I believe in taking risks: Jannat Zubair
After her last television show, Aapke Aa Jane Se, wrapped in 2019,
has not taken up another TV show. Ask her if she has stepped away from the small screen and she says, 'I'm currently shooting for some interesting OTT projects.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
It's never been about stepping away from TV, it's about choosing the right work.
I want to pick up work that I believe in, which adds to the performer and the actress in me.'
It's not easy to get projects of one's choice and needs a lot of patience, she agrees. But has that ever made her anxious? 'Not at all. I believe in taking risks. I'm young and I've got time to build something meaningful. There are no doubts or insecurities.
Patience and self-belief are non-negotiable,' says the actress.
Recently at an event abroad, Jannat got a chance to interact with one of her favourite stars
. Sharing her experience, she says, 'Meeting Tom Cruise was surreal. Watching him up close was like witnessing a masterclass in energy, dedication and sheer humility. I walked away with a new level of inspiration.'
Was there anything that caught her off guard? 'Not surprised, but deeply impressed. He's humble, which is rare for someone idolised at that scale. It was incredible to meet someone whose work I have admired for years.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
50 million followers but not a movie in 6 years: How some ‘actors' are thriving even without film projects
At 23, Jannat Zubair Rahmani is one of the most popular Indians on social media. She has an astounding 50 million Instagram followers, more than even superstars Shah Rukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai. Her Wikipedia page may describe her as an actor, but the last time Jannat was on the big screen was way back in 2018, when she had a cameo in Rani Mukerji's Hichki. She was 16 then. As an adult, Jannat has not worked in any film or appeared in a fiction show. Yet, thanks to Instagram and immense digital popularity, she is thriving in her career. And this isn't the story of Jannat alone. A number of actors popular on social media have realised that acting projects need not be their bread and butter. Jannat's case may be an extreme one, but there are several other former child stars who are selective with the films, but sustain their popularity through social media. Avneet Kaur, 23, began her career on TV at 8, and was a household name by her teens. Since her debut as a lead actor in Tiku Weds Sheru in 2023, she has done only one more film, which released a full year ago. She has not appeared in a TV show since the pandemic began. Yet, her social media popularity keeps growing. She has 32 million followers on Instagram, and Virat Kohli's 'like' may have contributed only 5% of that. A post shared by Jannat Zubair Rahmani (@jannatzubair29) These young actors grew up as the Instagram generation. They had verified accounts in their early teens and were already garnering more followers than Bollywood A-listers before they turned 18. To paraphrase what Bane said in The Dark Knight Rises, the Millennial stars adapted to Instagram, but these Gen Z were born with it, moulded by it. They leverage it like nobody else does. Case in point - Jannat and Avneet were among the only three Indians to meet Tom Cruise at the international premiere of Mission Impossible 8. No journalists or A-list actors were invited, but their social media clout made that possible. A post shared by Avneet Kaur (@avneetkaur_13) Slowly and gradually, older, relatively more established actors have taken note, too. Take Esha Gupta, for instance. The former Miss India made her Bollywood debut with Jannat in 2012. Over the next 7 years, she appeared in 12 more films in Hindi and one each in Tamil and Telugu. But the 2019 release, One Day: Justice Delivered, was her last big-screen appearance. She has appeared in three web series since, but even the last of those - Aashram season 3 - was 3 years ago. Yet, her popularity on social media has only increased. With 19 million followers, she is an A-lister on Instagram. Neha Sharma, of Chirutha and Crook fame, was last seen in a full-length role in Jogira Sara Ra Ra in 2023. In these two years, she has added 4 million Instagram followers without any film release. Niddhi Agerwal, once called Telugu cinema's next big thing, has acted in only eight films since her debut in 2017, the last of which was released in November 2022. Yet, her 30 million Instagram followers make her one of the top choices for brands on social media. A post shared by Neha Sharma 💫 (@nehasharmaofficial) Digital marketers say that actors are simply prioritising what is actually their bread and butter. For most of these stars, earnings from social media and brands far exceed what movies or web series give them. Even active actors like Disha Patani earn more from social media. Industry sources say that the actor, who does 2-3 films a year, earns ₹5-6 crore from them, but social media and brands can net her five times that amount in a year. That disparity drives their choices.
New Indian Express
2 days 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.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
When Tom Cruise surprised everyone by holding his breath for more than six minutes underwater
Tom Cruise always shows an indomitable spirit on screen, which is reflected in many of his famous stunts. The Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning star once recalled how during the shoot of Mission Impossible 5: Rogue Nation (2015), he trained with a freediving expert for a stunt to hold his breath underwater for six minutes and six seconds. 'Normally, people hold their breath for 10-15 seconds. So, I had to prove to everyone that it was actually safe and spend time with the safety officers to show them that it is possible, because I was going to be relaxed,' Cruise says in an undated video doing the rounds on social media. Notably, he practiced with safety officers to ensure the stunt was safe. He then pulled off the visually impressive scene in the film. Taking a cue from his candid admission, let's consider whether it is humanly possible to spend six minutes or more underwater. As fitness coach Varun Rattan says, holding your breath for six minutes requires patience and consistent practice. 'Start by establishing a baseline: while at rest, take a deep breath and hold it for as long as you can, stopping at the point of mild discomfort. Record this time—this is your starting point,' said Rattan. When practicing, ensure your mind is calm and your muscles are relaxed. 'Tensing up uses more oxygen and will increase your urge to breathe. Practice mindfulness or focus on bodily sensations during each hold,' shared Rattan. After each breath hold, allow yourself 10 to 12 deep, diaphragmatic breaths before attempting the next hold. 'Aim for 5 to 10 breath holds per session, and try to increase your hold duration with each session. Any improvement above your baseline is progress. However, if your hold times fall below your baseline, you may not be well rested and should take it easy,' Rattan elaborated. Practice both full exhale and full inhale during your training. Once comfortable holding your breath for two to three minutes, begin practicing underwater. 'It's a good idea to do this under supervision, at least for the first few days. Remember, panicking or moving underwater will increase your oxygen consumption and shorten your breath-hold duration,' said Rattan. A post shared by cineatomy (@cineatomy) What to note? Rattan said that while it is good to challenge oneself and one's ability for a professional commitment, it should strictly be under guidance with safety precautions in place. 'If not needed, don't even attempt,' said Rattan. DISCLAIMER: This article is based on information from the public domain and/or the experts we spoke to. Always consult your health practitioner before starting any routine.
