Prank video to Bajrangi Bhaijaan: Chand Nawab is a star in Pakistan

Kochi, Jan 6: A trial court on Monday framed charges against Malayalam film actor Dileep and other accused in the case of alleged abduction and molestation of a south Indian actress in 2017.

The actor and nine other accused were present in the additional special sessions court in Ernakulamwhen the charges were framed against them.

All of them have denied the charges.

On Saturday, the Court had dismissed a plea filed by Dileep, seeking to exclude him from the list of accused.

The Court had admitted the prosecution argument that there is prima facie evidence against him in the crime and dismissed the plea of the actor, who is eighth accused in the case.

The court had also not allowed a plea by the actor to grant him 10 days time to file the appeal in a higher court in the light of the Supreme Court order in November 2019 that the trial should be completed in six months.

The court is hearing the case in-camera.

On December 19, Dileep, along with his lawyers and a technical expert, had examined the contents of the electronic records at the closed room of the court.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had directed that the actor be allowed to inspect the records to enable him to present an effective defence during the trial.

In February 2017, the actress was allegedly abducted and molested by the accused.

Seven people, including the key accused 'Pulsar' Suni were arrested in connection with the actress' abduction case.

There are 10 accused in the case.

The entire act had allegedly taken place in a moving vehicle, which was filmed by the accused to blackmail her.

Dileep was subsequently arrested and arrayed as an accused in connection with offences under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and IT Act.

The top court had directed that the trial in case be concluded expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of the judgement.

A woman judge is hearing the case.

In February 2019, the High Court, while considering a plea seeking to transfer the case to a Sessions Court headed by a woman judge to conduct the trial, had ordered the CBI special court Judge-III Ernakulam Honey M Varghese to complete the trial expeditiously.

Feb 10: Bong Joon-ho’s film “Parasite” starts in a dingy, half-basement apartment with a family of four barely able to scratch out a life. There must be no place to go but up, right? Yes and no. There’s nothing predictable when the South Korean director is on his game.

This dark, socially conscious film about the intertwining of two families is an intricately plotted, adult thriller. We can go up, for sure, but Bong can also take us deeper down. There’s always an extra floor somewhere in this masterpiece.

It tells the story of the impoverished four-person Kim family who, one by one, and with careful and devious planning, all get employed by the four-person affluent Park family — as a tutor, an art teacher, a driver and a housekeeper. They are imposters stunned by the way wealth can make things easier: “Money is an iron. It smooths out all the creases,” says the Park patriarch with wonder.

Bong, who directed and wrote the story for “Parasite,” has picked his title carefully, of course. Naturally, he’s alluding to the sycophantic relationship by a clan of scammers to the clueless rich who have unwittingly opened the doors of their home on a hill. But it’s not that simple. The rich family seem incapable of doing anything — from dishes to sex — without help. Who’s scamming who?

Bong’s previous films play with film genres and never hide their social commentary — think of the environmentalist pig-caper “Okja” and the dystopian sci-fi global warming scream “Snowpiercer.” But this time, Bong’s canvas is a thousand times smaller and his focus light-years more intense. There are no CGI train chases on mountains or car chases through cities. (There is also, thankfully, 100% less Tilda Swinton, a frequent, over-the-top Bong collaborator.

The two Korean families first make contact when a friend of the Kim’s son asks him to take over English lessons for the Park daughter. Soon the son (a dreamy Choi Woo-sik) convinces them to hire his sister (the excellent Park So-dam) as an art teacher, but doesn’t reveal it’s his sis. She forges her diploma and spews arty nonsense she learned on the internet, impressing the polite but firm Park matriarch (a superb Jo Yeo-jeong.)

The Park’s regular chauffer is soon let go and replaced by the Kim patriarch (a steely Lee Sun-kyun). Ditto the housemaid, who is dumped in favor of the Kims’ mother (a feisty Jang Hye-jin.) All eight people seem happy with the new arrangement until Bong reveals a twist: There are more parasites than you imagined. The clean, impeccably furnished Park home will have some blood splashing about.

Bong’s trademark slapstick is still here but the rough edges of his often too-loud lessons are shaved down nicely and his actors step forward. “Keep it focused,” the Kim’s son counsels his father at one point. Bong has followed that advice.

There are typically dazzling Bong touches throughout. Just look for all the insect references — stink bugs at the beginning to flies at the end, and a preoccupation with odor across the frames. And there’s a scene in which the rich matriarch skillfully winds noodles in a bowl while, in another room, duct tape is being wrapped around a victim and classical music plays.

Bong could have been more strident in his social critique but hasn’t. There are no villains in “Parasite” — and also no heroes. Both families are forever broken after chafing against each other, a bleak message about the classes ever really co-existing (Take that, “Downton Abbey”).

“Parasite” is a worthy winner of the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, the first South Korean movie to win the prestigious top prize. The director has called it an “unstoppably fierce tragicomedy.” We just call it brilliant.

Bihar, Mar 5: A complaint has been filed before a court in Bihar against lyricist Javed Akhtar over his remarks on the FIRs being registered against expelled AAP councillor Tahir Hussain in the wake of Delhi riots.

The complaint was lodged on Wednesday by Amit Kumar, a local advocate, before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Thakur Aman Kumar.

On the basis of a newspaper report, the complainant has alleged that Akhtar's remarks were seditious and promoted religious hatred.

The media report was based on Akhtar's tweet of February 27 that "So many killed, so many injured, so many houses burned, so many shops looted so many people turned destitute but police has sealed only one house and looking for his owner. Incidentally, his name is Tahir. Hats off to the consistency of the Delhi police."

The violence in northeast Delhi claimed at least 42 lives and left over 200 injured. The former Rajya Sabha member was heavily trolled for the tweet.

In a subsequent tweet, Akhtar who asserted that he is a non-believer and a rationalist, had clarified that he was not asking "why Tahir but why ONLY Tahir and not even an FIR against those who have openly threatened violence in the presence of the police".

The matter is likely to come up for hearing on March 25.