Discussion in 'Shah Rukh Khan Dhamaal' started by Alana, Sep 27, 2006.
thx alot andrea!!
Many of you are talking about the interview impressions....
I don't like this magazine because of this style...
They always sound a little arrogant... and... "von oben herab"....
My impression from reading the interview was that the German translation was in a forced youthful language. Not disrepectful but word and expressions that would make the speaker sound younger. We can´t really judge because we don´t have the original english version to compare. But much of what he said is VERY similar (almost to the word) to the Bafta interview.
Thanks for the translation and for the article! I really really enjoyed to read it! On the other hand, Shahrukh sounds more sad and kind of aloof, hai na? Maybe it's because it's always the same question asked, eventhough he tried to give fresh answers every time. I have the feeling he is drifting away from his (western) audience... I love the way he is, but I wish the media will stop trying to denying him his superstar status, like when they're always asking him why he is not going to Hollywood, as if Hollywood was the top of the world! So then he has to answer that he is a brown indian guy and there is no script for him over there!!! I found this very insulting for him!
Anyway, since I've started to watch his movies, Hollywood's ones look very boring to me now...
I can't push away that feeling, that our western world looks down
to the "3. World Country India". (oh, how I hate that... )
This ironic sound in the questions....
Like... oh they come from India, can't be something serious...
Later, where they compare Bollywood/Bharati, it's the same...
The words are all but not respectful.
One must not like Bollywood and India and the things around that,
but I expect from Journos respect for an other country and respect for the
people who live in, for their traditions and feelings and their lifes.
Yeah, Michaela, where did I read it in? Because there is no line what says:" Hey Mr.Khan , I dont like you..."
But what I read in it,in the questions and the way to ask is, that this interviewer is not well informed, and also doesnt take him seriously. As Nicole says: I get the feeling, that she doesnt take India and its cinema so seriously.
Questions as this about crying in the movies....and also the choosing of the questions is not a lucky one, neither the lines between the lines..Its not so easy to explain what I mean, is more a feeling between the lines what makes me a bit" unhappy"---In the other hand: YES, I agree in the way as the recognising of indian cinema and making a interview with him is just a step ahead, lets hope that other, more serious papers will follow that.And then we will get to read a nicer one.I am sure.
Brita and Heike... I couldn't say it better!
Thanks Nicole for the words.
And Brita...yes, I absolutely agree with you!!! This was what I didnt want to say directly, as I dont know the lady who was tzalking to him, but yes, I got this feeling too....And I really hate this style of work.
mh, but I don't see why for example this question about the crying, shows that she doesn't take it serious. I mean it's a fact, that western men don't cry often in real life and in movies. So what's wrong with asking why it's so normal in india? But since this are all impression and feelings and find maybe no words to explain it.........stop here.
I wonder if we maybe too sensitive..............it's not the first time that the reaction on a german article or interview is like this. Untill now I never read that we are really happy, if it is a book, or a article in the newspaper, the description of a movie in the movie magazine (TV movie for example), every time something is wrong with it.
I don't speak me free from that, I grin myself about some things or think that's not really right. Or sometimes I'm embarrased about articles. But I really wonder why?
Michaela, I think we are more sensitiv of it, because we think to know him better , and many of us also have relationships to India. So we look more critical on all this things as "normal" people..Next is, it is not right , that we( me!!) watch all the interviews or articles about Shahrukh Khan in a bad way.
I also read good ones, where I can see the interviewer, atleast tried to get into the subject of his interview....I mean, this questions were asked many times before ,and if I were the interviewer, I would try to find out, if there is any one what isnt been asked before. Also, the sound of the questions is strange, I just read better ones.I would try to find other words to ask....
What you say about TV magazins, did you read that? I mean , there is nothing what would make me watch the movie, to be honest.....I mean, its same as with this interview...the sound seems as less interest and less quality of the movies..So I dont like that too.
I agree with the first point, that's what I meant. We believe to know him and so on.
To the second, do you mean interviews/article in general?
Because I meant only german ones. And there where some in the last time and I read many opinions about these and they weren't good. I never read that someone wrote, "Wow that was good". Of course we know all this stuff, because we do nothing else the whole day, as reading what Shahrukh does, at least I do this.
Maybe we don't read them in a bad way, but we have the impression it's not good. So again the thing is what should they ask then? Or in what way?
And for the movie magazines, the one we buy, writes in a good way about it. Raincoat for example gets the highest possible rating. Same with Devdas, it gets 3 Stars from 4, the critics are very good and there is no silly word in it. They handle the hindi movies like "normal" movies as it should be (in my eyes) not as something special.
Michaela, you speak from my heart. I think it's rather ShahRukh who is ironical (also in other answers) because he is so bright and experienced that he can check out an interlocutor very quickly. And even if he remains kind and polite he would play HIS play and not that of the interviewer!
A good journalist would write about the mimic and the gestures so you can make a better interpretation of the words. And I think Madam Ritter wanted to be a little provocative which is not so bad if it is in a humorous way or for an adequate purpose. But here her slightly sharp tongue (or is she onlyis out of place
(zut!!! always the wrong key!!!)
... (or is she only offhand?) Nevertheless, the STERN isn't really a serious magazine (not any more), a bit sensational, a bit superficial. But there are very good articles in serious newspapers on the occasion of the book-fair and the 3 month Indian film in the filmmuseum. And there are radio transmissions about "Bollywood" which aren't arrogant but informatif.
super interesting news
this author writing this article in stern is really good speaking of shah rukh, if it's not in this stupid magazin it's sounds really fantastic.
read this mail i got today from her :
ich habe Herrn Khan in Bombay getroffen, das Interview aufgezeichnet und anschließend übersetzt – und ich kann Ihnen daher versichern, dass er sich so geäußert hat, wie es in dem Interview erschienen ist. Ich empfinde ihn auch nicht als besonders “flapsig”, im Gegenteil, er ist ernst bei den Themen, die im wichtig sind (die Bedeutung seiner Arbeit, sein Publikum, Religion) und amüsant, bzw. selbstironisch, wenn es um seine Person geht (sein Aussehen; sein Status als Star, der angehimmelt wird etc.). Ich habe Herrn Khan als einen sehr humorvollen Menschen erlebt, der seine Rolle als Schauspieler mit Distanz betrachtet (im Gegensatz zu der Selbstüberschätzung, die man bei anderen Schauspielern häufig erlebt); dem seine Arbeit aber gleichzeitig sehr wichtig ist, und der sein Publikum sehr schätzt.
Mit herzlichen Grüßen und bestem Dank für Ihr Interesse,
maybe there is a planet member who can translate this really correctly, we don't need more misunderstandings because of the translation
i can't understand this woman, talking so grateful about shah rukh in her mail to me, and writing such an article.
SRK does check out and research the journo before interviewing, even sometimes ask for a pic. it happened with lida.
I only have three words to say "lost in translation" it is very hard sometimes to get things in the right context, and to be honest, some of the translation back into English just didn't make sense, it's not your fault michaela, when translations are done literally, they often lose the true context or meaning Also the same could have happened from English to German for the article. I'm not criticizing anyone here, just trying to find a possible reason for what might seem a bad interview Obviously I don't know this magazine, so I can't possibly comment on their style
Thank you, Renate for sharing!
This interview is the kind of thing you'd probably find in Stardust, or on a Prabhu Chawla show. Like Layla said, it really is not easy to translate to another language wihtout losing some of the essence. Sadly, I do know many people who frown upon Indian cinema, calling it too saccharine/emotional/melodramatic.
Off topic, even on television shows, India is mostly portrayed as the land of magic, naked sadhus, snake-charmers and poverty There is no denying that India is colourful in all those regards, but we do have a varied heritage that we are proud of And members, please do not take it in the wrong sense, my grievance is addressed to those documentary makers that show India in a poor light.
is there somebody who can transalte the message from the author, she's speaking so nice from shah rukh, that's the way we know him. the article is awfull, but her mail to me is sweet.
Babelfish to the rescue, albeit for the time-being
I met Mr. Khan into Bombay, noted and afterwards translated the interview - and I can therefore insure you that he expressed himself in such a way, how it appeared in the interview. I do not feel it also as particularly, in the opposite, he am "flapsig" seriously with the topics, those in important am amusing (the meaning of its work, its public, religion) and, and/or ironically, if it can around its person (its appearance; its status as a star is angehimmelt, etc.). I experienced Mr. Khan as very humorous humans, that its role as an actor with distance regarded (contrary to the self over-estimation, which one experiences with other actors frequently); his work however is at the same time very important to that, and which his public estimates much.
With cordial greetings and best thanks for your interest,
Okay, that pretty much clears the air Please feel free to translate later