Lawsuit filed over Dhoom 2 kiss

[asante]

The man who filed a case against Ash, Hrithik




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

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.

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."

At least the man is consistent.

What a loser!!!!
No wonder he got a receding hairline after all those useless lawsuits
Why do i find it so hard to believe he hasn't seen MURDER before!!!!
At first i dismissed this news because i found it too hard to believe this could be possible!!!
He does want his 15 minutes of fame and is just playing hard to get IMO by saying he won't pick up phone calls and such!!! Raja Hindustani had Karisma Kapoor and Aamir Khan one of the biggest stars in Indian cinema, soaking wet and kissing under a tree!!! Don't tell me he missed that too
And all that cleavage displayed in dhoom!! Isn't that provocative enough???
and by stating that this kiss lowered the dignity of Indian women he is actually implying that women are inferior to men!!!
What about the Hrithik???
Such hypocrisy!!!!


Whatever!!! everything has already been said!! No 2 cents to add here!!!

[pellmelody]

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. 

You know, you made the point here that I have presented to those who have vehemently objected to this kiss in other forums, and they never gave me a real solid answer for it.

I'm still a "newbie," by most standards here on this forum, to BW movies, but what really struck me was the amount of non-mouth kissing that was done, generally during song sequences. We Westerners have always puzzled over the pseudo-taboo of the kiss in BW movies, so I was surprised how much non-mouth kissing was done, including touching and revealing clothing (and when you get right down to it, the saree is one of the most sensual garments a woman can wear, IMO). My question was always, "If they are allowed to kiss necks, shoulders, chests, arms, legs, and hands, as well as running their hands across the same body parts and no one protests, why is a small kiss on the mouth considered obscene?" I have yet to wrap my head around it. I may never. And it's all made doubly sensual when the couple is in the rain or wet. Why did no one protest the song sequence "Dekho Na" in Fanaa where Aamir and Kajol end up in bed together, or the really hot kisses and love scenes in Salaam Namaste?

And speaking of ratings, aren't movies that contain violence and/or kissing rated U/A (the equivelent, if I'm not mistaken, of a PG-13 rating in the U.S.)? Shouldn't that be a "red flag" to Hindustani parents not to take their children to a particular movie? Or, perhaps, like the U.S., the censorship board needs to start listing, with their ratings, why that particular rating was given (sexual situation, violence, etc.).

[Deewani_Aurat]

Very well put Pellmelody...

Yes this issue has often been outlined at the hypocrisy of the sexual content of indian films.

I always remember back to 'Paap' with John Abraham where he kisses her neck violently for what felt like 15 minutes, but not a kiss on the mouth probably cause they would get in trouble by the censors 

Wouldn't it be nicer if there was a simple kiss on the mouth instead of kissing the neck for 15 minutes??

I think some changes need to be made to the censor ratings (more descriptive detailing) so problems like with this guy have no basis at all. 

[humsurfer]

Let me state first that I have no opinion on this case.

But I would like to clarify why a mouth-to-mouth kiss is seen in India as a step beyond kissing other described parts of the body (read: skin): it is because it crosses the line from external to internal organs. The other acts are considered foreplay, but a kiss is seen as the first act of sex. This is changing with Americanization, I believe.

Also, the other acts described in this thread are considered as passive on the part of the supposedly 'dignified' woman, while a kiss is seen to have active engagement (as possibly also in Aish's Dhoom 2 scene) and the conservatives probably feel this demeans women as loving sex (though I don't know if that's the case here). The fact that Indian civilization a few centuries ago had a positive and open attitude to sexuality, and has a huge variety of ancient art and literature on the subject (the Kama Sutra and the Khajuraho temples to name a couple) unfortunately escapes them.

[Deewani_Aurat]

Let me state first that I have no opinion on this case.

But I would like to clarify why a mouth-to-mouth kiss is seen in India as a step beyond kissing other described parts of the body (read: skin): it is because it crosses the line from external to internal organs. The other acts are considered foreplay, but a kiss is seen as the first act of sex. This is changing with Americanization, I believe.

Also, the other acts described in this thread are considered as passive on the part of the supposedly 'dignified' woman, while a kiss is seen to have active engagement (as possibly also in Aish's Dhoom 2 scene) and the conservatives probably feel this demeans women as loving sex (though I don't know if that's the case here). The fact that Indian civilization a few centuries ago had a positive and open attitude to sexuality, and has a huge variety of ancient art and literature on the subject (the Kama Sutra and the Khajuraho temples to name a couple) unfortunately escapes them.

Thanks for this humsurfer!  Your first point about the opinion of kisses helps me to understand more whats so forbidden about kisses.  It makes sense this line of thinking in regards to what they portray on screen. 

If kisses are seen as 'active engagement' on the womens part, this means the lawyers case will be thrown out of court  For anyone whos seen it we all know aish doesn't kiss back, so no active engagement here! When i go to India i think i'm going to sue Aish for not kissing back Hrithik - i think it should be in the constitution that if Hrithik kisses you - YOU KISS HIM BACK!

[JenniferJanu]

That lawyer really cracks me up. He either has to be in on a publicity stunt to ensure success of the film or he is the world's biggest prude who still gets spoon-fed meals by his mother, a la "Disco Dancer."    Come on. I'm not saying that Indian people should not be offended by a kiss (especially based on Humsafar's observation of the culture) BUT this kiss is barely a kiss and there are worse actions in Hindi films that should be objected to (the raping of women that goes on, for example).


There are much worse things to be concerned about in the world than a closed mouth kiss. And I agree that it's a double standard that Aish is demoralized, but Hrithik is not. ha!

[Ashish]

Put it in category of "Indians telling others what to think......."

I think this all depends on perceptions. While others new to BW may find mouthing on wet Sari more sexual than kiss, and I agree with it, since Indians have been seeing that from decades, it makes them immune to those acts. Hence no objections - however invalid - to such acts as others may find offensive/demeaning. There is no objective way to define more or less sexual act, but it depends what people are accustomed to and what not. For example, in US, couple kissing on street is common yet adult men holding hands is suspecious. There was huge debate in US about breast-feeding in public and how there are laws about that and people find that offensive and so on. In India, women have been breast-feeding in public all the time (with due cover of their Saris, though) and decent men just don't stare at her. So there is no question of debate even.

Very well put Pellmelody...

Yes this issue has often been outlined at the hypocrisy of the sexual content of indian films.

I always remember back to 'Paap' with John Abraham where he kisses her neck violently for what felt like 15 minutes, but not a kiss on the mouth probably cause they would get in trouble by the censors 

Wouldn't it be nicer if there was a simple kiss on the mouth instead of kissing the neck for 15 minutes??

I think some changes need to be made to the censor ratings (more descriptive detailing) so problems like with this guy have no basis at all. 

[SuperSonic77]

If kisses are seen as 'active engagement' on the womens part, this means the lawyers case will be thrown out of court  For anyone whos seen it we all know aish doesn't kiss back, so no active engagement here! When i go to India i think i'm going to sue Aish for not kissing back Hrithik - i think it should be in the constitution that if Hrithik kisses you - YOU KISS HIM BACK!

AMEN!!! Preach it sister.   

That kiss was not only the highlight but one of the biggest frustrations... That whole scene had the potential to be an EXPLOSIVE scene rather than just dynamite.   

[humsurfer]

Put it in category of "Indians telling others what to think......."

Wow, Ashish, that was an interesting thread (even though it broke the Prime Commandments of BollyWhat). Very enlightening, I had no idea. I'll try to be more circumspect. I did forget that this forum is for clueless fans, and I'm anything but clueless (I'm Indian, hehe); I feel like an interloper. I hope people are taking what I say with a spoonful of salt. And if you aren't, please do.

[Deewani_Aurat]

Wow, Ashish, that was an interesting thread (even though it broke the Prime Commandments of BollyWhat). Very enlightening, I had no idea. I'll try to be more circumspect. I did forget that this forum is for clueless fans, and I'm anything but clueless (I'm Indian, hehe); I feel like an interloper. I hope people are taking what I say with a spoonful of salt. And if you aren't, please do.

No offence at all Humsurfer.  I wanted to be enlightened cause i find it hard to get an indian perspective on the issue, so thanks for sharing your opinion of what the problem with kissing is.

[Parallel_Worlds]

Put it in category of "Indians telling others what to think......."

I think this all depends on perceptions. While others new to BW may find mouthing on wet Sari more sexual than kiss, and I agree with it, since Indians have been seeing that from decades, it makes them immune to those acts. Hence no objections - however invalid - to such acts as others may find offensive/demeaning. There is no objective way to define more or less sexual act, but it depends what people are accustomed to and what not.

Thanks Ashish!
I was thinking of mentioning this, but the poll stopped me. I have been watching BW since forever, and I don't feel as much discomfort watching wet saris scenes and neck nuzzling with, say my father, but it would be a little akward to watch them kiss.

author = Deewani_Aurat]
If kisses are seen as 'active engagement' on the womens part, this means the lawyers case will be thrown out of court  Cheesy For anyone whos seen it we all know aish doesn't kiss back, so no active engagement here! When i go to India i think i'm going to sue Aish for not kissing back Hrithik - i think it should be in the constitution that if Hrithik kisses you - YOU KISS HIM BACK!

You should file a case for the dignity of all actively back-kissing women

[wannabe]

Put it in category of "Indians telling others what to think......."

I think this all depends on perceptions. While others new to BW may find mouthing on wet Sari more sexual than kiss, and I agree with it, since Indians have been seeing that from decades, it makes them immune to those acts. Hence no objections - however invalid - to such acts as others may find offensive/demeaning. There is no objective way to define more or less sexual act, but it depends what people are accustomed to and what not. For example, in US, couple kissing on street is common yet adult men holding hands is suspecious. There was huge debate in US about breast-feeding in public and how there are laws about that and people find that offensive and so on. In India, women have been breast-feeding in public all the time (with due cover of their Saris, though) and decent men just don't stare at her. So there is no question of debate even.

Ashish makes an excellent point here, which I think is the crux of what is perceived as sexual in different cultures. 

As for the lawsuit itself, in the U.S. people are ready to sue if they think there's the slightest chance of a deep pocket settlement, in India "hurting the sentiments" of this or that community seems to be the cause of choice.

[Rohinik]

Ridiculous....I guess he picks and chooses which movie he watches. Dear lord....please someone get all of Mallika's movies and send it to this guy. Then he'll see what is exposure...and what's not.

[Nayika]

When i go to India i think i'm going to sue Aish for not kissing back Hrithik - i think it should be in the constitution that if Hrithik kisses you - YOU KISS HIM BACK!

HAHA!!

[Aishwarya4eva]

First of all, for those who haven't seen it -- here it is: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Au9ViPoA0Mw

Now, you must admit...with Hrithik Roshan being the sexiest man alive and Aishwarya being the most beautiful creature to ever walk the earth a kiss between the two is going to be unbelievably hot.

Now, I am an American so we see a LOT worse out here. If conservative Indian women spent a month in our country and watched TV and movies they'd surely swoon to death. However, this kiss was just NOT THAT BIG A DEAL TO ME. I believe much more is being made out of it than necessary. Yes, it DID make me squirm a bit in my chair, but watching two people kiss passionately is always rather awkward. But, come on, they didn't even tongue-tango!

Finally, I have to say again that I am not an Indian and not an expert on their customs and values so I may be dubbed "ignorant" here, but a lawsuit against THIS?!http://youtube.com/watch?v=Au9ViPoA0Mw tsk tsk tsk...in my opinion it's very

UNCALLED FOR

[Aishwarya4eva]

Ha! There's a little salt in the wound!

[Anamika]

There is already a thread for discussion of the Dhoom 2 lawsuit here: http://www.bollywhat-forum.com/index.php?topic=16061.0

[Aishwarya4eva]

I think it was the fact that it was Iahwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan, like to two most beautiful people ever! how can that kiss not make people feel uncomfortable? still i find the lawsuit totally uncalled for...the kiss wasn't even that long and certainly not that good...

[Aishwarya4eva]

First of all, for those who haven't seen it -- here it is: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Au9ViPoA0Mw

Now, you must admit...with Hrithik Roshan being the sexiest man alive and Aishwarya being the most beautiful creature to ever walk the earth a kiss between the two is going to be unbelievably hot.

Now, I am an American so we see a LOT worse out here. If conservative Indian women spent a month in our country and watched TV and movies they'd surely swoon to death. However, this kiss was just NOT THAT BIG A DEAL TO ME. I believe much more is being made out of it than necessary. Yes, it DID make me squirm a bit in my chair, but watching two people kiss passionately is always rather awkward. But, come on, they didn't even tongue-tango!

Finally, I have to say again that I am not an Indian and not an expert on their customs and values so I may be dubbed "ignorant" here, but a lawsuit against THIS?!http://youtube.com/watch?v=Au9ViPoA0Mw tsk tsk tsk...in my opinion it's very

UNCALLED FOR

[los angeles]

It's kind of fascinating to read old threads like this--in Bollywood, so much has changed in six years!
I don't think this type of lawsuit would crop up in 2012, though I might be wrong.

I watch tons and tons of Hindi serials, and they even have on-the-cheek kisses there and they're moving toward on-the-lips kisses pretty quickly. [Plus all the usual songs and dances with sometimes very-low-amt-of-fabric costumes, some of which are all right and some of which are terrible.]

But I would like to clarify why a mouth-to-mouth kiss is seen in India as a step beyond kissing other described parts of the body (read: skin): it is because it crosses the line from external to internal organs. The other acts are considered foreplay, but a kiss is seen as the first act of sex. This is changing with Americanization, I believe.

Most odd explanation I've heard on this topic, the step toward internal organs are the issue?

Edit: Though I sort of kind of understand what is meant, on second thought

The fact that Indian civilization a few centuries ago had a positive and open attitude to sexuality, and has a huge variety of ancient art and literature on the subject (the Kama Sutra and the Khajuraho temples to name a couple) unfortunately escapes them.

^ Yea this is very strange, all things considered.

[Darshana]

Does anyone really know if "India" had an across-the-board open attitude toward sex in the past, or is this just one of those things that is repeated without evidence ever being summoned?

Yes I know about the carvings and the Kama Sutra, but those are just two things and don't tell me anything about who did what in general - not the India has ever been very monolithic.  There are in any society individuals and groups who are "free" sexually, including of course in Victorian times - there is Victorian pornography, for example, but overall the era was prudish.

I'd be surprised to learn that there was an overall culture in India in which women were not judged for their sexual behaviors or thoughts.  Something like the Kama Sutra I believe assumes the reader is doing these things with prostitutes or courtesans, and not that his sister is doing them with anybody.

[tabula rasa]

Does anyone really know if "India" had an across-the-board open attitude toward sex in the past, or is this just one of those things that is repeated without evidence ever being summoned?

Yes I know about the carvings and the Kama Sutra, but those are just two things and don't tell me anything about who did what in general - not the India has ever been very monolithic.  There are in any society individuals and groups who are "free" sexually, including of course in Victorian times - there is Victorian pornography, for example, but overall the era was prudish.

I'd be surprised to learn that there was an overall culture in India in which women were not judged for their sexual behaviors or thoughts.  Something like the Kama Sutra I believe assumes the reader is doing these things with prostitutes or courtesans, and not that his sister is doing them with anybody.

Good point, Darshana. I'd say that there might've been pockets of openness in various eras and various regions, depending on dynasties and civilisations, but not as a monolithic entity. As with everything else in the organisation with society, ideas of liberal sexuality occur in flourishing times as opposed to war time, when ideas of paternity become essential for survival etc (which then forms restrictions on female sexual behaviour and choices etc). So I'd say things like the Kama Sutra, the Khajuraho sculpture, and even some treatises on sexuality in the south, occured at a time when those of that era could afford contemplation of the higher things in life, including art, and also politics (as in Kautilya's ArthaShastra during the Mauryan empire). I believe this is the case the world over anyway, and since this is a Bollywood board, I'd make the puerile analogy with those who go for Salman movies as opposed to those of Farhan Akhtar - if you know what I mean.