Krushna Abhishek and sons recreate Charlie Chaplin's world
Krushna Abhishek with Rayaan and Krishaang recreate Charlie Chaplin's world (Pics by: Kunal Verma)
Krushna Abhishek
recently did a fun shoot with his
twins
, Rayaan and Krishaang, inspired by the classic
Charlie Chaplin
film
The Kid
. The actor-comedian says, 'I've been a huge fan of Charlie Chaplin since I was a kid. I've seen almost all his films and acts.
One day, I rewatched The Kid, in which he shares the screen with a young boy, and it instantly reminded me of my kids.
I looked at the child in the film and thought, 'Arre, ye toh Chiku-Piku lag rahe hain!' Hamare bachhe bhi angrez hi lagte hain (laughs).'
That's when the idea of a photoshoot struck him. He shares, 'My kids are seven now and I thought this was the best time to click some interesting pictures. This shoot is something we will cherish forever.'
'I was amazed by how expressive my kids were'
From costumes to set design, everything was carefully thought out. 'We picked a quaint setup in Goregaon East. The kids got fully into character, and honestly, I was amazed by how expressive they were.
Jaise bolo, waise karte hain
,' he says, adding, 'They're full of masti. They don't act up much around their mom, but are totally chilled with me. During the shoot they were doing everything I said — posing, acting and goofing around.'
He kept the entire thing a secret from his wife, actress
Kashmera Shah
. He says, 'She was in America at the time, and I surprised her with the pictures after she returned. She was floored.'
'This time won't come back'
Getting nostalgic, Krushna shared how this shoot made him reflect on childhood memories. 'We didn't get too many photos framed back in the day. There's just one picture of my sister (Arti Singh) and me from our childhood adorning one of the walls of my home. I wish we had more. But now, thanks to social media, everything gets saved somewhere. Still, this time won't come back. That's why I knew this was the perfect moment for a shoot like this,' he signs off.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
13 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Why even a free ticket won't tempt me to watch Tom Cruise's latest Mission Impossible
My non-nerdy, 16-year-old nephew, who loves boom-boom flicks, emerged from Oppenheimer looking like he figured out quantum physics. "Loved it!" he declared with the fervour of a recent convert, surprising me. Oppenheimer is a three-hour dense tangle of theoretical physics, moral swamp, and men muttering gravely in rooms. Despite reading the biography, I struggled with the film. So, I asked my nephew what he liked. Pat came the answer: everything. It was only when I probed for specifics that his mouth went dry. He hadn't necessarily been electrified by fission or Oppenheimer's tortured soul, but had been swept up in the zeitgeist, the social maelstrom that demands you adore the Officially Approved Cultural Moment. Though I didn't ask, I'm sure of what he'd be hooked to this May-June 2025: Tom Cruise. Ah, Tom. The man who doesn't just run from danger, he courts it like it were his only true love. Every time a new Mission: Impossible parachutes into theatres, I see a similar phenomenon: audiences roar, critics bow, and the collective narrative becomes, "Did you SEE what he DID?!" The man scales cliffs! Dangles from planes! Pilots helicopters through canyons! It's undeniably impressive, a dedication bordering on the pathological. But here's my multi-million-dollar question: Does the sheer, jaw-dropping spectacle of Tom Cruise tempting Yamraj automatically translate into great cinema? Or is it, perhaps, just a really expensive, really dangerous magic trick we are compelled to clap to just because Tom risked his life for it and makes it a point to scream that he did? Before the torches and pitchforks come for me, I'll acknowledge our roots. Cinema was practically born doing pratfalls. Charlie Chaplin turned getting kicked into high art. Buster Keaton seemed like he was made of rubber and pure lunacy. Those original explorers of cinema risked life and limb (Keaton didn't notice a broken neck for 11 years!) for a laugh or a gasp. But here's my point: those thrills were woven into something more. Pathos. Romance. Social commentary wrapped in slapstick: Chaplin's The Kid still makes my tissue supply run out. And remember, most of these early films were one-reelers, roughly 15 minutes long, or just over an hour (The Kid was 68 minutes, Keaton's The General: 67 minutes). Holding attention with pure kinetic energy for a quarter of an hour or an hour is doable. But maintaining momentum for two-and-a-half hours: now that's the real mission impossible. Think about it. What does a truly memorable action film need to succeed beyond the initial adrenaline rush? It requires an emotional drive. A reason to care for the character who is jumping off the cliff, why they're running down the Burj Khalifa, and what happens after the helicopter lands. It needs suspense that coils alongside your intestine, characters you root for or hate, a plot that isn't just connective tissue between explosions but is actually a story. Alright, pop quiz, hotshot! (my favourite line from Speed) Think back to the last, say, five Mission: Impossible films. What comes to mind? Is it the intricate web of espionage? The heart-stopping betrayal of a trusted ally? The nuanced character arc of... anyone? Or is it, perhaps: Cruise dangling off a plane, falling off a building, jumping on his bike off a cliff... Tom Cruise just... running! The plot often boils down to: Tom Cruise does impossible stunts in search of something-something, while being chased by someone-someone. The setting changes. The place of the chase changes, but the story, like Tom, doesn't. Don't get me wrong, those stunts are phenomenal. Watching Tom pilot that helicopter in Fallout was edge-of-the-seat stuff. Henry Cavill reloading his biceps mid-fight was peak action delight. But ask yourself: What else happened in that film? What were the stakes beyond "world ends"? Who were the characters beyond "person Tom needs to chase" or "person chasing Tom"? Did it resonate? Did anything... linger? This isn't just about Mission: Impossible, though it's the current exhibit. It's a broader question in most Hollywood tentpole films: Is this spectacle-first approach what passes for good cinema today? And more importantly, is it good for cinema? Look, I'm not trying to be the cantankerous Century Gowda passing judgments on all in Thithi. Cinema is a vast, glorious buffet in which belongs as much the brainy indie, as tear-jerkers, fart comedies, and yes, glorious, bone-crunching action films. In fact, I adore action flicks. From the little-known The Warriors, to the famous Enter the Dragon, the initially underrated Rocky, flamboyant Predator and Mad Max, the realism of Heat and the nimbleness of Speed and Con Air, the red pill of Matrix, the bone-crushing scenes of The Raid and Ong Bak... I devoured Marvel up until the multiverse made one film look no different from the other. Why do these films endure? Because beneath the explosions, the gunfire, the flying fists, they had heart. They had a story. They built worlds and characters I cared about. I've never boxed, but I love Rocky for its grit, redemption, and Adrian! Neo's journey is a philosophical rabbit hole disguised in leather coats and bullet time, more relevant in today's age of AI and deepfakes than it was then. The relentless simplicity of Speed became my template as a screenwriter. The action was the icing, but the cake – the emotional core, the narrative drive – was substantial and satisfying. It made the action mean something. Lately, however, the Mission: Impossible franchise feels increasingly like an elaborate, globe-trotting stage for Tom Cruise's increasingly insane death wish. It's less "impossible mission", more "impossible insurance premiums." I understand the historical precedent – the Keatons and Jackie Chans who built legends on physical risk. I have immense respect for Cruise's dedication. The man is a force of nature. I've watched every BTS video, winced at every rumoured broken bone, and marvelled at his sheer commitment. But here's the rub: Admiring the daredevilry isn't the same as endorsing it as the sole pillar of cinematic worth. Gladiators bled for the crowd's amusement, but I watch action films to escape the brutality of the real world, not to vicariously participate in potentially lethal filmmaking practices that could kill its actors. The idea that an actor must flirt with mortality to "authenticate" a scene? That the primary marketing hook is "Come see Tom Cruise almost die!"? Sorry, count me out. It feels less like filmmaking and more like a high-stakes circus act. It feels... irresponsible. And frankly, a little ghoulish. So, no, I won't be queuing for Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part Whatever. Not even for a free ticket. My pesky conscience won't allow it. I'm not trying to be a killjoy, but I want to advocate for cinema that aspires to be more than just a stunt reel. I know, I know. This is cinematic heresy. An unpopular opinion shouted into the gale-force winds of a $150-million marketing blitz. But hear me out. We need perspective. We need to put things back in their proper boxes. A film, a truly good film, is a complex equation. It's multiple emotions sparking, stories intertwining, ideas colliding, all coalescing into a cohesive whole that captures our imagination, engages our intellect, and holds our attention, not just through spectacle, but through substance. That's the real high-wire act. That's the genuine Mission Impossible. And marketing blitz? Studios routinely spend more on promoting a film than making it. Their agenda is simple: bombard you, hypnotise you, make the film unmissable through sheer aural and visual dominance. But our agenda – yours and mine – should be simple: like or dislike a film based on its actual merits. Our focus must be on the story, the acting, the direction, the craft – not the poster size or the number of times Cruise appears in your Instagram feed. But are we doing that? Or are we getting swept away in the tsunami of hype? Are we thinking for ourselves, feeling our own genuine reactions, or are we passively absorbing the pre-packaged emotions sold to us, mistaking the pizzaz for the pizza? Marketing is just doing its job. But our job is to demand and appreciate the actual pizza. Would you eat something utterly foul just because it was wrapped in gold foil and advertised by a dancing dragon? Then why do we so often accept cinematic fast food just because it's been supersized and deep-fried in marketing dollars? Don't mistake this for Tom Cruise slander. I admire the man's dedication. If I had even a fraction of his work ethic, I'd be a GOAT too. His commitment to giving audiences a visceral experience is undeniable. He is, in many ways, the last of a dying breed (hopefully not literally dying, Tom, please be careful). But my point, wrapped in as much wit as I can muster, remains stubbornly simple: Death-defying stunts are breathtaking. They are audacious. They are worthy of applause. But they are not, and never can be, a substitute for the equally difficult, equally vital art of good filmmaking. That's the real cliff we need cinema to scale. The rest is just gravity.
India.com
a day ago
- India.com
The Great Indian Kapil Show cast fee: Per episode fee of Kapil Sharma is Rs…, Sunil Grover, Krushna Abhishek, Archana Puran Singh get Rs…
Comedian Kapil Sharma is at the pinnacle of success today. It is well known how much he has struggled to reach here. Now he is soon returning to Netflix with 'The Great Indian Kapil Show'. Its third season is going to hit soon. Shooting has also started. Meanwhile, news is coming out about Kapil's fees. He is charging crores for an episode, which you will be stunned to know the exact amount. The Great Indian Kapil Show is returning with its third season. Kapil Sharma will host it. His team includes stars from Krushna Abhishek to Sunil Grover. The Great Indian Kapil Show: cast fees The third season of The Great Indian Kapil Show is all set to return to Netflix soon, and led by Kapil Sharma, the hit talk show features a talented team of comedians and actors, including Sunil Grover and Krushna Abhishek. Let's find out how much the star cast charges. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Netflix India (@netflix_in) Rs 5 crore per episode? You will be stunned to hear the amount that Kapil Sharma is charging for each episode of this show. According to the report of Free Press Journal, Kapil Sharma is charging Rs 5 crore for each episode! Sunil Grover Sunil Grover earns Rs 25 lakh per episode. Let us tell you that Sunil surprises everyone with his amazing acting. Krushna Abhishek According to media reports, Krushna Abhishek works in TV as well as films and he also charges up to Rs 10 lakh for each episode. Archana Puran Singh Actress Archana Puran Singh, who laughs as a judge, also earns a lot of money and she gets around Rs 10 lakh per episode. Rajiv Thakur Rajiv Thakur is also associated with Kapil's show, and he also earns Rs 6 lakh per episode for making you laugh in this show. The third season of 'The Great Indian Kapil Show' is set to begin on 21 June 2025. Talking about the third season, Kapil said that he is 'feeling like coming home to the family.' It is being said that the first episode of the new season will feature none other than Bollywood superstar Salman Khan.
Pink Villa
4 days ago
- Pink Villa
Deepika Padukone's team-up with Atlee, Allu Arjun in AA22 X A6 sparks comparisons with her exit from Sandeep Reddy Vanga's Spirit
Deepika Padukone sure knows how to rule the internet. The actress has left all her fans rejoicing after an official announcement of her collaboration with Atlee and Allu Arjun for their next film was made. The film is titled AA22 X A6. This has come just days after her controversial exit from Sandeep Reddy Vanga's Spirit opposite Prabhas. And it does not come as a surprise to us when fans are comparing the actress's exit from one film to her entry in the other one. The moment a joint post was made about Deepika Padukone being the leading lady in AA22 X A6 opposite Allu Arjun, the excitement levels of fans have reached its peak. Interestingly, this has come just days after the Piku actress's fallout with Sandeep Reddy Vanga. As much as netizens are happy for their star to bag a new film, they cannot stop comparing her collab with Atlee to her exit from Spirit. Showing their excitement levels about AA22 X A6, one fan wrote, 'Something really grand is on the way'. Another fan shared the clip of the actress' prep and wrote, 'not a fan of deepika but damn'. A third fan wrote, 'India's No.1 Actor @alluarjun, India's No.1 Actress @deepikapadukone. This Collaboration Gonna Be Something Very Huge Brace Yourself for the Never before Mass Hysteria.' Well, on the one hand, where fans showered love on this collab, there were some who took a slight dig at Sandeep Reddy Vanga as well. One of the fans wrote, 'Deepika Padukone reject Prabhas for Allu Arjun.' Another fan shared a clip from the announcement video of AA22 X A6, where the Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani actress lifts a sword and makes a gesture to the camera about coming ahead and fighting. Sharing this clip, the fan wrote, 'Deepika to Sandeep Reddy Vanga:' These tweets are surely going to make you feel how seriously fans have taken this. Ranveer Singh too is quite excited with wifey Padukone coming on board for Atlee's next. The Simmba actor wrote, 'Whuoa!' with a love-struck, fire and clapping hands emoji. Apart from this Allu Arjun starrer, Deepika will also be joining hands with Shah Rukh Khan for King. Stay tuned to Pinkvilla for more such updates.
