Aishwarya Rai shot Chalte Chalte for a day, director Aziz Mirza recalls why Rani Mukerji replaced her
Shah Rukh Khan and Rani Mukerji's Chalte Chalte was a box office success upon release in 2003. Fans loved the chemistry between the two leads and Rani received praised for her performance. But did you know Rani was not the first choice for the film? It was Aishwarya Rai who was originally cast in the film, and even shot for a day. Director Aziz Mirza told in a new interview with Radio Nasha Official what made the change in casting. (Also read: When Aishwarya Rai was 'hurt' about being removed from five films: 'Became obvious that it can happen to me too')
During the interview, Aziz recalled the memories of Chalte Chalte and said, 'I don't know. Anyway. These are areas which are unfortunately… we had done only that one song that we had started… that song with the truck named Prem Nagariya ki… that began only for a day and unfortunately the matter did not go ahead. Then Rani came in.'
Aziz when on to add that Rani did an 'excellent' job in the film. She played the role of Priya Chopra in the film.
Although Aziz did not directly state the reason why Aishwarya was replaced in the film, several reports suggest personal issues related to Aishwarya's then relationship and subsequent fallout with Salman Khan as a contributing factor to the replacement.
Aishwarya had talked about this incident on Rendezvous with Simi Garewal where she said that never got the reason why she was removed from multiple films in quick succession.
Aishwarya and Shah Rukh went on to work in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Devdas. They were last seen together in Karan Johar's Ae Dil Hai Mushkil in 2016. On the work front, Aishwarya was last seen in Mani Ratnam's Ponniyin Selvan: 2.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Here's the real reason why Rani Mukerji and Akshay Kumar have never shared screen space with each other
Akshay Kumar and Rani Mukerji have been around since the 90s and despite the fact that both of them achieved such stardom and popularity, the duo have never been paired opposite each other on screen. While one wonders why they have never shared screen space with each other, there could be multiple reasons for it - perhaps either professional setbacks or their personal choices. Rani was approached for 'Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi' in 1996. But according to a report in Lehren, the actress turned down the role as Akshay was a part of the film and she was reluctant to share screen space with a newcomer like him. Eventually, Raveena Tandon was cast and the film was a huge hit. Later, she was also approached for 'Sangharsh' in 1999. But she also refused to be a part of the project, because Akshay was in the film. Eventually, Preity Zinta was cast. The actress again declined the opportunity to work with him in 'Awara Paagal Deewana' in 2002 which further contributed to estrangement between the two actors. Post that, it was being said that Akshay purposely chose to not collaborate with the actress after these three instances. Reportedly, se was also supposed to be a part of 'Tashan'. Eventually, Kareena Kapoor Khan was cast in the movie. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Why Didn't Anyone Tell You About This Power Saver? elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Pre-Order Undo However, a post on Reddit also pointed this out and it said, "In Akshay career spanning over 32 years and Rani career spanning 27 years it is quite interesting that they have never been in movie together or even in a single scene despite being massive stars at the same time especially during all of the 2000s. If they had worked together in a rom com/dramedy or a masala type movie it would've been huge in my opinion especially released in the 2000s. They would've been a huge hit on screen couple too. Rani and Akshay have great comedic timing and also are known for their romantic roles as well so it would be a no brainer to cast them in a film together but it never happened. I did read somewhere about 2 films where it almost happened but due to scheduling conflicts it didn't work out. Its surprising to me that both being massive stars during their initial prime didn't get to work with each other on a movie. I feel it's a treat us movie watchers never got to experience. I feel they would have had amazing on screen chemistry." While these two actors haven't been seen together on screen, fans would really hope that now someday, they would get to see them together. There has never really been any rift or feud between them through the years though, but somehow their personal choices or professional decisions never let them come together.
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
Aishwarya Mohanraj Reveals The Story Behind Her Name And It's Not What You Think
Last Updated: Aishwarya Mohanraj shared the story behind her name and it came with a plot twist that fans couldn't get enough of. Behind every name, there lies a story. Sometimes it's inspired by our parents, grandparents or siblings and sometimes it's borrowed from a fictional character or a film star. Comedian Aishwarya Mohanraj shared the story behind her name and it came with a plot twist that fans couldn't get enough of. Given her name, many assume she was named after the graceful Aishwarya Rai. After all, Aishwarya Mohanraj was born in 1994 — the very same year Aishwarya Rai won the Miss World crown. But here comes the first twist. Taking to Instagram, Mohanraj shared a video revealing the real story behind her name. She explained, 'Aishwarya Rai became Miss World in 1994 and I was born in 1994, so obviously people assume that I was named after her. But I was born on July 26, and she became Miss World on November 19, so I was not named after her." So, how did she end up being named Aishwarya? She revealed that too. She shared, 'When my mom was young, she used to attend 'Bal Vikas' classes where they taught about gods, prayers, scriptures, and good values. Every year, they'd put up a value-based play with songs, dances, and drama. When my mom was 14, she took part in one such play. One of the characters was Mother India, played by a nine-year-old girl named Aishwarya." It was the first time her mother had heard the name, and she instantly fell in love with it. The girl's charm and innocence left such a lasting impression that her mother decided that if she ever had a daughter, she would name her Aishwarya. Cut to 14 years later, she gave birth to a daughter and named her Aishwarya. But here comes the second twist. 'Fourteen years after that play, she gave birth to her daughter and named her Aishwarya. Fourteen years after that play, the girl who played Mother India went on to become Miss World—Aishwarya Rai," Mohanraj revealed, leaving everyone stunned. Connecting these beautiful coincidences with humour, she wrapped it up by saying, 'So I guess, I am named after her." The storytelling, filled with charm and surprises left fans delighted, One fan commented, 'Plot I was not ready for," while another fan wrote, 'I'm fully convinced that your life is a movie and we're all side characters including Aishwarya. She's there just for the plot and the plot is great." Yes, this truly feels like the script of a short film and what could be filmier than her caption itself: 'Phir apne mohalle mein Aishwarya aayi." First Published:
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
How Dilip Kumar let it all out on the screen
By the time Indian cinema entered its classical phase in the late 1940s, Dilip Kumar had completed his self-discovery as an actor to a large extent. The basic features of his hero were earmarked: an introvert who had been wronged, takes it to his heart and generates a complete catharsis of a whole range of emotions. He portrayed the search for an ideal self—one proclaiming true emancipation through love but desires it to be materialized only in a just society; and as that is not possible in actual reality, the self has to perish to validate this idealized conviction. The actor, in fact, represented the popular novelist Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay's model of a vulnerable, self-destructing hero in Bengali literature. Several of his films depicted Dilip Kumar as an unrequited lover seeking a kind of liberation from the unjust world through a prolonged internalized suffering (often ending in death) as seen in S.U. Sunny's Mela, S.K. Ojha's Hulchul (1951), Nitin Bose's Deedar and Gunga Jumna (1961), Ram Daryani's Tarana (1951), Bimal Roy's Devdas, S.U. Sunny's Uran Khatola (1955), Hrishikesh Mukherjee's Musafir (1957) and K. Asif's Mughal-e-Azam (1960). In contrast, he, during this phase, was also seen in somewhat morbid anti-hero characters such as in Shaheed Latif's Arzoo (1950), S.U. Sunny's Babul, Mehboob Khan's Andaz and Amar, and R.C. Talwar's Sangdil (1952). Explaining the roles Dilip Kumar played in most of his films right through the 1950s, Nikhat Kazmi says: '[He] always opted for internal emigration as a course of action. This was a great escape. A voyage into the unknown, which is undertaken not because one is enticed, but because one is disgusted by something. In his iconoclasm, he represented a rebellion that was akin to that of the Bohemians of Baudelaire's age. He was like the group of desperadoes who tried to break away from the nice and easy positivism of bourgeois society. Charles Baudelaire, Verlaine, Arthur Rimbaud, Paul Gauguin, Van Gogh were the tramps, the heavy drinkers and the unrivalled artists who chose to destroy everything in themselves that may be of no use to society, who raged against themselves too. For them and for the hero as immortalized by Dilip Kumar, happiness itself was something that is banal and vulgar. In a letter of 1845, addressed to a friend, Baudelaire writes: 'You are a happy man, I feel sorry for you, Sir, for being happy so easily. A man must have sunk low to consider himself happy.' However, Dilip Kumar never wanted to sink so low. On the contrary, he doggedly sought nobility in sorrow and imbued it with a romanticism that lingers even today." Remember his famous dialogue from Devdas: Kaun kambakat hai jo bardasht karne ke liye peeta hai, main to peeta hun ki bas saans ley sakun (Which wretched person drinks to tolerate, I drink so that I can at least take a breath.) No wonder, the world of acting often ushers performers into the limelight, where performance anxiety can run high. The stakes are elevated, and heart rate may surge. Surprisingly, sometimes this stress can become a catalyst for improved performance, embracing the concept of positive stress in challenging situations. However, a more complex challenge arises when method actors choose to inhabit their characters beyond the stage or camera's lens. As they tap into past emotional experiences, whether joyful or traumatic, unresolved emotions can linger. This emotional baggage may manifest as heightened emotional instability, intensified anxiety, fear or even a sense of falsehood, accompanied by bouts of acute sleep deprivation. Such emotional turbulence can pave the way for psychological distress, leading to emotional fatigue. According to experts, this emotional fatigue often arises when actors create dissonance between their actions and authentic feelings. Research indicates that when method acting is employed judiciously and with proper emotional regulation, it need not lead to excessive fatigue. The key lies in striking a balance between immersion in the character and the ability to resurface, ensuring a harmonious coexistence of art and emotional well-being. Dilip Kumar's profound commitment to his roles and his deep involvement with the character he portrayed, in film after film, at that stage of his career, led to serious psychological issues, so much so that he had to consult a psychiatrist in England. The advice given was simple: switch to comic roles, which he did with aplomb and poise! His consummate performances in S.M.S. Naidu's Azaad (1959) and S.U. Sunny's Kohinoor (1960) in a carefree, jovial and jaunty manner revealed how he could move from one genre to another with remarkable ease and finesse. However, later in A. Bhim Singh's Gopi (1970) and Tapan Sinha's Bengali film Sagina Mahato (1970), Sagina in Hindi (1974) and Asit Sen's Bairaag (1976), Dilip Kumar attempted to introduce some new elements in his acting style, though not always with much success. He designed his comedy through an over-talkative, one-track mind and as an obsessed simpleton who was a victim of the circumstances, but unlike his earlier roles, he did not internalize his suffering; he responded to it with a sense of simplicity, quite the same way Raj Kapoor did in film after film. He also improvised his mannerisms spontaneously to depict the character he was portraying on the screen such as repeatedly jerking his head and clinking his eyes. However, the audience did not take to it... Dilip Kumar's second innings began with the 1981 multi-starrer Kranti by Manoj Kumar followed by Ramesh Sippy's Shakti. Eight films followed through the 1980s and another three in the 1990s, in which Dilip Kumar made his presence felt with his individualistic stamp and authority. These films included Subhash Ghai's Vidhaata (1982), Karma (1986) and Saudagar (1991), Ravi Chopra's Mazdoor (1983), and Yash Chopra's Mashaal (1984), not of course counting the 1998 Qila by Umesh Mehra, which was a complete dud... Excerpted with permission from The Man Who Became Cinema: Dilip Kumar, published by Penguin Random House India. Also read: 'Jungle Nama': A thrilling play for children reimagines the myth of Bonbibi
