MovieChat Forums > Nishabd (2007) Discussion > 'Nishabd' is right! This came out of now...

'Nishabd' is right! This came out of nowhere!


Wow this was really a surprise, but one has to ask does Lolita really need a remake?

"Hey man even the Mona Lisa is falling apart"
Tyler Durden

reply

Well, I'd be quite interested in seeing an Indian version of Lolita. I'm looking forward to it.

reply

LOLITA was a symbol of TABOO ... The book showed her to be 12 and Humbert (the character Amitabh Bachchan plays in this movie) to be middle aged and very sexually attracted to pubescent girls. The Kubrick movie showed her to be 16 due to the conservative society then, and the sex between them was merely alluded to. It was upto the viewer to deciede what conspired, till I saw that movie, I could not completely be "made to think what happened". Now RGV tuff dawg has remade it and I am least interested to see it, given how he has messed up remaking movies including his own classic. Jiah - 18 years old and Humbert who lacks any sexual capacity .. its more like a love story between Hugh Hefner and one of his playmates which is not even a taboo. I don't see the whole point in making the movie. I mean Woody Allen actually is the real Humbert (although Humbert does not marry Lolita)

I made a note in my diary on the way over here. It simply reads - bugger

reply

Sounds like Amitabh is playing Peter O' Toole's character from Venus. *Sigh* Where is the originality in Bollywood?!

reply

Soniya, "Venus," itself, is not all that "original," as — the story about an old man who falls in love with a young girl — it, too, can be seen as "inspired by" Vladimir Nabokov's, "Lolita" (though I haven't yet seen the film, and don't know that it is). Also, almost no "idea" is fully original; it's execution of a concept that, I feel, makes a film work or not work.

Queen_of_pentacles/Shobha, I don't see how you can stamp "Nishabd" a "copy" when it hasn't even yet been released. I've seen Stanley Kubrick's "Lolita," and Ram Gopal Varma's "Nishabd" is in no way reminiscent of it. "Jiah looks stupid" and "Bachchan looks embarrassed"? I disagree. I don't think Bachchan's character — romantically involved with an 18-year-old, himself 60 — can be called a "paedophile," as, not only is it a tricky word with many implications and historical meanings, but, legally, "18" (in India) is not the age at which a person is still considered a child (and thus is not one at which one is able to be the target of a "paedophilic" act).

reply

I know Venus isn't all that original, all I was saying is that the movie has a closer resemblence to Venus than "Lolita" as they both deal with a similar theme of a significantly older man falling in love with a younger woman. I appreciate the fact that Bollywood is straying from its routine boy meets girl crap and daring to deal with significantly more intriguing material that explores the complexity of human nature, but its still a copy of a copy in a way. (I refer to the similarity in theme when I say this.)
Oh yeah and a 60 year old romancing a 18 year old is not a paedophile, he's just a cradle snatcher!
but if both parties are willing and consensual I don't really see what the big deal is. (This is strictly my personal opinion)

reply

Again, I think that any idea comes from somewhere, and it's utterly unlikely that anyone will do anything that hasn't been done in some way, shape, or form already. I feel that what's important is the way in which a matter is handled: "Ek Ajnabee" struck me as an obvious, shameless "rip-off" of "Man On Fire," but I think that "Black" offered its own vision of "The Miracle Worker" (though I feel it should still be considered an "inspired by"). "Sholay," on the other hand, appeals to me as a thoroughly original film on the whole, albeit one that borrows elements from a few various places. Looking at the trailers of "Nishabd," I don't feel compelled to say, "this is a clear 'copy,'" though, of course, I'll not be able to say for sure whether or not I feel it is until I've seen the film.

reply

Nishabd means speechless, and this damn copy of the original classic has really made us that, even before it's released, by seeing it's promos, press interviews and what not !
Jiah looks stupid, and Bacchan looks clearly embarrassed !
How did he accept this film, in the first place ?
or was it his brilliant idea, to have Lolita in Hindi, so he can fulfill his last wish, before he turns 70, that he should flirt with a teen age , idiotic, but sexy girl, moving about in hot pants ?
wasn't it enough to have danced with Ash, in Kajara re ? Or the sexy sam in Kank ?
under that cool surface, there seems to be a dormant volcano of unfulfilled passion !
Does he think, he is equal to Jeremy Irons ?
Have seen that make of Lolita, and Irons is terrific !
and unlike Kubrick's movie, some poster referring to it, this particular movie shows a violent sexual intercourse between them.
Jiah is no match to that young artist in Lolita, as she is just picked up from nowhere, obviously for her sexy legs, and willingness to expose !
It's simply rivetting to see, the posters of Bacchan alongside jiah, with her bare legs !
Oh Amitabh, why did you have to play a paedophile at this age and stage, when you seem to be already enjoying an out -of - proportion publcity all the time ?

shobha

reply

I just saw it. Its a fantastic film and another feather in AB's cap.

And no, he doesn't play a paedophile. The bias of some of the bloggers here is obvious, they are commenting even before seeing the movie,

reply

i totally agree to the fact tht the film is just another hit of the Big B, & it's got the sense of art & drama in it...
if i ever had to grade this film i'd probably give it 8/10
the cinematography is just amazing...
& it's the first of RGV tht is aside from the fear factor; something tht can really touch the lives of many.
-Barry!

reply

Um... technically, Amitabh does not play a paedophile because Jiah's character is 18 years old, the legal age for consentual relationships in India. Just technically. Moral crusaders need not be discouraged by facts and logic though...

And Amitabh did not make the film, Ramgopal Varma did. So any dormant pant volcanos ought to be ascribed to him rather than Amitabh.

I don't get why people always rate Indian actors behind foreign ones. Why is it always 'Who does Amitabh think he is? Jeremy Irons?' or 'Who does Naseeruddin Shah think he is? Jack Nicholson?' People like Bacchan and Shah are legends, and in my book, atleast equal in calibre, if not greater, than Irons or Nicholson (No disrespect meant to the aforementioned greats). I mean, do you think Nicholson or Irons has the range to do an Agneepath, a Hum, an Ajooba, a Mr. Natwarlal, and then go ahead and do a Black, a Dev, a Khakee or a Nishabd? Please don't downgrade or disrespect Indian acting talent, or for that matter any acting talent, by simply comparing it to what the Americans think is good. (This is not RSS or Bajrang Dal speak guys, but think carefully and thoroughly before you compare)

reply

I like this discussion. Jack Nicholson being compared to Indian actors (including the highly respectable Mr. Bachhan) is motivated by fascination and emotion and not by an objective evaluation of their respective on-screen performances. It is one thing to be adored by one billion Indians and a very different thing to be acting in the same league as Jack Nicholson. Anyway, as to Nishabd, I agree that this is a movie that needs to be carefully evaluated. Audiences could not accept Lamhe in 1990's and KANK in 2006 and would find it tough to accept Nishabd. However, work of art including movies need not be evaluated with heart, but with head. Ironically though, it’s the heart of the audience that makes a movie a success on the box office.

reply


However, work of art including movies need not be evaluated with heart, but with head.

Actually, no. Art needs to be judged by heart AND head. One without the other is incomplete. And now go see "Metropolis", the silent Lang classic.

reply

Well said, Saurabh_j_paranjape. It's gotten sickeningly ethnocentric and racist the way people just take as a "given" American and European talent, and work on the premise of the "inferiority" of Indian artists.

reply



yeah....u all must b knowing by this time that this is not a rip of of Lolita....
so stop comparing to it...nishabd has it's own moments and emotional content which was presented through the eyes of amitji perceived by rgv...it has Indian society to deal with...don't forget that

reply

No one is really condemning Indian talent here and making ludicrous comparasion between actors like Bacchan and Nicholson or Irons or whatever. They are all amazingly talented in their own respect. The matter of preference of one over the other is merely an asthetic choice.
Some Indian artists are just as talented as their European or American counterparts, it just so happens that they do not get enough attention in the world media. No one really knows them beyond the South Asian Sub-Continent. It's a matter of right industry exposure and not inferior talent.

reply

Nisabd has no relation with Lolita I think. And it should be remade from "Circle of Two" came out in 1980

http://imdb.com/title/tt0080536/

Another RGV inspiration;)

reply

It's a remake of the American film poison Ivy with Drew Barrymore.

reply