Also out in the U.S. this week: Anupama Chopra’s King of Bollywood: Shah Rukh Khan and the Seductive World of Indian Cinema. As the title suggests, King of Bollywood is a full-length book meant for a general readership, looking back at the life and career of Shah Rukh Khan — aka, the “Badshah”. Chopra traces the various changes in the Bombay film industry in the 1990s, and argues that Shah Rukh is in many ways the face of the new, Yuppified, transnational Bollywood. From earlier conversations on SM, I know that some readers are a bit sick of Shah Rukh, though I would argue that Amitabh Bachchan has been far more over-exposed in the past few years (Shah Rukh has been only doing about one movie a year). The question Chopra is interested in isn’t “is Shah Rukh Khan a great actor,” it’s “how and why has Shah Rukh been such a success in the Bombay film industry given his outsider status?”
Derived nearly entirely from face-to-face interviews, there’s a lot of factual material about Shah Rukh Khan in Chopra’s book that I didn’t know — and I suspect that all but the most diehard fans won’t know most of it either. For instance, I found Chopra’s account of Shah Rukh’s early acting career particularly interesting. This is the period before 1988, when he landed a major part in the TV serial Fauji — and became a star almost overnight. After graduating from college, Shah Rukh started work on a Master’s in Economics, but his real energy was spent working on his acting with a high-brow theater group in Delhi called the Theater Action Group. This drama company was based at the prestigious Lady Shri Ram College, and was led by a British hippie named Barry John. For nearly three years, Shah Rukh played smaller parts in serious, avant-garde plays, while other actors got top billing. Shah Rukh was also somewhat overlooked in Arundhati Roy’s experimental film, In Which Annie Gives it Those Ones (1988); he tried out for the protagonist role, but was only cast as an extra.
To me all this was surprising because I’ve always thought of Shah Rukh as a “fun” actor; I’m having a hard time picturing him doing — or at least trying to do — all all this highbrow theater work.
One of the strengths of King of Bollywood is the way Chopra casually slips in paragraphs of analysis as she tells the story of Shah Rukh’s ascent. Though this is a book aimed at a popular audience, she manages to make many of the points an academic film historian might make — with a much lighter touch. For instance, take the following paragraph:
A few years later, Shah Rukh would tell journalists that as an actor he had only five expressions but he was a success because his rivals had only two. From the time he started performing professinoally, Shah Rukh’s acting was as much about charisma as craft. ‘Shah Rukh may not have been the best actor of his period,’ Sanjoy Roy said, ‘but even then he was a star.’ The debate about Shah Rukh’s skills started during his TAG days — when a performance when acutely over the top, his friends joked that Shah Rukh ‘had broken the roof.’ It continued long after he became a globally recognized actor. If Amitabh Bachchan was defined by a mercurial intensity, Shah Rukh’s keynote was innate buoyancy. An energetic determination tinted every role he played.
Here, I like the way Chopra delicately acknowledges that Shah Rukh is, as she puts it, “more charisma than craft” — that is to say, he’s no Lawrence Olivier. But he nevertheless brings something uniquely appealing to the table, a “happy” quality that has carried him from one superhit to the next. At his peak in the mid-90s, Shah Rukh was never sexy (like the relentlessly shirtless Salman Khan); if anything, he was charming. (More recently, I’ve felt that he’s been riding a bit on the fumes of his earlier success, though it looks like he’s about to turn the page in his career, and actually act his age in the upcoming Chak De India.)
Another interesting chapter in Shah Rukh’s career happened just after he started getting roles in big Hindi films. In 1992-3, Shah Rukh did a sexually explicit scene in an adaptation of Madame Bovary, called Maya Memsaab. The filmi magazines were all over it — an anonymous article in Cine Blitz even went so far as to suggest that Shah Rukh and actress Deepa Sahi (both of whom were married at the time to other people) were having actual, unsimulated sex in the scene. Shah Rukh was, needless to say, mortified — he picked a fight with a reporter at the magazine, which went on for months. Since that time, he’s never even done a kissing scene in any of his films. To me, this is interesting because it suggests that censorship in Bollywood derives not just from the censor board and the presumed conservatism of the masses, it’s also in a sense the media that covers the industry that polices it.
Anupama Chopra also addresses the rather tedious rumor that Shah Rukh Khan is gay. This is something I’ve heard many straight Indian men repeat, as if it were a known fact — though as far as I know there’s no shred of evidence whatsoever to support it. Shah Rukh isn’t even particularly ‘femme’, in my view, though it’s certainly the case that he’s willing to be less manly than either of the other two Khans. But there’s more than one way of being a heterosexual man, isn’t there?
Chopra does acknowledge that there’s a special relationship between Shah Rukh and director Karan Johar, but her characterization of it is worth quoting:
This enduring professional and personal proximity led to rumors that Shah Rukh and Karan were lovers, to which Shah Rukh replied with his typical wit, ‘So how did I have two children? Heavy petting?’ In fact, Karan was closer to Gauri. Karan treated Shah Rukh with a near-fanatical reverence, but Gauri was his mate. Karan helped her navigate the treacherous shifting loyalties in Bollywood and adjust to her newfound status of superstar wife. ‘It was easy for me because Karan was there,’ she said. ‘I didn’t miss Shah Rukh at all. With Karan, time just passed.’
Chopra seems to be implying (indirectly, of course) that Karan is in effect Gauri’s gay best friend — and that they both worship Shah Rukh. According to her account at least, Shah Rukh has always had eyes only for his wife, Gauri, whom he married after overcoming her parents objections, as well as her own reticence. He fought to get her, and he’s been a fiercely possessive husband and father ever since.
There’s more interesting stuff in this book — including interesting chapters about Shah Rukh’s family background (his grandfather was a freedom-fighter), as well as his career after his mid-90s peak era (KKHH, DDLJ), including resounding flops like Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani. But I’ll leave off, and let readers get the book…
*
People may know Anupama Chopra from her various articles in the New York Times and other papers. For one thing, she’s director Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s wife. Chopra has also written two earlier books on Bollywood-related themes, including a full-length study of Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge, and another on Sholay. But King of Bollywood is different, in that it’s getting released on a major commercial press; the DDLJ book was on a British academic press, while the Sholay book was on Penguin India.
UPDATE: Check out a great group interview with Anupama Chopra at Filmiholic.
He is the Jay-Z of India. He sucks at his day job but he’s a business, man.
Exposure just doesnt mean doing movies, SRK is everywhere. Whether he is working in a movie or not he is always in the news. Whether its his numerous endorsements or TV show (KBC)
Have you seen his LUX commercial with him soakin in a tub of water sprinkled with roses?
you mean this?
Ah the wonders of youtube!
Jeet, no, I haven’t seen it… I do know that he’s been one of the most highly paid advertisement/endorsement actors ever; in fact, Chopra has a chapter called ‘Brand SRK’ devoted to Shah Rukh’s self-commercialization…
thank you SFgirl for the link
and Vikram Chandra’s sister. She hosts “picture this” (weekly film show) on NDTV
Just like some hollywood stars and sports stars he’s playing the media game and getting onto endorsements. It’s not a bad thing to get exposure at least he has some talent.
What is worse is people like Paris Hilton getting over exporsure without having any talents.
The lux commercial didnt seem so feminite – he’s just got a cheeky smile and the floppy hair that appeals to many.
I know I’ll be the only one to say this, but that’s what I love abt SRK, his adrogyny. He’s Elvis sexy! (I’m ducking out of here now)
Amardeep, I’d just add that throughout the book she also manages to weave in quite a bit of an overview of the mainstream Hindi film industry from the beginning through the ’50s to ’80s, before going in-depth on the ’90s. For anyone who’s curious to know more about the history, it’s a great primer. Yet for diehard filmi addicts, there’s still lots of inside info.
If anyone’s curious to hear more from the author herself, I hosted a bloggers get-together online with her a few weeks back to discuss the book here.
Women love shahrukh. Straight men talk about him being gay. Obviously!!
Women love shahrukh. Straight men talk about him being gay. Obviously!!
Arya, I think you nailed it.
And Filmiholic, thanks for reminding us about that interview. A link to it is in the body of the post now.
I remember reading an interview with him in Anokhi Mag and he was quite open to the fact he’ll never come to Hollywood and why (cos’ he’s too old, he said). But the best part was when he asked “what is an ABCD?” Reminded me on the ABDs, DBDs, etc on this blog.
This, along with the comment on his “happy” personality, totally sum up SRK’s appeal. I mean, with those crazy eyebrows, how can one not be charmed? Something I think he does really well is witty dialogue/repartee (which I know ought to be credited to the writers, but his delivery and comedic timing are great). And, he’s the only Bollywood actor who can make me cry. Really. I cannot believe I wrote that “out loud.”
He’s not a business, man he’s also a business man!
I never got this guy’s popularity. At least Amir Khan showed me something in Lagaan. TCM showed some 90s movie of Shah Rukh where he goes to London. meets some chick, they meet again in India and I think Amrish Puri is the girl’s dad and he is opposed to it. Supposedly it was one of the bigger hits at the time. Some long ass title starting with a D.I was so sick of the movie , the endless theme song being repeated, the endless giggling stammering thing he does, and longass movie. He was pretty decent in Hey Ram though.
And I agree about Amitabh Bacchan. The guy is overexposed. He seems to make a movie every damn month. And he needs to shave off that beard once in a while. It gives him that boring look. He needs to play the Angry Old Man just one more time to rekindle some memories.
I always liked the Om Puri , Shabana Azmi flicks.
Pravin, the movie you are referring to is DDLJ-dilwale dulhania le jayenge-one of shahrukh’s superhit movies! And amitabh bacchan is overexposed for a reason!! Watch him in Cheeni Kum…..
Well.. He is articulate and has great sense of humor..no wonder women love him. I absolutely love him and I am straight
Pravin,
I understand where you are coming from about DDLJ( Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge) But please look at that movie in context.For Hindi cinema at that time,DDLJ ( along with Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, Maine Pyaar kiya) was a breakout not only because of: – Strong production values : costumes and exotic locales – Hummable music – attractive screen pair
but because these movies attempted to address the changing family value system. For Indian kids, it is all about rebellion within the framework of the existing ,strong family system.These movies were hits because they held out the seductive idea that you could marry whom you want and be to an extent what you want and STILL have your parents love and approval. The idea of the buddy -buddy relationship shown between Sharukh and his dad Anupam Kher in DDLJ ( or Salman and his mom in MPK- he actually calles her”sexy”) was nothing short of revolutionary for Hindi popular cinema where , till then, the protagonists’ relationship with their parents was formal or stilted.
So ,in short, while I understand why you may not have liked DDLJ, I also fully understand why it was such a big hit in the des.( Yes, yes I went and paid for a ticket and saw it when it was released like everybody I knew!)
i’m not really into srk the actor, but i watched an episode of kbc and he was astoundingly good; charisma, indeed. i also think srk resembles somewhat of a good actor when he moves away from the loverboy image, e.g. swades and don. plus, the man can dance.
bess, i agree on the androgyny – and it makes him much hotter than all those muscled men, in my opinion. physically, i think srk is very sexy.
seriously, camille? LOL 🙂
@18 Runa: Well said Runa! Some of us have known Shahrukh from his days on the small screen on Circus, Fauji etc. We get it why he is who he is today. He has come a long way and deserves his spot.
Wait, Shah Rukh isn’t gay?? I just heard that rumor last week! Man, I’m soo behind in my Bollywood gossip! The author is coming to some India festival thing in LA and will discuss this book. I think it starts this weekend??
Watch K3G, overly hyped but Shah Rukh’s acting is class, you don’t even realise the acting. Anjaam is still one my favourite films!!
I grew up in the same neighbourhood as gauri and shahrukh and even attended the same undergrad college in delhi university, while they, too, were students. gauri, a hindu hails from a rich punjabi family [the chibbas]who were quite close to the local bjp politicos. her brothers were known for their thug behaviour and anybody who is from delhi knows the sort of goons i am alluding to. needless to say, upon finding out of their relationship, they threatened shahrukh, who, to his credit, did not back down an inch.[this i witnessed with my own eyes] last i heard, the bros. had reconciled with the marriage. must have happened shortly after khan became a star.
The “King of Bollywood” shows how Amitabh Bachchan’s angry young man persona of the 70s and 80s morphed into SRK’s aspirational yuppie characters of 90s and 00s — in keeping with India’s economic development and cultural openness, especially through television. Also, SRK started out in movies doing tough-guy action masala roles (brooding sociopaths who murdered their lovers), but then gained traction as the cheerful but somewhat offbeat Raj who wins the girl through charm and — this is key — supporting traditional Indian values. In DDLJ he and Kajol get drunk, and he lets her believe he has taken advantage of her. He later confesses that he would never do such a thing as violate a woman’s honor. He follows her from Europe all the way back to India to woo her — but only if her father agrees.
This all may be silly and seemingly pointless, but the book claims that this stuff was new in the mid-80s and caught the gathering zeitgeist of India. It also was the vision of Aditya Chopra and Karan Johar, who were young turks in the industry then. Without them, there might not be a Shah Rukh Khan.
ak,thanks for saying it. Really, we are sisters of O.L. ; )
Anecdote,
Did you go to Hansraj college as well? Small world indeed. From what I remember his wife didn’t go to Hansraj. Do you still live in the area?
brown, yes, i went to hansraj and graduated two years after shahrukh. i live in new york, but my parents still live in panchsheel park. you are right, gauri did not attend hansraj, but she might as well have, since she was there all the time.
for the “he is not manly eneough” crowd – shahrukh was a serious hockey player in college and travelled extensively with the college team. from what i heard, he was one of the best forwards in delhi at the time. and contrary to perceptions here in america, field hockey is a very, very, very, tough sport. much tougher than basketball and baseball.
I grew up watching him in Fauji and he was really good then. I personally don’t go weak-kneed at his on-screen presence, but neither do I hate him for his success. He does have charisma and I personally enjoy him more in movies like Swades, Paheli etc., but if he gives millions of people what they want with his performances in movies like Kal Ho Na Ho etc., more power to him.
For me the narcissism in these Hindi movies (i have seen clips of movies with guys like Hrithek Roshan and others) is excessive even by the standards set by the Tom Cruise characters in Cocktail and the Mission Impossible.We know Hindi guys started working out, but the trick is not to keep showing the biceps like some chick unbuttoning her blouse for every scene.
The hero worship has gotten out of control in South Indian movies. I saw Sivaji(telugu version) recently only because I rarely watch Indian movies, and it takes someone with star power like Rajnikanth for me to watch one. Plus i am a sucker for anti corruption movies. Rajnikanth still does some cool things, though he doesnt seem to do the cigarette trick anymore. But a lot of the production values just seemed tacky, but not polished. Scenes were sped up in an amateurish way, angles were freaky, the movie looked like it was made by somebody on speed and it would make a Tony Scott movie look relaxed by comparison. A lot of the action scenes looked cheap despite the production hiring some white guy.
Curly, that’s India Splendour.
I was told by my Tamil friends that it’s verboten, not allowed(showing cigs/smoking). I believe partly why he’s a big hero is because Rajni’s productions (though, I agree, tacky) feed many families, as so many people are involved in his films.
er…. or India Splendo
ur.(slinking away….)
Pravin, I hate that Amitabh has been playing up the lechy old man aspect of his mid-life crisis. So gross. I hate Hrithik Roshan (gasp!), and I love Shabana Azmi 🙂
Yes, sadly enough. Everytime I watch K3G there are two scenes that evoke tears despite the fact that I’ve easily seen the film 10x. I also love Kajol, though, so to be honest I’m compelled to like very mediocre SRK movies just because she’s in them (e.g. KKHH).
Camille, While I never cry while watching movies, I have to agree with you that K3G with all its schmaltz touches me every time I watch it( yes , me too > 10 X)
Amitabh is in danger of making the same mistakes he did so many years ago. He was THE Superstar – I had his poster in my bedroom growing up. Watch him in Mr.Natwarlal,Don,Namak Halal,Deewar,Zanjeer,Sholay,Trishul, Amar Akbar Anthony, Do aur Do Paanch and you will see what I mean when I say he was literally and performance -wise head and shoulders above the rest.Then came Laawaris – Amitabh in drag !- the scales fell from my eyes, the poster came down, I shed bitter tears. Amitabh compounded his errors with Shahenshah( yuck), Lal Badshah ( double yuck!)Desh Premi ( don’t ask) .In my eyes, he redeemed himself with Hum and the more age appropriate stuff that followed.
He is now in danger of slipping into Lal Badshah days with his indiscriminate choice of roles
I personally appreciate the fact that he is taking more risks and doing roles that come across as unpalatable (whether they are popular with the masses or not is another matter). Proves age is no barrier to doing challenging roles. 🙂
“Shah Rukh’s acting was as much about charisma as craft.”
Shah Rukh Khan has that indefinable charisma that is necessary to be a star, and I don’t think he’s lacking in talent given the right roles. The thing I like most about him is that he doesn’t take himself too seriously, at least in interviews. He’s honest about the fact that he’s there to entertain and make people feel better about their lives (his view). He’s not afraid to look silly. This doesn’t mean he’s not serious about his craft but he just isn’t as tedious about it as some others who lack the charisma he has.
I read the book (in its entirety) this past weekend.
It was on prominent display in a San Francisco Barnes & Noble. ^__^
Is there an equivalent of the Coreys in Bollywood? I was watching their predictably craptacularly entertaining fake reality A&E series. I was wondering if there are any messed up has beens in Indian movies whoa re desperate for attention. I feel bad for Haim though. He seemed normal in Lucas and Lost Boys. Feldman always looked weird to me.
Preston, I think you are referring to his roles in Darr and Bazigaar. He was quite good in those movies.
You hate the leading advocate for plus-fingered actors/actresses???!!!! I’m shocked, frankly.
I’ve always wondered, have there been more Farrah Fawcett or Shabana Azmi posters put up on dingy college-student walls in the past 20-odd years?
camille, i’m shocked! i have to disagree on kajol, though – i think she’s extremely overrated. but the two of them cried very well in k3g 🙂 while we’re putting in our two cents on the other stars of bollywood, i love shiney ahuja – good actor, but more importantly, a magnificent face. because of that face, i made the mistake of renting his first movie, sins – the whole thing was shoddy, incl. his acting. still, i could not take my eyes off him. and i prob. will watch every movie he’s in.
I might be the minority, but I am with ak, not a huge Kajol fan…
…don’t you mean a magnificent physique? 🙁 Shiney Ahuja = eye candy for me
Haha, I feel compelled to qualify. I’m not like, sobbing. My eyes just water up, and occasionally a single glistening tear makes its way down my cheek as I sniffle pathetically as K3G rends my heart-strings. Especially at the “reunion” scene bet. Amitabh and SRK. And when Kajol’s dad dies. Despite the fact that it is calculated and sappy, it gets me EVERY time!
I actually wouldn’t have a problem with him if he were choosing unpalatable roles, per se. What I find loathsome is that he’s trying to still pull off the lothario-dynamic in what seems to be a last-ditch effort to assert his virility. It comes off as pathetic, not inspired.
ak, please don’t revoke my alterna-desi card 🙂 It’s ok if y’all don’t like Kajol. I personally love the personalities she plays in her movies. There’s always this strong sense of fun, and my sister and I always do the “hand twist + snap” combo when we’re feeling particularly ironic. I also like that she is wheat-ish 😉
Meh. Too white.
(I am very seriously kidding)
camille said
and I don’t think I ever had the alterna-desi designation 😉 Roommate is an i-banker 😐 and we live around the hated Marina..:X
SFGirl, not to worry, I am just a poser. Just as long as you don’t live IN the Marina. That would suck, both for potential earthquakes and with the rising sea level.
it’s so hilarious how these bollywood ‘heroes’, yes, all of them, think they are cool….in fact the whole concept of cool in india….i am a very proud indian, but this concept does not exist. indian culture is very closed, affected overwhelmingly by imperialist rapists. what’s left is parochial and imbued in shame, the precise opposite of cool….cool is telling authority, especially colonial-rapist authority to go fuck itself; coolness is rejection of authority, seeking ones own path…..james dean, bob dylan, jimmie hendrix, our boy siddhartha…..cool in india these days, ie modern india, is mcdonalds….nuff said. anything that gets tossed in the garbage from the rest of the world becomes modern/cool in india. remember, this pains me to say, since i am a very proud indian. i say because i care though, no matter how bitter the truth……the chicks are hot though; i love their dance moves and costumes. i love when they act skanky too, like priyanka in andaaz.
me three.
ditto.
In interviews, Shahrukh Khan has always been to say slightly risky/risque things (unlike all of Bollywood, with exception of Sushmita Sen to a degree, who will want to come off as such goody-two-shoes) and pull them off. When I hear Bollywood actresses, speak I cringe because of the incessant giggling and predictable responses. No rule which says celebrities have to be intelligent, but since I spend little time on flimi gossip, I like whatever I watch to be somewhat interesting and slightly provocative.