Beginning a new feature on this blog, features written by others. This is a post by Chinmayee Kantak and Sampada Karandikar.
“Don’t be satisfied with stories, how things have gone with others. Unfold your own myth.”
– Rumi
Vikas Bahl’s Queen, which released in March 2014, deals with the story of a young woman whose fiancé breaks off their engagement a day prior to the wedding, stating that the lifestyle that he has gotten used to while living abroad would not suit her sensibilities. Aghast, but with a motive to pull her life back together, the protagonist Rani decides to take a solo trip to her pre-booked dream honeymoon destinations. The movie showcases Rani’s adventures in the cities of Paris and Amsterdam, where she starts discovering her own identity through meeting different people, putting herself through situations she normally wouldn’t, and making decisions on her own – something she has never done before. Towards the end of the journey, she returns the engagement ring to her ex-fiancé, who now is interested in taking back the changed Rani, but she merely thanks him and walks away. A rather passive Rani transitions into taking control over her life – something which her family appreciates and supports her for.
Queen smashes female stereotypes from the onset of the movie, and challenges the notions society holds about women. The entire movie is from her perspective, rejecting the male gaze. At no point in the movie have female characters in different roles been judged or objectified; the myriad roles are in fact celebrated. Queen went on to become the most celebrated Bollywood release of the year, gaining positive reviews from critics and viewers alike, and bagging a National Award for Best Feature Film in Hindi. This character’s resistance against social norms to find herself was widely applauded.
Another Bollywood movie that portrayed a character with rebellious streaks and breaking stereotypes was Tamasha (Imtiaz Ali, 2015). This movie follows the story of Ved, a boy who is obsessed with stories and the art of storytelling. The movie starts where the protagonist meets a girl (Tara) in Corsica, where both of them are travelling. Together, uninhibited in a foreign land, they experience life as they have always wished to – unrestrained and without any expectations, making a pact to not reveal their true identities to each other. They flirtatiously converse with each other by embodying the famous Bollywood characters Don and Mona Darling. Tara falls in love with the offbeat, enthusiastic, creative, and spontaneous Ved, only to meet him four years later and realise that he is not the same jovial person she met earlier. Ved is the average, the mediocre man – he becomes an engineer, to fulfil his father’s wishes. He works as a project manager, because corporate life is the race everyone must run. He lives life on repeat – performing the same actions everyday – actions dictated not by the self, but by society. Realising that he is not the man she fell for, Tara rejects his marriage proposal.
Tamasha shows us the life of a man, stuck in the rut of daily life and living up to everyone’s expectations. When Tara makes him realise the disparity between who he really is and who he pretends to be, Ved breaks down. Ved gets fired from office and is tormented by his family’s attitude when he tells them about his situation. Throughout the movie we see flashbacks of how he is moulded into something he isn’t, and isn’t allowed to embrace his true self by anybody except Tara. In the end, his family only accepts his true self after he brings to light the torment he has gone through and repeatedly emphasizes that he is the hero of his story; it is he who will decide his fate, not anyone else.
Tamasha, however, did not fare well at the box office. The audience complained of not identifying with the movie and the critics did not appreciate it either. What went wrong?
Most Bollywood hits are built on the same plot, portraying very similar characters. The man is the powerful, decisive individual who makes rational choices and is always in control of his emotions. The woman is often lost, love-struck, helpless and waiting to be rescued by a man. Movies thrive off these cultural tropes – they sell. But Tamasha and Queen dared to tell a new story, a story that came with a few poignant differences.
Queen challenged female stereotypes. Tamasha challenged male stereotypes. And the audience’s receptivity to the two was a stark contrast. Even within the movies, the social support offered by the protagonist’s family and friends differed. Rani receives immense social support from her family. Conventionally, a woman ditched just two days before her marriage could be a source of shame for the family. The act of going on a honeymoon alone would be outrageous. However, Rani’s family supports her in her decision. At no point in the movie are the parents concerned with family honour. The focus is always the happiness and well-being of their daughter. The movie ends with a final act of rebellion, when Rani refuses to marry her ex-fiancé. For Ved, however, this social support was absent. Everyone around him, particularly his father, reinforces an adherence to stereotypes. Lack of social support accentuates his struggle and the constant compliance leads him to lose touch with his real life.
Another major point of difference between the movies is how the characters change throughout the movies. While Rani moves away from stereotypes to become her own person, Ved advances towards becoming something he is not. For Rani, the self-actualisation comes as she moves away from her ex-fiancé. For Ved, realisation dawns upon him as he moves towards Tara.
Is Queen’s success because society is ready to see female stereotypes being broken? After years of struggle and surges of feminist movements, society may have finally reached a stage where breaking the feminine stereotype is not only accepted but also celebrated. While a lot still remains to be accomplished, the first and most difficult step of being accepted may have occurred.
Conversely, breaking the male stereotype still does not have the privilege of being accepted. Movies with themes of male rebellion have been rejected in the past, the cult movie Fight Club being a classic example of the same; Tamasha follows suit. The depiction of a man as confused and emotionally charged does not always appeal to the audience. Indian society is still looking for a strong, dominant, financially secure man who knows what he is doing. And while this notion is far removed from reality, confronting this reality still remains a matter of discomfort.
But while society scripts every individual’s story on its preconceived notions, it’s time to tell a new story – one that is based on the individual, irrespective of gender. A story that is true, real and unfolds for the individual, not for a prototype of the society.
Baradwaj Rangan 
brangan
April 29, 2016
Can anyone suggest a better name than “Guest Post”? 🙂
LikeLike
sanjana
April 29, 2016
I am fine with Guest Post.
The question raised here is relevant and the comparison is apt. A man’s life is not that easy as he presents himself to the outside world. Mother’s baby has to become girlfriend’s tough hero. Or perish.
Tamasha failed because of less masala while Queen had plenty of it.
LikeLike
Rahini David
April 29, 2016
A worthy post on my favourite topic to begin Guest Posts in this blog. Will get back with a longer comment after I read BR’s reviews on the said movies and obsessing over them a bit (as I have not watched those movies).
“Guest Post” is good enough. Not every thing needs to abbreviate to BR you know. 😀
LikeLike
AK
April 29, 2016
Tamasha failed because the movie was boring and dragged in parts. I even found myself nodding off during parts of the movie. Also, while in Queen, the performances seemed realistic, in Tamasha, Ranbir especially, seemed disinterested. As a bonafide moviegoer, I’d say, the failure of Tamasha cannot be analyzed as a trend.
LikeLiked by 3 people
anusrini20
April 29, 2016
Borrowed Ratiocination? (The pronunciation feels ugly though.)
Keeping with the BR theme that you have going. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
PSS
April 29, 2016
As these would be from the followers of your blog … how about “Aspirants’ Corner” or “Aspirants’ Café” or “Guests’ Pitch” or “Followers’ Corner”
LikeLike
B.H.Harsh
April 29, 2016
I really don’t want to sound like a killjoy, but even a guest post on your blog should be worthy enough of the platform such as this one.
LikeLike
Jyoti S Kumar
April 29, 2016
Adda?
LikeLike
soumyabharathi
April 29, 2016
After decades of rebellion against female stereotypes, society is finally lapping it up.. The fight against male stereotypes is still in its nascent stages be it in media, movies or society in general… Films are also now emphasizing on this, Ki and Ka being latest example.. But my guess is resistance against male gender stereotypes is far greater compared to that against fairer sex because women change and adapt far more easily in every way than men…
LikeLike
blurb
April 29, 2016
It’s wonderful to see posts on topics like gender roles and stereotypes. Whether or not we find a solution to any of the issues, I feel that it is oh-so-important to bring up and address issues and keep the conversation going. And for that, thanks to BR, and the authors.
Firstly, this whole gender-stereotype-breaking may not have had anything to do with the box office success and failure of the films, as has been rightly pointed out in an earlier comment.
Secondly, having seen both movies, especially Queen several times, the question (or confusion) that came yelling to mind was: what “breaking-stereotypes” are we really talking about?! Rani doesn’t break all that many stereotypes, to be honest. Ok so, she comes to terms with the fact that her engagement with this Vijay bloke is done and over with. And yes, she does seem to be a bit more — independent? — by the end of the film. What about the other qualities ascribed to female stereotypes? She would fit in every one of those pinto boxes. Nurturing? Check. Feminine? Check. Demure? Check. Passive? Check. And I could go on. I mean, she bloody cooks her way to glory, for heaven’s sake.
So, I feel a bit cheated reading that our society may be ready female stereotypes to be broken. It seems too premature to be making that statement. Because this is hardly enough.
Like I said, all that happens in the end is that she gets a bit more comfortable not needing a partner FOR THE TIME BEING. If there were any innuendoes to suggest that she just never wanted to get married (not because she is unable to, but because that’s what she wants from life), then we MAY be onto something. If not, we still have a long long way to go.
I don’t know why — to me, this one character is exceedingly cute in breaking the female stereotype. Juno MacGuff. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
sanjay2706
April 29, 2016
“Virundhaliyin Karuthu!”?
LikeLike
Naveen
April 29, 2016
Tamasha was really path breaking Queen could be called cliched though a well done cliche. breaking the male stereotype is really difficult. an effort to do that , like in Ki and Ka, turns counterproductive to reinforce the stereotype.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Ghost Who Walks
April 29, 2016
Not discounting the analysis, but i think there is a far simpler factor to why Queen succeeded and Tamasha did not – Humor!
Queen was peppered with humor through out, some laugh out loud moments and some that bring a smile to your face. Tamasha, on the other hand, had some whimsy from time to time but otherwise it didn’t offer any humor at all. Tamasha was an intense drama and I am straining to remember the last such film (that didnt have a handy bit of humor) that became a hit. Tamasha is black coffee to Queen’s sugar candy.
LikeLiked by 4 people
awkshwayrd
April 29, 2016
As others have said above, Tamasha didn’t fail because it “challenged male stereotypes”, it was simply that the treatment was fairly ‘un-massy’ and as some have called it coughpretentiouscough. Most people mentioned that it tackled some fairly well-worn cinematic themes (follow your heart to achieve success, don’t get into the rat race, etc, last seen widely in 3 Idiots of all movies) except it tried to do so in the most ‘arty’ manner possible, so we got endless scenes of Ranbir talking to the mirror.
I actually liked the movie, but it didn’t help that DP is right there out-acting RK with a more interesting character which then gets written out after a while so Ali and his muse can indulge in artistic self-love – and this when the movie was promoted heavily as a romantic drama on the strength of the 2 leads. I just started missing DP’s character after a while.
But just to compare it to Queen as regards treatment –
Queen actually has fairly low key stakes; it provides a ‘fun twist’ on a dramatic setup and then proceeds to breeze through the movie with a charming ensemble mining situations for humor while providing small doses of progression for Rani so the ending feels like natural growth and a win for that specific character – family audience friendly in the best manner possible. Basically as BR said, a fairy tale.
Contrast that to Tamasha where we spend the whole movie once DP leaves waiting for Ranbir to have a blinding climactic realization which Ali wants to play up so it has great dramatic import. Note that it’s specifically not “it’s time to tell a new story – one that is based on the individual… A story that is true, real and unfolds for the individual, not for a prototype of the society.” Ali is genuinely trying to impart what he thinks is a great artistic lesson for society (its pretty clear from his interviews, and yes yes I’ve read this blog long enough to know about the Death Of The Author). None of this takes away from the artistic merits of Tamasha, it’s just that this is a particularly non-crowd-pleasing approach. He’s trying to showcase the internal psyche of a ‘complexed’ character (I hate how Hinglish has misappropriated the word complex) and that does not usually lead to box office success.
If Queen had ended with Rani deciding ‘I don’t need all of that shit’ and living on in Amsterdam in a hippie commune in a ‘free love’ arrangement with her Italian hunk to follow her bliss (did I mention drugs also?) ‘coz of her depression following her getting dumped – well that might have gotten a similar reaction as Tamasha.
Fun exercise – how would you make Tamasha more low key and audience friendly. I’d have kept DP around so that she slowly unleashes Ved’s ‘Id’ in a good way as well in his ‘real’ life (I got the sense Ali saw her as the trigger for bringing out his inner persona – repressed or otherwise) and he ends up with the low key realization that he’s ultimately become happier while making incremental changes to his life. So the same ending but with less DRAMA.
Peace out.
@BR: Best I could think of is Strangers Musing, but the initials don’t add up to BR.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Deepak
April 29, 2016
Invasion of the Blog Snatchers, The Tempost, Manchurian Candidates? – I don’t know why all these have a sinister undertone though, as if the guest might take over one day 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vikram
April 29, 2016
Guest post is fine…functional and short…
LikeLike
Anuj
April 29, 2016
Good to know that there are few souls on earth who managed to find a message in the pointless and boring commercial box office flop called Tamasha. Whatever the message was, the majority of the audience couldn’t get it because most of them weren’t awake by the time the movie ended 😛
LikeLike
Sowmya:)
April 29, 2016
‘Guest Quill’ ?
I loved Tamasha and was reasonably impressed with Queen though I couldn’t quite figure out why it was that big a deal. Another reason why Tamasha did not succeed and Queen did could be because Queen was a optimistic movie. The heroine moved from strength to strength. She didn’t wallow in self pity for long before deciding to take control of her life. But Tamasha shows Ranbhir breaking down and facing his demons and going to the dark place in his head that none of us want to. Maybe it was too close to the lives that the rest of us were leading -making those compromises and being miserable but yet not able to do anything about it. So the audience doth protested too much?
LikeLiked by 3 people
P
April 29, 2016
The screenplay of Queen was very Indian and nautanki-based even if the plot was somewhat unconventional (but a girl breaking up and parents supporting her has been shown in multiple movies including Guru), while the stories of Imtiaz have always been very western- very individual, Id-focused. People in India find this pretentious. Imtiaz has always had this style of storytelling, but his plots have generally been ones that Indians like and understand i.e Romantic love stories. The problem then for Tamasha is that people go in expecting a romantic story but it is not, its a story of the discovery of self, with the lover only as a trigger.
Which is why you hear comments like- I wanted more of Corsica. But that’s the point. The story is not about their love. Their love is easy, it has no conflict. The conflict is when he realizes that she loves him more than he loves himself. And loving yourself involves a lot of self-reflection(which is why the mirrors!) and introspection. That is not something that is “interesting” per se for Indians. We immediately go “aeee chalna kya bhankas hai!”
The story of Tamasha is not that different to the story of Jab We Met in a sense. Even there Geet is a trigger for Aditya to discover himself- be better professionally, be a better son, be more honest about what he is and love himself some more. But Aditya still went back to being a full-time businessman and the movie was all about how he found Geet again (that is the conflict in the latter half of the movie). Imagine if he had decided to give up his business and become a full-time musician? Imagine if Geet didn’t need to decide between Aditya and Anshumann! Imagine if she knew exactly what she wanted- Aditya, but an Aditya who worked on his dreams and his ambition- not one who “compromised”? That is exactly the movie that Tamasha ended up being 🙂
I really hated Ranbir before watching Tamasha, which is why despite reading your excellent review of Rockstar- I never watched it. But after watching Tamasha, I fell in love with Ranbir- that scene where he looks in the mirror and sings- Koi patthar se na mare mere deewane ko- truly epic! I immediately realized what a gargantuan mistake I had made by ignoring Rockstar and immediately watched it. Ranbir is beyond amazing. And I am a very late, but very passionate convert 🙂
I honestly find all the raving about Queen to be over-the-top. Fine, its a good movie, its interesting, but it really doesn’t break all that many stereotypes. The cool, dark-skinned sexy woman actually breaking every single rule for what a woman is meant to be (i.e Lisa Haydon’s character) is still not the heroine of the story. In fact, Kangana’s character does nothing that her family would disapprove of (falling in love and having sex with a firangi for eg.) nor was she open with them about some of the more salacious things she does like living with men, visiting a dance bar etc. Who knows, post the end-credits she may end up having an arranged marriage per her parents wishes. Its not like she has an epiphany on how she can be truly independent- financially, spiritually, physically. I found Shruti from Band Baaja Baraat to have a better, more ambitious character arc and more supportive parents 🙂
LikeLiked by 6 people
Anon
April 29, 2016
Nice to see that on a guest post on gender roles and stereotypes, one of the first comments is about how the post is not worthy of this blog and the next few are about how the analysis is “wrong”. I’d like to have seen the reactions if the guest posters names and genders had not been revealed.
I found it to be an interesting take – thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
jithu
April 29, 2016
atithi blogo bhava 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
April 29, 2016
I am sure the general story and humour and dialogue and how it is sold have a lot to do with whether or not a movie is well received. It may of course have to do with something deeper. Personally I do not react well to movies that keep going on and on about how a desk job is the worst thing you can have. Such movies do seem to keep going out of their way in invalidating the happiness some people like me do have in our lives in our desk jobs and I can not but feel a little bit resentful about that message in a movie. I felt that in the Tamil movie Kayal. Maybe that has a little to do with it?
LikeLiked by 8 people
lakshmi
April 29, 2016
B my guest
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bhaskar
April 29, 2016
Guftaghu….Shout-out….Blog Bol… Blog Log… Soap-box…Thinking Loud….
LikeLike
olemisstarana
April 29, 2016
Borrowed reflections?
LikeLiked by 10 people
olemisstarana
April 29, 2016
Orrrr Beers with Baradwaj, in honor of Koffee with Karan?
LikeLiked by 2 people
P
April 29, 2016
A lot of people that I spoke to including some long-time Ranbir fans have spoken of how Tamasha is dissing regular desk jobs and how it shows that the solution if you hate your desk job is to “just” go do “something else”. My answer is always that the context of the movie is not about a desk job per se but about following your heart.
Fine, Ved has a desk job which he secretly hates, but Tara also works a desk job, she sells tea for god’s sake! Even at the end of the movie she is attending a conference which I am sure if Ved was attending would have supernaturally bored him.
Ved expositions on this when he explains it to his father: Why should I do something that I am only average at- and which I hate (just because its the DONE THING), when I could be doing something I love, and which I am probably going to get better and better at- because I love doing it. Or sometimes you are very happy doing something you love- even if you are average at it.
Of course showing a creative person stuck in a desk job is always more dramatic than showing say a techie stuck in an acting job or something. Plus its probably quite autobiographical for Imtiaz. But even in his Facebook video chat he made it very clear that the point he is making applies to anybody and everybody who is stuck in something because it was expected of them to do so. His latest short film about a prostitute who learns about the stock-market speaks of a similar theme, of breaking a barrier and doing what your heart wants.
PS: I had no idea this was written by a guest blogger. Read it in the car and so completely skipped that part I think 😛
LikeLiked by 1 person
An Jo
April 29, 2016
and what is the criterion to get this esteemed position?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apu
April 29, 2016
I was going to write “Borrowed Reflections” too but Olemisstarana beat me to it! (But Guest post is fine).
I have not seen Tamasha but I have watched “Queen” but read so much about it that I might venture a few guesses:
Gradual, realistic transformations:
“Queen” all said and done, was still conventional. As Punee mentioned before: “girl recovering from a break up” has been done before, the difference in this case being the girl is from a small town, and has a conservative, protected upbringing. And the transformations were gradual, and easier to accept.
“Tamasha”, though still conventionally playing on Sid’s character from “Wake up Sid” (what if Sid had joined his dad in business), has the Imtiaz Ali touch which invests the character with much showy passion and heart-wrenching incidents and imagery which makes it unconventional and even strenuous to watch for some who just wish that he would “grow up already” and either accept the present or just break away and get on with it.
Keeping it real and in character:
The difference that I mentioned for Queen gives the story its unique flavor – which is why unlike other commenters, I think she did not need “drugs” or “physical relationships” to appear rebellious and what seems like small changes to us urban, somewhat-independent women are actually big changes for Rani. And yes, it was all very much in character that she did not flaunt her staying-with-guys-in-hostel and did not scream back at her boyfriend when he comes for a reconciliation. This keeping in character and keeping it real, again, was easier for audiences to accept and given the fact that the girl did not do anything that would ruffle the moral police in many audiences, it was easy to sell.
On the other hand, “Tamasha” used fantasy and abstraction, which might have been difficult to get into, if the audience is not in the mood.
Marketing:
As far as I could see or feel, “Tamasha” was marketed as a love story, which it probably was, as all Imitiaz’s movies are…but it all came out as how love can help someone “become his true self” and though again, that is a very sell-able concept, Imtiaz’s high-strung-bordering-on-sociopathic hero, was not a very lovable character, unlike Kangana’s “homely, sweet, helpless” heroine, of a movie that clearly marked out that it is NOT about a heroine finding love.
So, all said and done: “Queen” was an easier movie to accept, view and applaud than “Tamasha”, especially as expectations were set before.
(Agree with Sowmya) “Queen” shows the protagonist going from an initial setback to an uplifting finale whereas “Tamasha” builds up to a sunny arc and takes it down to depression. These mood fluctuations were probably a put off.
And a big nod to this part in the post: “Indian society is still looking for a strong, dominant, financially secure man who knows what he is doing.” which is why it is difficult to make the audience believe that a man has been “forced” to do something especially without showing the cliched tropes of “mother threatening suicide” or “dad threatening to cutoff from property” or “sister’s marriage/brother’s education” forcing a more economic decision. It is much easier to accept that a woman was shoe-horned into something she does not like because that is supposed to be common. (And “Queen” scored by showing that even the boyfriend was not forced on her in the beginning, and that there was some romance involved.)
LikeLiked by 4 people
P
April 29, 2016
The kind of questions Queen brings up about shame faced from a broken engagement is something that people are already acclimatized to talking about maybe? And while I agree with the blog-writers that Tamasha brings up some really, really uncomfortable questions about professional life that most Indians are not ready to deal with- I disagree with their assessment that it is restricted to men. It is not about the gender.
Despite it being a flop I think Imtiaz was not wrong in saying his piece. I know that Tamasha already has an underground, cult-following though the family audiences may not have warmed to it.
It is important to talk about the kind of pressure parents put on their kids to walk the beaten path, because this is a country where even today a girl who passed IIT-JEE with high honors decided to commit suicide because she was too afraid of her parents. She instead wrote an impassioned 5 page long suicide letter about how she doesn’t want to do what they want her to do. ( http://www.storypick.com/girl-suicide-iit/ )
Maybe if some future student will see Tamasha, she will gain the strength to tell her parents that she is ok being average in something else that she loves 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people
Apu
April 29, 2016
Rahini David: Desk jobs seem to be easy targets for movie makers, as there is hardly anything romantic any more (unlike before) in showing well lit, low ceilinged offices where people type away at desktops and it is so easy to show them pining after a more “fun” thing to do like nature photography, or traveling the world or becoming a bestseller . I blame BR (tongue-firmly-in-cheek) for making it seem easy!!!
I guess they were more aspirational when you show hungry children and workmen, but these jobs have now become “conventional”.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Madan
April 30, 2016
Perhaps the reason breaking the male stereotype is not so fascinating is that it is more commonplace, at least in the sense it is described w.r.t Tamasha (haven’t watched it by the way)? Haven’t there been many men over the years who tried their hand at a conventional job first and then ditched it to follow their heart? Defined that way, it’s not particularly original or refreshing even if it is always a nice story to follow (ergo, a movie based on that trope must be a well made film first and foremost and resonate with the audience for its storytelling and not just its gender stereotype-shattering potential). Another possible male stereotype defying act is a guy who is indolent and doesn’t want to go to work and would rather laze about at home. Fine, the question is it not very difficult to make a script where somebody can sympathise with such a character? Is indolence really something to be pitied upon? Would not somebody from a less privileged section of society crave the education that Mr.Indolent received to put him in a good position to get the work he rejects? So I don’t think that is about rejecting a male stereotype, rather just finding it difficult to ascribe positive qualities to such a position.
In Queen, we see a clear arc wherein Rani starts out being very timid and very eager to please her Prince Charming but when she returns, she rejects him in the most non chalant manner. If people cannot see what is fascinating about that transformation, perhaps the explanation is that women in big cities are already independent enough to tell off a chauvinist pig. But Rani is not your typical big city girl. She’s not very educated and seemingly of a simple nature so at first her world revolves around Mr.Right but by the time she comes back, she has decided to live life on her own terms. I don’t know whether I would categorise the purpose of such a film as breaking gender stereotypes. When I watched it, I interpreted the film as preaching the importance of letting people have their own space and also simultaneously urging youngsters to be whatever they want to be rather than trying to live up to society’s expectations. You wouldn’t believe how many people in their 20s still say things like “samaj mein nahi manenge”. Once I retorted, “samaj jaaye baad mein” :P.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Madan
April 30, 2016
I think a genuine male stereotype shattering proposition would be where a guy gives up a successful corporate career NOT to follow his dreams but to look after baby and support his wife’s aspirations instead. This is what men don’t do, we are always full of ourselves whereas women have a strong instinct to look out for the needs of the family even if they sometimes or often or always (as applicable) dislike how we delegate all the household work to them.
But since so few men do that even in real life, there is probably a while to go before that makes the big screen.
LikeLiked by 4 people
sanjana
April 30, 2016
You can outsource movie reviews also. Movies which are run of the mill types.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prajith
April 30, 2016
@Rangan, what should we do to put up our post on this column. Should we send it by mail?
LikeLike
Gaurav
April 30, 2016
Maybe Lights…camera…reaction
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vanya
April 30, 2016
Interesting hypothesis, Chinmayee and Sampada. Disclaimer: I’ve watched Queen, but not Tamasha, so I may be completely off on this. I’m not totally convinced that it was the absence of a stereotypically dominant male that was the turnoff in Tamasha; after all, audiences seem to have no problems with multiple iterations of Devdas. But the theme of following your heart has been done to death, probably more so in Hollywood than in Indian cinema, and 3 Idiots is still fresh in many people’s minds.
From reading others’ comments here, I get the sense that the framing didn’t work in Tamasha. I think Stranger than fiction is a good counter-example which touches upon the age-old theme of doing what’s expected of you, but it approaches it from multiple perspectives and with such charm, not to mention spectacular performances, that there’s still novelty and freshness in the end product.
Personally, I’m tired of career aspirations still being treated the same way love stories used to be. The premise in these movies is almost always that somebody’s unhappy with their current job, but then identifies what the “right” career is, finds a way to move to right career, and then they live happily ever after with their new job. This is the same tired narrative we’ve seen forever in rom-coms and romantic dramas. Where are the Saathiyas and KANKs of career-centered movies? How about a movie on how you can follow your passion from the onset, but run into a job market that’s saturated with people following their passion too, and be forced to make a compromise that’s nevertheless incredibly satisfying?* Yeah, I see why this may be a hard sell.
*I know Madhur Bhandarkar sorta-kinda does this, but his point is usually that (insert industry here) is evil and he doesn’t seem interested in the individual herself.” Luck by Chance was close, but inexplicably chose to focus on Farhan Akhtar’s character (until the very end).
LikeLiked by 4 people
venkatesh
April 30, 2016
Tamasha’s failure had nothing to do with the content, it was the form and that was very inaccessible , Queen is as Masala as it can be.
I bet that if you make another film with the same story of Tamasha with a different form of presentation, that would just work.
LikeLike
P
April 30, 2016
Apu: Loved your analysis of Queen vs. Tamasha. Thank you!
Vanya: The fact that people kill themselves for being forced into professions they have no interest in (India’s largest suicidal population after poor farmers is middle-class students!!) means that more and more Tamasha’s need to be made. Indian parents still have a vise-like grip on their children’s professional lives even if they have loosened the noose when it comes to marriage/love(that probably happened due to the glut of romantic movies from DDLJ onward). This needs to be said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vanya
April 30, 2016
@P: I don’t disagree that for many middle class individuals career decisions are heavily influenced by parents, and almost entirely with financial stability in mind. But we’re not doing any greater service to them by telling them that if they follow their heart, everything will magically be OK — the millennial generation in the US can attest to the problems with being told almost exclusively that “you can be whatever you want to be if you put your heart to it”. I’m all for movies emphasizing choice on any front, but there’s no reason we have to rush from one extreme to the other; there’s always room for nuance and balance.
LikeLiked by 3 people
aquasanju
May 1, 2016
Very interesting take and to be honest not surprising about how male gaze and male POV dominate popular films’ narratives…i had written about this while reviewing #Premam which can be viewed here: aquasanju.wordpress.com
the intersectionality issues is another, which i should admit the authors of this piece overlooked, probably because of their savarna sensibilities…i can rarely remember hindi films (with some golden exceptions) which didn’t speak about the mehras, the sharmas, the aroras lives and their spoilt lives…the protagonists in both these films come from these settings although i should admit i did not watch Tamasha, but the angst and sufferings of Rani are well relatable even with few regressiveness thrown in about how she overcomes her vulnerabilities by cooking food…but never tell us how the privileges of their birth is influencing their lives and their choices…it looks completely sanitised from this major elephant in the room…
LikeLike
P
May 1, 2016
Vanya: How is it “extreme” to follow your heart and work hard at something you love even if you end up average at it? They don’t show Ved becoming like a world-class auteur of some sort. He seems to be making a regular production that would be put up in the theatre scene in Bombay/Bangalore/Delhi. But even in that he is happy. And as a counterpoint like I mentioned earlier they do show Tara who has no conflict with her corporate profession-she is shown in business suits- in and out of meetings and tea tastings and she seems to like what she is doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
niranjanmb
May 1, 2016
How about ‘Counterpoint’?
LikeLike
An Jo
May 1, 2016
I found TAMASHA to be an under-rated gem. Could do with some polishing – but still a gem nonetheless..
And there, right there, lies the beauty of the script and the vision. Ved tries to become the ‘zesty’ guy that he was in Corsica for the real-world; for his boss, for his friends and fails miserably – and it is superbly conveyed to the audience through his mirror-talk. It is a lesson-within-a-lesson plot-point where the take-away is that you cannot be true-to-yourself for consumption by others; you have to be true-to-yourself ONLY for your-self. That’s when things ring true to your soul. In scene-after-scene, there is confusion in Ved’s mind about Tara and more importantly, about himself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon
May 1, 2016
When the going gets tough, won’t the fragile ones break? If not the entrance exams today, then some other challenges they face in the future…
Isn’t film industry one of those non desk, unconventional work place that people join to pursue their passion? Don’t we hear about a lot of suicides there too?
It is kind of like saying Bill Gates is a school drop out, so let’s all become school drop outs and we all have a chance of ending up like him. Aren’t people like him the exceptions who made it big, despite the unconventional choice. Isn’t there a better chance of making anything out of life if you stick to the conventional route of going to college?
A kind word for parents who seem to get the dis all the time….I know a lot of them uncles who regret not taking their parents advise and opting for the follow their heart route, especially now when they don’t have the n number of cars or when they can’t afford those vacations for their kids on summer hols.
I am all for freedom of anything and everything and it sounds very glamorous and aspirational when you listen to a Stephen Fry or Hitchens talk about it…but they made a career out of it and become successes and they are old and wise. But when the same freedom is given to the young and stupid.. without respecting the responsibility that comes with that freedom, then we have problems. Then we have young women stealing other womens’ husbands like Bajirao Mastani (I had to bring it up P) or young unguided teens choosing career options that would for surely end them up as homeless losers in a few years.
LikeLike
Madan
May 1, 2016
@anon: Interesting comment. I remember the actor Imran once said please don’t join the film industry because it’s painful and the people who work here do so because this is the only thing they know. Lol. And re the regretful uncles, perhaps Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory is at work where the absence of the creature comforts of corporate life pinches. Very possibly the same persons working in the corporate sector and enjoying those benefits would also regret not following their heart and doing work that they love instead.
There is just one point I want to make re entrance exams. There I do blame focus on a narrow(minded) set of criteria for the mess. I don’t absolve students completely of the blame either. At some stage you have to start forming opinions about what YOU want and not just blithely give in to parental and peer pressure. There are plenty of options for careers that pay without going too far off the beaten track and not all of them involve signing up for hyper competitive entrance tests. We have reached a situation where a graduate from a B grade engineering college makes maybe a little more than a driver and yet parents keep pushing children to study engineering/MBA. Just at least listen to the kids, you need not automatically accept whatever choice they make but at least consider their point of view. Studying BMM and working in media is NOT unconventional; unfortunately, for a lot of parents it still is. Fashion technology isn’t either nor is catering. We have to find some middle ground between film industry and over-conventional thinking where only govt/banking/software jobs are worth pursuing. I don’t know how it is now but esp in Chennai the latter kind of thinking was still prevalent among older generation until a few years back.
LikeLiked by 2 people
P
May 1, 2016
@anon: The contest is not between conventional or unconventional but following your heart and finding out what you want vs doing what others want.
I know engineers who are supremely happy doing what they are doing- desk jobs, 9-5. They CHOSE it. They wanted it. They worked towards it. They didn’t do it because their parents told them it was good for status, mareyadi (as they say in Kannada), log kya kahenge(as they say in Hindi) etc.
I have also heard of people like Twinkle Khanna who couldn’t wait to stop acting and was forced into it by her family because it was the done thing. Today she says she is happier being a designer and writer than she ever was being a glamorous movie star.
As long as we recognize that teenagers need to be taught to understand themselves, find their passion, find what they are good at- then its good. Blind subservience to anything- be it rebels without a cause or walking the straight and narrow- is bad.
PS: A husband is not a sack of flour that belongs to someone and can be stolen by someone else 🙂 And that is all I will say on that topic. (I don’t know who you are but you sound familiar).
LikeLiked by 1 person
lakshmi
May 1, 2016
Bonus Read?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
May 2, 2016
BR: It would be better if the authors interacted with the other commenters for a few days until the topic is hot. And please do put up some guidelines if you are intending to accept articles.
My vote is for Bonus Read.
LikeLike
Aditya (Gradwolf)
May 3, 2016
Late here but this is an interesting diversion the discussion has taken. I did notice a lot of criticism during the height of Tamasha on how it invalidates the desk job, over romanticizes the arts. Though I didn’t see it that way, I can imagine why that can rankle in this era of eagle eyed criticism and think pieces.
Maybe here’s an idea for a later guest post. Tamasha as a companion piece to Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year.
I wonder if Ranbir Kapoor saw the dichotomy here and chose the role but I can bet Imtiaz Ali did. Rocket Singh is the other film that was lauded critically (luckier than Tamasha that way) but terribly failed at the box office. A stellar script from Jaideep Sahni, a film that celebrated the desk job – I somehow find this term reductive – but surely it celebrated the dream of a business, the owner, the industrial revolution so to speak. It’s the complete opposite of Tamasha and we can wonder endlessly why there was no criticism that, how can anyone love or romanticize a desk job so much (hey it is not cool enough!). But for all purposes, here is your answer – the desk job celebrating film has already been made, it is even better than Tamasha and it is Ranbir Kapoor himself espousing the philosophy.
A particularly poignant line from the incredible scene in the end has this line – “Maine neeche wala raasta liya kyunki aap ne koi aur raasta chhoda nahin tha mere liye”. Singh says this to his boss, but you can very well see Ved say the same to his father in the last scene when he finally turns into the no-holds-barred storyteller.
A beautifully scripted and performed scene that just about stops short of making love to the “desk job” – “jab khoon pasina ek saath kagaz par chapta hai na,
table bed ban jaati hai aur office ghar, bhuk pyaas bhool jaati hai, bal bachche rul jaate hain, tab jaake saali company banti hai”.
Where were you when the desk job film was made? 😉
LikeLiked by 4 people
P
May 3, 2016
Gradwolf: That comment is beyond amazing. ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
blurb
May 4, 2016
There is this common misconception that you need to belong to the arts side of things in order to creatively thrive. But arts and science are not different. The common perception, though, is that an artistic mind is somehow free-flowing and more creative in contrast with a scientific mind which is more principled and bounded.
This quote is aptly captures reality. I can’t seem to find out who said it, so I am paraphrasing a bit:
“There is as much Science in Arts, as there is Arts in Science. And vice-versa.”
The other common misconception is that desk jobs somehow do not foster creativity. I don’t know, but writing is a “desk job” right? But it’s O.K. for “writing” to be considered creative?
Ok, now back to gender stereotypes 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nakul P Sangolli
May 5, 2016
Cameo or Guest Appearance? 🙂
LikeLike
sanjana
May 6, 2016
Finally watched Tamasha. Loved it. Deepika and Ranbir are made for each other. Such a crackling chemistry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
May 6, 2016
It did not fail due to gender issues. It failed because audience want instant entertainment and dont have patience.
LikeLiked by 2 people
P
May 7, 2016
Sanjana: Agreed. IT was such a slow beautiful movie. But we have never had patience with such films- Khamoshi being a case in point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ramchander Krishna (@ramctheatheist)
May 7, 2016
The saddest part of this article is the Bollywood to India generalization 😦 The article simply takes two Bollywood films and then goes on to make a statement as follows “The depiction of a man as confused and emotionally charged does not always appeal to the audience. Indian society is still looking for a strong, dominant, financially secure man who knows what he is doing.”
Hi. I’m sorry. I don’t see how you jumped from reception to Queen and Tamasha to “Indian society”. In the Indian map, there is this state called Tamil Nadu (you know that state where you get idli and dosa from), where we have had films like Server Sundaram (1964), 16 Vayathinile (1977), Mundhanai Mudichu (1983), Aan Paavam (1985), Kaadhal Konden (2003), Veyyil (2006), Chennai 28 (2007). Each one of them breaking the stereotype of the strong, dominant and financially secure male and still garnering audience acceptance too. (And if you notice the films are from different decades and by different directors.)
And films like Queen are also not a new phenomenon. It’s not like “Oh wow! Look suddenly a hibiscus has flowered outside my window!” Aval Oru Thodar Kadhai (1974), Aval Appadithaan (1978), Mouna Raagam (1986), Magalir Mattum (1994), May Maadham (1994), Indira (1995), Azhagi (2002) and Vidiyum Munn (2013). There have always been films that broke women stereotypes too and garnered audience acceptance.
Just because feminism is the fad today and just because Queen became a hit, don’t draw such hasty conclusions that “Indian society” is not ready. Maybe say Kanpur society or Delhi society or some society that exists in some imaginary world where south indians eat noodles with curd rice.
One more point. No matter how stereotype-breaking or revolutionary a film’s content is, if it’s executed correctly it will resonate with the audience. I don’t think box office success can be equated with audience acceptance. Anbe Sivam and Thamizh MA being classic examples. So you’re taking a film with spelling mistakes and saying its failure shows that audience is not ready to accept the stereotypes it broke. This is quite a bit of a logical stretch.
It feels like you came up with a theory and then desperately looked for facts to support it. Sherlock Holmes would click his tongue at this approach.
LikeLiked by 3 people
An Jo
May 8, 2016
@ Ramchander – thanks for that comment but no thanks for some of the points raised.
While I do agree with the ‘sentiment’ of your comment in general, it does appear that your ‘concern’ mostly lies in the fact that as has always been the norm, it is the ‘lack’ of film-appreciation for Tamil films by movie-goers north or parallel to the Vindhyas.[The fact that you bring in an utter dis-dain of a movie called Ra-1 as a reference and dismiss off Kanpur and Delhi societies as synonymous to ‘some’ society mixing noodles with curd and then flavor it up with idli and dosa but fail to mention any films made in Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, or Kannada or Oriya that break and have been breaking stereo-types actually under-lines this part.]
Our society [and by that I mean from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and from Bombay to Calcutta] has never-been realistic in terms of nomenclature. While I am under-whelmed with the logic per-se of this guest post, I have utter confidence that the authors didn’t and haven’t intended that QUEEN or TAMASHA are mile-markers of stereo-type-smashers in ‘Indian’ films. Their reference to these films doesn’t indicate dis-respect for such films attempted earlier in other Indian languages. You are taking too literally the geography of ‘Indian society’ as described by the authors. I believe they have used it just as Indians particularly equate ‘1 minute’ to ’10 minutes’ of ETA. I am interpreting their assessment as the non-acceptance of supposedly ‘weak’ males in a multi-plex dominated metro-society of India. And when considered within that parameter, their assessment rings true; not because the ‘Indian society’ in the metros is quite analytical, but because that society is just too brain-dead. This ‘aspirational’ society is one that considers Abhishek Bachchan lazy and Varun Dhawan and Hrithik Roshan ‘talented’ based on Gold Gym’s attendance. Go figure.
I can spout many films too which maybe you haven’t heard of – or you might have, IF one were a film-historian, not just a film-analyst. [Check out V. Shantaram’s Marathi film KUNKU made in 1937; or NATRANG made in 2010 with a chiseled male-lead playing out female characteristics or Puttana Kanagal’s 1971 Kannada movie SHARAPANJARA or even Bhatt’s ARTH.]
I take the liberty of referencing the guest-authors’ sur-names and assume that they sure have heard of NATRANG, if not KUNKU.
And yes, before each and every regional movie ‘fan’ like you or me go on boasting of respective state’s film achievements, let us be clear that the ONUS of making folks from other states or countries ‘appreciate’ regional films lies with that state’s film committee – or anything equivalent to it if it exists. If you release – this is assuming one releases these films in other states— Tamil or Marathi or Kannada movies with pathetic or non-existent sub-titles and STILL expect that folks from ‘any’ society laud films made in Tamil Nad in 1970 or 1960 or even 2010, well, that’s quite rich in expectations and would cause Arthur himself, forget Sherlock, click his tongue twice.
LikeLike
Shubham
May 12, 2016
Tamasha also failed bcoz of it’s budget which was way too high for that kind of film.
LikeLike
Ramchander Krishna (@ramctheatheist)
May 14, 2016
An Jo, I gave examples of Tamil films cos I’m familiar with them. Unlike the authors I don’t wish to take my limited knowledge and then extrapolate my claim to entire India. As I clearly stated, my intention was to disprove the article’s claim. And to prove that there have been films breaking gender stereotypes (both male & female) at all times and people hav accepted them, including the so-called brain-dead multiplex audience. And I’m sure if you take any other Indian language there will be several such films, as you have duly mentioned.
If u took my comment as boasting about tamil cinema I can only smirk. I didn’t mention anywhere that tamil films are better than bollywood films. Neither did I undermine the 2 films in question. And I didn’t say come and clap for these tamil films.
I wished to point out that India is not just made of multiplex audience. Also, I’m not sure what point u’re trying to make. You say their claim rings true. And that “indian society” actually refers to multiplex audience. And that people are brain dead. But, there’s no logic or evidence to substantiate this. This is the problem with amateur analysis. You take a couple of stupid people you see around you in your multiplex, and a few other people you see on social media who make judgments on Gold Gym membership and then make a generic claim like “Haan yaar. These multiplex audience na, they are so brain dead. They can’t accept stereotype breaking films like Tamasha only”
So it’s just your personal opinion. I don’t think it’s worthy of debate.
And btw it’s Tamil Nadu* not Tamil Nad. Thanks!
Rangan must definitely have seen through the brittle foundation of this article’s proposition. But, I guess he let it be as a teacher who encourages the first volunteer to come forth and read out an essay. Just to break the awkwardness and make other reluctant children in the class to volunteer with their essays.
LikeLike
nitin
May 14, 2016
I agree entirely with this post. I think one reason why Tamasha failed was coz it was too urbane. While I sobbed during d movie when Ranbir is facing his father, I can understand why other ppl in d audience, who have never been in a similar position, were not.
Also, Ranbir comes with a baggage of his own. Imtiaz shud have chosen a fresh face
LikeLiked by 1 person
petrichorror
May 20, 2016
Yeah, I don’t think it’s fair to say Tamasha failed due to an unwillingness to challenge male stereotypes. Regardless of gender, people find proselytizing about the “artist’s need to impose his art on the world as living out his truth” pretty obnoxious and self-aggrandizing. Also the alludes to mental health issues were oddly handled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
blurb
March 28, 2017
Found this interesting and informative: https://youtu.be/7kkRkhAXZGg
LikeLike
blurb
June 6, 2017
This interview is a MUST watch. About misogyny in the Tamil Film industry. Some is boldly speaking about it now. Lakshmi Ramakrishnan. Respect.
LikeLiked by 1 person