 |
|
The cinematic landscape is littered with films that fail to resonate with audiences, but when a movie starring a megastar like Salman Khan falters, the reverberations are felt throughout the industry. 'Sikandar,' the latest offering from the Bollywood icon, has not only failed to meet the lofty expectations of his ardent fan base but has also sparked a critical examination of the factors contributing to its underwhelming reception. The question on everyone's mind is: who is to blame for the Sikandar debacle? Is it Salman Khan himself, his creative team, or a combination of factors that have led to this cinematic misstep? The article in question delves into these complexities, offering a scathing critique of the film and the circumstances surrounding its creation. It argues that 'Sikandar' represents a significant departure from the clean entertainment and quintessential action-drama that Khan's fans have come to expect, suggesting that the actor and his associates have become complacent, failing to adapt to the evolving tastes of the modern audience. The film's failure is attributed to a collective lack of effort, with everyone seemingly relying on Khan's star power to carry the project, while neglecting the fundamental elements of storytelling and character development. Murugadoss, the director known for his work on 'Ghajini,' is specifically called out for failing to create compelling characters beyond Salman Khan, while the producers are criticized for prioritizing lavish production design over substance. The article suggests that 'Sikandar' is an ultimate showdown between Salman Khan and his loyal fans. The team behind the film underestimated its audience, and, more importantly, Khan seems to have underestimated himself. There is a deep and pervading sense of disappointment throughout the piece, as the author mourns the decline of the Salman Khan they once admired. The article laments the lack of chemistry between Khan and his much younger co-star, Rashmika Mandanna. While acknowledging that age gaps are not inherently problematic, the author emphasizes that the absence of genuine connection on screen is a critical flaw that undermines the film's romantic elements. The author cleverly sidesteps the immediate discussion about age differences in film, but still indicates that the pairing was problematic because the chemistry fell flat. The piece makes no bones about its overall disdain for Sikandar, calling it "absolute bullshit badassery" where nobody seemed to have any idea what they were doing, or where the film was going. In the end, the article suggests that 'Sikandar' is a wake-up call for Salman Khan, urging him to pause, reassess his creative choices, and acknowledge the need for self-correction. Only by doing so can he hope to regain the trust and admiration of his fans and prevent further missteps in his career. The article positions 'Sikandar' as a watershed moment, potentially signaling the end of an era for the superstar if he fails to adapt and evolve.
The crux of the matter, as the article presents it, is a collective failure of vision and execution. Salman Khan, once revered for his ability to deliver crowd-pleasing entertainment, is now accused of complacency, allowing his films to become formulaic and predictable. The supporting cast and crew are implicated as well, accused of blindly following Khan's lead without challenging his creative choices or contributing meaningful ideas of their own. The article points out that the people around Khan have created an echo chamber, where their own voices and contributions have been silenced by their boss's power and influence. The result is a film that feels stale and uninspired, lacking the energy and originality that once defined Khan's work. The author questions whether the team failed to challenge or question Khan's decisions out of fear due to his power, influence, and status. The article argues that the lack of effort in every department contributed to the downfall of 'Sikandar.' Everyone seemed to rely on Salman Khan to pull it off, but he failed to take the project seriously. The author implies that this could be interpreted as a mutual lack of respect, with neither Salman Khan, nor the people working under him, putting in the time, work, or effort needed to make this film successful. While the article acknowledges Khan's immense contributions to the industry and his loyal fan base, it also emphasizes his responsibility to deliver quality entertainment. The author contends that Khan has a duty to his audience, the very people who have supported him throughout his career. By taking them for granted, he risks alienating his most ardent supporters and tarnishing his legacy. The article draws parallels to Khan's earlier work, highlighting the energy and passion he brought to films like 'Sultan' and 'Bajrangi Bhaijaan,' which were both commercial successes and critically acclaimed. These films showcased Khan's ability to portray complex characters and deliver meaningful narratives, demonstrating his versatility as an actor. In contrast, 'Sikandar' is portrayed as a lazy and uninspired effort, lacking the depth and emotional resonance that made Khan's earlier films so compelling. In summary, the team created a film that the audience was unable to connect to. The author writes that if one could erase this film from their memories, they would do so to spare Salman Khan from embarrassing himself and letting his fans down.
However, the article does not solely place the blame on Salman Khan. It also examines the role of Murugadoss, the director and screenwriter of 'Sikandar,' who is criticized for failing to develop compelling characters beyond Khan. The author suggests that Murugadoss got lazy once he got Salman Khan on board, and did not give much depth to other characters in the film. The author seems to believe that this was a grave error because other characters would have helped to contribute to the depth of the film as a whole. The article also highlights the failings of the producers, who are accused of prioritizing lavish production design over substance. The author argues that spending vast amounts of money on location and production design cannot compensate for a weak script or uninspired performances. The author mentions that the team spent money to give an expensive look to the film, but that the audience no longer prioritizes that. Instead, the audience wants compelling storylines and characters. The article suggests that the film industry has moved away from pure opulence. Instead, films must have a certain degree of substance and realism to be successful. The author then emphasizes the problem of the age gap between Khan and his leading lady, Rashmika Mandanna. While they concede that this may not be a problem in and of itself, in this specific case, the chemistry simply does not work. The author calls on Salman Khan to make it work, and make the romance compelling and worth buying, similar to how he has done with previous collaborations. Instead, Khan is unable to sell his romance with his much younger costar. The author compares it to the chemistry of Prem-Preeti, Prem-Nisha, Raja-Sapna, and Tiger-Zoya. By highlighting these various factors, the article paints a picture of a film that was doomed from the start, a product of complacency, lack of vision, and a collective failure to prioritize quality over star power. Sikandar is framed as a warning to Salman Khan, but also to the rest of the industry. It is a sign that the audience will no longer accept mediocrity, and that even the biggest stars must continue to evolve and adapt to remain relevant.
The article's analysis of 'Sikandar' extends beyond the immediate failings of the film itself, delving into broader trends within the Bollywood industry. The author suggests that the industry has become increasingly reliant on star power, prioritizing established actors over fresh talent and original ideas. This reliance on formulaic storytelling and predictable narratives has led to a stagnation of creativity, resulting in films that lack the innovation and originality of earlier eras. The author is nostalgic for the Salman Khan that existed in the 1990s, highlighting some of his films such as 'Dulhan Hum Le Jayege' and 'Judwaa'. These films, while not necessarily complex, still had elements of humor and heart. The author writes that Khan always gave these films his all. The article also explores the issue of sexism, toxic masculinity, and violence in Salman Khan's films, suggesting that these themes have become increasingly problematic in recent years. The author notes that 'Sikandar' is so lacking in quality that these issues become secondary, as the film fails to even spark meaningful discussion or debate. The writer also highlights some of Khan's previous leading ladies and romantic collaborations, including Madhuri Dixit, Karisma Kapoor, Urmila Matondkar, Kajol, Shilpa Shetty, Sonali Bendre, Katrina Kaif, Kareena Kapoor Khan, Priyanka Chopra, Sonakshi Sinha, Asin, Ayesha Takia, Bhumika Chawla, Twinkle Khanna, and Anushka Sharma. This is supposed to contrast to his chemistry with Rashmika Mandanna. Ultimately, the article concludes that 'Sikandar' represents a critical turning point in Salman Khan's career, a moment of reckoning that could either lead to self-correction and renewal or a continued decline into irrelevance. The author's final plea is for Salman Khan to take a step back, reassess his creative choices, and prioritize the needs of his audience. Only by doing so can he hope to regain the trust and admiration of his fans and secure his legacy as one of Bollywood's most beloved and enduring stars. If not, the fans may have to make the difficult choice to leave the star behind. In a world where the audience has more choices than ever, Sikandar just does not hold up.