Lawsuit filed over Dhoom 2 kiss

[Sajna]

Kareena and Lux Celebrate 75 Years of Stardom with Exotic Beauty Secrets

[nicoletta]

High time to start a really heated polemic about kissing being a part of The  Ancient National Values of India, with tons and tons of literature , sculptures etc proving it, a bit in the same vein they did prove that sati WAS NOT a part of the most ancient Indian traditions...

[Sajna]

Case against Ash, Hrithik for 'Dhoom 2' kissing scene

IANS
   
A Bihar lawyer Tuesday filed a case of obscenity against Bollywood stars Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan for a kissing scene in their latest film "Dhoom 2".

Sudhir Kumar Ojha, a lawyer in Muzaffarpur civil court, filed his petition in the chief judicial magistrate's court in Muzaffarpur, alleging that public sentiment had been hurt by the "vulgar kissing scene".

"The scene hurt millions of families. It is immoral and promotes something alien to our culture. Taken this in view, I filed a complaint against Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan," he said.

[JenniferJanu]

I'm sorry, but that Kareena in chocolate looks disgusting!     hahaha.

[annkittenplan]

Either this lawyer is already on the Yash Raj marketing payroll, or he should be.  This is getting the film international media attention it never would have had!  There's been quite a bit of kissing over the past couple of years, have there been any other charges like this?  I really suspect it's a publicity stunt.

[Smra]

It certainly is good publicity but not sure if it will make more people see Dhoom2, or increase the searches for Hrithik, Ash and kiss on youtube.

[Sajna]

It certainly is good publicity but not sure if it will make more people see Dhoom2, or increase the searches for Hrithik, Ash and kiss on youtube.

That's exactly what I did.

[paok]

I'm sorry, but that Kareena in chocolate looks disgusting!     hahaha.

You oughta be ashamed girl,
and you liked Sanju in Shabd
I LOVE chocolate

[JenniferJanu]

You oughta be ashamed girl,
and you liked Sanju in Shabd
I LOVE chocolate

Sorry, Sorry!!! It's just that the chocolate--no matter whose body it was on--didn't look very appetizing to me!  I may have even said the same thing if it was Sanju smeared with chocolate....welll...maybe...OK....nevermind, I withdraw my earlier statements.   

[paok]

Sorry, Sorry!!! It's just that the chocolate--no matter whose body it was on--didn't look very appetizing to me!  I may have even said the same thing if it was Sanju smeared with chocolate....welll...maybe...OK....nevermind, I withdraw my earlier statements.   

Thanks sweetheart,
and i have to say Sanju can be hawt
Love the guy's acting

[SuperSonic77]

That's exactly what I did.

Not only did I search but I went back and saw it on the big screen two more times.  That makes it a total of $33 dollars I am contributing to the box office take    Sad thing about the search is that the quality of the video is not all that great 

Dang, I am going to be piss if I have to wait until after Christmas to get this DVD    I have a friend who wants to see this tomorrow but Baabul is coming out as well so I am not sure...   I am loving the Regal E-Walk theatre here in NYC... Only bad thing is that there are no discounts and no matinees... Just $11 per ticket.  Highway robbery is what that is 

[I'm Not Lola]

I'm so stupid! I can't believe i haven't searched for the kiss yet

I....must....see it!

[AKlover4life]

Not only did I search but I went back and saw it on the big screen two more times.  That makes it a total of $33 dollars I am contributing to the box office take    Sad thing about the search is that the quality of the video is not all that great 

Dang, I am going to be piss if I have to wait until after Christmas to get this DVD    I have a friend who wants to see this tomorrow but Baabul is coming out as well so I am not sure...   I am loving the Regal E-Walk theatre here in NYC... Only bad thing is that there are no discounts and no matinees... Just $11 per ticket.  Highway robbery is what that is 

lol, yeah, i think i've watched hrithik dancing for Dhoom Again and the kiss on youtube.com at least 79715298527984471489302 times since i saw the movie on sunday. and i can't afford to go back and watch it on the big screen, so i'm DYING for the dvd, i really hope it comes out before christmas, but i highly doubt it...sigh...

[Deewani_Aurat]

A really well put article on the issue from the hindustantimes..

Much ado about muah

by: Archana

- hindustantimes.com


Well, some Indians sure have a lot of time and energy at their disposal to go as far as filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against a kiss, which, by the way was carried out on the big screen.

The smooch in question is the Aishwarya Rai-Hrithik Roshan kiss in the film Dhoom 2. A Bihar-based lawyer filed a case of obscenity against the stars as "it hurt millions of families. It is immoral and promotes something alien to our culture," said Sudhir Kumar Ojha, a lawyer in the Muzaffarpur civil court who filed the PIL.

Bringing up India

We know exactly what is crossing your mind right now — Phew! For God's sake, would somebody tell all the self-appointed keepers of morality that it was not Hrithik Roshan kissing Aishwarya Rai but Aryan kissing Sunheri, the characters in the movie? Says Dr Bhawna Burmi, senior clinical psychologist, Escorts Heart Institute, “Indians suffer from mass hypnosis over films and film stars as they tend to take movies for real. That is why we have children attempting to play Superman or Spiderman.”

But that is about children, what about adults? Dr Burmi says that it can also be an attention-seeking exercise, as people tend to enjoy their 15 minutes of fame. Sudhir Kumar Ojha will have to answer that. Or does he want to revert back to the days of two lilies, roses, dahlias or whatever necking and pecking each other?

Big deal

Why is a kiss such an issue in India — not only in reel life but also in real life? A hungama follows such a passionate display of affection — be it among couples or just friends. And to beat it all, moral police comes into picture every time two lips lock on the silver screen and the whole nation goes into a tizzy. It also gives wannabe starlets their first break into pan-Indian recall club.

For instance, Mallika Sherawat, who overdid it in Khwahish with 17 kisses and became a household name. And of course Emraan Hashmi, the proud serial kisser.

Says adman/lyricist Prasoon Joshi, “I don't understand why people react this way. A kiss is one of the cleanest ways of showing affection. And Yash Raj Films is known to handle such things aesthetically. Why don't people react to so many other things which are happening in the name of morality — sleazy shows on TV, explicit magazines and so much more?”

But aren't there more important issues like electricity, water, security… which we Indians should be talking about? Why doesn't someone file a PIL on these issues?

The Guardian with Karan Johar

The controversy created by Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai's lip lock in Dhoom 2 refuses to die down, but is being dismissed by the film industry.

“I think it's so ridiculous,” director Karan Johar told The Guardian. “It's true what they say: idle minds make a great devil's workshop. These people have nothing better to do with their time so they pick on a big film with an all-star cast,” he said of the PIL filed against the film.

He insists the furore will only benefit the film. “The end result of all this will be to increase the box-office for Dhoom 2, which is fantastic,” Johar said. “Plus it's a really, really good kiss.”

[Ashish]

....
He insists the furore will only benefit the film. “The end result of all this will be to increase the box-office for Dhoom 2, which is fantastic,” Johar said. “Plus it's a really, really good kiss.”

It may be conspiracy theory, but very much possible. Could this law suit be planted by producers/directors of the film? We have seen such things happening in Indian Cinema earlier too. One instance that comes to mind of Tabu starrer "Ek Choti Si Baat" or some such titled movie.

[James]

Triple hahaha!     

Seriously, though! Why were Murder and Neal 'n Nikki acceptable films and one lousy KISS in Dhoom 2 has people yelling 'vulgarity!'

The difference between Murder, Neal 'n Nikki, and Dhoom 2, is of course, that people saw Dhoom 2.   

[Deewani_Aurat]

The difference between Murder, Neal 'n Nikki, and Dhoom 2, is of course, that people saw Dhoom 2.   

Although thats a good call, wasn't Murder the biggest hit of 2004 

[wannabe]

The man who filed a case against Ash, Hrithik




Shailendra Dwivedi

Waiting for hours to interview an Aishwarya Rai or Hrithik Roshan goes with the journalistic territory, but a seven-hour wait to speak to an advocate in Indore?

Then again, Shailendra Dwivedi is no ordinary advocate -- he hit the headlines the other day, when he filed a case against Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan for their on-screen kiss in Dhoom 2.

Today (Monday, December 11), an Indore court will decide if the lip-lock in the film is Dhoom 2 is objectionable, as Dwivedi argues in his petition; it will also decide what if any action can, and should be, taken under the provisions of the Indian legal system.

Ever since the case was filed, Dwivedi has been much in demand -- to the point where he now carefully screens his calls. He will not take calls if the number is not known to him; he does not respond to SMS messages; he is just this shade short of being totally incommunicado.

"I am tired of taking phone calls," the lawyer told rediff.com in an exclusive conversation outside the Indore city court. "I don't want to talk to any mediapersons. They think this is all a gimmick, and that I am here to be in the limelight. This is not true, and you will know all this by Monday.

"My conscience made me file this case," says Dwivedi, a tall man with a receding hairline.

The city court is a hive of activity. Hundreds of lawyers bustle around in the shed just outside the court; within, the court precincts hum with frenetic activity. Villagers come long distances to fight various land cases squat in the corridors; bystanders gape as undertrials in chains shuffle down the corridors, escorted by policemen.

Women and young children come to meet their incarcerated fathers, whose cases are up for hearing.

In this mass of humanity, Dwivedi has carved a place for himself. In a corner of the court premises is the prominently displayed sign 'Advocate Shailendra Dwivedi', in Hindi, along with his mobile and landline phone numbers. That board, those prominent numbers, speak to a time when his life was lived outside of the limelight that now seeks him out.

Dwivedi appears at his table for a few minutes, then vanishes into the teeming crowds. When I get to where he is, the advocate reluctantly agrees to speak, but says he will not answer all questions. He is, he says, fed up with calls from journalists, and does not want all this publicity.

He is clear in his mind, though, that the Aishwarya-Hrithik lip-lock in the film is a clear case of obscenity.

Dhoom 2, he says in his petition, lowered the dignity of Indian women and gave an obscene message to India's youth.

"They are portraying vulgarity in our Indian culture," says Dwivedi. "Dhoom 2 cannot be watched by Indian families because it is a vulgar film."

What precisely is objectionable, I ask. Pressed on the point, the advocate says "I felt the kissing scene was objectionable. I went to see the film with my child and it was quite embarrassing. The least they could have done was certify this as an adult film. No one is bothered about this, not even the censors. This is not right according to our Indian culture."

So how does he define Indian culture, where and how does he draw the line? "I don't want to get into that controversy," he says, side-stepping the question.

In a sense, his reluctance to speak to the media is understandable -- newspapers in Indore have been publishing stories accusing the advocate of seeking publicity. He is, Dwivedi says, fed up of all the unwanted attention, and now prefers to keep the media at a distance.

This incidentally is not his first tilt at tinseltown. He had earlier filed a case against Dharmendra and Hema Malini, when Dharmendra said he had not converted to Islam and married Hema Malini as his second wife.

He also filed a case against director J P Dutta's LoC Kargil after the Indian flag was shown wrongly draped and placed on the coffins of Indian martyred soldiers.

The most high profile of his cases was the one he filed against painter M F Husain, when he drew Hindu goddesses in the nude.

"Husain had no business to paint Mother India and other goddesses naked. It was very insulting for every Indian," Dwivedi says, his anger evident in his tone.

But what, then, of artistic license, of the freedom of expression that is the bedrock of a democracy?

"Why don't you paint your own mother nude?" Dwivedi demands. "When you can show Durga and other goddess naked, then why not Husain's mother's naked portrait too? Let him do that first. I think it is an insult to our nation to do such acts."

Born into a family of lawyers, Dwivedi believes the Constitution is his only religion, and argues that no one has the right to hurt the sentiments of the Indian people.

But why Aishwarya? After all, Mallika Sherawat became famous for 17 kissing scenes in a single film? "I never see Hindi films," Dwivedi says. "I didn't see any of Mallika Sherawat's films, therefore I am not aware of these things. I happened to see Dhoom 2 and I found the scene objectionable. It is a film that one cannot see with one's family, and therefore I filed a case. Whenever I feel something is wrong, then I do these things on an individual basis."

Then again, not a single case he has filed thus far on such issues has met with success -- so what then is the point? "I hope to get justice one day," he says, simply.

"I am not disappointed; I only want that such acts should not be repeated. other filmmakers must learn from past experiences, by not including such obscene scenes in the future. If that happens, then that is my victory."

--Syed Firdaus Ashraf in Indore

http://ia.rediff.com/movies/2006/dec/11sfa.htm?q=tp&file=.htm

At least the man is consistent.

[Deewani_Aurat]

That man is a looser!  I know some lawyer's specialities are like 'Family Law' or 'Property Law', but wasn't expecting hindi films as a lawyers speciality!  His other cases seem to be as lame so at least yes he is consistent.

So many more important things he can be doing with his law degree that could actual make a real difference.

Also how does he just 'happen' to see Dhoom 2.  From the posters he can tell its going to be sexually charged.  He probably came in wanting to see Aish in next to nothing and he got cut when he saw Aishwarya kissing someone other then himself so decided to sue Hrithik and Aish together - a scorned lover can be so cruel

Hmm so whenever a film doesn't measure up to his pre-pubecent sesame street ideal world, he decides to sue them.  What an idiot.

[wannabe]

D_A, I'm not ascribing any great merit to the lawsuit, but I think you and the others who are saying "just don't see it with your family!" are missing the  point.  The movie-going experience in India is almost by definition a family activity, and it is only beginning to change now, with the  fragmentation of the audience into different ages and class.  I don't know what rating D2 got, since I haven't seen it, but I doubt that it would be anything more restrictive than UA, which still means it was deemed suitable for children, albeit with parental guidance.  The idea that each member of a family goes on his/her separate way for entertainment is still not one that is generally accepted in India, especially in the smaller towns such as Indore.

So I think your remarks about his motivation to see the film, as well as to file this lawsuit, are unnecessarily harsh.

[Deewani_Aurat]

D_A, I'm not ascribing any great merit to the lawsuit, but I think you and the others who are saying "just don't see it with your family!" are missing the  point.  The movie-going experience in India is almost by definition a family activity, and it is only beginning to change now, with the  fragmentation of the audience into different ages and class.  I don't know what rating D2 got, since I haven't seen it, but I doubt that it would be anything more restrictive than UA, which still means it was deemed suitable for children, albeit with parental guidance.  The idea that each member of a family goes on his/her separate way for entertainment is still not one that is generally accepted in India, especially in the smaller towns such as Indore.

So I think your remarks about his motivation to see the film, as well as to file this lawsuit, are unnecessarily harsh.

That's cool if we have different opinions.  I don't think i'm being too harsh on this lawyer...i think he needs to get a life and find something else to worry about.

Ok so the half kiss in the film is unfamily worthy...That's fine, but It's an action film, so is that violence ok for the kids to see?

So if each movie has to be made for the universal family appeal, that SEVERELY limits the freedom film makers have.  Every time now a film maker puts in a kiss or something that isn't appropriate for absolutely every demographic in india they have to worry about getting sued! Thats rediculous.  It's up to the ratings board and parents to control what kids watch. 

Dhoom has action, thrills, short skirts and violence - this much is known from the first one and im sure the ratings advisors.  If someone goes into Dhoom 2 thinking its going to be a family 'ooo he just touched my hand, i hope i don't get pregnant' movie then they are just being silly.  Of course this only my opinion and i could be very unjustified on my points, but i feel quite strongly on how stupid it is to sue over a kiss in a movie. 

[I'm Not Lola]

He never even sees Hindi films, but somehow he decided that Dhoom 2 would be to his liking? Sounds fishy to me Anyways, I hope he loses his case as well as the others lol.

[idli_lover]

You know what I find offensive...a voluptuous heroine gyrating in a wet sari while the hero runs his lips all over her body and buries his face in her boobs while feeling her up - that is more vulgar and demeaning to women than a kiss!*
And that has been going on in Hindi cinema for almost decades with no 'adult' rating. People freely take their kids and watch that kind of stuff.  Never heard of this guy or anyone else filing cases or even raising objections about that. All this talk about not being able to see it with family is a load of bull tatti and this lawyer is just an attention whore.

* Given a choice between the two, I'd rather that my kid sees the latter.

[Parallel_Worlds]

He is clear in his mind, though, that the Aishwarya-Hrithik lip-lock in the film is a clear case of obscenity.

Dhoom 2, he says in his petition, lowered the dignity of Indian women and gave an obscene message to India's youth.

"They are portraying vulgarity in our Indian culture," says Dwivedi. "Dhoom 2 cannot be watched by Indian families because it is a vulgar film."

What precisely is objectionable, I ask. Pressed on the point, the advocate says "I felt the kissing scene was objectionable. I went to see the film with my child and it was quite embarrassing. The least they could have done was certify this as an adult film. No one is bothered about this, not even the censors. This is not right according to our Indian culture."

Why doesn't he fight for appropriate certificates, instead of making a case about vulgarity in Indian culture?
This case has so many similarities to the outrageous American suing cases we frequently hear about in Europe. Why can't these people just take responsibility for their own actions.


I also don't get how the dignity of Indian women are lowered by the kiss. Why just of the women and not of the men? It comes across as a tacit assumption that Indian women don't like sex and sex-related things, and it's just the men that have these desires and needs. Either he has an unsatisfactory sex life or his ideas are more outdated than my grandfather's 

[James]

Although thats a good call, wasn't Murder the biggest hit of 2004 

Hmmm...maybe so, I'm not sure.  I was under the impression that it turned the biggest profit, i.e., considering the amount of money the movie was made for it had the best return on its investment.  Other films could have turned in more revenue but due to higher overhead costs, less profit.  That was my understanding, anyway, for whatever that's worth! 

It's interesting to hear this lawyer state that showing a kiss publicly is outside of Indian culture.  I'd actually love to see him try to justify that in a court of law.  Certainly nowadays it is taboo for many Indians, though certainly not all (Kareena & Shahid weren't shy to kiss in public...are they not Indian?).  I'd think historically the taboo is more tenuous.  The mores of the people change over time, and I'm very skeptical about the intentions of a person who tries to say X culture is Y, static and for all time, and who then prosecutes people who don't abide by that- it seems to me just to be a heavy-handed attempt at controlling people, thereby gaining power.  Does he keep his kids away from temples with sexually explicit carvings?  Are such temples not for the family, not 'Indian'?  What about classical Indian art which can often be very erotic?  His definition of what is Indian or not strikes me as incredibly narrow and totally unjustifiable considering the breadth and diversity of the cultures, values, and peoples of India.