In New Kings of the World, Bhutto takes us on a tour of the three cultural phenomena that are poised to overthrow the US's worldwide intellectual dominance. Although US music and fashion still maintain a large share of the market, youth populations in other areas of the world struggle to reconcile the disconnect between popular culture and their own cultures. K-pop, dizis (Turkish dramas) and Bollywood provide a solution to the problem by allowing people to consume media with themes and values more similar to their own. From Shah Rukh Khan fan clubs in South America to dizi viewing parties among the Syrian refugee population in Lebanon these "New Kings of the World" are a solid middle ground, and in many cases, they're an example of how other countries can create entertainment industries without abandoning their traditions.

Bhutto's book was well-written and informative. She includes interviews not only from those making the media but also from those consuming it. Because the situation is not black and white, Bhutto explains the politics surrounding the different forms of media, debunking the notion that "west is best" while also listing reasons some people might still believe that it is.

I would like to give New Kings of the World a higher rating, but while illustrating the relationship between culture and religion, Bhutto writes that Muslims talk to God /through/ the Prophet or other intermediaries such as saints. This is not only incorrect, it's a grave sin in Islam. I'm not the person who believes in one particular version of Islam, but there are certain things that are expressly forbidden and talking "through" someone is one of them. This passage made me doubt the validity of the research, but enough of the information lined up with my own research that I trust the book overall and I even recommend it to others.

I received a free digital copy of this book via NetGalley in exchange for my honest review. I missed the publication date, so I purchased the audiobook. I've not seen many Bollywood films - in fact, I can only think of one and that happened to be a Disney film aired on Netflix. It's one of my favorite films, as I don't mind subtitles, and I love the sugary-sweet fairy tale. What drew me to this book, was the promise of a discussion of Turkish Dizi. I was curious for insight into what is driving the popularity of Dizi across the globe, as I have become a fan over the last 18 months or so. Sadly for me, this book lacks concrete answers, and really is far more focused on Bollywood and India vs Pakistan politics. The tone is decidedly anti-American, and that made it a little more difficult to read. I have to give the author love for claiming Cukur as one of her favorite Dizi dramas as it is my absolute favorite of the several I've seen.

If you are looking for a treatise on the politics of Bollywood, this might be of interest to you. Again, the topic of Bollywood and Indian/Pakistani politics takes up nearly 60% of the book. If your interest lies with Dizi, there's some interesting information here, and brief interviews with Kivanc Tatlitug, which I know will make my fellow US Dizi fans happy. I did find the apparent spat between the Saudis and the Turkish President interesting, especially how it impacted Dizi in the Middle East. However, if you want detailed insight into K-Pop, you'll need to look elsewhere, as K-Pop is only touched upon in the Epilogue.

TL;DR Some interesting information on Bollywood, Dizi, and K-Pop as they relate to global politics, but overall, disappointing.

Disclaimer: I received this as an eARC via NetGalley in partnership with the publisher, for a fair and unbiased review.
———————————————————

Given that my obsession with Bollywood is relatively new (in the last 2 years) and dizi (the last year), and I sort of fell into them, I figured this would be worth the read. If you don’t already have some sort of context for the Bollywood overuse of SRK, then a lot will be lost on the reader. Her goal of talking about three topics was a bit lofty, and the latter two (K-Pop and Dizi) didn’t receive nearly as much due diligence as the section about Bollywood, Indo-Pakistani political relations, and Shah Rukh Khan.

“Dispatch” is definitely a good word for this, but I think it would’ve been better if each topic had its own “dispatch” book/feature; the brevity of dizis and K-pop leads to believe that she just didn’t have the resources and time to dedicate to really go in-depth like she could have (granted, K-Pop is also new, in comparison to the other two). I will say, I greatly appreciated and enjoyed her inclusion of political context for the countries and how it affected culture/social situations, and references to different movies and dizis (more to add to my list!). For someone who wants context before they dive into the world of Bollywood, this is would be a decent source with which to start.

The travel magazine Afar sends writers on a trip to an undisclosed location at a very short notice and asks them to write about their experience for a section called Spin the globe. Fatima Bhutto's New Kings of the World is from a series of books by publishers at Columbia Global Reports that adapts a somewhat similar format. The publication sends writers around the world to produce slim volumes of books mostly to report on culture and politics (which is why the book is slim in nature, designed to attract the millennial with increasingly lesser and lesser attention spans). Bhutto's New Kings of the World traces the soft powers of the (third? may be not entirely) world from Bollywood to Turkish TV series to K-Pop sensations. Filled with terrific insights and observations, Bhutto's book carries more anthropological depth and is free from the navel-gazing usually associated with travel writing. She writes about how these soft power moguls navigate the tricky political landscape filled with unseen landmines that could be set off anytime for reasons not related to their content (for ex, Saudi Arabia banned Turkish TV series to get at Turkey for helping Qatar during the recent middle east crisis). Bhutto digs out nuggets after nuggets of information with the ability of an established journalist and the expertise of a tremendous storyteller, which she already is.

If there was a rating below 1, I would gladly have given it. Bhutto neither knows anything about (any) entertainment industry nor shows any desire to know. She is infuriatingly vapid here. There is no K-Pop, J-Pop, stuff from China and other southeast asian countries, her focus is on geo-politics not entertainment industry, and she gets that wrong too connecting wild theories together without proof (see reading updates below for examples of everything she gets wrong.) She should stick to fiction. The editor at Columbia (if any) should have checked this book for facts - hard-pressed to find any. Bhutto came to this project with a preconceived notion of a) appeasing the indian disapora abroad (who are the only reason why indian industry has a market abroad. White dudes in U.S. and Europe are not watching ‘Tiger Zinda Hai’), b) mixing current realities of Indian politics, Modi and rise of Hindutva, with anything and everything in indian films (almost like throwing all to the wall to see which idea sticks), and c) hitching a ride with SRK on a helicopter because nothing sells a book quite like an exclusive interview with SRK (or to lend an authenticity to a ‘global’ project by talking to an indian superstar, to the point that the whole project loses it’s purpose: which was to find out the reason why korean, japanese, turkish, and indian entertainment has reach / appeal outside their native countries.) I won’t be surprised if this whole book came about at Columbia over tea and scones, googling most of the stuff. So out went the reasons for alternative world where K-J-Asian music / dramas / films hold more power than Hollywood. Unlike indian films, k-dramas are not being watched by just koreans. She probably doesn't know but even China has it’s own base that Hollywood has been unable to crack - and it ain’t the fault of Mao Tze Tung or skewed lenses of Hollywood! All these have a huge market and audience in english and non-english-speaking worlds - i.e. in south asia, middle east, africa, europe, australia and africa, where subtitled/ dubbed-in-english versions are seen, usually via the internet. I am not even going to start on spanish / norwegian / european fringe work. Bhutto is a rudderless, clueless ship going through a magical ocean sifting the air and mistaking it for the wind, forest and soul of creative, lucrative places. I consider this book to be myopic, a discriminatory, racist, ignorant, virtue-signaling, propagandist farce.

What made me even more mad is her lack of knowledge on Pakistan's entertainment industry - even TV! What the hell?!

She spends most of the book lamenting the current political status of muslims, talking about 3 muslim countries (all in relation to one star of one country), she is fixated with the idea that muslims created entertainment as kings and were great as kings and now like to watch kings on tv and admire kings of cinema. This is as cliched and stereotypical a colonial concept as it gets. In her mind, U.S. is the center of the universe which has come to recognize the power of k-pop, hindi cinema, etc. - quite ignoring / not knowing the fact that many countries' entertainment culture has been seen, heard, loved and copied for decades now all over the world. Just because U.S. daily news and nightly shows, and bhutto, didn't know about it doesn't mean it didn't have a huge fan base in U.S. and the world for 30-60 years.

Her focus for majority of this book is the cinematic career and political stances of the three khans of india from the 90s (salman khan, aamir khan, & SRK) - only because of their 'muslim-ness' - and I found it deeply offensive when she assumes that their popularity is due to muslim fans (and hence, not hindus in india) and does not even acknowledge the pluralistic nature of cinema or production houses that worked with each. It shocked me that she knew nothing about their films in 30-plus-years careers, political statements that each have made over the years, personal lives and image-brands that they developed and have come to signify or fan bases - let alone anyone else's. Indeed, by her own admission, she only saw SRK's films a week before she had to interview him - seven - and then asks him 'why can't the bollywood hero catch a break? why does he have to sacrifice?' (the book is full of this kind of inane, unfounded, pseudo-intellectual tripe - for e.g. she doesn't say which films she saw, but of the 100 films SRK has starred and cameoed in, he had an incurable disease in just one - KHNH, kills himself in another - Dil Se, and is thrown in jail for life in Veer Zara; so i don't know where bhutto gets the idea of his or any other hero's sacrifices from?!) She also credits him for knowing that 'the new world order accommodates violent confrontation' by picking psychotic roles in early films (!) Considering SRK came after the end of cold war, fall of berlin wall and afghan war (not that war or peacetime has anything to do with how or which indian films get made), and had zero choice over what he was offered in the beginning (psychotic roles were a fad at the time) and has played negative characters exactly 5 times in the last 27 years, this book is full of nonsensical, baseless assertions. His image has always been that of an indian, not hindu or muslim - this is something bhutto is unable to grasp. She is quick to correlate the 'rise' of khans with the rise of hindutva (!) - in her view, this was cinematic india's way of compensating muslims for ayodhya and political rise of hinduism - quite ignoring cinematic realities of 90s, other extremely popular non-muslim actors before, during and since these khans, the underworld (muslim) mafia's support for cinema, growing nexus of political and business leaders with actors, extortion rackets that killed people like gulshan kumar, opening up of private-sector entertainment market in india and impact of globalization; she is obsessed with the idea of how muslim their brand is or films are; she confidently (and incorrectly) says salman khan had a 'muslim identity' in his films (which she thinks means 'not being pushed around by a woman') and that aamir khan didn't overtly express himself as a muslim and has pro-modi persona (she quotes demonetization, but doesn't know about his statements on dam-building, religious intolerance, lynchings, or his Hajj, or the fact that he is the only actor to do a live charity marathon on GEO TV from dubai during mangal panday days). To her, what matters more is whether they were muslim enough on screen or not. She has no basis to say any of this, quotes no sources for this analysis, is factually wrong, and frankly, is extremely annoying. I doubt she has seen any of their films or read any interviews, or has seen any other indian film of any other actor either. Not that it matters, but salman khan's film-image is that of the ever-green child-man doing the right thing, a perennially under-rated and scandal-ridden actor who got his first Filmfare award as 'best supporting actor' for KKHH, 10 years after entry into films; aamir khan's brand as the 'perfectionist' took 12-years and one 'Lagaan,' he pooh-poohs Filmfare but goes to Oscars, developing himself as the conscience of indian civil society; this is all to make money and stay relevant in the age of celebrity culture; the only time salman khan played the 'muslim card' is when he got into trouble with the law, same as sunjay dutt (the no.1 actor in 92-93), same as SRK who played it into a controversy during MNIK's promotions (only because he understands the power of click bait & 24-hour news cycle.) Basically this is an author who doesn't even know indian cinema's history, actors and films' trajectory, or the corporatization of celebrity culture, migrant population in africa, europe and america, support to local businesses through star appearances, and universal themes (sports, war, love, poverty) and enduring popularity of musicals, that is directly responsible for global mass appeal of indian films, the centerpiece of this exercise.

I also found her assertion that 'the same forces that brought SRK into limelight are now trying to dismantle him' as deeply racist. SRK has had 25 years of superstardom. He's 53. Everyone's popularity wanes with time - that's the nature of showbiz and future of any 'no.1 actor.' His last big hit was 6 years ago (Chennai Express.) but he still is the no.1 go-to guy for adverts and promotions and speaking engagements (personally, I think he should break the shackles and do pretty woman, the wedding singer, the best offer, korean happy endeu, new world, j-departures, french tell no one, etc. with non-hindi directors, but that would dampen his ability to sell stuff.) I wonder what bhutto would have made of Rajesh Khanna's debacle in '74 or Amitabh Bachchan's lean years in '80s? Would she have suggested that some grand conspiracy brought an adopted child of nobodies (rajesh khanna) into limelight and then threw an educated middle-class hindu (bachchan) at him only to cast him aside for a muslim boy from delhi's ghettos (SRK)? This is not the way cinema is read or thought or seen and bhutto should use common sense / know better. Very inappropriate.

She thinks anti-pakistan sentiment in india is due to Modi. She apparently doesn't know that indian news channels have always followed the establishment's foreign policy narrative, just like media in u.s., uk and france follows their state's policies: for e.g. i have never seen a u.s. current affairs show being pleasant about iran, cuba, russia or china or criticizing israel. She also has a very skewed view on actors / actresses who praise modi or shout anti-pakistan slogans. India is a country where art is respected, artists are worshipped, revered, emulated. So many actors have had political leanings, participated in elections, campaigned for a party, and now, with the celebrity-fixation of news media, big business and big money, and advent of social media, artists routinely have to show their opinion on matters of 'national interest.' Why would an indian take the side of pakistan in pulwama or uri or other attacks? It's very immature of her to expect that. Unlike pakistanis, who got to see indian films through decades of smuggling and developed a sense of kinship with indian stars and culture (the films helped 'humanize' indians to pakistanis), all that indian people have seen (and have been shown) is pakistan's army, isi, hafiz saeed and 3-4 terror attacks in indian cities that their security apparatus blames pakistan for. Of course they'll hate pakistan. It's unfair, but there it is. The popularity and reach of our TV dramas is exaggerated in this book. Their films have always portrayed pakistanis as terrorists or caricature of luknow muslims! (they don't know us at all.)

As for her 'interview' with SRK, Pakistan has the unique distinction, in my opinion (and I, unlike Bhutto know what I am talking about) of taking the 4 worst interviews ever of SRK, all marred by the self-involved / obsessed interviewees who had done zero research on him: Three were taken in Dubai during promotion of SRK-Kajol starrer ‘Dilwale’ by Hum, Samaa TV channels: host Sanam Jung kept telling Shahrukh how she had been offered indian films and she didn’t do them for abc reasons, host Shaista Lodhi kept talking about how she keeps her skin youthful and what she eats, host Sahir Lodhi kept talking about how his career has closely resembled that of SRK, how he was an RJ when he played one in Dil Se etc. REALITY CHECK: WHO GIVES A ___ ?! You have once-in-a-lifetime 20-minute opportunity to sit and talk to this guy, be useful, FGS! GEO TV’s current affairs host Hamid Mir did the fourth cringe-inducing interview during promotion of ‘Fan’ (where SRK kept his dark, black glasses on the entire time.)

Bhutto joins this esteemed panel as the fifth, not because she is self-involved - she isn’t - but for her lack of research into the shrewd, workaholic businessman sitting across from her, who is sounding bored of her breezy questions (an expression he has carried for 20 years now, nothing rattles him anymore.) She doesn't even know the basics: he is never on time, usually late by 2-4 hours everywhere (he once famously said 'time starts when i enter the room') and is perturbed that she has to 'wait.' Her capacity to create illusions of depth is limited to connecting two totally different and non-linear events together and justifying her thoughts as truths, ignoring the subject-matter entirely. Reading her exasperating non-interview with SRK is like reading about the chemical process of paint drying infinitum. It’s not even an interview on the topic of the book, more like sharing a helicopter ride with one of the biggest superstars in the world while he's working, and getting to write exactly that in a ham of a book. (SRK reportedly got a crore-plus for an hour's work on the Egytpian-you're-punked-fake-reality tv show, which she, of course, doesn't know, nor asks; she is more concerned that SRK will not eat his eggs, if she doesn't have some - WT-?! Okay, maybe she IS self-involved too.)

For those keeping track, the sixth worst interview was done by Zainab Badawi for BBC’s Hard Talk who kept talking (quite unnecessarily) about objectification of women in his films (he kept sighing as if tired of her questions.)

If the book is about SRK’s rise, then ask him relevant hard-hitting questions for example: (is he / his brand of secularism irrelevant in modi’s india? how does he reconcile the attention/ affection he gets in muslim countries to how the countries are run and the fact that most of them do not have democracy like india? has he ever felt like he is legitimizing their governments / monarchies / dictatorships? how does he reconcile Ambani’s empire with rural Gujarat’s disdain for him, considering he is like family? with current tensions in middle east, how is he approaching his businesses there? do regional tensions - and war drums in iran-u.s.-uae-india - worry him and has any of it impacted his businesses? does he think he’s directly responsible for promoting materialism? with panama leaks etc. how easy is it to hide money? how has sex and love changed over the years? does love survive years and time apart? is his marriage alive? does he think he owes it to his audience to come clean on the health of his marital status or flings because he built his brand to make money off it? how did , if at all, his rumored affairs impact his business / credibility / money-making power? is he tired of acting yet? one advice to manage stress and money? how does he maintain his looks? how much does he think he is contributing to unrealistic expectations of beauty in men? does he believe indian industry treats men-entrants differently from female-entrants? is he afraid his daughter will be objectified? since his son and daughter are entering films, they are already mildly being judged/ trolled for being a product of nepotism and not talent, is it unfair? what's the difference between a child star groomed since infancy by ambitious parents to be a star / make a living for them and a star kid carrying the family name forward? has he talked to them about rejection? his mistakes, regrets in life? compromises he made to get where he is? looking back, what is the single key factor for success in indian cinema - right contacts, hard-work or religious ambiguity? what does he think his image is right now: family man, bad boy or an entertainer for hire? what has taken him far in life: ability to say no or ability to say yes? in his acting career, has he finally reached the awkward 80s phase of Amitabh Bachchan where people didn’t know what to do with him, too old for loverboy, too young to play grandpa, too middle-aged to be hot? has he seen it all? aamir khan said he will make mahabharata, he’e said he is teaching his youngest mahabharata, why the sudden fixation with mahabharat? why has he been unable to launch a single original concept through his production house in india or on Amazon / Netflix? Giving rights to Netflix means his films are no longer on Emirates - why did he do it?) This is a guy who has mastered the art of saying nothing while saying a lot, so I don’t know, anything is better than SRK casually asking his manager which movie he is referring to. Snooze Fest.

If the book is about why indian films / industry has a market outside india, then she could’ve easily spoken to a distributor / Yash Raj production house / guys at Netflix and Amazon / diaspora to give her an idea. Over the phone. From NYC. Having tea and scones.

What Turkish superstar Halit Ergenc (brushed off over cold tea in a cafe') tells Bhutto is gold and really what is going on in terms of popularity of turkish / korean stuff globally: while hollywood is fluff, fast and meaningless, full of repetitious, good-bad, white-black world (yet another legal / medical / LEA / sports drama, countless love-problem sitcoms), these focus on emotions, human element and fallibility of people - their greyness is celebrated. Nothing is black and white in their world. No hero is totally good. They are not afraid of the mess of war, history, politics, culture and what it means for their people. They are unapologetic of the past. They tell it like it is - most of the time (season 2 of a turkish drama almost always goes off track into soap operatic, melo territory. koreans and japanese are already melo from the start.) Family, relationships and respect for seniors at work is important. It's almost an eastern thing which west will never understand. Of course, Bhutto doesn't get it.

Unfortunately, this book is about what Bhutto thinks has happened in indian politics with the re-election of Modi; what she thinks has happened in Turkish politics; korean politics is not mentioned; what she thinks has happened in Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia; what she thinks has happened in Pakistani politics. Truth, facts, pop culture and cinema play the role of an extra here (a backup dancer nobody knows, notices or remembers.)


-----------------------------------------------
FACTS BHUTTO GETS WRONG / THINGS SHE IS LAZY ABOUT:
Some of the stuff she gets wrong / is lazy about, in updates below (because frankly, there is so much of history / people / actors / countries / entertainment that she does not know, and simply assumes - every second line is factually incorrect - that after a while it got tiring to try to fix it.):

- Focus is on SRK, so J-pop, K-pop (or Thai/ Chinese) stuff is rudimentary.
- Bhutto thinks U.S. is the centre of the universe & in order for something to be recognized it has to 'make it' in U.S.
- "beautiful Pakistani starlet" has a name: Mahira Khan.
- Why is Nazia Hassan mentioned?
- Dilip Kumar, NOT Raj Kapoor is "the greatest actor of his generation"-Kapoor is a legendary director/producer who also acted."
-"I also don't understand the need to equate Amitabh Bachchan's sponsorship deals in 2000s with his 70s film persona & what any of it has to do with capitalism or Modi or Bachchan himself. SRK developed a brand, putting his name to everything from real estate to weddings, he was the trendsetter in 90s, & others followed suit to make money. That's a business model that every entertainer follows in the West (and East.)"
"A quote by Ayatollah Khomeini starts the book on the power of regional entertainers! ("In a country, the road to reform travels through culture.")"
- "The only thing more infuriating than a know-it-all is a person who doesn't know anything about anything or anyone, doing research for & writing for an esteemed University.
- Bhutto knows nothing about careers/lives of Aamir Khan, Salman Khan & SRK but wants you to believe in some grand political conspiracy + divine intellect of the 3 stars!
-'Baazigar' is COPY of U.S. film & 'Darr' is COPY of U.S. TV movie."
- "She gets so many facts wrong: let's start with the basics: Raj Kapoor copied Charlie Chaplin & was certainly not a great actor - but his directed/produced blockbuster 40s-50s films touched on social topics that are still relevant today and he was the first one to do it. His jodi with Nargis helped. That's why he is part of ithe original Trimurti (Dilip Kumar & Kapoor came from the same place in Peshawar)"
-"It is Dilip Kumar who was a trednsetter in the kinds of roles he played on screen: everything from Andaaz, Deedar, Aan, Tarana, DevDas, Naya Daur, Kohinoor, Ganga Jumna, Mughal;-e-Azam, Ram Aurn Shyam, has been copied and remade with newer heroes in every generation since then.
- The only thing Pakistan can take credit for is being the place these people left in Division: India made them who they are, not Pakistan."
- "Bhutto skips the Shammi phase, the entire R. D. Burman music (& Ghai's decade with 'Karz' etc.) to highlight a one-hit wonder: Mithun Chakrvorty. Even Nazia Hassan came 5 years before Disco Dancer. Indeed, Bhutto doesn't even know that Afghanistan regularly hosted people who came to watch Indian films in 60s & 70s. Mithun Chak. had nothing to do with it nor popularity of disco music. People above & Bappi Lahiri did."
- "Rich urban yuppie loverboy is a cliched trope in Indian cinema staring from Mehal and Andaaz in 48. Films Bobby, Love Story etc. & everything done by Shammi & Rajesh Khanna (& even Dev Anand) are other examples. No one knew how their fathers got rich too. In fact, Amitabh Bachchan's style was modern wear too."
-"This writeup is classic example on how to not write about cinema or popularity of everything other than Hollywood. Raj Kapoor was famous in Russia, Yash Chopra in Switzerland, Amitabh Bachchan was the first one to do shows abroad. SRK took all of this to another level because he wanted to be the biggest superstar & did indeed create / identify markets / countries for his films."
- "Bhutto suffers from the dilemma all pseudo-intellectuals do: how to give gravitas to a subject beneath them. She simply cannot resist bringing in politics because her knowledge & research of the subject matter is weak and it shows: she conveniently mentions Ayodhya but not Mumbai terror attacks which directly implicated Sunjay Dutt, the no.1 actor of 92-93 (Khalnayak came before SRK's Baazigar & Darr.)"
- "As grand as Bhutto thinks Aamir Khan & Salman Khan's entry into films is, it was nothing new in 'Bollywood' where star kids (called nepo kids now) have always been given films (right from the time of Prithviraj Kapoor's son, perhaps even before.) In fact the decade they came in, Anil Kapoor & Rishi Kapoor were extremely popular already. Both entered with teeny love stories that all work in - it's a tradition."
- "SRK had zero control over the films he was offered & directors he worked with.That he was hired by influential Hindus is lost on Bhutto who wants to create an illusion of 'Muslim' power rising & ruling films amidst a Hindutva popularity. She ignores the underworld/corporate/extortionist side of the industry as well as the fact tha all stars have millions of Hindu fans! SRK did not break market in U.S. through Muslims"
- "She gets the entire film trajectory of Salman Khan, Aamir Khan and even SRK wrong & reasons for their fame & lasting power. SRK's nothing-to-lose devil-may-care undiplomatic witty firebrand attitude & star-vacuum had a lot to do with why directors picked him initially. Once a hit, he continued to work with prolific makers only.
Karan Johar is NOT the one to introduce urban NRI yuppiness: it is DDLJ's Aditya Chopra."
- This writeup comes across as a thinly veiled SRK marketing tool. It's almost as if some genius at Columbia thought Bhutto should be given the assignment and Bhutto's idea of the assignment was to make it saleable to Indian diaspora in U.S. and the uncles at Asia Group by focussing on India & SRK specifically.
- Because nothing beats a helicopter ride with SRK to NOT know him & cash in."
"- bhutto identifies beginning of ‘indian cinema’ to mughals ignoring the theatrical quality of Ramayana and Mahabharata which is enacted by kids in kindergarten if not elders. Songs, dance and drama is inherent in hindu religion (and concepts of uni-dimensional masculinity, patriarchy, virtuous women etc.) and that trickles in their cinema. what have mughals got anything to do with it?"
- i think just like a tussle is going on between delhi elite / congress party and middle class rural people / hindutva brigade after modi’s win, a similar tussle is going on in bhutto’s mind in trying to grasp a subject matter she has no clue about. The whole ill-informed exercise is stunted at best."
- what has beef-killings got anything to do with the appeal of indian entertainment industry in foreign lands????? why is it even being mentioned?"
-- what has the popularity of the 3 khans got anything to do with indian films or their reach and mass appeal? india has hell of a lot of languages and makes films in all of them."
- "according to bhutto, ‘the 3 khans represented 3 prevailing spiritual and political ideas’ (!): all the films she names of the 3 khans occurred in the last 7 years, so i don’t know why in a career of 30 years, she is making ends meet by connecting what she thinks they represented in 90s with what they actually did very late in their careers."
- "‘salman khan has defiant mansculinity and muslim identity),his politics is timid, in his heydey he starred as a guy who takes an orphan and plays a raw agent who falls for isi beauty'- i don’t know where bhutto got this info from but for the 1st 13 years, he did films like mpk, hahk, karan arjun, sanam bewafa, saajan -& did not get respectability as actor till he did kkhh, hddcs. tere naam& had those eid hits in late"
- "late 2000s. Scandal-ridden, there was nothing muslim or masculine about his performances (unless bhutto thinks taking the shirt off is masculine, and made money off it for his family.)"
- "‘aamir khan is intellectual of the 3 and his films are lauded as probing and artistic: dangal. he can be said to stand on the other end of muslim: he is never overtly muslim. aamir’s films won’t touch the politics of the time.’ - the first 13 years of aamir khan’s were spent doing films like qsqt, dil, jawani zindabad, hhrpk, raja hindustani, mela, parampara, ishq -nothing intellectual or influential about any of"
- "of these films - till he did lagaan and developed an image as the conscience of indian civil society (and made money off it.)"
- "on SRK: ‘it is as though khan understood something others (who played heartthrobs as opposed to homicidal maniacs) didn’t: the new world order accomodated if not rewarded violent confrontation.’ A lot of hogwash and philosophical mumbo jumbo. SRK’s entire film trajectory is based on going after someone else’s betrothed and then getting her. Why didn’t Bhutto see for signs in Indian culture ."
- "-Bhutto doesn’t know anything: she calls SRK ‘lonely figure, the same forces who lifted him are trying to dismantle him.’ SRK is the biggest go-to guy for sponsors, he is the only guy producing stuff for Amazon/Netf.& he is Ambani's-plus1 etc.,The only reason why his ‘star’ has weakened is bcos his films haven’t done well, he is middle-aged, his no.1 hero stardom-days are over-this happens to every indian superstar!"
- "SRK hasn’t won ‘countless’ filmfare awards: he has won 13 - to-date (popular category, 2 crtitics award, meaning hsi films were such massive blockbusters of the day - and his corporatization of celebrity so powerful, he had to be given an award, if filmfare wanted sponsors to sponsor. everyone knows awards are fake.)"
- "It would have been good if Bhutto had checked how many net administrators of fan clubs ‘from Peru to Germany’ were white Europeans / South Americans and how many were indians settled in these countries for decades, if not centuries."
- "SRK has never identified himself as a Muslim, he always says religion is a personal matter and that his parents are Muslims. He has said it is important to teach kids ethics and value system. In his first ever interview for a film magazine in 1992, he said he was agnostic. If carrying a Muslim tag makes him money he’ll be one - he’ll be whatever he needs to be at that moment. If Bhutto doesn’t get that about him, she"
- "she doesn’t know why he is liked for his ambition and hard work. His film avatar has always been one of non-religious guy (unlike Amitabh Bachchan who was always blasting god in a temple for being indifferent to suffering.) His brand of cinema is that of the cool dude, not religious dude, who goes after a girl, sings songs at her wedding to someone else and then gets her."
- "He has played a Muslim 3 times: Chak De India, MNIK, and Raees (one is a sports film on women where he is accused of siding with Pakistan, the other is post-/11 NRI Muslim experience and third is on a gangster / local politician who was target-killed without a trial in Gujarat.) The closest he came to singing a ‘religious’ song was ‘Maurya Maurya’ in Don1."
- "His image is not Hindu or Muslim, it’s Indian. He reprsents India abroad, if people want to think of him as Muslim, great! As long as they show him the money. In 30 years, of the 100 films he has done (including cameos), he has played a negative character 5 times: Darr, Baazigar, Ram Jaane, Don 1 & 2, Fan. That does not signify ‘rapturous acceptance of murderous lunatics reflecting dark tide approaching india’ (!)"
- "SRK had done 3 serials by 1988. By 1991, he was already hired by Hema Malini for her remake of a U.S. film starring Divya Bharati in lead and SRK as boyfriend, an adaptation of D. H. Lawrence’s novel and a thrid one with Rishi Kapoor and again Divya Bharati ‘Deewana’ which got released first. There was one with Naseeruddin Shah and Naghma ‘Jaadugar’ or something that got released later."
- "Which Indian romantic hero has ever looked for a job in any film? What did Dilip Kumwar do in Andaaz? Rajesh Khanna in any film between 69 to 71? Kumar Gaurav in Love Story? Aamir Khan in QSQT or Dil or Fanaa? Salman Khan in HAHK? What were they all wearing? Stylish modern clothes! Every hero since time immeorial (or at least since Shammi Kapoor, has stood with his arms open wide - it’s a running joke in films.)"
- "Bhutto cannot seem to make up her own mind: is india conservative, is india reflecting NRI experience, is india religiously intolerant, is india muslim or hindu? What has any of it got anything to do with indian films or their appeal at home or abroad is beyond me. I don’t think Bhutto has ever seen an indian film to know their appeal or why they work or topics or anything."
- "SRK’s no-kiss poilicy had nothing to do with ‘indian censor board’ - aamir khan regularly kissed in ALL of his films, so did anil kapoor, rishi kapoor, salman khan, akshay kumar, and everyone since them, etc. SRK’s image in the beginning was heavily marketed as a one-woman man - and it was his wife Gauri who was considered to be that woman - and he said so too."
- "While detailing his film successes (which Bhutto equates with some strange phenomena she has come up with) she ignores what SRK was doing simultaneously off-screen - he was selling stuff, he was doing shows abroad, he was making colognes etc."
- how is patriotic jingoism in indian films today different from jis desh mein ganga behti hai, manoj kumar films, j.p.dutta’s films? bhutto is just writing stuff for the sake of writing stuff, to fit a narrative she thought of before she spoke to anyone - and speaking to people hasn’t helped either.
- I would like to know how demonetization affected films, or film-watching or indian conema’s appeal in the world." aamir khan spoke against a dam building project that arundhati roy supported way back when fanaa i think was being released - modi banned his film in gujarat as cm - and yash chopra had to intervene. he also has spoken against plenty of stuff over the years (his comments on lynchings right before release of a film jeapordized his film frelease and b.o.) and went on hajj with his mother. bhutto doesn't know anything.
- "Plenty of films were made in 90s on communal violence (nana patekar starred in 2),mani ratnam made a name through roja! all blockbusters. so what is bhutto’s problem? she wants you to believe a whole generation of NRIs who liked bachchan, then liked aamir khan etc. now like akshay kumar……NO! akshay kumar is a below 100 crore guy and will remain one no matter how many Modi-ass-licking he does."
- "Indian people watch films for entertainment, not because akshay kumar is appearing as patriotic sikh in one."
- "Ajay Devgn (used to be Devgan) is the only guy with 100 crore films apart from the khans. and he is more of a complete actor than aamir khan, having done arty-dramas like rain coat, omkara and then rohitn shetty films, ensemble or single hero, full-on action, or comedy like bol bachchan etc. even though he is not even a looker or a-lister. He started praising modi while modi was gujarat cm. Nothing new about it."
- "Raveena Tandon has not worked in films in 20 years and was average b-grade heroine in her heydey (which was when madhuri dixit was no.1.). it would have been good if bhutto had studied how parties have used and given tic kets to axctors/ actresses over decades such as shatrughan sinha, hema malini (i think even rajesh khanna did some politics) followed currently by anupam kher and rishi kapoor.
- "The reason why Ranauts and Chopras have fashioned / aligned themselves with modi and hindutva or right-wing sentiment because they hasd no other choice when they were ostracized by mainstream filmmakers after personal controversies / affairs. I could be wrong but look at their interviews and positions and film graphs before Hritik Roshan/Karan Johar and SRK-Gauri-Karan Johar fiascos (respectively)."
"-Both found no work because people in industry didn’t want to offend the biggies with the mosties. Same happened eons ago to vivek oberoi (another modi supporter) when he went against salman khan. bhutto doesn’t know anything."
- "it would be good for bhutto to find out the nexus between big business, indian media, and celebrity culture where actors / actresses are routinely used to enhanxce the soft image of a political party - has been happening since vijyanthimala and nargis got intio poilitics - in 60s (maybe even before?) actors / actresses are given a lot of respect in india, hence they aren powerful messengers whether for clean water or rahul gandhi or modi or promoting a province or rising-india-brand abroad.
- and why should india invite pakistani players for ipl?"
- next time, bhutto can interview provocateur unlimited mr. mahesh bhatt on how outsider-women get roles in films and how protected his own daughters are (as opposed to one-liners on SRK & pakistan.)"
"- bhutto meets srk in the imperial suite of palazzo versace and admits SHE HASN’T SEEN ANY OF HIS FILMS TILL A WEEK AGO - and this person is interviewing SRK. “why can’t the bollywood hero win? whny can’t he ever catch a break” she demures (one wonders which film of SRK she has watched, let alone seven.)"
- “Pooja introduces me to Noura, who nods at me with blank lack of interest.” (should he have died of excitement at meeting fatima bhutto?)

- who is karuna?"
- - if SRKi is drinking 30 nespressos and smoking heavily, he must have a really bad breath - but of course that’s an assumption - and it doesn't occur to bhutto to confirm.
- what has SRK got to do with migration and possibilities for pakistani taxi driver in dubai?"
- "if part one began with an inanity by ayatollah, part two begins with a quote by erdogan (“forsake alcohol - eat grapes instead!”). what’s in part three? modi? nope. I think hoping that this book will cover asian / south asian entertainment’s global reach - it’s topic- is a far away dream."
- "- the so-called interview consists of going to his hotel room, sitting down for breakfast with him, and then hitching a ride on a helicopter. THAT'S IT. Some interview."
- "And of course, bhutto knows nothing about pakistani entertainment industry either. PTV’s golden period and dramas existed before, during and after Zia-ul-Haq’s time (mid-90s) - even if they existed in spite of him, not because fo him - waaris, fifty fifty, noorulhuda shah’s dramas, hasina moeen’s dramas, alif noon, saudagar, mr. shaitan, anwar maqsood’s sitcoms and tv talk shows, shoaib mansoor’s dramas,"
- "(not to mention award show), dastak, ashfaq ahmed, / mustansar dramas, Punjnad talk and song show, children’s programs, etc. Nazia and Zoheb Hassan got big, Vital Signs / Jupiter etc. (underground bands) got formed during that time, Dil Dil Pakistan got made during that time (through a competition), Alan Faqeer and Ali Shehki sang Allah Allah Kar Bhaiyya and Alamgir danced to Dekha Na Tha and"
- "and Indian films got smuggled into Pakistan during that time. Punjabi films - and maula jutt, the only original-idea / indigenous film ever made in pakistan - are some of the things she doesn't know about. She is more concerned with Zia-ul-Haq & Mush - just like Khomeini in part 1."
- Turkish dramas were huge for a while in Pakistan: Ask-i-Memnu, FatimaGul, Magnificent Century and one more and bubble went bust as fast as it had come (though not before Halit Ergenc made an appearance at Lux Style Awards.)"
- And of course, Bhutto did not see Ask-ui-Memnu in full (nor apparently googled the ending - it's based on a NOVEL) and is rooting for Behlul and Bihter ending up together. Did she research anything?
- Her theory of everything that works in India or Pakistan or Turkey is that Muslims like kings and reminisce about monarchist ideals when they ruled everything. That's her reason for Magnificent Century working."
- What Hailt Ergenc tells Bhutto is gold and really what is going on in terms of popularity of turkish / korean stuff globally - while hollywood is fluff, fast and meaningless (yet another legal / medical / lea / sports drama, sitcoms) these focus on emotions, human element and fallibility of people - their greyness. Nothing is black and white in their world. No hero is totally good. Of course, Bhutto doesn't get it."
- she should watch 'country of my beloved' Halit Ergenc's drama with his star wife Berguzar Korel. or 'as time passes by.'"
- and now there is egypt, syria, saudi arabia.
- BUT NOTHING ON SOUTH KOREA, JAPAN, CHINA (and taiwan, thailand, vietnam, philippines stuff)."

Bhutto's New Kings of the World is an interesting dip into the shift of soft power from Western media to the East, including Bollywood, K-Pop and Turkish Dizi. Unfortunately, it suffers from being much too short (150 pages) for the subject matter it promises to explore. Consider this an introduction to the shift from Western popular culture rather than an in-depth dive. Taken as an introduction, this is a four-star book. If you're looking for a little more substance, however, I would not recommend.

Thank you to Fatima Bhutto, Columbia Global Reports, and Netgalley for allowing me to access a digital copy of this book in advance of its release. As always, all opinions are my own.

Not gonna lie, I was super-excited to receive a digital edition of this book through NetGalley for reviewing purposes. I'm super-interested in foreign media and I imagined myself giving this book 4-5 stars before even reading it.

Well, now that I've read it, I can't give it more than 3. The book promises to talk about three subjects: Bollywood (Indian movies,) Turkish Dizi (soap operas,) and K-Pop (Korean Pop Music.) However the book is less than 200 pages long. 50% of it swirls around Indian-Pakistani history and weaves in and out trying to describe the immense amount of Indian movies out there and some of the actors involved, but even so, it's just the tip of the iceberg. There's an adorable extended interview/tag-along with famous Indian actor which I enjoyed a lot, but I felt there was so much missing. It's impossible to do Bollywood justice with such few pages!

The Turkish Dizi segment didn't begin until the halfway point of the book and was really not in-depth at all. It felt more like a book report about Turkish Dizi than an actual book about Turkish Dizi. This portion took up about 30% of the book.

The K-Pop segment felt like an afterthought. It was only 18 1/2 pages long. (but small pages with large font.) It felt like a magazine article.

All-in-all it was an okay book and a good introduction to these topics if you are an absolute clueless beginner but there wasn't much meat in here at all. The best parts were the parts where the author was interacting with the people she was interviewing.

The book would have made more sense with pictures as well. I kept stopping to Google photos of the actors she kept mentioning. And then I was finding myself Googling to find out more info on the people/shows she was talking about! I feel like that's the book's job to provide that info!

Anyway, thank you NetGalley for giving me the opportunity to review this book. Usually I complain that he books I read can be thinned out by 100+ pages and nothing of value would be lost, but in this case, the book needed an additional 100-200 pages to be sure!