Talmiz Ahmad's comments were quite inappropriate and untimely, utilising his official position, when the majority of the film viewers took it to their heart. As Deepa Mehta says he has all the right to express his opinion against the film. But what led to his attacking on the film so severely? There is nothing in the film that generalises or justifies a bad deed which as he fears would destroy the images we built up so far. There is nothing derogatory to the clan of diplomats who seldom feel the pulse of a common man. He could take the story as a one off case. Has he or his core of diplomats done anything to stem such incidents back at their fort? I strongly feel that he belongs to a group that went againt 'Pather Panjali', ''Fire'', ''Water'', ''Slumdog Millionaire'' etc, claiming that they all had exposures on India's underbelly. Rough realities make a few who believe in window dressing unhappy. Why a majority of the film viewers did like the film? Why do we want to come out fully and elegantly dressed when we have burning issues snigger on us? We are in front to cover our shortcomings and appear swankily, covering all holes with darkness! One has to see more films and climb down to the realities that pull us back from getting on to goosebumps as the biggest democracy.
I represent a group of serious filmviewers who certainly believe in responding to injustice and unjustifiable social practices and deem 'Çooking with it Stella' is a mode of self criticism brought out by Deepa Mehta Dilip Mehta through their own medium.
