So 1995, So What?

Ever find yourself infuriated by certain words or phrases? The kind whose usage in everyday conversation is often enough to trigger an explosion in your head? Lately, I've discovered that putting a contemporary spin or contextual twist on an otherwise innocuous word is sufficient to drive me nuts. Take, for example, the Americanism "sweet" (to be rolled off the tongue "sweeeet", in order to convey vehement approval), as made famous by this scene from Dude Where's my Car?. Then there's "not" - as in the 'not' jokes, suitably parodied in Borat. The effect of such usage is to not merely chip away at your nerves, but also numb your senses to the extent that you find yourself using those very words.

The latest word to get my goat is "so", used in conjunction with a specific period in time, in such a manner as to ascribe datedness to something. Sample: "You still own a discman? That is so 1999, man!" Or, "Multi-cuisine restaurants are so 1994." And even, "Those clothes are so, like, yesterday" ('Like'? The list is growing). Being an unabashed nostalgic and often prone to living in the past, my annoyance at this currently-in-vogue expression isn't all that surprising.

Perhaps I should take a leaf out of Krish Ashok's book - or a line from his blog, at any rate: "Ranting...is so Blogosphere circa 2003".

Current Music: Therapy? - Bad Karma follows you around

Skin deep

During one of my visits to the Bay Area, I chanced upon a copy of the Desi Tribune. As the name suggests, it turned out to be a regional daily catering specifically to California's large Indian population, with an accent on the latest news from back home. It read like an issue of Deccan Chronicle, or the Bangalore Times - poor standards of writing and editing, more information about the lives of b-list celebrities than you'd normally bargain for, and providing some comic relief all the same. That day's issue carried an article about actress Anjana Sukhani, and focused on her statement that she would consider wearing a bikini on screen only if "the role required it". This got me thinking (which is just what you're supposed to do when confronted with material of this sort, right?) about how the bikini has seemingly caused everyone in Bollywood and the audience to re-examine their sensibilities, and has provided so much fodder for the media to fill up print-space and airtime. We've come to the point where actresses, fully aware that displays of bare flesh are likely to have them pigeonholed, must insist that they will be taking up "only serious roles" in the future, if only to reaffirm their acting credentials. It comes with being subject to our society's ultra-high standards.

What has me intrigued, however, is that I seem to remember the likes of Zeenat Aman, Sharmila Tagore, Parveen Babi and Dimple Kapadia (among others) appearing on screen in skimpy swimwear back in the day. How come their credibility doesn't appear to have suffered for it? How come those images have aged gracefully into culthood, as opposed to the notoriety which seems to accompany the ones of today? How come today's heroines have such a big cross to bear, and must resort to the will-wear-if-role-demands-it line when asked about it? Or was it a similar story in the 70s and, belonging to a different era, we'll simply never know about the controversy generated then which might have faded over time? Pop-culture theorists and film junkies, feel free to unleash your greater wisdom on me.

Current Music: Crowded House - Don't dream it's over