Paheli
Judging purely by its sport, film and book sections, I considered the Guardian Unlimited a superb newspaper which generally doesn't indulge in tabloid-style hyperbole. So when I came across an article in it describing Shah Rukh Khan as the world's biggest film star, I was reduced to uttering Kramer-esque sounds of exasperation. But then, I realised it could be an entirely valid claim, given that imbeciles are a dime a million (like the ex-colleague who loved watching Brazilian soccer team as he found a bottomless reservoir of mirth in the fact that every time they played the scoreboard on the topleft corner of the TV screen showed a name resembling a ladies undergarment).
But faith in the Guardian plummeted again when in another article he as referred to as Mumbai's version of Cary Grant. Yeah, I can SO imagine Cary Grant performing for money at weddings. Forget about turning in his grave, I'm amazed Grant has not embarked on a Beatrix Kiddo-inspired roaring rampage of revenge against the Guardian staff for comparing him to an over-rated, stammering 'ham'mer.
Disclaimer: Having said that, I thought SRK handled the interview rather well.
But faith in the Guardian plummeted again when in another article he as referred to as Mumbai's version of Cary Grant. Yeah, I can SO imagine Cary Grant performing for money at weddings. Forget about turning in his grave, I'm amazed Grant has not embarked on a Beatrix Kiddo-inspired roaring rampage of revenge against the Guardian staff for comparing him to an over-rated, stammering 'ham'mer.
Disclaimer: Having said that, I thought SRK handled the interview rather well.
Firstly, it is rather childish to say SRK is not a good actor (if thats what you said). Either you seriously lack judgement, or you like to pull pseudo-intellectual stunts.
Secondly, as far as dancing at weddings is concerned, welcome to India.
Thirdly, an actor is paid to do what he does. Anyone can be ridiculed for what they do, if you take away the money factor.
Posted by
Atul Vishwanathan |
12:27 am