By Surendra Bhatia
It’s an abysmal fact of media life that hardly any current news website can do without the rub of film star glamour. This is not about films, it’s about stars. It is one thing that a serious website on national economics writes eruditely about the commerce of the film industry but when it focuses on skimpily-clad female stars and details the latest rumours about her love life, then you know, the peacock is dancing for the monkeys. Fortunately, for such websites, there are tons of public events at which film stars appear in fashionable wear, peddling outfits designed by their favourite designers, giving all a legitimate excuse to peddle glamour.
But this is only one side of the story. Media will do what it can to increase its eyeballs and, frankly, so would stars. The two have converged so beautifully that a starlet getting out of her car and walking towards the gym to work out merits the services of a full-time photographer, whose produce then forms a nice little banner on the media outlet’s website (and magazine or news programme). Why? Because the said starlet has worn (for the camera or gym?) her sexiest miniskirt/shorts and a fabulously cut sleeveless tee… Okay, one disclaimer: no one has any objection to anyone wearing whatever she is comfortable in, for whatever occasion –- walk, gym, party, beach -– and if it is skimpy, more power to her. The issue is that the two converge so efficiently: starlet wears revealing gym gear, and the media is stationed to shoot the pictures and splash them for the world. It is all so convenient and conspired that, to some, it looks totally phoney.
Today, stars are always so glamorously attired in public places that it would seem, that is the natural state of their being. Yet, in another media exercise, mention of glamour often brings about self-deprecation. It’s funny but when glamorous and always sexily turned-out stars are interviewed, they always talk about the film industry being all about hard work, gruelling work hours and the total lack of glamour. In interviews, it’s never about their glamour, it’s always about talent and hard work; in pictures, it’s only about glamour. This is not a dichotomy, as it may seem. Perhaps, what they mean is the hard work that goes into being glamorous -– this is for people who understand these things. Some don’t. Actually, it is far simpler. The star’s persona is for the aam public -– the more glamorous the better; but interviews are for people who can read and do read, so the lines are about the toil that goes behind being glamorous. They are actually Playboy in action, easy on the eye and something for the brains too. Kudos.
