The first time I saw Abhishek Chaubey’s Ishqiya, I walked out having enjoyed it but not quite knowing what to make of it. At a basic level, it’s a very entertaining movie – and how could it not be, with that cast, with those dialogues, with all the care and intelligence evident in each scene? – but the whole never became more than the sum of its parts. I felt it was a lot of wit (a man who’s fated to die by a gas explosion mistakenly saying “cylinder” instead of “surrender”) and atmosphere (the grimy Gorakhpur-ness of it all) and not much else. There was also the problem of getting a fix on the genre (and therefore knowing how to respond). The setting and the score seemed to be evoking a Western. The plot seemed to be hinting at noir. And there was the sense of screwball comedy in the proceedings. Was this a serious film or a trifle? (Or both?) Was it about characters and story, or was it a winking pastiche? How invested in it were we meant to be?
But subsequent viewings persuaded me that these genre distractions are simply whitewash, and that the film is essentially a good, old-fashioned, even Bollywoodian love story. The key to Ishqiya, in my mind, is the scene where Khalujaan (Naseeruddin Shah), Babban (Arshad Warsi) and Krishna (Vidya Balan), after kidnapping a local big shot, are driving back to her home. We’re meant to be chewing our fingernails about their getting away with it, but instead of this tension, we’re left with the high emotional drama resulting from all the love in the film – Khalujaan’s high-minded love for Krishna, Babban’s earthier love for Krishna, and underlying it all, Krishna’s undying (as it were) love for her husband. (Even a comic subplot, a little earlier, revolved around the kidnapping victim’s love for his mistress.) All this love was the film’s glue. But in spit-shining each scene for maximum impact, Chaubey lost track of this overarching trajectory (we sense it coming together fully only in the end, when all these characters and all their loves converge), but watching the movie a second (or a fourth) time, we could fill in the gaps ourselves and latch on to this (romantic) narrative. (At least, that’s what I did.)
The sequel, Dedh Ishqiya – there! Again, all that cleverness in that title – is just as much a love story. And it’s a sequel in all the obvious ways – almost as if they didn’t want to tamper with a winning formula. One smallish town in Uttar Pradesh gives way to another (Mahmudabad). Here too, we have Khalujaan’s purer love (for Begum Para, played by Madhuri Dixit-Nene, who, like Balan, appears slightly miscast), Babban’s baser version of the emotion (directed towards Huma Qureishi’s Muniya). In Ishqiya, we learnt that Khalujaan’s uncle was a tabla exponent from the Indore gharana, and then we saw Babban prancing around to Dhanno ki aankhon mein in a red-light area – and this high-low contrast in the duo is evident here too. Begum Para, like Krishna, is a widow, and she too is forced to fend for herself with a combination of womanly wiles and manly… hustle. These women, of course, aren’t what they seem (why else would Dixit-Nene’s character be named after an old-time actress?), and the men, again, are reduced to chutiyum sulphates.
More similarities follow – another kidnapping plot, another request by a lovelorn Khalujaan to be called by his given name of Iftekhar, another climax with goons and guns, another early scene with Babban seeking Scheherazade-like reprieve from an early grave through the narration of a story (and it’s the same story, about a foul-mouthed parrot) – but these numerous overt similarities don’t result in sequel fatigue, and that’s because of a rather unexpected replacement: Begum Akhtar instead of Lata Mangeshkar. The parade of old Hindi songs in the earlier film has been replaced by recitations of Urdu poetry (helpfully presented with English subtitles). We’re still in Uttar Pradesh, we’re still following the same characters (who think less with their heads than with their hearts… and loins), but we seem to be in a slightly different movie, a slightly different world. This, really, is how sequels should be made, hewing close enough to the earlier film(s) so that they seem part of a cinematic continuum, and yet different enough so that we don’t feel we’re watching the same film all over again.
In Ishqiya, Khalujaan (Shah was superb there; he’s superb here) was always part of a duo, but here, separated at least for a while from Babban, he comes alive as his own person. He looks at Para and remembers her from long ago, and she could almost be (and she perhaps is) the woman from the sepia-tinted photograph in his wallet we saw in the earlier film. Her old-worldness completes his. One of the most effective scenes in Ishqiya was Khalujaan’s admission that he cannot lie convincingly because he’s a man, and when Krishna asks him what if he were a woman, he spits out, “Phir pata nahin chalta ki pari hoon ya tawaif.” The sequel has no use for this Madonna-whore dichotomy, but it continues with the conceit is that men are weaker, emotionally, than women, and here, Khalujaan is physically weak as well. He suffers from hand tremors, and an early plan to impersonate a nawab – with Babban as his man Friday – has to be changed to reverse roles. But when he sees Begum Para, he can play the nawab again. He declares that he wants to live for himself, for a change, and in this old-world setting, where time seems to have stood still, he’s back in his element – so much so that when he steps out and is seen in a Beatles T-shirt, it’s an instant sight gag.
And Begum Para is everything he could hope for in a soul mate. She’s a dancer, a disciple of Birju Maharaj. When we first see her, she’s presented like a heroine from a classical painting, gazing out of a window, while Hamri atariya pe aao sanwariya, dekha dekhi balam hoi jaye plays in the background, as if foreshadowing a future meeting on a rooftop. (And this old-worldness is contrasted with the next-gen youthfulness of Babban and Muniya, who speak of iPhones and noodle dinners.) As opposed to Ishqiya, where both men fell for the same woman, Babban isn’t even interested in Begum Para. Khalujaan’s rival, this time, is Jaan Mohammad (Vijay Raaz, in superb comic form; even the way he takes up his stance during a skeet shooting contest is hilarious), who is also present at the Begum’s swayamvar. (She’s choosing a new husband, and he has to be a poet.) As a result, in this Ishqiya too, there’s love everywhere you look. Begum Para, reading Khalujaan’s palm, declares that he has lost many times in love. A physician announces that the cure for Khalujaan’s tremors is to find himself a girl to love. And there’s even an enumeration – somewhat needlessly (and fussily) – of the seven stages of love.
Dedh Ishqiya is filled with so much wit and wordplay that listening to the dialogues alone makes the movie worthwhile. Muniya asks someone where Salim’s tea stall is, and when asked what her name is, she replies, with a deadpan, “Anarkali.” Earlier, while pulling off a heist at a jeweller’s, Babban asks for the way to the bathroom as his money is in his underwear. The puzzled jeweller asks Khalujaan how much money can one keep, after all, in one’s underwear, and Khalujaan replies casually, “Kuch chaar paanch… Do-dhaai aage, do-dhaai peeche.” A character named Noor Mohammad Italvi (Manoj Pahwa) reveals that his surname arises from the fact that his mother is from Italy; he’s asked, “Bofors wala?” A Mexican standoff ends when a recording of Humko man ki shakti dena plays at a school assembly.
But other times – during a Batman quote, or during an exchange about DNA, or when the combination to a lock is revealed as 9211, or during the umpteenth Mexican standoff – we begin to feel that the cleverness exists for its own sake. And while (in Ishqiya) Krishna’s emotional trauma, the motivation for what she subsequently does, was etched out well enough through the tragedy we saw at the film’s beginning, we don’t sense that much being at stake when, say, Jaan Mohammad stalks Begum Para. He just comes across like a routine creep, and her line about being suffocated in his presence, due to his repeated overtures, doesn’t carry the weight it should. We don’t see why she’s such a bundle of nerves. And a following scene, where her past is alluded to through a wedding album, appears incomplete. We look for more details to fill out her character – and her motivation, explained away in one line at the end, isn’t enough. Even the songs don’t help this time around. Khalujaan’s love – in the absence of a declarative number like Dil to bachcha hai ji, with its lines like Dil sa koi kameena nahin… Dar lagta ishq karne mein ji – doesn’t register as strongly.
The only song that works, both as a superb composition on its own as well as a terrific marker for whatever’s happening at that point on screen, is the soaring Dil ka diya, and as it unfolds, it appears that the emotions bubbling under the surface will finally burst through, but soon the film slips back into its con games. And that, really, is the problem with these Ishqiya movies. There’s so much to savour in them, but they never become what they could have been because the heaviness of the love stories, which are the core, are diminished by the lightness, the cheekiness, the tomfoolery in everything else. This, more than the mishmash of seemingly conflicting genres, appears to be the problem. There’s something strange and disorienting about a ruminative song from Chitralekha following a scene where Muniya explains to Babban that what they shared was just sex not love, which is then followed by a startling flashback that hints at a very different kind of love. And the same questions come up. Is this a serious film or a trifle? Is it about characters and story, or is it a winking pastiche? How invested in it are we meant to be? Once again, I walked out of an Ishqiya movie having enjoyed it but not quite knowing what to make of it.
Copyright ©2014 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Manreet S Someshwar (@manreetss)
January 17, 2014
Comic caper + masala Bollywood + 50’s romance, Dedh Ishqiya is a fine riff on typical Hindi film fare. I get the feeling that the writers and directors had such fun with the film that they would be happy if we got some! A fine review indeed but don’t you think the plot was a bit weak, especially compared to that of Ishqiya? And the songs didn’t come to par either. But oh, how many Bollywood films can riff on baada/vaada, pair pristine Urdu with saucy UP lingo, and show love in all its shades – subtle and loud, recall the ‘lihaaf’ scene? – and not bat an eyelid?!
LikeLike
Zico Ghosh
January 17, 2014
That song is Dil ka Mizaaj, no?
LikeLike
Zico Ghosh
January 17, 2014
“These women, of course, aren’t what they seem”, did you deliberately not mention the homosexuality subtext between Begum and Muniya? It is inspired by Ishmat Chughtai’s short story Lihaaf, and there has been much brouhaha going on over this post the film’s release, so surprised that you didn’t mention
LikeLike
Nimmi Rangaswamy
January 17, 2014
The divine song you mention is Dil ka Mizaaj, no [ i believe Mizaaj means Temperament, WOW!] ? yeah, it had great potential to reclaim the love story but never did!!
LikeLike
rahul
January 17, 2014
I wonder how you find time to see a mainstream movie like Ishqiya more than once 🙂
I broadly agree with what you have written. Vidya Balan may have been miscast but she is a better actress than Madhuri . She gave a certain gravitas to the love angle. As you also mention -the song – “Dil toh bachcha hai ji” gave an abstract quality to Khalu Jaans love which was relatable. The original Isqhiya was hard to slot and I dont think it was a bad thing.
In Dedh Isqiya, Madhuri had a great role but I think she played it superficially – so the movie played out with no real sense of danger.There wasnt any real reason as to why the prospective suitors of Madhuri needed to be poets except to mount some set pieces. I saw this movie as a comedy. It is also something to rue about that there arent many actresses who could have given more depth to the character of Begum Para.
LikeLike
MANK
January 17, 2014
@BR
Its been almost a week that i have seen this film and have been waiting for your review. Enjoyed the movie and your review thoroughly. But why do i feel that you didn’t like this film that much?. I felt that this was the film to beat this year. After weeks and weeks of disappointments at the theaters, this was like a heaven sent. Vidya balan , i can understand, But why do you say maduri dixit is miscast?. I thought she had that diva mystique that the role required and which vidya lacked. Care to explain?
LikeLike
MANK
January 17, 2014
Also correct me if i am wrong , but i noticed 2 firsts in the case of hindi films here, the mention of an utterly debauched nawab who has no interest in women and secondly a lesbian couple riding into the sunset leaving the male admirers behind. Never thought, i would get to see this in hindi films.
LikeLike
Bala
January 17, 2014
For some reason, while the many pieces of this movie were a lot of fun (Vijay Raaz and Arshad Warsi’s acting, the humor etc) I am still unsure as to what I feel about the whole movie. For some reason the first half left me feeling a bit irritated. Whether it is the use of shaayari of (at least that’s what I felt from what I understood) uncertain quality, or Madhuri’s awkwardness (is it her age ? Something about her mannerisms ? Just felt a bit off) or something about the yearning for a long lost age ? And the whole batsmen/joker thing felt forced. A lot of things feel forced to me nowadays especially with my prejudiced notions of what people in small towns do/know. Even lip to lip kisses seem weird to me in such movies (though a friend assures me small town folks are way more “advanced” than I think they are 🙂 )
LikeLike
Bala
January 17, 2014
By Madhuri’s age, I meant that she looks and sounds a little too young for such roles. Hmm.
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 17, 2014
I liked it far less than ‘Ishqiya’, for three reasons. Firstly, Madhuri Dixit and Huma Qureshi, together or separately, can’t convey the dynamism of Vidya Balan. I don’t know why you say she wasn’t appropriate for the role in ‘Ishqiya’; I don’t think there’s another Indian actress who could have played the part better. The “pari” and “tawaif” aspects of Krishna were brought out equally well by her: the seeming innocence, the seductive abilities, the headstrong nature, the homicidal love, and the occasional moment of unguarded gentleness–it was all wonderful. Subsequent viewings have only enhanced my appreciation for her performance. Given that neither of the two women manage to come close here, and given that is something of a celebration of womanhood (or at least is meant to be), I wasn’t as involved in their fate as I should have been. Secondly, the soundtrack is a disappointment. There’s nothing as soulful as ‘Dil toh bachcha hai ji’ or anything as foot-tapping as ‘Ibn-e-Batuta’ here. And thirdly (spoilers ahead), that twist at the end didn’t work for me. Not only does it resort to painting an offensive stereotype of gay men, it also shows a poor understanding of lesbianism. Women don’t “turn” gay if neglected by their husbands: lesbianism isn’t something that crops up in the absence of heterosexual love, as a replacement or substitute for it. It is something that exists on its own, as naturally as heterosexuality. It’s quite depressing that even the best of our filmmakers can’t grasp this simple fact.
There is indeed a lot to enjoy in this one, but unlike its predecessor, it’s not all that good.
LikeLike
Vivek Gupta
January 17, 2014
Rangan: Nice review. I get the feeling that you really loved the movie, in fact you loved it so much that you were rooting for it to be not merely a terrifically crafted great entertainer, but also a gem of pure cinema. True, the movie doesn’t reach that rarefied elevation inhabited by some of the other movies set in a similar millieu (Sahib, Bibi,Gulaams and Umrao Jaans of the world) , but I feel that any attempt to make this film stay faithful to its core love story would have come at the cost of diminishing its entertainment value. For example, in the 7 stages of love bit, Arshad Warsi says to Naseer “Isme Sex Kab Aaata ha”, that gets a big laugh from the audience and also dilutes the emtional heaviness embedded in the concept of the 7 stages of love. A more serious movie would have ended with a major character going through the 7th stage- Death, which would have been truer to the emotional core of the film, but at the cost of delivering a heavy punch to the audience and robbing the movie of its light-heartedness. The makers made the decision not to permeate the movie with heaviness and keep providing comic relief which I think works very well. Not all well-crafted movies need to be Pakeezah or Umrao Jaan.
LikeLike
An Jo
January 18, 2014
@ MANK:
I completely understand your liking this movie and its standing. This one has made just 18 crores and couldn’t even over-take a shitty movie called YAARIYAN. Guess people suddenly become spend-thrifts when KRISSHIT 3 or DICK 3 are released, but when it comes to films that have wayyyy more thought and writing put into them, they suddenly start weighing their wallets.
We get the cinema we deserve; and we deserve KRISSHIT 3.
@ BR/Bala:
Regarding Madhuri’s apparent lack of ‘acting skills’ or awkwardness for this role or her mis-match, I beg to differ. Begum Para is someone that is supposed to be a ‘susceptible’ kind of person. She is NOT as quick-thinking or a ‘determined’, calculative sort of person as Vidya Balan’s character was in Ishqiya. If you notice, ALL the nitty-gritties of the kidnapping plot and all the necessities are taken care of by Muniya while Begum does nothing. (In the scene where Vijay Raaz finds out the truth and comes back to the haveli to check on Muniya, she picks up 2 passports (one hers and one Begum’s – implying again that when it comes to ‘technicalities’ of getting things done, the go-to person is Muniya). Begum is just happy to be with Muniya and with memories of her erst-while, laid-back, supposedly nawabi life; she is just interested in someone loving her passionately). It is Begum that lies on the ground wist-fully against a takiya/tree taking in the air and beauty of the environs. Muniya is always on the move. Even when she is sitting in her room smoking, she is still thinking of how to proceed with the kidnapping. She finds Babban’s loins to exploit and within an instant, does so with the end-motive in mind. Begum is simply the person that goes along.
Right till the moment Begum comes on the stage to announce her suitor, she is still unsure and asks Muniya if she is doing the right thing. Even after Muniya’s re-assurance, she takes very slow, unsure steps when coming down the stairs to announce and after a few seconds, takes a strong surge with ‘put-on’ confidence. This indicates a clear personality disorder (maybe bi-polor; maybe early schizophrenia (she is shown taking pills when she is anxiety-ridden or in an emotionally-distressed state).
Madhuri’s Begum needed to portray a certain inward turbulence, a mish-mash of looking at life ahead positively while also not letting the wounds of her past completely heal. And she does a fine job of that. There are very few times her face lights up; when dancing, when Khalu elevates her through shaayari, & when she is with Muniya. (Also note that the only time she is shown smiling alone, is when she switches on the TV in the hide-out to see Vijay Raaz pleading and agreeing for the ransom – she realizes now that the time to live with Muniya happily ‘ever-after’ is quite near fruition and laughs ‘whole-heartedly’ with excitement.)
To-all:
Apologize for posting my detailed take on DEDH ISHQIYA the other day on the Veeram/Jilla post. It was my mistake ably abetted by Chivas Regal – was intended to be posted somewhere else. I don’t intend to blog-whore on BR’s site or cut-across thoughts of others and it won’t happen again.
LikeLike
Di
January 18, 2014
Really moron review, what with blow by blow story re-telling..yikes…b-r…do you HAVE to bracket it into a genre to enjoy a movie? Then what difference between you and aam janta! Delete this review and re-do it and restore your high standards before too many people read this review!!!
LikeLike
brangan
January 18, 2014
Zico Ghosh/Nimmi Rangaswamy: Aren’t the lines “Dil ka diya, shab bhar jala”?
Zico Ghosh: I have alluded to that here: a startling flashback that hints at a very different kind of love
But the reason I didn’t get into this more is that I am convinced the film makes a strong enough case for the lesbianism. (The director has stated this, of course, but then on this blog we don’t really care about authorial intent, right? 🙂 ) We get a shot of them holding hands, and Para says Muniya is her dost, behen and jaan. You can construe this any way you want, but to my mind — given what’s IN the film — it seemed like a soul mate kind of situation and not necessarily a sexual relationship.
rahul: “The original Isqhiya was hard to slot and I dont think it was a bad thing.”
I agree in general with this sentiment, that films don’t always have to leave you with a “clean” takeaway as you walk home, that it’s okay to have mixed feelings that may or may not resolve themselves over future viewings. But with Vishal B’s films — ever since he stopped making “straight” dramas and began making these twisty genre pics like “Kaminey” and “7 Khoon Maaf”, the mixed feelings I have are somewhat different. There is no doubt a great deal of intelligence that goes into each scene, but I feel these films lose out at the big-picture level. The something organic that fuses all this cleverness (Fpiderman, a character named Vronsky) together into one great movie — that’s not there.
MANK: I don’t know. She just seemed too… slight in the role. Too ephemeral. Too lightweight. And I kept getting annoyed by that careful half-smile of hers, which seemed like something you’d do for a photo session where you don’t want the lines around the mouth to show up than in a movie.
Bala“Even lip to lip kisses seem weird to me in such movies…”
Saar, your comments are always entertaining, saar 🙂
Abhirup: Regarding my reservations about Vidya Balan, this is what I wrote in my review:
“There’s a degree of crafty craziness needed to embody Krishna, and I’m not sure Vidya Balan has it. Hers is a refined, soothing presence that comes with delicate line readings, and though she looks the part and acts the part, we don’t hear the part when she opens her mouth. (She renders Badi dheere jali raina, a howl from the heart if there ever was one, with expressions more appropriate to a tranquil bhajan.) The film hinges on a good performer trapped in an ill-suited role.”
Bue yes, I agree that neither of the women here come close to what Vidya did there.
Also, I don’t think the point is that lesbianism happens when husbands are aloof. It’s that a bond can develop in the unlikeliest quarters. (Though my own feelings about the lesbianism aspect are mixed; see comment above.)
Vivek Gupta: I think that a good film would have balanced the “entertainment value” as well as the “core love story.” The two are not mutually independent. The “sex” punch line to the seven stages of love bit is no doubt funny, but that’s all it needed to be — a punch line between Babban and Khalujaan. There was no need to keep extending this bit to the point where Babban says something about this to Muniya.
An Jo: I wasn’t comparing Madhuri to Vidya. Merely noting that the motivations/character of the central figure here aren’t as compelling or well etched out as in the former film.
…steps when coming down the stairs to announce and after a few seconds, takes a strong surge with ‘put-on’ confidence.
I don’t see this as a personality disorder. It could just be nervousness. She needs to pull this off. She has the jitters. Where are we getting the sense that there’s something as deep-rooted as a personality disorder in this scene? Is it because of the pills (which could be for anything, to calm nerves or some such thing)?
Di: do you HAVE to bracket it into a genre to enjoy a movie?
There are different ways of engaging with films. This is just one of them. No, you don’t HAVE to bracket a film to enjoy it. But it interests me, that’s all.
LikeLike
MANK
January 18, 2014
An Joe
Thanks for understanding 🙂 . I think Abhirup and others are being too hard on the film comparing it with the earlier film . Because the mindset with which i watched this film was really like a traveler in the desert(of k3,d3,456… whatever came before in the preceding weeks) who is suddenly given manna.And dont even get me started on the comparisons with yaariyan and all that. Man if people could shell out 500crs on D3 ,can definitely give atleast 100 cr for this.Also the miscasting comments about madhuri that Brangan makes , the tentativeness,the slight smile can be explained being part of the lack of confidence of the character or susceptibility as you put it.(Or perhaps madhuri was plain nervous tackling such a role after a long break in her career 🙂 ). Also i lay it out here that i am a sucker for urdu poetry.So The best part for me was the dialogues ,such quotable quotes. the shayari concert which many complain to be sleep inducing is really the highlight for me. Naseeruddin shah in his mirza ghalib vintage form and Badr’s poems.just divine.
LikeLike
MANK
January 18, 2014
Is vidya really a better actress than Madhuri??.
I like vidya as an actress a lot and considers her the best of today. But i think on screen she pales in comparison to Madhuri.I will confess honestly that i have been a die hard maduri fan for so long that i cant make an objective comparison. i find(Generally) Maduri’s body language,attitude,comic timing and dialogue delivery really terrific. i think that vidya’s dialogue delivery skills leaves a lot to be desired . I am not sure the problem is with her voice rhythms or her accent or something else.But when she deliver those lines whether in ishqiya or dirty picture (that entertainment, entertainment line coming out of her mouth just didn’t work for me at all) it always feels a little off.. When it comes to intensity and internalizing the character, she really scores.
LikeLike
Nimmi Rangaswamy
January 18, 2014
BR, are you alluding to the Zaban jale hai song? there are no such lines verbatim in both Rahat songs… though there is a lot of Dil and Jale in them… which is this soaring song? I can only think of Dil ka Mizaaj early post-halfway into the film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxg-RzMiTRM
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
January 18, 2014
To me, a serious movie is one which doesn’t look assembled, whose plot is convincing. Here, in dedh ishqiya, everything looked manufactured for the sake of ‘scene’. why wasn’t naseerudin included in the kidnapping plan? just to create one dramatic scene of suicide and open-to-all kidnapping show? if madhuri’s husband left her in debt then of course the most obvious thing is to loot somebody. afterall there are no alternatives.
In all, there was no basis of the movie. there was no point to tell. to me, it was just a collection of very good scenes. but then, that’s not bad either.
@abhirup- sure, homosexuality is natural. but i guess at times it also exists because of the absence of heterosexual partner or because of a loving homosexual. examples- Fire movie and fashion movie. but in real life, i assume suh relations would be ephemeral. not sure.
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 18, 2014
Thanks for your reply, Mr. Rangan. Yeah, I remember what you said about Vidya in your review of ‘Ishqiya’; indeed, I re-read it before posting my previous comment. I simply happen to think that the “crafty craziness” you speak of is precisely what Vidya conveyed so well in the film. I would like to point out four specific scenes there: 1) where Vidya appears for the first time with a rifle in hand, telling the two men that henceforth, things shall happen as she says. Prior to this, she came across as an enigmatic but altogether harmless person, but in this scene, we see that she isn’t so. And the way Vidya managed to make this morphing into a rifle-wielding femme fatale so credible is one of the many wonderful aspects of her performance in that film. 2) her sucking the thumb of Babban. A clearly sexual gesture, and one that’s intended to make Babban agree to her plans of kidnapping the person who she knows can lead her to her husband. That she can do this with a man she barely knows in order to reach her goal conveys that crafty craziness well enough, I would say. 3) the way she drives off with the abducted man while Babban and Khalujaan are fighting on the street. Once again, it shows her steely determination to go to any lengths to achieve what she had set out to do, even if that means abandoning the two men with whose help she had carried out the kidnapping. 4) her confrontation with her husband at the end. The explosiveness (literally and metaphorically) of that scene shows what a force to reckon with she is.
As for the lesbianism, I don’t agree that the relationship between the two women is non-sexual. Remember the scene where Babban and Khalujaan are tied up? Khalujaan says to Babban, “Thaand laag raha hain? Lihaaf maange le.” And as he says that, we see the shdows of the two women draw close in what is clearly a very intimate position. That shot of the shadow, together with Khalujaan’s remark–which is a clear reference to Ismat Chughtai’s story ‘Lihaf’, which dealt with lesbianism–makes a good case (on the basis of what is “in” the film, as you said–that the two women are in a lesbian relationship. Plus, to me at least, the earlier shot of them holding hands and all are too suggestive to be indicative of nothing more than friendship. Also, when Babban overpowers Para, Khalujaan mockingly says, “Akeli jayengi ya aapne laundiya ko saath lekar jayengi?” The words “aapni laundiya” here indicate a romantic attachment: an English translation of those words would be “your girlfriend”, isn’t it? All these factors, I think, make it amply clear that they are in a romantic/sexual relationship.
And I do think, pardon me, that the movie does draw a connection between lesbianism and being ignored by one’s husband/male lover. It first informs us of nawab’s habits, painting a very stereotypically offensive portrait of gay men as heartless louts (by the way, you never said what you feel about this aspect. Did you feel the same way about the nawab’s portrayal?), and then it ges on to inform us how Muniya and Para became close in her days of loneliness and despondence. As I said, that is not how lesbianism is: a lesbian woman would feel dejected and unhapy even if she had the most loving and caring husband under the sun. Para should have been shown as being unhappy about getting married to a man in the first place, rather than showing her as unhappy because the man in question pays no attention to her. That would have been a proper portrayal of lesbianism.Instead, we get the old and mistaken idea that women are drawn to each other romantically in the abscence of male love. Chughtai’s tale had the same flaw, for which it was criticized by the noted LGBT activist Saleem Kidwai. The makers of this movie would have done well to go through it once before they went ahead with that twist of theirs.
LikeLike
MANK
January 18, 2014
@Abhirup
I think that the makers wanted to go a little subtle\palatable on the lesbian aspect. Remember what happened with Fire?. So they needed to add that angle about an uncaring husband and loneliness bringing them together. All said and done its still a mainstream commercial film and they still had the guts to show them riding away together at the end..I am no expert on lesbianism, but i do believe that its not impossible for 2 heterosexual women to bond together like that and the makers have the liberty of showing such a relationship.Its also necessary for the heterosexual love affairs(naseer -madhuri, arshad-huma) to be convincing as well. Yeah but you are right about the homosexual aspect of their relationship. Its very much out there.But i dont agree with your view that a very stereotypically offensive portrait of gay men is presented. I mean from time immemorial, the nawabs have been portraid as debauched womanizers in our movies , so what if a different sexual orientation is presented here.Stereotypification is more on nawabs rather than about gay men IMO.
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 18, 2014
MANK: I understand that the fear of controversy might have played a role in the way lesbianism is presented here, but whatever might be the cause, the fact remains that this is not an accurate portrayal of lesbianism. I know I am repeating myself here, but I shall insist that any film which shows two women falling in love because of the neglect and lack of affection from their husbands/boyfriends is a very, very mistaken take on lesbian relationships. As for the nawab, I think they could have simply shown him to be an uncaring, dissolute man who doesn’t care for his wife: it would be the same as far as Para’s character is concerned. There was absolutely no need to make him gay. This stereotype of gay men–that they are heartless louts who take advantage of women and exploit them while making out with their male lovers and enjoying themselves to their hearts’ content–is way too prevalent and too far removed from truth to receive any further endorsement from any quarters. ‘Life in a Metro’ painted a similar portrait of gay men. ‘Page 3’ as well. And many others, which I won’t bother to name here. The fact of the matter is, the movie could have steered clear of this stereotype, but for reasons the makes alone know, it didn’t. And that is to the detriment of the movie.
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 18, 2014
*the makers alone know
LikeLike
rahul
January 18, 2014
Abhirup, the allusion to lesbianism was pretty clear, but the other judgements are unwarranted.People can be bisexual , or lie somewhere in the continuum of hetero to homosexual. It is not far-fetched for someone to explore their bisexuality when they have no other option for physical intimacy. Also, I don’t remember the Nawab being portrayed as being particularly cruel, he just was not interested in her.
Not discounting the overt allusions to lesbianism, I still think the interpretation of them as soulmates is also valid, for sexuality is not about sex. I am willing to be corrected on that point.
By the way, here is an old song with pretty clear lesbian overtones
LikeLike
Di
January 18, 2014
@BR if you must put brackets, then think of Ishqia as western without horses. You can even think of Vidya Balan as Gabbar/Thakur rolled in one.
@AnnJo: your review of DI was far superior than Mr BR’s!!! You should be a professional writer.
LikeLike
Charan
January 19, 2014
It is disappointing that some website called moifightclub got the fact that these two women were in a homosexual relationship and did a background study on the lihaaf story but you didn’t seem to get it or mention it.
LikeLike
Aran
January 19, 2014
To Abhirup: I think the homosexuality aspect, both in the case of the nawab and in Madhuri-Huma’s case, needs to be viewed through the lens of the cultural background where these people are coming from. In no way can these people have intense and open homosexual relationships. The need to be secretive about them is inborn in the society where they’re in and that’s what the movie depicted.
Now, whether Madhuri’s homosexual tendencies are a result of being abandoned by her husband or something that is inherent becomes even more complex because for a small town girl, having such tendencies will not mean she can act on them… or perhaps even think about them as valid expressions of her self. Being a lesbian is all fine and good and feeling attracted to the same sex is fine for activists in the bigger cities in the here and now who are raising a hue and cry about it, but for the places that are depicted in the movie and in the time period that this would be coming from, unheard of. So in this case, Madhuri’s issues would be a case of, even if she is inherently a lesbian, not acknowledging it until faced by something outside of herself in the form of Huma and the circumstances that came about. In this sense, the movie does an absolutely admirable job of presenting the issues in the place and time it takes place.
Finally, I think the movie and the way their love is depicted is actually a win for homosexuality in any case, because the movie ultimately shows that being a lesbian is okay even if it’s not easily accepted. And it’s not easily accepted. That’s a fact.
LikeLike
Aran
January 19, 2014
“…the problem with these Ishqiya movies. There’s so much to savour in them, but they never become what they could have been because the heaviness of the love stories, which are the core, are diminished by the lightness, the cheekiness, the tomfoolery in everything else.”
Ah, BR. Such a different read than the one I have of the Ishqiya movies. For me, the key to these movies lies in what you describe. They are, in my view, trying NOT to be a ‘heaviness of the love story’ kind of movie, because God knows we have enough of those, and love really is not about the heaviness always. Love is ephemeral in most cases. It is something that fills you like air instead of drenching you like water most times. It is more an addition to life than life itself; a reason for an inward smile rather than a grand passion.
It takes a lot for a love story to reach a happily ever after… and this is what the Ishqiya movies are trying to show. There are umpteen boy meets girl, exchange spats, fall in love, ride into the sunset kind of Bollywoodian love stories that we’re fed time and again in slightly different formats. The entirety of the movie dedicated to this love story says that love is, in essence, the reason for living. But all love is not that, is it? Even if you love with all of your heart and soul, or with all of your loins and gillis for that matter, it might not turn out to be the overarching emotion in your life. In fact, it should not be the overarching emotion in your life, as life is much more than falling in love or achieving that love. I think this is what the Ishqiya movies are trying to say. That love happens, but it happens amidst the everydayness of life. It also happens to be one in the different kinds of love we can feel – the enumeration of the stages of love was a brilliant key to this part I thought. And love happens time and again – as khalujaan’s palm reading tells us. If you’re looking for love in Ishiqya movies, it’s there, but a more down to earth love, which lives in the middle of other emotions. Don’t get me wrong, I love myself a Shahrukh tipping his head and giving me a slow smile as much as the next soppy girl, but life isn’t quite staged that way. Neither is love.
ps.: And while we’re talking about love… MANK, you are now my favourite BR commenter because you have an undying love for both Madhuri and Urdu poetry. Mark of a fine man, that.
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 19, 2014
@rahul:
“People can be bisexual”
Of course they can be, but I don’t think the two women here are. At no point do we see Madhuri or Huma attracted to any men; they have eyes only for each other. That “swayamvar” of the poets, if I gathered correctly, has been going on for some years by the time Khalujaan takes part in it, and I am sure in each swayamvar a number of suitors tried their best to impress Para with their verses and their manners and that some of them might actually have been genuinely in love with her (like Khalujaan). But she doesn’t go for any of them. And her final decision to marry Jaan Mohammad Khan is based solely on her decision to fleece him through the false kidnapping. Also, as she says to Khalujaan when he is tied up, she can be a man’s confidant or friend or sympathizer, but not his lover. Not exactly the kind of thing a bisexual woman would say, I think. No bisexual would rule out the possibility of having a relationship with members of either gender. Muniya, similarly, is not shown as being interested in any man except Babban, and as it turns out, even he was being used by her. She wasn’t at all in love with him, or even attracted to him on a purely physical level (I think that’s the reason why the kiss between Muniya and Babban here is far less raunchy than the one between Babban and Krishna in ‘Ishqiya’). So, I think it’s valid to argue that the characters of Madhuri and Huma were intended to be lesbians. Only, it all goes wrong because of that flashback which shows Para’s lesbianism “happening” after she learns the truth about her husband. This is the peddling, as I have said, of the age-old idea that women turn to each other for love and care only when they don’t get it from the men. If they wanted to present a proper portrayal of lesbianism, they should have shown Para and Muniya having a relationship prior to the former’s marriage, and the latter taking a job at the ‘haveli’ only so that she can continue being with Para. Madhuri’s character should similarly have been shown–once again, repeating myself–about being upset about getting married to a man in the first place rather than being upset because the man doesn’t love her and turning to Muniya as a second choice. That, as I said, is not an accurate portrayal of lesbianism.
“Also, I don’t remember the Nawab being portrayed as being particularly cruel, he just was not interested in her.”
He was portrayed as a man who abandoned her in the huge ‘haveli’, paying no attention to her and her suffering, and enjoying himself with his male lovers and spending all his wealth in the process, leaving her penniless when he died. A typical portrayal of gay men as exploiting, concerned-only-with-physical-pleasures-and-creature-comforts people. The direct connection the movie draws between the nawab being gay and Madhuri’s sorrow is what is objectionable to me.
@Aran:
“In no way can these people have intense and open homosexual relationships.”
When on earth did I say Madhuri and Huma should have been shown as having an openly lesbian relationship? Of course that would have been unrealistic, given the milieu they live in. What I am objecting to–and I don’t know why it’s so difficult for some people to get it–is the idea conveyed here that lesbianism crops up as a substitute for heterosexual love, in the absence of it. “My husband doesn’t love me, so I became a lesbian” is a very, very inaccurate take on lesbianism. And that’s what this movie does, portraying the nawab with the most stupid gay stereotypes in the process as well. And Madhuri’s lesbianism could have been portrayed without showing her as being “open” about it. For instance, when she is telling Khalujaan about her past, the screenwriters could easily have slipped in a line or two on how she always felt different from other girls and how she never felt the growing attraction to the opposite sex in her years of puberty as the other girls around her did, but kept it a secret because she didn’t know what to make of it or what others would think of it. They could have also, as I have stated above, shown Madhuri meeting Huma before the marriage and the two starting a relationship clandestinely. That would have been so much better a take on lesbian relationships. Instead, we get this very incorrect notion of lesbianism being the result of a woman not being loved by her man. That’s incorrect. Period.
LikeLike
brangan
January 19, 2014
MANK: Is vidya really a better actress than Madhuri??
This isn’t a comparison. In general, the films the two have done are very different. I think both are good in certain kinds of roles. I loved Madhuri in the grossly underrated “Aaja Nachle” — but here she just didn’t “fit”, in some ways. Within the “Ishqiya” universe, I felt Vidya outclassed Madhuri, that’s all.
Nimmi Rangaswamy: Okay, I checked and the song on the album is called “Kya hoga.” The opening words are “Dil ka diya, shab bhar jala, tere liye piya…” and the reason I remember this is that the latter phrase is sharply coloured. It’s exquisite, and the song really takes off from there.
ramitbajaj01: to me, it was just a collection of very good scenes. but then, that’s not bad either.
That’s quite a good way of summing up these films 🙂
Abhirup: You raise some really good points.
I am not saying that the relationship between the two women is non-sexual. I haven’t read the Chugtai story, but from what I *saw* on screen, the relationship could have been anything — haven’t you seen sisters holding hands or hugging and sleeping? Heck, we live in a country where two men could go around arm-locked and no one would blink (unlike, say, the US, where such a gesture would likely carry a more specific meaning). So I just worded it as “a startling flashback that hints at a very different kind of love.” That’s all. (“Fire” has a more explicit take on this, and there’s no doubt there about what shades that relation took on.) I rest my case on Para’s declaration that Muniya is dost, behen and jaan. Those are not exactly sapphic words — they’re general enough to mean anything (including lesbianism).
About your second point — “the movie does draw a connection between lesbianism and being ignored by one’s husband/male lover” — I see what you are saying. I didn’t find the nawab’s characterisation “offensive.” This particular nawab was this way. I didn’t see it as a generalisation. And given the milieu here, most gay men would have ended up married, I guess. That doesn’t justify what the nawab did, of course.
This is a slightly difficult thing to address in a film — how to term one character’s portrayal as “regressive” or “stereotyped” or whatever when it’s just this one guy/girl doing these things? When do we see this as representing only this character and when do we see this as an extrapolation to the world at large? IMO, there just wasn’t enough here to do this extrapolation.
About “a proper portrayal of lesbianism,” as you call it, I don’t find enough in the film to make a strong case either for or against. I’ve read about a lot of gay men and women who repress this aspect and end up “discovering” it only later. It’s too complex a subject to argue about based on a few fleeting scenes.
Also, as she says to Khalujaan when he is tied up, she can be a man’s confidant or friend or sympathizer, but not his lover.
IIRC, she doesn’t say she cannot be “a man’s mashooq” but “kisi ke mashooqa”, giving the impression that she isn’t looking for love anymore.
MANK: Stereotypification is more on nawabs rather than about gay men
Excellent point.
Aran: I did not mean that these needed to be heavy love stories — merely that the heaviness inherent in the love stories coexisted uneasily with the lightness elsewhere. The meshing, to me, isn’t organic, the way it was in, say, “Luv Shuv Te Chicken Khurana.” That film had crazy look-at-me-scenes too, but they blended into an organic overall vision, and that I don’t see in these “Ishqiya” films.
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 19, 2014
Thank again for your reply, Mr. Rangan.
“haven’t you seen sisters holding hands or hugging and sleeping?”
Of course I have. However, the way the two looked at each other while holding hands came across as clearly amorous–or sapphic, as you put it–to me. That is how lovers look at each other, not siblings or friends. Plus, the shot of the shadows of the two women drawing close, coupled with the reference to Chughtai’s ‘Lihaf’ makes it very clear that the relationship between the two is not simply that of sisters or friends. I mean, why refer to a story on lesbianism if they are only friends and not lovers?
“Heck, we live in a country where two men could go around arm-locked and no one would blink”
Errr, I am not too sure about that. I have been on the receiving end of some nasty catcalls because of placing my hands on my male friend’s shoulders or for holding hands with him on more than one occasion. But that is a different topic altogether, so I won’t elaborate here.
“And given the milieu here, most gay men would have ended up married, I guess. That doesn’t justify what the nawab did, of course.”
I agree that the pressures of the milieu would force most gay men to get married. But if a film wants to be really nuanced and proper take on homosexuality, it would portray a gay man who marries due to societal pressure as being as much a victim as his wife, rather than showing him as some kind of heartless lout who cares only for his physical pleasures and nothing else. Take, for example, ‘Brokeback Mountain’. There too we see two gay men who get married to women because they live in a place and in an era that is hostile to homosexuality. And the womens’ pain upon discovering the truth about their husbands is well conveyed. But the sympathy for the women is not achieved at the expense of the gay men, who are also shown as suffering, wronged individuals, who got married only because of the repressive nature of their society which wouldn’t let them be who they are. And the two women in question don’t start sleeping with each other because their husbands aren’t interested in them, because that’s not how lesbianism is. I want that kind of maturity when it comes to depiction of gay and lesbian characters, which I didn’t find here.
“When do we see this as representing only this character and when do we see this as an extrapolation to the world at large? IMO, there just wasn’t enough here to do this extrapolation.”
I see what you are saying. But consider, also, the number of times we see gay men being portrayed in our movies as people who take advantage of women. I refer, again, to the two movies I mentioned earlier. In ‘Life in a Metro’, Konkona Sen Sharma’s character is duped by a gay man who wants to hide his gayness from others and hence pretends to date her, and she later discovers him in bed with another gay man. This second gay man is the one who advised Konkona’s ‘boyfriend’ to use her as a shield and to trick her like that. The same in ‘Page 3’, where once again, we see Konkona’s gay best friend take advantage of her trust and sleep with his boyfriend, and the boyfriend, it turns out, was also using Konkona to mask his real sexual orientation. I could cite other examples, but I shall stop here. Now, if we look at ‘Dedh Ishqiya’ in complete isolation, I guess one can say that we are seeing only one nawab and that he is not meant to be representative of gay men in general. However, once you look at these other movies I mentioned and then note the similarities in the portrayal of gay men in all these movies, including ‘Dedh Ishqiya’, isn’t it valid to say that our movies offensively generalize about gay men? I ask this: couldn’t the makers have made the nawab simply an uncaring, dissolute husband, rather than a gay man who ruins the life of a woman? Was there really any pressing need to make the nawab gay, unless perhaps the makers think, subconsciously at least, that gay men are deceitful and dissolute by nature?
“I’ve read about a lot of gay men and women who repress this aspect and end up “discovering” it only later.”
That is a completely different matter. Of course there are gay men and women who tend to repress their feelings and learn to express them only later. But here, we see no such conflict in Para. No scenes or dialogues where she speaks about having different feelings than other girls around her, and trying to deny or repress them. All we get to know is that her husband was gay and cared not one whit for her, and that in those days of loneliness, she came close to Muniya, whose relationship with Para, to me at least, carries clear hints of lesbianism. This equating of being neglected by one’s man and falling for a woman as a result is what I call an inaccurate portrayal of lesbian relationships. Had we been told that Madhuri’s character had struggled with her sexuality in the days prior to her marriage, there would be no problem in accepting her subsequent feelings for Muniya. That we aren’t told anything of the sort, and are shown as her falling for Muniya as a result of being neglected by her husband, is what is inaccurate.
“she doesn’t say she cannot be “a man’s mashooq” but “kisi ke mashooqa”, giving the impression that she isn’t looking for love anymore.”
That’s because she already has Muniya, isn’t it?
All in all, I think the movie does have its strengths, but the portrayal of gay and lesbian people is certainly not one of them.
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 19, 2014
*we see Konkona’s gay best friend take advantage of her trust and sleep with her boyfriend
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
January 19, 2014
@Abhirup- There is a possibility that madhuri is heterosexual and huma is homosexual. Madhuri’s desires to be dominated, be guided, be taken care of and suppress feelings are so feminine. (ofcourse not all females are like this and ofcourse these traits are not just limited to females, but stereotypicallly, these are feminine traits). In contrast, Huma is Madhuri’s man. It’s possible that Madhuri found solace in Huma’s company after her husband’s death. Maybe she felt comfortable and pampered and secure in Huma’s company. So, she chose not to seek any other partner.
Btw, sex is overrated.
LikeLike
MANK
January 19, 2014
@Aran
Thanks a lot . Great to be appreciated for 2 things that both my family and friends consider my biggest stupidity\madness 🙂
@Abhirup
Page3 is no go brother. Isnt that the creation of that horrible bhandarkar fellow who stereotypes even stereotyping. 🙂 But brokeback mountain is a great eg. and i understand your anguish. As i mentioned earlier about the fire eg. i think they put the bad gay nawab to contrast with the good lesbian couple , sort of like that good sacrificing ak hangal muslim is used to be put in earlier films to contrast with the bad muslim villains.The main controversy of ‘Fire’ was that the woman were unhappy even with their straight husbands and fell into a lesbian relationship. So here they turned the nawab into gay. But i really didn’t feel all that bad about the nawab character as he is only passingly referenced and didn’t appear all that of a pivot in the narration until you brought it up. I consider dedh ishqya an alternate version of Sahib bibi aur ghulam with a gay twist.. Rehman’s debauched womaniser who neglects his wife and leaves her in abject poverty is the dead nawab. In place of bhootnath there is Huma and of course Madhuri is the tragedy queen.So when you look at it from that angle, it doesnt matter what nawab’s sexual orientation is and maybe that would be the filmmakers’ defense as well.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
January 19, 2014
@rahul- in that song, I reckon all the references are for heterosexual romance. It’s just rendered by females, that’s all. Parveen is only being playful.
LikeLike
MANK
January 19, 2014
@Brangan
Well i compared those 2 actresses because there was a lot of talk about vidya being a better actress than madhuri period, over here as well as in other sites as well were dedh ishqya was been discussed and it was quite heartbreaking for me 🙂 considering what a madhuri nut i am.Yeah you are right about the actors doing different kind of movies and perhaps mrityudand was the closest that madhuri came to doing a vidya kind of role and i liked her very much in that. But her real strength lie in beta,HAHK,Tezaab kind of roles where she is more of a star performer than just a pure character actor which is what Vidya is.Guess its sort of like comparing cary grant and dustin hoffman
And regarding your response to ramitbajaj01’s query , wasnt it Howard Hawks who said that a good film is the one which has 4 good scenes and no bad scenes.May be dedh ishqya has its share of bad scenes depending on one’s POV but all of us will agree that it has more than 4 good scenes, so it should be considered a pretty good pic.
And why do i sense this extreme hesitation in admitting to the homsexuality in the film. You were the last person i expected to be timid about it. Its the 21st century remember.We are actually discussing article 377 in the streets.
LikeLike
SR
January 19, 2014
‘Dedh Ishqiya is filled with so much wit and wordplay that listening to the dialogues alone makes the movie worthwhile’
– spot on !!
Just this little gem: “urte guzarte jo nadiya ne dekha, pani pe parchhayi sahla ke dekha” – the lambent visual poetry tucked away two thirds into a song…. speechless. Whether it’s lesbianism, gay nawabs…. such trifles, who cares. For me, the details, dialogues suffices to warrant repeated viewings…. missed your Vijay Raaz’s skeet shooting stance observation – excuse enough to pay to see it again(drove 40 miles to see it since the local Chicago theater only carried masterpieces like ‘Dhoom 3’, ‘Karle Pyar Karle’)
I ardently hope this movie does well so that the talents displayed in this film are nurtured further.
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 19, 2014
@rmaitbajaj01:
“Madhuri’s desires to be dominated, be guided, be taken care of and suppress feelings are so feminine. (ofcourse not all females are like this and ofcourse these traits are not just limited to females, but stereotypicallly, these are feminine traits).”
If that is indeed what the filmmakers had in mind, then their idea of “femininity” is horribly poor. The “desires to be dominated, be guided, be taken care of and suppress feelings” are by no means exclusively or even predominantly female traits: there are literally countless men in whom these tendencies can be seen.
In any case, I don’t agree with your observations, because Para expresses no such desires. I saw no submissiveness in her which justifies your claims.
“In contrast, Huma is Madhuri’s man.”
Not every gay couple has a ‘male’ and a ‘female’ half. That’s one of the many myths about homosexuality that needs to be gotten rid of.
I couldn’t quite understand what you are trying to say in your comment, so I won’t say any more here.
MANK:
I like your observation about ‘Sahib Biwi aur Ghulam’. However, I don’t think the gay twist here served any purpose, nor do I think it was well done. They could have shown the nawab as not being gay, and still made him an uncaring husband; the effect would have been the same. Or they could have made him gay, and could have shown him as being as much a victim, a sufferer as Para, and developed a friendship between them on this shared pain of being unable to be who they are owing to the nature of the milieu they live in. The nawab and his wife could have acted as covers for each other, with both pursuing their true loves (for the nawab, whichever man he is in love with; for Madhuri’s character, Muniya) while pretending to be a “normal” husband and wife. What a tremendously exciting take that would have been: a gay man and a lesbian woman pulling the wool over the eyes of a prejudiced milieu through the heteronormative institution of marriage. Instead, we get this stupid stereotype of the gay man taking advantage of women, and lesbianism “happening” to a woman because she isn’t loved by her husband. That makes it a lesser movie than it could have been.
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 19, 2014
PS.- I just want to clarify again: I do understand that the makers might simply have wanted to show the nawab as a debauched lout and had no intentions to denigrate gay men. However, the fact that they made him gay is disturbing precisely because the tendency to associate gay men with debauchery and dissolution is way too prevalent. So often I hear people saying, “Between gay people there is no love or feelings, it’s all about sex.” Or, “This homosexuality is all about physical pleasures and nothing else.” It’s depressing, as I said before, that even the best filmmakers in our country seem to think along the same lines.
LikeLike
Di
January 20, 2014
Some sholey parallels apart from the obvious ones of jai-veeru and babban-khalujaan common thieves-yeh dosti part.
The scene where Babban goes into the haveli looking for treasure in the middle of the night and gets caught by Muniya is similar to the one where Jai-veeru go to Thakur’s house in middle of night and get caught by Jaya.
The second scene that reminded me of Sholay was the last scene in D.I where muniya asks Babban for the gun lying in the middle, at railway station had similar parallels with Sholay where veeru asks Thakur to pass him gun in the train during fight with the dacaits.
===
In ishqya VB reminded me of Thakur-Gabbar rolled into one. In D.I. Madhuri/Begum reminded me of Jayab’s Widow. Someone with a bleak future in a haveli/palace and looking for a way out.
The difference: The women in ishqya series are not victims and are in full control of their sexuality be it Muniya, begum or Vidya’s character in Ishqia. They may be hoodwinked once in their life but won’t be made ‘chute.a’ again. Again the movie revolves around the woman protagonists and they are the real heros of these series.
After having watched the two, I have a personal preference for ishqya.
The begum in D.I could have been more of a character similar to that of vidya’s kahani. A person who crys when alone & also flirts with police guy, but a woman on a mission. I didn’t quite get that determination or character evolution in D.I. for Madhuri, the way I did in ishqya.
On the lesbianism: IN an interview Chaubey says he didn’t want that angle to weigh heavily onto the story but there are references in two scenes where Muniya is jealous (those were best scenes of Huma without any dialogues a lot of anger/jealousy by mere eyes n expression). In another scene, where muniya hugs begum after spending whole night with Babban and begum asks her to take a shower. The way two characters care for each other and have concern about the others well being could very well be that between old married couple.
All in all a very bold theme in a very hatkey hindi movie worthy of a second watch to get the nuances out. For instance, was begum once a nauch girl (mujara girl) in her youth? Was she someone who had seen a lot in her life before even getting married to the gay/uncaring nawab who saddled her with lot of debts and had to fend for herself against lecherous men? If she was doing Swyamvars for all these years what was the urgency to select a groom this very year? How did Khalujaan, a common thief suddenly become a high class poet.
LikeLike
Nimmi Rangaswamy
January 20, 2014
BR, Thanks for the exquisite song. This one got underwhelmed by the typical VB romantic pop number sung by Rahat [ aka Pehli baar Kaminey]
LikeLike
palvib
January 20, 2014
For once, we are bang on the same reaction to a movie. I had the exact same feeling.
I didn’t quite know what to make out of it, once the movie ended, even though I had heartily laughed through and got impressed by the dialogues, the screenplay and the clever plot. I hadn’t seen Ishqiya.
And the opening lines of your blog (which infact states your reaction to Ishqiya, the prequel) just absolutely summarised my initial reaction to the film.
I went to the movie for Madhuri, more than anyone/anything else. Her dance solo was an enjoyable affair, but I was unhappy with her character sketch. Like you said, there was no understanding of her psyched up nerves.
I also felt that the film was bit of a “Rube Goldberg” machine; you see how cleverly it unfolds, but not being able to pause anywhere to appreciate all the unfolding.
And you definitely see a Tarantino-esque black comedy with the goons and guns, which now has become a regular Vishal Baradwaj feature. I am not very happy about it, except for its ability to execute itself well. I would appreciate something more original.
LikeLike
Jai
January 20, 2014
@ BR–I liked the movie, and actually preferred it, by quite a distance, to Ishqiya…am a little puzzled, why you felt Madhuri was ‘miscast’. I freely admit to a bias here, I always was and still am a huge Madhuri fan. But I have been ‘underwhelmed’ by some of her performances in a few lamentable movies, without any demur.
For this movie, I consciously avoided reading your review till I had seen the film. When I did open this thread to read your take, I was very surprised by your comment “”She just seemed too… slight in the role. Too ephemeral. Too lightweight. And I kept getting annoyed by that careful half-smile of hers…””
Seemed to me, that Begum Para *was* written as a character far less forceful or sure of herself, than Muniya. I felt, Madhuri had portrayed that reluctance and doubt rather well, in fact.
As to comparisons with Vidya–well, I really liked her in Paa & Kahaani and (earlier) Parineeta. But IMHO, Ishqiya was hardly Vidya’s finest performance, and I really don’t agree that in the ‘Ishqiya universe’, Vidya outclasses Madhuri..(As a Madhuri fan I realize this can hardly be an objective view, but still!!)
Cheers..
LikeLike
Kanika
January 20, 2014
Watch 2 min Review of #DedhIshqiya http://bit.ly/ReviewOfDedhIshqiya
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
January 20, 2014
@abhirup- if in a gay couple, if both partners are gays then one may not pin point male and female half. but in case one is gay and other is not then male and female halves are very conspicuous. In this movie, Huma was the decision-maker and madhuri was the follower. so I said, huma is madhuri’s man.
LikeLike
brangan
January 20, 2014
Abhirup: I mean, why refer to a story on lesbianism if they are only friends and not lovers?
Oh, I agree with that. I’m just trying to explain my POV as someone who hadn’t read the story and who didn’t make that connection — I’m just saying that a generalised reading of their relationship makes sense to (if only to me).
And in that line, I meant that she doesn’t say (the equivalent of) “Main ek mard ki mashooq nahin ban sakti” but “Main kisi ki mashooq nahin ban sakti.” Hence my contention. You can read this line to mean “I cannot become anyone’s lover (because I already have Muniya)” or just “I cannot become anyone’s lover.”
Nimmi Rangaswamy: Phew! For a minute, you had me thinking I imagined that song 🙂
LikeLike
MANK
January 20, 2014
@Abhirup
Yeah the nawab and begum pulling a wool on the rest of the world, well that would make a really entertaining movie. May be that could be a plot for DO ISHQYA 🙂 . This alternate sexuality is a new phenomenon in our films and we will have to wait for sometime before we could get to see them handled in a more intelligent and mature way.Remember how long it took to address sensitive issues like terrorism, Inter religious relations even marital relations and adultery etc in our movies which were all stereotyped in our movies for such a long time(And in many instances still going on).
Jai,Palvib ……
Feels great to be in the company of so many Madhuri admirers.i do not entirely agree that she was shortchanged as far as the role was concerned . But got to understand this kind of cinema is really new for her . she has always been the uncrowned queen of masala movies and rightfully so.what works in that world may not necessarily work here.Not that this is the most realistic of worlds , but definitely miles away from HAHK or DTPH or khalnayak. ..
@Jai
, its difficult for me to admit also , but The ishqya universe definitely belongs to Vidya. But its ridiculous to compare both of them as i have already written at length in my earlier posts, if you have read it.This has been an irritating thing for me ever since DI released that everybody is knocking madhuri and putting vidya ahead of her.People just cannot accept that each actor has his or her own space and they are the best in them.But i liked madhuri in DI, i really don’t know who else in that age group could have pulled of this role better and those dances, who can take their eyes off when she dances..
By the way which were the lamentable movies in which you where underwhelmed’ by her performances? . I agree she has done some really lamentable movies , but i have never been disappointed by any of her performances
LikeLike
Jai
January 20, 2014
@ MANK–Great to meet another Madhuri fan…I don’t know about you, but I watched Devdas only to see her, and whenever she was on screen, I barely noticed Ash or SRK or whoever else was sharing screen space with her for that matter 😉 Pretty much the same with DTPH or HAHK or Beta, too.
I agree with you completely on this one- “”and those dances, who can take their eyes off when she dances..””–not me, my friend, not me…
About being disappointed with her performances, I should have perhaps put that better. It was more a feeling of “What on Earth is she doing in this godforsaken movie!!” kind of feeling–which I felt when I watched Rajkumar, Aarzoo, Koyla and such…Complete waste of her talent, and I still can’t help but wonder why she agreed to do those films…
Cheers…
LikeLike
Porto
January 20, 2014
Abhirup dude you seem to be absolutely in love with the concept that the 2 ladies were definitely lesbians. Well, thats your take of the movie…most others felt it was portrayed more vaguely than that…so you dont need to be all heartbroken or explanatory when anyone else thinks it was left sort of open… 🙂 relax. In your analysis they will always be lesbians…noone is taking it away from you..hehe
LikeLike
Porto
January 20, 2014
Personally I enjoyed Ishqia more than this one….that one had more edge to it. This felt quite contrived and all over the place….so much emphasis in the beginning on the necklace only to have it lost its relevance later on.
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 20, 2014
Mr. Rangan: “You can read this line to mean “I cannot become anyone’s lover (because I already have Muniya)” or just “I cannot become anyone’s lover””
–true, but given what we learn of the relationship between Para and Muniya, I think the former makes more sense.
ramitbajaj01: I don’t think Muniya was the sole decision-maker; from what we see in the movie, she and Para were equally involved in the plan. Also, I don’t find much credence in the “Madhuri wasn’t lesbian and Huma was” interpretation.
Porto: We are having a conversation here, and I, like everybody else, am putting forward my views. Yeah, I do think the two women were definitely lesbians, and I have given my reasons. Others have responded to that, to which I have responded in turn. That’s what we call, as I said, conversation.
LikeLike
MANK
January 20, 2014
@Jai
Oh arzoo , that does open old wounds 🙂 , yeah that was a total waste.And koyla , it wasnt that bad, had a couple of good dance numbers and thankfully SRK didnt talk much 🙂 , Amrish puri was good fun in that one, that ridiculous plotline of him using her as a cure for his impotency . Can’t blame him though 🙂 .By the way rajkumar is my favorite MD guilty pleasure. Man what an atrocious movie , but MD looks her best in this film , in those gorgeous period (sort of) 🙂 costumes and some of her best dance numbers the aankhon ke aage peeche, and aaja. the way she moves. uff, i confess that i watch it regularly on my player.,only maduri’s scenes, fast forwarding everything else . Funnily its the only other film she did with Naseer.As for Devdas, she was the heart and soul of the movie. That class and royalty The only person who really looked like she belonged to that world.
LikeLike
MANK
January 20, 2014
@Jai
Oh by the way , i keenly followed that theological kutcheri that you conducted with Sanjay.Must say that much of the points that you made while defending the epics were very much keeping with my feelings , but you did it with great efficiency and with great egs and such dogged determination that i could never have.matched it. So i never butted in.. Not that points made by sanjay were not valid , they definitely were but i do believe that there are many positives in our epics or the Gita as i have read them.Anyway how can we madhuri lovers denounce the epics or the goddesses as she is actually one. 🙂
Kudos
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
January 21, 2014
Saw Dedh Ishqiya, Miss Lovely and Srijit Mukherjee’s Jatiswar at stretch in one theater last night. Thought Dedh Ishqia was an absolute classic…the most perfect capoer film since Delhi Belly. I really dont understand this fuss about the lesbian angle and the laundebazi of the nwab – these are such minor trifles in the film. The writing is razor sharp and the humour is of the higest order that you will find in Hindi films and it comes in both formats, verbal as well as situational. I can watch it n number of times just to enjoy the bnater in Urdu..an absolute first in Hindi films. . I dont know why people are tying themselves in knots trying to find to which genre it belongs. Who cares? It is this genre-bending in Vishal Bharadwaj and Anurag Kshayp’s films that make them such refreshing experience. Why Tarantinosque and not something originbal? That is like asking Ray why follow De Sica’s neo-realism in Pather Pnacali and the subsequent films , why not something original? Come on, this si original. The timbre of exchange between Naseer and Madhuri in the film is something Tarantino cannot dram of. The seven stages of love…the ghazal that Naseer sings for Madhuri..aah waht an exquisite world Chaubey creates here! And to contrast that with the grossness of Vijay raaz and Arshad… where the grossness itself has a certain delicay and quaintness…like demanding twenty ghazals to be written in a few hours.. pehle hraf, phir baraf..aah, that is genius. I am also touched by the wistful love story that nestles among all this crazy caper, and the sense of loss and incurable loneliness that inhabits the characters of Nasser and Madhuri. That lifts the film to another level. And I am glad Chaubey does not belabour this aspect , playing it as some serious romance. THe ligtness of touch and the ironic strokes makes the sadness more poignant, as do so many scenes in Gangs of wasseypur. Frankly, you can keep the Othellos and Macnbeths. Give me the expressionistic works that permit full play to the Indian style storytelling. It si the Saat Khon Maafs, the Kamineys, the Matru Ka Mandolas and the Dedh ishqias that excite me more than the Maqbools and the Omkars, which are beautiful and p[owerful, yes, but to some extent predictable , burdened as the are by the demands to be ‘ good’ cinema. Dedh Ishqia was magically enchanting. and wickedly funny at the same time. If that is not origianl, what is?
LikeLike
Pallavi Bhat
January 21, 2014
@Jai
I actually thank the movie gods that such dismal movoes like Rajkumar and Koyla got made ’cause Madhuri was so gorgeous and enchanting in them. I thoroughly enjoyed the songs in these movies as a kid.
I have been a Madhuri fan girl for as long as I can remember…. I was 4 when “ek do teen” happened !
LikeLike
Jai
January 21, 2014
@ MANK
‘Theological Kutcheri’ –now that’s a nice description 😉 Yes, I enjoyed debating with Sanjay on the other thread, despite it getting a bit heated at times 🙂 I disagreed with his conclusions, but he definitely had some very valid points. Some of the articles he linked (the Namit Arora one in particular) were well analyzed and written.
Now why didn’t you give this line earlier on that thread “how can we madhuri lovers denounce the epics or the goddesses as she is actually one” 😉 can’t argue with that!
Rajkumar songs–Yep, they certainly were good and Madhuri’s dancing was enchanting as always. But the movie was simply terrible 😦
What I really liked about her performance in Dedh Ishqiya, was her expressiveness, seemed to me that she conveyed her character’s turmoil and angst so very well through her eyes, gestures and voice modulation.
The subtlety reminded me of the scene in Devdas, immediately after Dev has been rescued by Chandramukhi after wandering about in a delirious trance. After waking up, he taunts her and offers her a wad of cash as ‘compensation’ for her time. Madhuri just aced that scene–that pain and humiliation in her eyes, the scorn she pours on Dev, taunting him that Paro left him because he just wasn’t worthy of love–man, that scene is so fresh in my mind!
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
January 21, 2014
@abhirup- well, An Jo’s comment above says enough about the decision-maker.
LikeLike
MANK
January 21, 2014
@Pallavi Bhat
You are not alone in thanking the movie gods!
@Jai:Now why didn’t you give this line earlier on that thread
Sorry about that 😉 , But madhuri was nowhere in that thread. You see she brings it out of me, otherwise i have no eloquence of my own. 😉
Yes as i mentioned earlier, its her body gestures, the eyes and her voice modulation that’s her forte.She is such a great dancer for nothing.Yeah and i liked that scene from devdas. I think my favorite madhuri scene is the one in tezaab, where she comes to anil kapoor and asks him to forget her in a dead serious tone and carries on with that and suddenly her tone changes and she starts laughing and then she stars crying telling him how she was only testing him about his love. Vow! she really bought me with that one. 🙂
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 21, 2014
“I really dont understand this fuss about the lesbian angle and the laundebazi of the nwab – these are such minor trifles in the film.”
No.
LikeLike
Abhirup
January 21, 2014
ramitbajaj01: Oh, I have read that comment. However, what it says is that Muniya went around taking care of the nitty-gritties of the plan. I agree there, of course. The DECISION to go ahead with the plan, however, I think, was both Para’s and Muniya’s. Also, her picking up a gun and firing it at Khalujaan shows that she is far from a submissive woman: when the situation calls for it, she can get into the action just fine. That’s how it is at least to me.
LikeLike
An Jo
January 22, 2014
With Dedh Ishqiya, director Abhishek Chaubey has cracked a tricky formula of marrying a masala film with chaste Urdu culture. He tells Kareena N Gianani why the film never loses the plot when it comes to the attitude he wanted the film to carry
You’ve maintained that you did not make Ishqiya with the intention of taking it ahead as a sequel, and the decision was nerve wracking. When, then, during the making of Dedh Ishqiya did you feel that you had a fine film at hand?
I think it happened sometime in the scripting stage. I remember working on it with Vishal Bhardwaj and having a moment when it hit me. I thought, ‘Hey , so I am not simply making a sequel, I have something original in hand now.’
This epiphany had something to do with the fact we were creating an alternate world of Mahmoodabad in Dedh Ishqiya. For a director, there is nothing more exhilarating than having the liberty to create an alternate reality, craft new characters and explore a lost culture, a time warp.
Tell us about creating the alternate world of Mahmoodabad, its codes and its attitude.
I was really charmed by the location and the decrepit palace we were shooting at. Ishqiya was a more intimate film. There were these obtuse references to the jungle and a war, but the film was shot in a house with mainly three characters. We went all out in Dedh Ishqiya, and, at the end of it all, making this film was more wholesome.
The world of Mahmoodabad stands on the chaste Urdu we decided to use in the film. The credit for that goes entirely to Vishal. He has grown up with that language and culture, and he loved that kind of poetry. A few years ago, he introduced me to Dr Bashir Badr (whose poetry has been used in Dedh Ishqiya) and I was hooked.
Dedh Ishqiya is our way of paying homage to his work.
When you create an alternate world, I think the most exciting part is to create its code, its dos and don’ts. I knew I wanted the world of Mahmoodabad to be entertaining but not vacuous. Before being anything else, Dedh Ishqiya is a comedy, and I knew exactly the attitude I wanted the actors to carry — quick wit, care-a-damn-attitude and willing to make light of the most serious things. For instance, when Babban (Arshad Warsi) is chasing Khalu (Naseeruddin Shah) after the latter swindles him, and finally catches up with him, he first greets him with all the tehzeeb. Khalu, too, who knows he is going to be questioned, returns the greeting. That’s the spirit of Dedh Ishqiya, tongue-in-cheek; that’s how the characters see the world.
… As compared to the slapstick comedies, which go on to make it to the R100-200 crore clubs?
(Laughs) Sab ke sau crore sab ko mubarak hon.
Did you think Naseeruddin Shah was best suited for the role because he has experimented with a similar culture in his plays? And what about Madhuri Dixit?
Dedh Ishqiya is my fourth film with Naseer, and I think we are at a stage where we understand each other without even trying. He thrived on the sets because he was playing these two different kinds of characters — Khalujaan, the rogue and Iftekhaar, the nawab. He was simply having a ball and I have never seen him this focussed and excited.
As far as Madhuri goes, I so desperately wanted her to agree to do this film, because she was the only person I could see essaying Begum Para’s role. I observed that she is a very relaxed actor. In spite of the work she has behind her, she is still the sort of actor who wants a director to step in and fill her in on the character’s shades. However, she’s also very instinctive — so if you tell her to do something that she thinks might look fake on screen, she’ll tell you that. I think what amazes me the most about Madhuri is that she does not theorise and is very subtle at her craft. Many a time, I’d think she was being too subtle and might miss the point, but later, when I saw it on screen, I realised she knew just what she was doing by putting in just the perfect amount of emphasis on her expression or style. I don’t think too many actors can boast of that.
The supporting cast in Dedh Ishqiya — Vijay Raaz, Manoj Pahwa and Salim Shahid — were equally well-etched, irrespective of the screen time they may have had.
I am glad that came across, then (smiles). I think the writing did it, again. They don’t have three hours to tell their stories and their motivations, but the writer must, at all cost. You don’t want to fall flat when a supporting actor looks at you and doesn’t understand why he is doing something in the film. He must know it in his head, even if he doesn’t spell it out
on screen.
What’s next for you?
I am working on another script, but it would be too premature to discuss what it is about. But it will be entirely different from Ishqiya and Dedh Ishqiya, in every way possible.
What do you want to do better, then?
Improve my strike rate, for one!
– See more at: http://www.mid-day.com/articles/i-want-a-culture-to-my-comedy-abhishek-chaubey/15034006#sthash.raNK6Gh5.dpuf
LikeLike
Utkal Mohanty
January 23, 2014
“This epiphany had something to do with the fact we were creating an alternate world of Mahmoodabad in Dedh Ishqiya. For a director, there is nothing more exhilarating than having the liberty to create an alternate reality, craft new characters and explore a lost culture, a time warp.”
Taht si precisely waht gave me the biggest high in the film.
LikeLike
MANK
January 23, 2014
@An Jo
an alternate reality, craft new characters and explore a lost culture, a time warp.”
Yup, the film came across to me as a classy version of Robert Rodriguez’s El amriachi movies. Or may be closer to Leone’s once upon a time in the west. Both ishqya films with a widow as a the central character reminds me a lot of OUTIW. It had also inspired sholay as well.
LikeLike
brangan
February 20, 2014
How do you see the gay relationship hinted at in Dedh Ishqiya?
I think it’s open to interpretation. It could be just two women who are tired of men.
The two women didn’t want to make their lives miserable so they run away and have a life of their own.
http://www.rediff.com/movies/slide-show/slide-show-1-madhuri-dixit-i-dont-mind-being-called-the-new-gay-icon/20140220.htm
LikeLike
Abhirup
February 20, 2014
How politically correct (read: uninteresting and side-stepping).
LikeLike
Sanjay
February 21, 2014
come on, she has a right to her opinion, it was her film , may be that’s how she played it, that’s what the director told her. No need to be tetchy about it, Mr. Rangan why rake up this issue again now?
LikeLike
brangan
February 21, 2014
Sanjay: This was just published and it concurred with my take on the gay angle, so I put it up.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that the gay angle isn’t there. If you think it’s there, and if you find scenes/moments/lines in the film that back up this contention, then it IS there. Who cares what the director thinks?
LikeLike
Sanjay
February 21, 2014
Who cares what the director thinks?
Are you serious? his opinion or for that matter the opinion of the actress who played that role, has far more weight than anybody else’s even a learned a critic as your’s. no need to be dismissed as side stepping. After all a film is a director’s baby, which he creates in collaboration with actors and technicians.
LikeLike
Abhirup
February 21, 2014
It is amply clear that Madhuri Dixit’s response is motivated by the hush-hush attitude that is still prevalent in our society when it comes to homosexuality. I have already said, in my previous comments on this thread, why I think the relationship between the two women in this movie is a lesbian relationship (albeit one that shows an inaccurate understanding of lesbianism), so I won’t repeat them in detail here. But there ARE scenes and dialogues strongly suggestive of lesbianism, and I don’t think Dixit is not aware of that. Her side-stepping the topic is simply because of the reluctance, exhibited by many major stars in our film industry, to play a gay role, or, if they have played one, to acknowledge the homoeroticism in the movie. I wish she were bold enough to say that yeah, it’s entirely justified, on the basis of what we see, to say that Begum Para and Muniya are lesbian, but I guess that’s expecting too much. Anyway, that doesn’t mean a queer interpretation cannot be undertaken.
LikeLike
Sifter
February 26, 2014
I have been reading reviews for DI in a lot of Blogs and this one blog stood out. Such a great job Mr. Rangan. This is one long piece of comment, I tried to edit it and this is the shorter version…
@BR
I had read the short story, but I missed the reference when I saw the movie. Still I got the homosexual relationship between the two women. Muniya (HQ) silent looks at the Begum (MD) and the scene that unfolds after Muniya spends her night with Babban is clear enough.
It was witty, funny, intelligent without being in your face and crass. The Urdu grows on you, it then becomes amazing. I for one loved the songs as well.
The song from Chitralekha was perfect for me. The way it was structured, the farmaish on the radio brought back memories. The song and the first two lines (man re tu kaahe na dheer dhare, woh nirmohi moh na jaane jinka moh kare) fit perfectly to the scenes that unfolded with it.
This was one movie I actually went to the theatre to see after 7 years (MD is reason enough) and enjoyed thoroughly.
One question – Why should any movie fall into a specific genre to enjoy?
@Bala
I kind of felt that uncertainty that comes through Madhuri’s character that you wrote. Don’t know if it was written like that or it was something that she was uncomfortable with. I also felt that she was too young for the character.
The kissing scene between Babban and Krishna was more intense with Ishqiya (I saw it after DI), because both the characters felt the emotion. The kissing scene was different in DI because Muniya will do anything to realise her plan. This is my take on the difference between both
@Abhirup
I thought the “without words” chemistry between the Begum and Muniya (MD & HQ) was fantastic. The looks Muniya gives the Begum projects a longing, love, jealousy, pride, a sense of belonging and more. The half-smile, the dislike, the disquiet when she senses Muniya has been with somebody, the way she says “Ja, Guzarja Nahaale” followed by that one word “Jaa” speaks volumes of the chemistry between these two.
I do agree with your comment about the Nawaab though, women do not turn gay by being neglected by their husbands. But given the truth that most marriages are arranged in India, would it be horrible if they look to getting that love from another woman? They may be doing it out of no other choice initially, but there is always a chance that it could turn into genuine love, don’t you think?
@MANK @ Pallavi @Jai
I agree with you on MD. She is a Goddess. You can’t take your eyes off of her when she dances, you can’t even think about it. Leave alone when she is dancing; you don’t dare to blink when she is on screen lest you miss that adorable “wink” of hers, that gorgeous smile, that wordless look she gives her co-actors. Acting is not only about dialogues, it is about the entire body language; one little action of hers delivers a whole page of dialogue effectively and more.
I watched Aaja Nachle and thought it was under-appreciated. It actually was a good movie. And Madhuri dances like she is – a wisp, a goddess, an ethereal beauty etc., etc.
Does the adoration come clear enough?
I also agree with you on Vidya Balan. Her dialogue delivery doesn’t do it for me in Ishqiya. But she is great in emoting with her face.
This has gone long enough, but I’ll have to add this one thing. There is no crassness in the contents of the comments (agreement or disagreement); which is so refreshing to read.
LikeLike
Abhirup
February 26, 2014
Sifter: I guess I have to part ways with you on chemistry bit. I didn’t find the chemistry between Begum Para and Muniya all that good.
“But given the truth that most marriages are arranged in India, would it be horrible if they look to getting that love from another woman? They may be doing it out of no other choice initially, but there is always a chance that it could turn into genuine love, don’t you think?”
I have stated my views on this at length, and repeatedly, in my previous comments. But since you ask, here’s my answer: if a straight woman is unhappy in an arranged marriage, isn’t it far more likely that she shall seek the love she has been denied by her husband from another man as opposed to a woman? Unhappy marriages, as I have said before, don’t alter people’s sexual orientations. So, a woman, if she is heterosexual, shall try to find solace in the arms of a member of the opposite sex when she feels unloved by her husband. Sure, she may look to another woman for comfort, for advice, for companionship, for some kind words to soothe herself, but it’s unlikely that the unhappy woman’s relationship with this other woman shall be a sexual/romantic one, because, to repeat myself, being neglected by one’s male spouse doesn’t turn a woman lesbian. On the other hand, if it’s a lesbian woman who has been married to a man (either against her will, or of her own accord, because she wants to hide her real sexual orientation, or for whatever other reason), then, of course, she shall be unhappy by the very fact that she has to spend her days with somebody whom she cannot love because of her sexuality. And in that case, she shall indeed look for love with a woman. That is how it should have been with Para. Again, I have said this before–the movie ought to have shown her as being aware of her lesbianism before the marriage, and the marriage itself as something that she had to do because of societal pressures. For better measure, we should in fact have been shown that she and Muniya have a relationship since before the former’s marriage, which would make the whole queer angle so much more believable. But instead, we get the same incorrect notion that women turn gay when neglected by their husbands; the movie actually says in the absence of the love from the nawab, she turns to Muniya, and the two fall in love. Which is what is incorrect, for–and I don’t know how many times I have to say this–a woman’s sexuality doesn’t change because she hasn’t been loved by her husband, and homosexuality is not something that crops up in the absence of heterosexuality. That’s all I have been saying.
LikeLike
MANK
February 26, 2014
@Sifter
Hearty welcome to Dr. Brangan’s blog and thanx for those good words. Yeah its always great to find a fellow madhuri admirer.Your admiration for her is clear enough 🙂
There is no crassness in the contents of the comments
Ah, really? 🙂
LikeLike
Vimal
March 20, 2014
May be my comment is off the track, but does someone care to explain what might have happened to Vidya’s character in Ishqiya? The end shows all 3 left off together, but then what might have happened?
I mean, Dedh Ishqiya does not show or explain atleast for a min or 2 of what happened post the end of Ishqiya?
LikeLike
Mohit
April 22, 2014
Madhuri Dixit was at her best in Dedh Ishqiya…She has a western style of acting and most people in India like loud acting. It’s because of Madhuri, Dedh Ishiya has achieved a cult status. She’s the best actress, the last female superstar of our country 🙂
LikeLike