
You don’t need to male gaze to be sexy, and that is one way in which female sexuality in India may be more empowered than here, perhaps. My “hot. hot. hot.” commment notwithstanding.
Also notwithstanding the commodification of female sexuality that occurs in Bollywood.
Somebody sexually commodify brown men in Hollywood stat!
Sahej, man, are you joking?
“But to the extent she is just not attuned to playing the Hollywood game where female sexuality is commodified and often falsely shown to be empowering, I think its not worrisome.”
She has built an entire career on being a babe – was a model first (and quite sultry and suggestive in her TV ads), and wouldn’t have made it far in Bollywood on her acting (or even in C-grade Tamil films, honestly) – she is who she is because of her looks and her body. Not quite as overtly sexy as an item girl, plays up the ice princess act a fair bit these days, but hardly a “real” actress. I would also submit that there’s nothing terribly empowering about the half-coy sexual objectification of women in Indian cinema.
Lastly, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that if Ash Rai becomes Ms Sexy Thing in the States, you’re going to have a lot of people whose reaction is nothing more subtle than a version of “woah, Kama Sutra baby come to your Prince (dot not feather) and be part of my mystik Eastern Harem. For everyone dude who just appreciates Salma Hayek for the fact she’s totally the most smoldering woman on the screen, there’s another dude who just thinks; “Mexican women…hot like salsa.” But maybe thats not so bad. I for sure would not mind if Abhishek Bachan came out here and played the love interest next to Jennifer Aniston or some such.
Will end here!
Sadly, not joking, mostly.
I think she’s built her career on being a babe in Bollywood. If you look at the lineage of Bollywood actresses she comes out of, she is coming from the “respectable girl” linneage, as hypocritical as that may be. Until recently, I think it could be said that the “respectable girl” in Bollywood was a sex symbol, but in the same way that once upon a time Audrey Hepburn was a sex symbol. Dudes kept a respectful distance.
I think she’s still got that kind appeal in India. But in the States, she’s going to have to work it like any other actress coming up. Compare to Sharon Stone or somebody, versus, I don’t know, Merly Streep.
The whole thing is rife with hypocricy so I can’t go too far in defending it
I would tend to agree. I know so little about this topic though, that I have no idea where to begin. It seems like a netherworld where up is down and down is up to be honest.
In any soceity in which gender roles prevail, a woman has different roles; daughter, girl, wife, mother, grandmother, sister, girlfriend, item girl, madonna, whore and these motiffs are representated in cinema…..I think thats what I am getting at in terms of “respectable girl” in desi cinema. BTW, on this level, the possible marriage of Ash Rai and Abhishek Bachan is fascinating.
Its all bullshit but it still prevails. down with patriarchy up with freedom!
Last comment,
I think there is sometimes a fallacy that men in a patriarchy have agency about how patriarchy works. For example, that a desi young guy who goes to the movies and sees Rani Muhkerjee or whoever, he decides how he sees her, in what role she is placed. Really though, he is reacting as much as anyone else to what already prevails. If he is told to place Rani Muhkerjee in the role of “future wifey if you get a good job and make rupees” he’ll think of her like that. If he’s told to place a girl in the role of “item girl” he’ll do that.
I’m sure people like the post-modernists such as Derrida and all have a good handle on how this comes about. All I can say is, like Billy Corgan says, despite all our rage, we’re still just moviegoers at the theater
Ironic: Aishwarya’s first role where she’s NOT playing an Indian ends up being the one where she lets herself be TAN. Pretty funny, if you think about it. Clearly, she’s in the movie to bring it a dose of “exoticism” rather than great acting. And Ben Kingsley’s a great actor, but Colin Firth? Not so much. I’m not expecting much outta this film. Especially since the last time I heard the story of Romulus and Remus, there wasn’t a Mira. Maybe it’s just the medieval lover in me but if it’s not accurate it’ll probably suck.
Re: she won’t be successful until she drops some clothes and kisses on-screen. It looks like she’s sticking to not removing her clothes seeing as she’s dressed like a boy in most of this movie. And so I concur: the movie’s going to do badly and so will she.
And in terms of comparing her to Penelope Cruz – the difference is the Penelope can act though American film doesn’t always give her the best roles.
Whoops, I totally mixed up my Colins! I love Colin Firth! My bad! Still I don’t think that Aish is in it because of her amazing acting.
As kush stated, Aish is pretty limited in terms of expressions. Though Sanjay Leela Bhansali brings out something different in her. Be it Hum Dil Chuke Sanam or over-the-top Devdas. In the forthcomin DHOOM, she got the whole hottie thing down (with a TAN)
But this is a big break and far more critical than what the other indian actors get in the hollywood i.e om puri, late Amrish puri etc.
Om Puri To Play General Zia-ul-Haq In Hollywood Movie
Veteran actor Om Puri, has been chosen to play Pakistan’s former military ruler, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, in a Hollywood movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” that is based on CIA’s role in arming Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan. Puri is not new to Hollywood and has starred in several Hollywood productions in the past, including “Gandhi”, “City of Joy”, “East is East” and “The Ghost and The Darkness” in a career spanning about 30 years. He would play the role alongside Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. The film is based on the book that bears the same title. The plot revolves around Charlie Wilson, Texas Congressman, played by Hanks.
There is a big difference in the ability of actors to act in Hindi movies vs Hollywood. No one will say that Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt are great actors but watch them and you will see that they are not bad. At all. Compare with Hrithik or Abhishek and Cruise/Pitt are far better than them. Part of it has to do with all the requirements of a Bollywood hero. They have to look good, have a killer body, DANCE and do melodrama while also saying wicked lines and being romantic and angry. You have to be able to do everything and hence most of them can do nothing. If you want to compare Ash with someone, you should comapre her to Denise Richards or Tara Reid or Paris Hilton. These women can’t act at all and neither can Ash.
Salma and Penelope are far more accomplished actors. Ash is one of the most overrated actors/stars ever. Could anyone sit through the abomination that was B&P? I was so embarrassed to watch it. I’m going to watch Dhoom 2 in a coupla hours and will post my review.
This is very true. I don’t think many Americans who would find that endearing enough to make her America’s new sweetheart. They would find it annoying and say forget it, who wants to see her films?!!?
That said, the whole sexualized, pelvic thrusting, dancing in white clothes in the rain, rolling around in the grass and dry humping but not actually kissing thing in Bollywood is completely ludicrous! I get more embarrased watching Bollywood films with my parents than Hollywood films.
It would be great to see a Bollywood actor/actress make it in Hollywood. But I would rather see improvements in the quality of films and the roles of women in Bollywood first.
She looks like Beyonce.
She looks like the type of mulatta black rappers like to cast in their music videos. Except for her less than voluptuous booty.
To an extent, I think this is true. Unless she is willing to actually take roles and act outside of her “off-screen personality,” that of the good/modest Indian girl, she will be limited in Hollywood and and in most Western roles.
Prashant: The movie was somewhat succssful based on amongst other things, Bride and Prejudice grossed almost 20 million dollars internationally, it was widely released in theatres around the U.S., it got Aishwarya appearances on Letterman, Good Morning America, the CBS morning show and Oprah, and its release onto DVD made it onto Entertainment Weekly’s must list. It’s not an exhaustive list, but I think somewhat successful is a fair characterization.
Agreed. The leaning in to kiss, and then pulling away at the last minute will of course not work in Hollywood and I think that aspect of Bride and Prejudice really confused or put-off many viewers in America not familiar with Bollywood. But I imagine if she doesn’t want to participate in on screen kisses etc, then she must choose roles that don’t put her in those situations (situations which may not arise in the Last Legion). If she can find good roles that allow her to avoid physically romantic situations, she could be ok. I may be outvoted on this, but my friends and I don’t sit around after a good movie and say “Charlize Theron looked fine, but she should have kissed so and so more.”
she gets an a+ for the cornrows.
i noticed the preview came complete with a bollywood-esque damsel emerging from the lake scene.
Sajit, it’s not as much about sitting around determining an acting:kissing ratio as much as it could be considering the roles found in Hollywood most likely cater heroines to engage within significant physical touching on screen. Rani Mukherji has kissed on screen (Bunty aur Babli) as has Preity Zinta (Salaam Namaste). This does not mean they, too, will be likelier to make it in Hollywood. Rather, talent in addition to unbound limits with determine whether a Bollywood actor/actress can cross-over successfully. Shah Rukh Khan has stated he “will never kiss any of his heroines” (Wikipedia), but he has also stated he would be unlikely to do a Hollywood role because he is 40, and very well-esconsed in Bollywood (Anokhi Vibe). Ash simply has not had a hit and is in desperate need of one. Clearly, a lack of hits could be largely due to mediocre talents, but if coupled with stand not to kiss on screen either, would indicate she won’t make a hit in Hollywood.
a lack of hits could be largely due to mediocre talents, but if coupled with stand not to kiss on screen either, would indicate she won’t make a hit in Hollywood.
I agree with your general analysis in your comments.
Ash has kissed on scene too – so have many, many others in last 10 years in Bollywood. Kissing was quite common in 30s in Indian cinema too, and then fell out of favor. Proof positive To succeed in Hollywood as an outsider (Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, Sophia Loren, Ingrid Bergman) either you have “oomph” overload and/ or versatile acting poweress. Same holds for SRK if he tried. Hollywood make male actors tend to be older – Senn Penn, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Kevin Spacey, Mr. Gladatior from Australia – but do have to be able to fit in Hollywood type stories. Kabir Bedi tried without much suceess.
For an actress in Hollywood to succeed – one has to be willing to do kisses, nude love making scenes, and the whole nine yard in addition to regular acting – so that the financial investment of millions of dollars is recovered by teenagers buying tickets multiple times at the local multiplex. I do not think Ash or others are ready for that. Zhang Ziyi has not really broken into Hollywood inspite of better marketing. She has a better chance though.
Times of India: An onscreen kiss has sent Bollywood’s hottest romance tumbling into rough weather. The year-long Abhishek Bachchan-Aishwarya Rai relationship recently hit turbulence when the Bachchans were invited to Yashraj Studio for an exclusive preview of Dhoom2 . Aishwarya too had flown down from Jaipur where she is shooting for Ashutosh Gowarikar’s Akbar-Jodha with Hrithik.
Sources said Aishwarya’s liplock with Hrithik in the film didn’t go down well with the Bachchans. And the entire family of actors was not appreciative of Ash’s acting prowess in the said scene. Until now Aishwarya, despite offers from Hollywood, had steadfastly maintained a no-kissing policy.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/Entertainment/Ash_sizzles_Bachchans_fuming/articleshow/576391.cms
So much for limits.
This is what I don’t understand and find extremely frustrating. Why did kissing become so taboo and so horrible in Bollywood? Wasn’t kissing originated in India?
The Bachchans would rather their maybe-future-daughter-in-law writhe around half naked and flash her chest and shake her ass than kiss a man. Where is the sense in that?
I’m curious to know exactly why this happened too, if Kush or anyone else here is aware of the historical reasons.
Presumably “Look but don’t touch” etc etc.
Re: the look but don’t touch attitude to babes in Bollywood – this manifests itself on so many levels. One of the reasons Madhuri Dixit was such a big star was that she was beautiful and willing to do sexy dances but managed to retain the illusion of being a Good Girl – whenever her gushing male fans were asked why they adored her in magazine interviews, they’d always say “she has such an innocent face.” Whereas many Hollywood equivalents, and even item girls in Bollywood, exude a frank sexuality, a desi audience doesn’t seem to be comfortable with the idea of a woman who is aware of her sexual appeal and maybe even enjoys it – the item girl can never be the heroine, except perhaps for a few Parveen Babi/Zeenat Aman roles in the late 70s and early 80s where they go from being cabaret dancers to earnest wifey wannabes trying to cook.
This definitely used to be the case but I don’t think it’s true anymore, when you consider Bipasha Basu, Mallika Sherawat etc. Or Priyanka Chopra in Aitraaz. Hell, even Kareena Kapoor in K3G and Chameli.
Come to think of it, though, with the exception of Kareena, the above examples could probably be more accurately be classed as “anti-heroines”.
But there has certainly been a move towards depicting lead heroines less as stereotypical “sati-savitris” and in some cases a little more realistically. There isn’t always such a written-in-stone delineation between “item girls” and “good girls”. Consider Preity Zinta in Salaam-Namaste, who obviously wasn’t a “traditional” type at all in that movie.
I’m curious to know exactly why this happened too, if Kush or anyone else here is aware of the historical reasons.
Jai,
I think I read somewhere at some point Indian censor board started acting quite fickle, this all started happening even before independence. It is quite well documented, and film makers consequently swayed away from kissing scenes.
Hollywood has done stranger things – US Senate chastised Ingrid Bergman when she got pregnant by a married man (Roberto Rossellini) as she had played nun in many movies, and she was expected to live like one [From wikipedia – It even led to her being denounced on the floor of the U.S. Senate by Edwin C. Johnson, a Senator from Colorado, who referred to her as “a horrible example of womanhood and a powerful influence for evil.” In addition, there was a floor vote, which resulted in her being made a persona non grata], and McCarthyism (destroying careers of many people in Hollywood).
Monster Ball (2001) was one of the first movie that openly showed an intimate relationship between an African American and a White American.
Kareena and Preity’s roles definitely depicted them as fiesty and unconventional women but they were far from item girls. And I think the fact that we even have the concept of an item girl (i.e. someone clearly not the heroine, but thrown in for sex appeal) says something.
Prudishness: India, Hollywood, and everyone in between
From Roberto Rossellini’s bio on wikipedia.
Since, when did Jawaharlal became prude in his own life?
Kush,
It’s quite surprising that such things were common in desi films back in the 30s, at least if you believe descriptions of Indian social mores from those times from the 60+ generation (which admittedly may not always be entirely accurate, due to various vested interests). Maybe the more explicit nature of Indian films in those times was due to the more “exclusive” viewing audience ? Meaning, they weren’t anywhere near as mainstream as they later became within Indian society ?
SP,
You can also add Shilpa Shetty in Phir Milenge and Urmila in Ek Hasina Thi. Both were depicted as “normal” urban Indian women who were also shown to be involved in pre-marital physical relationships with their respective boyfriends, with little fanfare or “scandal” about the topic in terms of how it was all portrayed.
Perizaad Zorabian also had a pretty explicit makeout session with Rahul Bose in Mumbai Matinee. It was completely Westernised in terms of how it was shown. No holds barred.
Of course, the examples above were fairly off-beat movies, and are less common in the usual Karan Johar/Yash Raj mainstream blockbusters.
Unless you count Neal-‘n-Nikki, about which the less said the better 😉
It depends on what you mean by “item girl”. The term normally means a guest actress/model in one or more racy songs. It’s occasionally still relevant (eg. Yana Gupta in Dum, Malaika Arora to a limited extent in Kaante, or Mayte Garcia in Dus), but not so much these days because it’s increasingly the case for the lead heroine herself to dance/sing in the “music videos” for such songs.
“Vamps” in the old-school Bollywood sense of the term don’t really exist in mainstream Hindi films due to the lines being blurred Madhuri Dixit-onwards (and increasingly during the past 4-5 years), unless it’s shown in a deliberately humorous way like Bipasha in No Entry.
I couldn’t have said it any better. I cant sit through a hindi movie (with the exception of Rang De Basanti ) without downing two drinks first. Last night, I felt like pulling my hair out while watching a khichdi-of-a-chaat DHOOM2. Dont ask me what the movie was about…all i know is I saw Hrithik and Ash pout, Abhi not crack a smile thru the whole thing, Bipasha tryin to look like Lara Croft and why oh why is Uday Chopra an actor?
And what is with taking so many actors in one movie and calling it an Extravaganza? Atleast it used to be easier before with a hero, heroine and a villain. Now its just mishmash just to get bumper opening for the movie.