Fenil and Bollywood

Posts Tagged ‘trial

By Subhash K. Jha, December 23, 2009 – 14:14 IST

Ekta Kapoor, Dibakar Banerjee Ekta Kapoor won’t show her new film Love Sex Aur Dhokha directed by Dibakar Banerjee to her parents. Given her initial reaction she wouldn’t show it to anyone. But then better sense prevailed after she saw and absorbed Banerjee’s gritty and real feature film on digital drama.

Apparently, Ekta simply freaked out at the trial, screaming and wondering aloud what this director had made, for her Dibakar Banerjee’s first film for Ekta Kapoor’s Balaji Films is also Ekta’s first foray into experimental cinema.

And when she saw the finished product, Ekta simply freaked out. According to onlookers Ekta’s reaction to Banerjee’s digitally-shot film on the absence of privacy and the prevalence of voyeurism in today’s time was one of horror and utter disbelief.

Dibakar Banerjee doesn’t deny his producer was shocked. “When Ekta saw the film she wasn’t so much shocked by the content on voyeurism and free-for-all invasion of privacy as the treatment and format. I’ve shot the film on a digital format with a hand-held camera. So Ekta’s first question was, ‘Why is the camera shaking so much?’ Her second question was, ‘Who is going to watch this film?’ Frankly I had answers for both the questions. But Ekta’s initial reaction of shock remains. She doesn’t really believe that such an unusual and shocking film is viable. But she sees me as this nice sweet seemingly harmless Bengali guy who can’t deliberately do anything wrong. She’s indulging me. See, normally the digital format is used by a filmmaker for the lack of choices. But for Love Sex Aur Dhokha the digital format was the only choice.

Ekta doesn’t deny she was startled by what she saw in Dibakar’s film. “The camera was shaking so much I was completely shaken. There are three stories and all of them affected me very deeply, specially the one about the woman who’s shot with a hidden camera. When I came out of the movie I was furtively looking for bugs and cameras everywhere. I realized I was so jolted not so much by the technique of storytelling which is unlike anything we’ve seen, but by content which tells us there is no privacy in today’s day and age of mobile cameras and MMS.”

Now Ekta is terrified of how Love Sex Aur Dhokha will be received. “Forget how it will be received. How will we release a film in such an experimental format? It’s easy for Dibakar to make what he wants. Now it’s my responsibility to see it reaches the audience.”

The question is how would a digital movie called Love Sex Aur Dhokha appeal to the audience? The title was nearly shot down by the moral watchdogs within the industry. But Dibakar stood his ground. “It had to be Love Sex Aur Dhokha. I know the title is reminiscent of Sex Lies & Videotape. But Love Sex Aur Dhokha is nothing like Steven Soderberg’s film. In fact it’s unlike anything audiences have seen. That is why Ekta is apprehensive.”

BOLLYWOOD HUNGAMA.COM

Ken Ghosh may have replaced Jiah Khan with Genelia D’souza, but Jiah still makes her presence felt in a song. What will poor Ken do now?

By Kunal M Shah (MUMBAI MIRROR; December 18, 2009)


It seems that Jiah Khan’s ghost has come back to haunt director Ken Ghosh and the crew of Chance Pe Dance. After the bitter experience that Jiah Khan went through when she was unceremoniously dumped from Chance Pe Dance, she is now visible in the film. Jiah shot for around 20 days for the film before she was replaced by Genelia D’souza.

Our source said, “Yesterday afternoon, there was a trial for the cast and crew of the film in Bandra. While watching the rough cut, they noticed that Jiah Khan was spotted in the background in one of the songs. Ken Ghosh panicked and asked the operator to rewind the shot and his worst fear came true.

He was disappointed as he could not edit the shot as it was part of the song. The technical error can’t be reshot as they can’t make the set and get the same dancers back for the song. In fact, all the portions that Jiah had shot for were chopped or Genelia was replaced digitally.

Now the entire team is trying to work out how Jiah can be removed from the song. The technical crew is working overtime trying to either pixilate the portion where Jiah is visible or erase her from the frame. In either case, it will be a creative liberty.”

Ken Ghosh has decided that discretion is the better part of valour. He said, “I don’t know where you have heard this news and I do not wish to comment on this.”

Chance Pe Dance

Madhur Bhandarkar
Is Madhur Bhandarkar a victim of the country’s rape laws?

TEAM BT Times News Network (November 19, 2009)


Poor Madhur Bhandarkar. The Bollywood filmmaker, who’s just had a critically acclaimed release in Jail, finds himself in the dock once again for rape charges by aspiring actress Preeti Jain dating back to July 2004. Fortunately, the Andheri Metropolitan Magistrate who rejected the Versova Police’s adverse report of the charges from back then and decided to conduct an inquiry into the case, has not ordered Bhandarkar’s arrest. The flamboyant filmmaker is not unduly worried by this development. “But my family is going through trauma,” he admitted to BT. It is a bittersweet moment for him. The news comes at a time when he is in Egypt attending the Cairo International Film Festival where five of his films — Chandni Bar, Traffic Signal, Page 3, Corporate and Fashion — are being screened as a tribute to Indian cinema. “My films reflect society and are liked by the classes and masses,” said Madhur, “I’ve got name and fame after a struggle, and I request society not to make a judgement until the case is over, so please don’t give me a trial in the media, I have faith in the judiciary.” But, the question uppermost in people’s minds is this: is Madhur a victim of the country’s rape laws? The filmmaker, naturally, thinks so. “It also amounts to blackmail,” he alleged of this sordid bit of dirty linen that was washed in public by the starlet.


Facts of the case
In July 2004, Preeti had lodged a complaint with the Versova Police against Madhur alleging he had raped her 16 times between 1999 and 2004 under the pretext of casting her as actress in his films. Madhur insists the complaint was of “cheating” and did not mention rape.

Our View: Irrespective of what relationship they shared, how can what happened between Madhur and Preeti amount to rape? She claims she was raped 16 times in four years, which is not like saying several times in one night. If this was rape, what prevented her from going to the police after the first incident? Why wait four years? And what prompted the complaint? Was it outrage, jealousy, indignation, a burning desire to teach the man a lesson? If Madhur had promised to cast her in his films, and if he had honoured this alleged commitment, would their alleged sex still be rape? The humiliation, the hurt, the abuse of body and soul that is caused by rape, is as much the 16th time as it would be the first… and any woman suffering this exploitation for four years and then crying rape, sounds like she’s complaining against rejection. Not the sexual act itself.

What is Rape?

The dictionary defines it as “the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse; and the act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person”. The Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of rape in recent years has been to stretch the ambit to include consensual sex based on ‘‘false promise to marry’’. What was clearly never in its contemplation was to bring the casting couch — promise to give work in exchange of sex — under the definition of rape. Even if Preeti’s allegations are taken at face value, it is debatable whether they constitute prima facie evidence to try Madhur on the charge of rape. The allegation, if a promise was made and broken, is a case of fraud. But when sex is involved, courts tend to treat it as a case of rape. Sex by deceit. The opening made by the Supreme Court to provide relief to those who had been deceived into having sex on false promise to marry cannot be pushed further for the sake of those who claim to have been deceived similarly by false promise to give work.


Our view
The idea that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can occur only if they intend to marry clearly has no place in a liberal society. Also, if the woman gets into a physical relationship because she has been fooled into believing that marriage is on the cards, we may question the morality of the man, but is it not extreme to equate his deception with rape? We would suggest that it is time the law adopted a more nuanced approach to what is universally acknowledged to be a complex issue. Having a breach of promise law to deal with such cases would be more suitable than clubbing it with rape, which is an extremely violent offence.


Is having sex for work any different from prostitution?
This does not come under deception and so on or being conned on the basis of a false promise of marriage, etc. In the case of the casting couch, the lady gives consent as she has been promised something and if she is able to prove that she was deceived into giving her consent then it does attract the provisions of the law… but this, of course, is quite difficult to prove.
— M N Singh,
Former Mumbai Police Commissioner


The starlet cannot say it’s rape. She can call it cheating. She cannot say that “I had sex with him because he promised me work.” This kind of deal is anyway not legal. She had no business to sell herself for a role. If she had alleged (and could prove) that the filmmaker agreed to marry her, then this would have been worth considering. But as it is, she has no case here. If she was a commercial call girl, then this would perhaps fall into the category of prostitution.
— Majeed Memon,
Criminal Lawyer

Deepika goes all out to plan a surprise party for boyfriend Ranbir and gifts him a sleek and expensive laptop

By Kunal M Shah (MUMBAI MIRROR; September 30, 2009)

Deepika Padukone and Ranbir Kapoor

Deepika Padukone proved to be the perfect girlfriend when she threw a surprise party for Ranbir. He is also the proud owner of a brand new laptop. We don’t know if money can buy love, but it sure can make a boyfriend happy! Deepika organised the party to bring in his birthday on Sunday when he came back from Bhopal. Deepika invited few, but very close friends to the surprise dinner.

Our source said, “Deepika took Ranbir to a suburban restaurant on Sunday night on the pretext of having dinner.

She had already called some of Ranbir’s very close friends, which included Rohit Dhawan and Ayan Mukherjee, the director of Wake Up Sid. Ranbir, who is normally not a party animal, was pleased to see them and a couple of his old school friends. They had dinner and brought in his birthday. Ranbir was extremely thrilled.”

Deepika’s present of a sleek and high-end laptop was thoughtful as she is aware of Ranbir being net-savvy. Ranbir loved the gift and was seen checking the features immediately. The source added, “On his birthday on Monday, Ranbir also saw the first trial of his film, Wake Up Sid with Deepika and his parents.”

Swati Deshpande | TNN (THE TIMES OF INDIA; September 30, 2009)


Mumbai: He’s a “small-time actor’’, and while he may be no “saint’’, he’s “no rapist’’ either. This is what actor Shiney Ahuja’s lawyers said, seeking bail pending trial on charges of raping his 20-year old maid at his Andheri home one morning.


In a fresh bid for freedom after spending more than 100 days in jail, the 35-yearold actor–through his counsel Shirish Gupte along with Shrikant Shivade–said the “victim has not even used the word ‘rape’ in her statement to the magistrate regarding the June 14 incident’’. She “had no external injuries, creating doubts over her claim that she resisted him’’, they said. The complainant had called Ahuja many times from her cellphone the pre
vious night, said Gupte.


Forensic experts have said earlier that the absence of external injuries did not mean there was no rape. A woman could be forced into the act by the threat of violence, experts reasoned.


The panchnama noted that when he was arrested on June 15, Ahuja’s left wrist and right little finger had a “nail mark’’ which the actor claimed were sustained while he was working out, and not from the victim’s nails.


The DNA analysis showed no profile was obtained from the victim’s vulval swab, but did find some evidence to match Ahuja’s “control blood component’’ in one of her smear slides. “The reports fail to conclusively establish rape,’’ Ahuja’s plea said, suggesting it was “a consensual act’’.


Saying bail was a rule and not an exception as held in numerous Supreme Court judgements, Gupte said even medical evidence had “little against the actor’’. There was “no semen and blood’’
found on the victim in the panchanama on his or her clothes and at the scene of offence, he added.


Ahuja’s bail was rejected by the sessions court in July on the grounds that he may tamper with the witness because he was “rich and influential’’. But Gupte said: “How is he influential? He has just made his name in a few films. Besides she stays in Raigad district and will only come for the trial. He doesn’t know where she is.’’


The written bail plea, however, describes Ahuja as a “well-known film personality, having won several professional awards… with roots in society’’.


The hearing will continue in the court of Justice A P Deshpande on Wednesday, when the prosecutor will oppose the bail plea.


The maid had narrated the entire incident of “forcible sexual intercourse’’ to neighbours Adarsh Gupta and Sanjeet Kaur. The neighbours then took her to the police station at Oshiwara to file the complaint.