Aamir Khan and Anushka Sharma's PK has been in the midst of numerous discussions in the later past.
Where on one hand the film has gotten a raving reaction from the gathering of people owing to its novel idea and execution, on the other, it has been a casualty of legitimate trouble.
Where on one hand the film has gotten a raving reaction from the gathering of people owing to its novel idea and execution, on the other, it has been a casualty of legitimate trouble.
It all started with Aamir Khan's bare posture on the first blurb of PK where he held just a transistor in one hand, to cover his reproductive organs.
The on-screen character's spell was termed as disgusting and obscene, and the notices were requested to be expelled from the stands.
Next arrived in a NGO called All India Human Rights and Social Justice Front, which expressed that the
film contains certain groupings which are sure to damage religious and otherworldly opinions of the individuals,
and thus ought to be banned. This episode was trailed by a FIR being stopped against the film's makers
Rajkumar Hirani and Sidharth Roy Kapur, by , Secretary of Hindu Legal Cell called Prashant Patel.
Reports propose that he documented a FIR as he accepted that the creators of PK have depicted the Hindu Gods, particularly Lord Shiva, in a negative manner.
The on-screen character's spell was termed as disgusting and obscene, and the notices were requested to be expelled from the stands.
Next arrived in a NGO called All India Human Rights and Social Justice Front, which expressed that the
film contains certain groupings which are sure to damage religious and otherworldly opinions of the individuals,
and thus ought to be banned. This episode was trailed by a FIR being stopped against the film's makers
Rajkumar Hirani and Sidharth Roy Kapur, by , Secretary of Hindu Legal Cell called Prashant Patel.
Reports propose that he documented a FIR as he accepted that the creators of PK have depicted the Hindu Gods, particularly Lord Shiva, in a negative manner.
Anyhow what's fascinating is that the Supreme Court prior had gone to the film's support, plainly expressing that
there was no compelling reason to boycott the film whatsoever. SC had rejected the supplication to boycott the film,
and rather asked viewers to "not watch the film," on the off chance that they had apprehensions with its assumption and presentation!
CM, said These are matters of stimulation. On the off chance that you confine it, it will influence others' rights. Everything is on the web. What will you cover up?"
Where numerous social associations appear to have issues with the presentation and the message of the film, the Supreme Court has yielded a totally diverse perspective
0 comments:
Post a Comment