Movies
Lights, camera, pause! Karnataka high court halts penalty on PVR over ad drama
MUMBAI: In a twist worthy of a courtroom thriller, the Karnataka high court has put the brakes on a Rs one lakh penalty slapped on PVR Cinemas and PVR Inox Ltd for their allegedly marathon-length advertisements. The cinema giants were ordered to deposit the sum with the consumer welfare fund, alongside compensation to a miffed moviegoer.
The plot thickened when justice M Nagaprasanna granted a stay order until 27 March, responding to a petition by the Multiplex Association of India and its stakeholder Shantanu Pai. Legal heavyweights Mukul Rohatgi and Uday Holla stepped into the spotlight to argue their case.
The original drama kicked off when Abhishek MR settled in to watch Sam Bahadur on 6 January 2024. What should have been a tidy 2 hours and 25 minutes turned into an extended sitting, as he endured what he called an “unnecessary” 25-minute pre-show advertisement marathon.
The Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Commission, playing hero to the movie-going masses, ordered PVR to compensate Abhishek for mental agony and legal costs. The commission went full director’s cut, attempting to dictate how cinema halls should run their shows and banned advertisements altogether.
The petitioners argued that the consumer forum had overstepped its mark by treating a personal grievance like a public interest litigation.
The high court, giving the consumer forum’s ruling two thumbs down, noted that their directions appeared to be “without jurisdiction.”
While the state government suggested an appeal to the state consumer forum, justice Nagaprasanna wasn’t about to let legal technicalities steal the show, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution.
For now, it seems the credits haven’t quite rolled on this legal blockbuster. The next hearing is scheduled for 27 March where the future of pre-show adverts hangs in the balance. As they say in the business: to be continued…
Hollywood
Did the ballet and opera controversy cost Timothée Chalamet his Oscar?
The actor’s ‘dying art forms’ comments may have danced away his Oscar chances.
LOS ANGELES: Last night, the 98th Academy Awards delivered a performance that wasn’t in the script, as Michael B. Jordan clinched the Best Actor statue, leaving Timothée Chalamet’s widely predicted win to pirouette away into the night. While Chalamet was long considered the frontrunner for his starring turn in Marty Supreme, many are whispering that a singular, ill-timed performance, not on screen but on the campaign trail, may have rewritten the finale.
For months, the narrative surrounding the race had a singular star, Chalamet, the critics’ darling and the bookies’ bet. However, the closing numbers saw a dramatic plot twist. Chalamet found himself upstaged not just by his fellow nominees but by the ghost of public opinion, following remarks he made during a Variety and CNN actor-on-actor conversation in February.
What started as a breezy discussion turned distinctly frosty when Chalamet, the conversation’s designated trendsetter, took aim at some classical institutions. “I don’t want to be working in ballet or opera, where no one is interested anymore,” he said, before branding them “dying art forms.”
The backlash was swift and, unfortunately for Chalamet’s campaign, star-studded. For the film industry, an establishment that often fancies itself as the glamorous custodian of the high arts, the actor’s comments didn’t just strike a bum note. They sounded like a discordant symphony. Academy heavyweights, including Jamie Lee Curtis, Whoopi Goldberg and Steven Spielberg, publicly voiced their disapproval. Spielberg himself countered that the “cinematic experience” and classical performance are bound by a similar dedication to audience engagement, effectively suggesting that Chalamet’s view was perhaps a bit too modern for its own good.
The conversation quickly became a media maelstrom. In a masterstroke of high-culture clapback, renowned ballerina Misty Copeland didn’t just issue a statement. The Academy even choreographed a surprise performance by her for the ceremony itself, a powerful, wordless rebuttal that many saw as a direct riposte to Chalamet’s dismissive claims. Even regional arts institutions joined the choreography. The Seattle Opera offered a cheeky “TIMOTHEE” discount, granting a 14 percent markdown to prove that people do, in fact, care.
Did this cultural counterpoint truly cost Chalamet his win? While some industry insiders argue that Michael B. Jordan’s complex dual performance in Sinners, a performance that also swept the SAG Awards, had simply built up too much momentum, the timing of Chalamet’s comments was undeniably poor. Coming as final Oscar voting began, they arguably soured his narrative and made a vote for him feel, to some, like a vote against artistic unity.
Even the ceremony itself wasn’t finished with the narrative. Host Conan O’Brien, whose sharp tongue is a celebrated feature of these galas, didn’t miss a beat. “Security is extremely tight tonight,” O’Brien jibed during his opening monologue, glancing toward the front row. “I’m told there are concerns about attacks from both the opera and ballet communities. They’re just mad you left out jazz!”
The laughter that followed was pointed, a final public curtain call for a controversy that Chalamet likely wished had closed weeks ago. Whether it was a case of genuine peer disapproval, a sudden surge in support for Jordan’s powerhouse performance, or simply a case of poor footwork on the campaign stage, the ballet and opera debacle has now cemented its place in Oscar history. Chalamet’s experience serves as a clear memo to future contenders. Even when you are the headline act, a solo performance can still fall flat if you forget to play to the entire house.
