Mallika Sherawat in Hollywood.. ur views - Page 3

@ Tina: There was a debate about the whole Shilpa controversy. There was a thread about why some female actors like Rakhi are criticized while the Bipashas are applauded? I can't find the link but that would make a good reading. Media is always divided on every issue. Mallika's 18 kisses with Himanshu were kind of highlighted and made her film a suprise hit whereas Aishwarya's smooch with Hrithik created an unnecessary controversy. It is not always rosy for the A-listers either.

One thing I wanted to add is Mallika has come a long way from being just an ordinary Reema Lamba.

This is 23 year old Reema Lamba (now Mallika Sherawat) in 1995 as Air Hostess with Air India.

I don't want to deviate from the actual topic. I stand by what I wrote about Mallika's latest Hollywood expedition.

Edited by Maya_M - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: tina59

ok but the question is why does the media then laud when ash does a pride and prejudice ior mistress of spices or when shilpa shetty does a Big Brother.

I didnt see people talking or posting numerous threads abt preity Zinta when  she did a love making scene with Saif . Nor did i see anyone criticising Nandita das when she did a full fledged love making scene in Earth . Infact Bipasha in Jism was lauded and no one criticised her for her sex scenes with John .

I honestly repect each ones choices and liking and disliking someone is their choice but being biased and using double standards isnt .

she is doing a hollywood movie and thats it , acknowledge it but then going on abt her role in it and her shedding clothes ........everyone did and does it at some point of their career , why pinpoint her and not do the same with others.

anyway I think what u see as liking an actress and disliking another is seen by me as being biased and using double standards .

I haven't seen the Indian media criticising MS for taking up a role in 'The Myth' or the new 'Unveiled' in fact they are praising her for bagging roles in foreign movies. They wrote about her 17 kisses movie but I can't remember they portrayed her as trash or cheap, infact they said Hindi movies are entering into a new era. Whether the era is positive or negative, whether the audiences liked it or not is an entirely different issue. They treated Mallika's roles just the way they treated Ash's role, maybe Ash got more coverage because she's more well known.

IMO MS is way over-rated and can't act but whether she wants to shed her clothes or prance around semi-naked is her choice, it's her career and she knows best how to draw the audiences. Noone ever criticised her for all these. But she herself does some damage, like always saying that 'Men talk to my br***ts' or 'Men lay themselves at my feet when I go to the gym', not very intelligent IMO and it is these things that the media sometimes criticises. Another thing is the way she poses in every pic of hers; thrusting her, should I say, assets. It's not sensual but crude and enough to put off any person, at least the other actresses don't pose in such utpatang manner all the time.

 

Originally posted by: Maya_M

Shilpa won because of discrimination; the votes we sent to make an Indian win against the so called racists. Now we are doing it for Sanjaya Malakar in American Idol and then we cry racism and bias😕.

EXACTLY !

It is clear from the article that the producers wanted a South Asian to play an Iraqi woman and since Aishwarya couldn't give dates

the movie-makers should thank Gawddd for that along with me 😆😆 

so they went to Mallika. It is not like she has arrived in Hollywood. She did another blink and miss role in Myth. She is just going to fade away like Shilpa after all the hype.

exactly!!  @ not arrived in Hollywood.  public should stop blowing their trumpets before they arrive 😆 i have never seen her work.. , hence cannot comment on that..  (the one with jackie chan mainly had stripping act, and that wasn't a glorious arrival in foreign films either) 

Originally posted by: Maya_M

What is so great about going to Hollywood?

More fame,more popularity😛...

Originally posted by: Maya_M

 

It is clear from the article that the producers wanted a South Asian to play an Iraqi woman and since Aishwarya couldn't give dates so they went to Mallika. It is not like she has arrived in Hollywood. She did another blink and miss role in Myth. She is just going to fade away like Shilpa after all the hype.

I agree Shilpa won thanks to mercy votes.But Mallika had to pass a screen test, she wasnt handed the role on a platter.The makers wanted to zero in on a "SOUTH ASIAN",and isnt it quite remarkable that Mallika managed to pip others to bag the project beating all other far more popular actresses..Maybe its the good PR skills that clinched her the deal,but that doesnt take away anything from her,does it??..Infact MOST bollywood and hollywood stars are successes thanks to good PR skills/agents,so why trivialize it by attributing it to the PR alone.

She hasnt arrived yet in Hollywood,and it requires alot of hard graft ,PR and luck to gain a strong foothold,but this is her first step.She might  be one of those failures in Hollywood,but why write her off even before seeing her work.Who knows,perhaps she might be REALLY good .The taste of the pudding is in the eating.I felt she acted well in Pyar Ke Side effects.I know one swallow doesnt make a summer,but the film proved that she does have the potential,and if tapped well,she CAN deliver good performances too..Unfortunately,In India,she's typecast as a sex symbol .If its going to take her a B grade Hollywood film to showcase her true potential,so be it.If she's wooden or bad in the film,we all can diss to our heart's content,but why harbour a preconceived opinion even before the film goes on floors.

She does tom-tom about her inconsequential roles,something which even I dont endorse,but The Myth was indeed a stepping stone.Its said the director of this film did watch rushes of The Myth....Even a Rani Mukherjee had to star in several insipid and crass films before she got a Saathiya..For a rank outsider like Mallika,who has no godfather to eulogize and hype her(like how Amitabh hypes and buttresses Abhishek,like how Rakesh Roshan supports his son),its she herself who's saddled with the job of  publicizing herself,she did so with the help of bold quotes,vain talk and braggadocio..But when a Kareena Kapoor can endlessly vaunt about her films,when Preity can relentlessly talk about how great her clothes were in KANK,why see red when Mallika says something about HER film.. Mallika is  more "in your face" and cavalier,but its that attitude which has taken her THIS far in her peregrination,and would perhaps take her further(Though personally,I dont quite subscribe to her "claim to fame")...From Haryana to Hollywood,truly something commendable...It might not be an A grade film,but other actresses havent even been offered anything of THIS sort...

And its not that Ash couldnt give dates,Infact they never approached Ash,they simply presumed she would be busy with her nuptials😃.Thank God for that!!

Edited by Buffie - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: Buffie

More fame,more popularity😛...

Where? In India or US? Because even after doing some films here, people (few) know Aishwarya for her pretty features not for her acting. If Hollywood made actors popular then Gulshan Grover, Amrish Puri, Om Puri would have achieved it by now since they have acted in many movies here. Now if you were referring to fame in Bollywood then we know that Shilpa was not offered anything substantial even after being written everyday in the media.

Originally posted by: souro

I haven't seen the Indian media criticising MS for taking up a role in 'The Myth' or the new 'Unveiled' in fact they are praising her for bagging roles in foreign movies. They wrote about her 17 kisses movie but I can't remember they portrayed her as trash or cheap, infact they said Hindi movies are entering into a new era. Whether the era is positive or negative, whether the audiences liked it or not is an entirely different issue. They treated Mallika's roles just the way they treated Ash's role, maybe Ash got more coverage because she's more well known.

IMO MS is way over-rated and can't act but whether she wants to shed her clothes or prance around semi-naked is her choice, it's her career and she knows best how to draw the audiences. Noone ever criticised her for all these. But she herself does some damage, like always saying that 'Men talk to my br***ts' or 'Men lay themselves at my feet when I go to the gym', not very intelligent IMO and it is these things that the media sometimes criticises. Another thing is the way she poses in every pic of hers; thrusting her, should I say, assets. It's not sensual but crude and enough to put off any person, at least the other actresses don't pose in such utpatang manner all the time.

Yes. That is why I referred to her as a busybody.

When Shilpa shetty won Big brother , didnt everyone congragulate her and applauded her . When ash came in 60 minutes and Oprah , didnt people laud her . I clearly remember when MS did Myth and when released in India , the media mocked MS by saying that she was just in a small role . But all said and done , many die to work with Jackie chan who is a legend, and she got the role amongst everybody , why not acknowledge it rather than ridicule it just coz she is tagged as a " sex symbol" .

why talk abt her shedding clothes alone when everyone did and does it . Thats what I dont understand . Whats wrong in speaking ur mind esp when it gets u publicity for a person who does not have godfather in the industry, afterall she didnt say one thing and do another . Why are heroines who are absolutely fake and lie on the face are applauded and loved and not criticised at all . These are the same heroines who indulge in innumerable affairs, live-in relationships , affair with married men......these too are against our culture but she alone gets picked for shedding clothes which alone is considered against our " culture" while the rest are conveniently ignored . Thats double standards

why is she written off even before the movie is made . Everyone strives to be in Hollywood and get recognition , they may say they dont care but am sure that each andevery person would love to work in Hollywood . Mallika is acting with clint eastwoods assistant who had assisted him in many oscar winning movies and thats something to be acknowledged and appreciated .

Originally posted by: Maya_M

Where? In India or US? Because even after doing some films here, people (few) know Aishwarya for her pretty features not for her acting.

Both in India as well as in the US.Many might not know Ash,but still a "few" know her,and that "few" wouldnt probably knowing a Rani Mukherjee or a Preity.I wasnt meaning to say the Mallika is going to scale heights and would be the toast of Hollywood,but she would ONLY gain from this film.Perhaps just a very "few" might know her,but that too tantamounts to "popularity"..And In India,there's a certain degree of respect the insiders of the industry attatch to Hollywood. Aishwarya ,when she returned after her short stint,was looked upon with ALOT of respect,which she didnt enjoy earlier.

Aishwarya's good looks have always been with her,but it was post Bride and Prejudice that she was noticed .Ash wasnt this popular overseas 10 years ago.Mallika too would gain some popularity,however exiguous it might but,but something's better than nothing,isnt it??

Originally posted by: Maya_M

 If Hollywood made actors popular then Gulshan Grover, Amrish Puri, Om Puri would have achieved it by now since they have acted in many movies here. Now if you were referring to fame in Bollywood then we know that Shilpa was not offered anything substantial even after being written everyday in the media.

Gulshan Grover,Amrish Puri etc didnt esay the LEAD role in any film,they played a part of the supporting cast.Just analogous to how alot of British/American actors are seen playing sidekicks in Bollywood films,but no one really care tuppence about them.But then,we do sit up and take notice of Alice Pattern who played Sue in Rang De Basanti.😛.If Mallika has a meaty role,and if the film turns out to be GOOD,she WOULD be noticed,atleast by "the few"

Aishwarya did play the lead role,but in CROSSOVER FILMS made by NRI's or people of Indian origin.Ash's first bona fide Hollywood film hasnt released yet,and in all likelihood,her popularity would only rise when The Last Legion opens worldwide...

Shilpa's achievments might not have lived up to the gargantuan hype the media whipped up,but still today she's a household name in Britain,her film Metro is getting a better and more extensive international release....Reiterating,Bigg Boss/Unveiled/The Last Legion etc ONLY do good to these bollywood belles.

 

Edited by Buffie - 17 years ago

It is better to be a good actor in your own country than a non-actor abroad. Kal-Penn who is an American with Indian roots essayed a lead role in 2 movies. Those who have watched the films know him but still he is nowhere. He will only get a role where they need someone who talks funny like a South-Asian.  

 

It is our media which goes gaga over anything western. There was a tele actor Sudhanshu Pandey who essayed a bigger role in Myth as compared to Mallika. He mentioned in an interview that Mallika is using her PR skills to stay in the limelight when she has just a bit of skin show in the film. That is why I mentioned the PR skills before. The greatest actor of recent times Aamir Khan avoids Indian awards but he is ever ready to attend a western award function because he thinks they are fair. How fair is Academy awards when they decide to award all major awards to Africa-Americans one year which really take the essence of the award and an insult to African-American actors like Denzel Washington who deserved it for finest performances in other films but was awarded when he did a mediocre role. I am glad that Shahrukh Khan didn't bother to quote Penelope Cruz's interest in acting with him. It was posted as something great because she is an American (Mexican) actress wanting to act with an Indian actor. Shahrukh Khan is a major star in India and Penelope Cruz is just a B level star in Hollywood.

 

I have deviated from the main topic. But I mentioned it because we always think that going to Hollywood and a pat from west is an achievement. My take on Mallika's Hollywood expedition is that she, at least in my books, is a non-actor and a blabbermouth and overly hyped and it doesn't matter whether she acts in a cheap Hindi film or a Miss and blink English film, she will always be in the news for her gauche comments and indecent dressing style.

Originally posted by: Buffie

Gulshan Grover,Amrish Puri etc didnt esay the LEAD role in any film,they played a part of the supporting cast.

Yes because only those roles demanded the South Asian actors. Now this film needs a South Asian lead to play Iraqi woman. Why the hype? Am I missing something?😕

Edited by Maya_M - 17 years ago