Bollywood Fugly lesson #4: do rock the trademarks of the times

(I wrote this completely independently of Babasko's post on "Retro or Fugly," I swear!)

Hey Hercules, what time is it?


According to my watch, it's pushing a quarter past poncho.

(Amar Akbar Anthony, 1977)

Can it count as "fugly" if it's quintessential? This is really only outrageous from our smug 2006 standpoint (from which we will choose to overlook the brief return of the poncho two years ago, blip that it was, even among those of us who knit and secretly wanted to make one). It's interesting how some trademarks of certain eras hold up as "classic" and others just look dated. I don't know what the difference is, but I know it when I see it. And even if the poncho isn't inherently fugly, it's still funny, especially because here it's being worn by a tough guy/bodygaurd/spurned lover, so here you go.*

Contrast with Shabana Azmi's floral blouse, which is also really 70s to me, especially with the knot in front, but here it just looks fun and flirty, somehow "classic" rather than hopelessly lost.


And the sunny yellow pants are a great complement, although probably I should point out here that if your pants are more bell-bottomed than Vinod Khanna's, future generations may giggle.

Although their laughter is hollow, because they're jealous they doesn't get to romp about with Vinod and, thirty years later, still totally rock the screen.

* Plus I was hoping to do some fancy linguistic tie-in if "poncho," like "punch," derives from "paanch." Sadly, according to the OED, it doesn't.