Akshay Kumar clears air on why he first refused Special 26
- Foreign Secretary Jaishankar visits China ahead of NSG plenary in Seoul
- Set of six logbooks Khan left with lawyer could hold key to Essar Tapes
- Was open (to second term), consulted govt... will return to academia: Rajan
- Tavleen Singh writes: Attitude of political Hindutva elements within BJP must change if it wants to win UP polls
- Across the aisle: Fake encounter with facts, fake controversy
Special 26 has released and accolades have already started coming in. What seemed like a good movie in the offering has indeed turned out to be the case with Neeraj Pandey spinning an entertaining tale once again after A Wednesday. The only complaint that an average moviegoer has from the filmmaker is the long gap between the two films.
While the stories have already been floating around how the filmmaker had pitched the film to Akshay Kumar long ago and an apparent 'miscommunication' with the superstar's office had resulted in the script not really finding a second helping (until Pandey tried his luck again), one hasn't really heard about the real reason from the man at the hot seat.
Well, this is what Akshay has to say.
"There is a huge difference when someone hands me a script and says 'Read it, let me know what do you think?', to coming back to me after a polite refusal a few years later with the narrators of the screenplay, and having it read to me with the passion of Robin Hood & the Prince of Thieves", smiles Akshay.
"See, I am not a reader. I am not blessed with the skills of making something sound interesting. In my head I read a story like 'Once upon a time there was a bad man'. But then in the head of the scriptwriter, it sounds like 'Once upon a time there was a convict King who had 26 conniving con-men who would bring me riches that would blow the mind of the Queen of England herself!", he adds in an animated tone.
This is exactly what happened when Pandey and his team approached Akshay again and the reading sessions that followed brought home an altogether different perspective for all involved, hence resulting in the actor consenting to do the film.
- No party aspires to radically transform UP. Each wants power for its own sake
- No one can declare that Ishrat, others were ‘terrorists’. That power belongs to the courts
- Indic religions don't believe that theirs the only God. This must not change
- The coaching industry wreaks an enormous social toll. What must be the policy response?
- There is an attempt to portray student activism as mere rabble-rousing
- Willingness to engage with ideas has to come from intellectuals, not political parties