Mr.K saw "Salaam Namaste" - supposedly the flavor of the month in bollywood for the fresh storyline about a couple living their dreams without "Marriage"..before i let you know the thoughts of some of our three muskeeters on the concept behind the movie, lets just finish off with some of the first impressions and trivia about the movie. Mr.K thinks that Preity Zinta has lost her vivacious energy that so made her different from the typical bimbos ( no offense to fair species ) that bollywood keeps throwing at us. That being said this movie probably showed Ms.Zinta in her histrionic best - wonderfull performance. The hero in the movie - Saif ali khan with all his new found "Nirvana - He struts around topless mostly in the movie" was just as half-cooked as the food made by the character he plays in the movie. Anyways i will not go on with a movie review here - and oh yes the trivia about the movie - it was shot very near to the place where Mr.SBR's "doctor brother" lives in Melbourne. Nice Chap - except that he pissed of a female patient suffering from Appendicites during his apprenticeship in "The City".
Anyways the movie deals with two people who are discovering love for each other by experimenting to live with each other before "Nuptials". Wow, so whats the big deal. This happens in the Western world every day at every other place. But for indians, it is a new and sometimes unwelcome concept. So this was the topic of discussion amongst Mr.SBR, MR.INF and ofcourse Mr.K during one of their now-famous lunch discussions. And last i remember that was probably the only lunch when someone did not have to tell "Look there..Look there". Mr.K told the other two that he is quite disappointed with indian women proclaiming their new found progression in all things but still not a single one is open to the idea of living together. Mr.S ( okay SBR created lot of curious minds, which isnt healthy for a nation ) told that it is good that girls arent open cause living in before marriage is not a right thing. He was of the opinion that only the people who were not sure about their relationship would do that and they want to take a easy way out of not having to deal with hassles of divorce. Mr.K replied that most people blame the concept of living in without realising that the problem of two people going separate after months or years of "unlicensed togetherness" instead of the two people themselves. Mr.K thinks that if someone is committed to another person, their relationship should work out irrespective of whether they have had a "Marriage". Mr.I then made a very significant statement in the discussion. He was like, it is a decent concept, good if both the couple are committed to each other but then the biggest challenge for them would be "how do they get their kids registered in school", "how do they get an accomodation" etc. That reflects the mind-sets prevalent in our city?. That left us wondering if live-in would work here now or in future..the bill for the lunch came, as usual Mr.I and Mr.S tricked Mr.K not to pay the bill by offering to pay in sodex-ho. Only in the evening Mr.K realised that it was a smart move by the guys to make him pay a more expensive bill in the "Lots can happen over coffee" shop..
Mr. K still thinks that Live - In is a decent idea.. to him the success behind any relationship is for both people to have real interest in each other ( no compromise on that ), respect each other's value system, a commitment to be together and make each other a better person and ofcourse they should feel at ease with no pretense between them and make each other laugh and grow old with each other.. anyways a lot of people now think being a "Divorce Lawyer" is a great profession to make one rich and the concept of "Live-In" is as good in sales as the jeans with the same name ...No takers..
Cheers!. Happy weekend..