Forgotten Czarina
Your Bollywood special (May 19) did not so much as mention the name of the industry’s first artiste who enjoyed star value: actress-singer Suraiya. In the 1940s, when she wasn’t even 20, Suraiya defied the contract-borne slavery of the big producers and studios, and began to freelance. When Nargis and Dilip Kumar got around Rs 50,000 a movie, Suraiya earned Rs 1.5 lakh. One always saw her draped in zari saris or dupattas, and dripping with diamonds. She owned a Cadillac that a posse of the Bombay police protected as she attended a premiere night.
Adi Katrak, Mumbai

Star? He’s More Of A Planet
Bollywood isn’t just another entertainment factory, but a binding socio-political factor in a varied mosaic that’s India. Thus, your special issue (May 19) on Hindi cinema was heartening. When many things in India have degraded in recent times, Bollywood has actually improved over the last decade, springing a host of nice movies for the intellectual urban viewer. Bangla films—many would agree—no more appeal to the educated class, and it has become possible to look to Bollywood for aesthetic enrichment.
Biswa Prasun Chatterji, Mumbai

Your survey has confirmed the towering stature of Amitabh Bachchan (Starship Enterprise). As a fan of his, it pained me that Outlook kept hounding the Big B in the name of a land scam. I don’t challenge the veracity of your contents. But I’m relieved that hasn’t blemished his reputation.
Jawahar P. Sekhar, Dubai

One certainly didn’t expect Outlook to go so filmi—that too focusing on Bachchan. For Bollywood news, I’ve other magazines to read—why should I buy Outlook?
J. Nath, Gurgaon

Fantastic issue. Only, you could have had appraisals of Bollywood singers, music directors, choreographers, script writers et al—not just actors/actresses.
Manoj Parashar, Noida

If there’s one living legend on the Bollywood screen now, it’s the Big B. Even at 65, he has such an imposing presence that he easily dwarfs most other stars—male or female.
Dr Jinu Mathew, on e-mail

I was shocked that Outlook readers chose an average actor like Bachchan as their all-time favourite male star. And, on top of it, you calling him ‘Star of Stars’. Amitabh seldom acted extraordinarily well, in fact scores of his films bombed. If he’s still called the Big B, I think it’s because of media hype. He’s, that way, the Bal Thackeray of the Hindi film world.
Suresh Tinaikar, Mumbai

‘Star of Stars’? It seems more like an unconscientious and unctuous attempt by Vinod Mehta to make up with the Big B. Surely, none can afford to be in the megastar’s bad books for long—not even the ‘two-legged’ editor of Outlook. This editor doesn’t have a tail like his eponymous pet, else he would have been wagging it now.
Rupesh Bhandari, Amritsar

Bachchan did deserve to top your survey. An equally fascinating—and unsaid—aspect of all this is that dynasty has little significance in Hindi filmdom. No wonder, Abhishek and Ranbir Kapoor don’t figure among top stars. Clearly, cinema in India works on better logic than the world of politics.
Chidanand Kumar, Bangalore

One thing that struck me reading the methodology of your survey was the age bracket of the respondents: "different age groups above 15 years". That was a clever bid to hide the distribution of their age. Presuming most of them were born after 1980. There’s no other rational explanation for the way names like Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor, Dev Anand, Meena Kumari or Nargis were belittled in the survey.
Ausaf Ahmad, Noida

Such polls are nothing but gimmicks. It’s like sms voting—relying on the quantity of responses, not their quality. Anybody serious about the arts knows talent is such a nuanced thing that you just can’t say a certain person is the best-ever.
P. Kalamruth, on e-mail

I feel Bachchan was only trying to sound humble when he spoke highly of today’s stars. The Big B is a class by himself, and that’s also because his private life has been clean.
Ma hesh K. Dadrwal, Jaipur

The Big B’s responses in the interview (It’s unfair to say today’s stars have a lesser aura) showed his degree of suavity, sophistication and self-effacement. A set of qualities that’s a rarity among the new actors.
M.H. Rao, Hyderabad

Of course, we had actors like Dilip Kumar and Raj Kumar who enjoyed an iconic status before Bachchan. His own contemporaries—say Rajesh Khanna and Dharmendra—too have had great fan followings. As do some of the present-day stars. But the point with Bachchan is that he has fans from people of all these generations. Whenever we think it’s all over for the Big B, he comes up with a stunning performance. The trajectory of the angry young man of the ’70s to the revered old man of today is simply remarkable.
B. Srinivasan, Pune

As I browsed the issue that splashed colour photos of stars page after page, I was moved by the few black-and-white images from vintage films (Astronomical Figures). First, that cheerful image from Andaaz. Then, in the piece on female stars (The Fallen Veil), haunting scenes from Sahib, Bibi Aur Ghulam and Mughal-e-Azam. I wish you took me further down memory lane by including more such old-time pictures.
S. Balakrishnan, Jameshedpur

Bhaichand Patel’s piece on leading ladies made interesting reading. It could have made a better piece had he known that anything more than a handful and/or mouthful is wasted.
Chandrakant Patel, on e-mail

So, what is it exactly that makes us place most star actresses of even the ’80s on a higher pedestal? Well, Rekha and Sridevi didn’t merely play second fiddle to the heroes. Even Madhuri Dixit had an aura. As for actors too, it’s those from the old crop that we can talk about if quality is the yardstick.
Zoheb Hasan, Aligarh

Mukul Kesavan’s piece on Dharmendra (No One Writes to the Prison Doc Anymore) is the best eulogy that I have yet come across on my most favourite star. Dharmendra is dashing and rugged on the one hand and debonair and romantic on the other. Sadly, Hindi cinema largely left his potential untapped. In his prime, he was India’s best bet for playing Bond, but no one thought of it. He mostly acted in rank bad films. Awards seldom adorned him. Madame Tussaud’s doesn’t have his wax statue. Bollywood shall forever rue the loss of a great talent gone waste.
Subhashish Chattopadhyay, Mumbai

So Shashi Kapoor couldn’t act, and Sanjeev Kumar had a bag of tricks. Agreed, ok, Bollywood is the most lucrative cultural product Bharat Mata has to sell, but does it stand to reason that literary also-rans like Kesavan write whatever they can summon forth?
Gautam Babbar, Vienna

If down south, the star-fan bond is so intense, it’s because the movies made there cater to largely monolithic groups of audiences—linguistically and culturally. (The Systolic Tide). Often heroes are swarthy and moustachioed—just how the majority in the Deccan look. Whereas, Bollywood, in its bid to appeal to vast numbers of people north of the Vindhyas, try pan-north Indian ways. The hero, thus, seldom speaks exactly their language, nor looks like one of them. If the themes are so removed from reality, the heroes are twice so.
R.V. Iyengar, Hyderabad

For decades, Malayalam and Kannada have been experimenting with crossover films, but Sadanand Menon masks such facts by his stereotyped representation of the South. Projecting south Indian cinema with an mgr banner is not only regressive, it is an insult to a whole crop of talented actors from other Dravidia n languages.
B. Mani, Pune

All great actors mentioned in the piece—mgr, Sivaji Ganesan, Rajni, ntr—would take blessings from a Kannada icon each time they visited Bangalore. But the writer has conveniently forgotten him: Dr Rajkumar.
Shreesh Onkar, Gulbarga

Star? He’s More Of A Planet
Bollywood isn’t just another entertainment factory, but a binding socio-political factor in a varied mosaic that’s India. Thus, your special issue (May 19) on Hindi cinema was heartening. When many things in India have degraded in recent times, Bollywood has actually improved over the last decade, springing a host of nice movies for the intellectual urban viewer. Bangla films—many would agree—no more appeal to the educated class, and it has become possible to look to Bollywood for aesthetic enrichment.
Biswa Prasun Chatterji, Mumbai

Your survey has confirmed the towering stature of Amitabh Bachchan (Starship Enterprise). As a fan of his, it pained me that Outlook kept hounding the Big B in the name of a land scam. I don’t challenge the veracity of your contents. But I’m relieved that hasn’t blemished his reputation.
Jawahar P. Sekhar, Dubai

One certainly didn’t expect Outlook to go so filmi—that too focusing on Bachchan. For Bollywood news, I’ve other magazines to read—why should I buy Outlook?
J. Nath, Gurgaon

Fantastic issue. Only, you could have had appraisals of Bollywood singers, music directors, choreographers, script writers et al—not just actors/actresses.
Manoj Parashar, Noida

If there’s one living legend on the Bollywood screen now, it’s the Big B. Even at 65, he has such an imposing presence that he easily dwarfs most other stars—male or female.
Dr Jinu Mathew, on e-mail

I was shocked that Outlook readers chose an average actor like Bachchan as their all-time favourite male star. And, on top of it, you calling him ‘Star of Stars’. Amitabh seldom acted extraordinarily well, in fact scores of his films bombed. If he’s still called the Big B, I think it’s because of media hype. He’s, that way, the Bal Thackeray of the Hindi film world.
Suresh Tinaikar, Mumbai

‘Star of Stars’? It seems more like an unconscientious and unctuous attempt by Vinod Mehta to make up with the Big B. Surely, none can afford to be in the megastar’s bad books for long—not even the ‘two-legged’ editor of Outlook. This editor doesn’t have a tail like his eponymous pet, else he would have been wagging it now.
Rupesh Bhandari, Amritsar

Bachchan did deserve to top your survey. An equally fascinating—and unsaid—aspect of all this is that dynasty has little significance in Hindi filmdom. No wonder, Abhishek and Ranbir Kapoor don’t figure among top stars. Clearly, cinema in India works on better logic than the world of politics.
Chidanand Kumar, Bangalore

One thing that struck me reading the methodology of your survey was the age bracket of the respondents: "different age groups above 15 years". That was a clever bid to hide the distribution of their age. Presuming most of them were born after 1980. There’s no other rational explanation for the way names like Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor, Dev Anand, Meena Kumari or Nargis were belittled in the survey.
Ausaf Ahmad, Noida

Such polls are nothing but gimmicks. It’s like sms voting—relying on the quantity of responses, not their quality. Anybody serious about the arts knows talent is such a nuanced thing that you just can’t say a certain person is the best-ever.
P. Kalamruth, on e-mail

I feel Bachchan was only trying to sound humble when he spoke highly of today’s stars. The Big B is a class by himself, and that’s also because his private life has been clean.
Ma hesh K. Dadrwal, Jaipur

The Big B’s responses in the interview (It’s unfair to say today’s stars have a lesser aura) showed his degree of suavity, sophistication and self-effacement. A set of qualities that’s a rarity among the new actors.
M.H. Rao, Hyderabad

Of course, we had actors like Dilip Kumar and Raj Kumar who enjoyed an iconic status before Bachchan. His own contemporaries—say Rajesh Khanna and Dharmendra—too have had great fan followings. As do some of the present-day stars. But the point with Bachchan is that he has fans from people of all these generations. Whenever we think it’s all over for the Big B, he comes up with a stunning performance. The trajectory of the angry young man of the ’70s to the revered old man of today is simply remarkable.
B. Srinivasan, Pune

As I browsed the issue that splashed colour photos of stars page after page, I was moved by the few black-and-white images from vintage films (Astronomical Figures). First, that cheerful image from Andaaz. Then, in the piece on female stars (The Fallen Veil), haunting scenes from Sahib, Bibi Aur Ghulam and Mughal-e-Azam. I wish you took me further down memory lane by including more such old-time pictures.
S. Balakrishnan, Jameshedpur

Bhaichand Patel’s piece on leading ladies made interesting reading. It could have made a better piece had he known that anything more than a handful and/or mouthful is wasted.
Chandrakant Patel, on e-mail

So, what is it exactly that makes us place most star actresses of even the ’80s on a higher pedestal? Well, Rekha and Sridevi didn’t merely play second fiddle to the heroes. Even Madhuri Dixit had an aura. As for actors too, it’s those from the old crop that we can talk about if quality is the yardstick.
Zoheb Hasan, Aligarh

Mukul Kesavan’s piece on Dharmendra (No One Writes to the Prison Doc Anymore) is the best eulogy that I have yet come across on my most favourite star. Dharmendra is dashing and rugged on the one hand and debonair and romantic on the other. Sadly, Hindi cinema largely left his potential untapped. In his prime, he was India’s best bet for playing Bond, but no one thought of it. He mostly acted in rank bad films. Awards seldom adorned him. Madame Tussaud’s doesn’t have his wax statue. Bollywood shall forever rue the loss of a great talent gone waste.
Subhashish Chattopadhyay, Mumbai

So Shashi Kapoor couldn’t act, and Sanjeev Kumar had a bag of tricks. Agreed, ok, Bollywood is the most lucrative cultural product Bharat Mata has to sell, but does it stand to reason that literary also-rans like Kesavan write whatever they can summon forth?
Gautam Babbar, Vienna

If down south, the star-fan bond is so intense, it’s because the movies made there cater to largely monolithic groups of audiences—linguistically and culturally. (The Systolic Tide). Often heroes are swarthy and moustachioed—just how the majority in the Deccan look. Whereas, Bollywood, in its bid to appeal to vast numbers of people north of the Vindhyas, try pan-north Indian ways. The hero, thus, seldom speaks exactly their language, nor looks like one of them. If the themes are so removed from reality, the heroes are twice so.
R.V. Iyengar, Hyderabad

For decades, Malayalam and Kannada have been experimenting with crossover films, but Sadanand Menon masks such facts by his stereotyped representation of the South. Projecting south Indian cinema with an mgr banner is not only regressive, it is an insult to a whole crop of talented actors from other Dravidia n languages.
B. Mani, Pune

All great actors mentioned in the piece—mgr, Sivaji Ganesan, Rajni, ntr—would take blessings from a Kannada icon each time they visited Bangalore. But the writer has conveniently forgotten him: Dr Rajkumar.
Shreesh Onkar, Gulbarga

Forgotten Czarina
Your Bollywood special (May 19) did not so much as mention the name of the industry’s first artiste who enjoyed star value: actress-singer Suraiya. In the 1940s, when she wasn’t even 20, Suraiya defied the contract-borne slavery of the big producers and studios, and began to freelance. When Nargis and Dilip Kumar got around Rs 50,000 a movie, Suraiya earned Rs 1.5 lakh. One always saw her draped in zari saris or dupattas, and dripping with diamonds. She owned a Cadillac that a posse of the Bombay police protected as she attended a premiere night.
Adi Katrak, Mumbai