Spoilers ahead…
I hadn’t heard of the Nanavati trial until I watched Bombay Velvet, and then I realised I’d seen two films loosely based on it: Yeh Raaste Hain Pyaar Ke and Achanak. These films – like Rustom, the latest iteration – don’t really try to recreate the sordid (and sensational) case. They are content being fictions sprouting from the mere germ of the real-life story, that of a man in the armed forces (the army in Achanak; the navy in Rustom; the air force in Yeh Raaste Hain Pyaar Ke) who discovers that his wife has betrayed him. The lover, a good friend, ends up dead. The man is accused of murder. Yeh Raaste Hain Pyaar Ke and Rustom focus on the ensuing courtroom drama (quite brilliant in the former, with Ashok Kumar and Motilal in full “mere kaabil dost” form). Both films portray the wife as a woman wronged, giving her a “reason” to stray. In Yeh Raaste Hain Pyaar Ke, the lover caddishly slips a pill into her drink before seducing her. In Rustom, we see that the husband may have to share part of the blame. Had he not left for another long stint in the seas, had he stayed back like she asked him to (doe eyes pooling with tears), she may not have felt lonely and sought the lover’s company. Achanak, on the other hand, is startlingly unapologetic about the wife’s behaviour. She has the affair because she wants to.
The older films – Yeh Raaste Hain Pyaar Ke was released in 1963, Achanak in 1973 – were about relationships. They could afford to be. The audiences were different. Films did not live or die on the basis of the first-weekend business on five thousand screens across the country. And big, macho heroes (Sunil Dutt in Yeh Raaste Hain Pyaar Ke, Vinod Khanna in Achanak) could get away playing against type. With Akshay Kumar – who’s red hot in the trade today, and who’s more star than actor (meaning that even his “risks” are within a relatively safe zone) – you cannot make a story about a man who loves his wife and yet struggles to forgive her for what she did to him. At one point, the Sunil Dutt character nearly throttles his wife. A good chunk of Yeh Raaste Hain Pyaar Ke is about a couple learning to redefine a relationship. In the film’s best scene, Sunil Dutt weeps in front of his father, seeking advice. “Stay for the children,” the father says. Better yet, when, in a fit of rage, Sunil Dutt asks Leela Naidu (the wife), “Kya tum usse pyaar karti ho? Kya woh tumse pyaar karta hai?”, she cries out, “Mujhe kuch nahin maloom.” This must have been something in 1963 – a wife confessing to her husband that she’s not sure where the relationship with the lover stands. (It’s another thing, of course, that she eventually has to “pay the price.” She wears a contrite white. She cries. She testifies. She dies.) In Achanak, Vinod Khanna strangles his wife, but then remembers that, upon her death, she wanted her mangalsutra immersed in the Ganges. He sets about fulfilling this wish, even if it means escaping the cops who have captured him. This, again, cannot show up in an Akshay Kumar movie.
All of which is to explain why Rustom is more about courtroom fireworks than what happens between Rustom (Akshay Kumar) and Cynthia (Ileana D’Cruz) after he finds out about her tryst with Vikram (Arjan Bajwa). The film opens in a rush. We see a bit of Rustom wooing Cynthia. Soon, he’s off on duty, and when he returns, he finds Vikram’s letters in her cupboard (conveniently in sight, all bundled up neatly). He barges into Vikram’s house and shoots him dead. Or does he? But we do know he’s not going to kill his wife. Akshay Kumar operates in two modes these days. He’s either the buffoon in brain-dead comedies, or the patriot in flag-waving action-dramas. (Republic Day and Independence Day are to this actor what Id is to Salman Khan.) And patriots come in saffron, white and green – not shades of gray. Rustom is so noble that he won’t talk about his wife to the tabloids (even if that could bolster his case), he won’t take up the navy’s offer to stay with them during the trial (he won’t claim special privileges; like any other Indian, he will remain in police custody), and he won’t even cross-examine a woman who’s lying about him (if he proves she’s lying, she’ll be discredited in public, and patriots don’t do that). In these films, Akshay Kumar isn’t a man. He’s a monument.
And because of this, his fans don’t get to dwell on the fact that their hero has been emasculated – that he’s essentially a cuckold. When the hero is a patriot, there are more pressing matters than dealing with a wife whose needs he’s clearly not fulfilling. Vikram isn’t just a philanderer; he’s a traitor to the nation. As far as Rustom and Akshay Kumar are concerned, homeland trumps home. Cynthia, thus, barely registers as a character. Yeh Raaste Hain Pyaar Ke made a big deal about the Leela Naidu character being raised in France, for the prosecution sought to establish that she was made of looser morals than the average Indian woman. Here, we get a mention about Cynthia’s British background, but nothing comes of it. The big seduction scene is right out of Aradhana. It rains. They get wet. Before you can say “Roop tera mastana,” they’re making out.
None of this would have mattered if the director Tinu Suresh Desai knew how to make a movie where the tension thickened as time went on. There’s one deftly rendered passage, where an interrogation keeps cutting smoothly between the cop and the various people being questioned. But elsewhere, the staging is in your face, superficial – the frames have no texture. The actors – save for Anang Desai, playing a judge with a bone-dry disposition – are always a beat or two off (and some of them seem downright embarrassed at being used just to register reaction shots). The characters are either one-note and loud, or perplexingly underwritten. In the hands of Salim-Javed, Pawan Malhotra’s Inspector Lobo would have crackled with antagonistic fire. He’s just a courier boy here. And what about the tabloid editor (Kumud Mishra) modelled on Russi Karanjia? The man sounds promising at first. He rubs his hands with glee when he gets an exclusive tip-off about the Rustom affair (newspaper sales will go through the roof!), and yet, he volunteers to help Rustom, a fellow Parsi, find a lawyer. But the character is soon banished to a running gag that keeps putting him in prison. The problem isn’t the transformation of what appeared to be a nuanced character into a comedian. The problem is that the running gag (a great one, on paper) just dies on screen.
That could be said about a lot of Rustom. It’s vaguely watchable – but nothing is alive, nothing moves. The deliciously gaudy decor (pista-coloured walls, yum!) just sits there, as though freshly painted and waiting to dry. The period costumes – swimsuits with little bows in front; jackets with checks – look like costumes, not clothes. People seem to have slipped into them; they’re not wearing them. And the “touches” are embarrassing. This is the kind of film where two opponents sit down on opposite sides of a chessboard and begin to talk, making one move per rim-shot of dialogue. Even Akshay Kumar, who can usually be relied on to save bad films, is underwhelming. His idea of an irreproachable patriot is a man whose face won’t move a muscle. There is, however, some fun to be had watching Esha Gupta, who plays Vikram’s sister. Hers is easily one of the campiest characters of all time – she doesn’t shed a tear when her brother is killed. But she makes up for it by dressing up in couture clothes from 1950s Hollywood, waving around a cigarette holder, and uttering every word as though it were “Dah-ling!” I left the theatre wanting her to marry Kabir Bedi from Mohenjo Daro. If their babies inherit their hamming genes, that’s at least something to alleviate boredom in future films.
KEY:
- Bombay Velvet = see here
- Yeh Raaste Hain Pyaar Ke = see here
- Achanak = see here
- “mere kaabil dost” = my learned friend (Hindi-film legal jargon)
- “Kya tum usse pyaar karti ho? Kya woh tumse pyaar karta hai?” = Do you love him? Does he love you?
- “Mujhe kuch nahin maloom.” = I don’t know.
- mangalsutra = see here
- Aradhana / “Roop tera mastana” = see here
- Mohenjo Daro = see here
Copyright ©2016 Baradwaj Rangan. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Radhika
August 13, 2016
I had heard about the Nanavati case in my teens, though I got the impression it was a great crime of passion, thought it was unpremeditated, the Commander walking in on his wife, In flagrante delicto, not the distinctly grey version that was reality. It’s a long read but quite fascinating to read about the case, and how it was shaped by Karanjia – in this piece,
Click to access TabloidtheCity.pdf
From all accounts, Nanavati seems to have been a very stoic and private man, the salacious details are all about the rest of the characters – so perhaps Akshay Kumar was actually playing him quite accurately.I can’t help but wonder what a good director could have done with that vision, of what the city was like then, what Karanjia’s own background and motivations were, and how that resulted in morphing the story from a criminal case to a soap opera. What if the spotlight hadn’t been Nanavati, but Karanjia.
LikeLike
sanjana
August 13, 2016
What a delicious review! Bringing Sunil Dutt, Vinod Khanna and Leela Naidu.
Kumar said that women will love this movie because the husband forgives his straying wife! As if all the women are straying and waiting for a man like Akhay to forgive them!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
August 13, 2016
Kumar said that women will love this movie because the husband forgives his straying wife! As if all the women are straying and waiting for a man like Akhay to forgive them!
Not really. He said that, women will love the film because of its ’emotional’ quotient.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anurag
August 13, 2016
Brangan, that closing line is your best closure in a long time. I was ROFL for long time there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MANK
August 14, 2016
Honest Raj, what AK said was that the film will save marriages and stop divorces
http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/akshay-kumar-rustom-subject-will-save-marriages-stop-divorces-2959280/
Brangan, Kudos for the Aaradhana reference. thats exactly what i felt when that scene came along. my theory is that since the film is set in that time period, may be the filmmakers tried the same seduction trick 🙂
And i think sachin khedekar should get the Damini award for the most eye rolling over the top lawyer in movie history. his every moment , every line reading was ROFL. he tops both sunny deol & Amrish puri combined in OTT stakes
And so was the final jury conference – trying to sneak in a version of 12 angry men (man what all things the filmmakers tried to sneak in what should have been a straightforward story of crime of passion ) – with members coming to blows. incredibly funny
LikeLike
Anu
August 14, 2016
Rustom is so noble that he won’t talk about his wife to the tabloids (even if that could bolster his case), he won’t take up the navy’s offer to stay with them during the trial (he won’t claim special privileges; like any other Indian, he will remain in police custody), and he won’t even cross-examine a woman who’s lying about him (if he proves she’s lying, she’ll be discredited in public, and patriots don’t do that).
I don’t know about the last one, but Commander Nanavati never said a word about his wife, nor did he ask for special privileges befitting his rank. He drove himself to the police station after he shot Prem Ahuja and turned himself in for the murder, and then let the law take his course. So far, Akshay seems to following real life events. In fact, if it hadn’t been for Russi Karanjia and his media blitz (pun not intended), the course of the case may have been different.
http://www.mansworldindia.com/cinema/love-death-and-scandal-in-bombay-nanavati-case-inspired-film-rustom-the-real-story/
The case brought Ram Jethmalani into focus as the prosecution counsel, and Russi Karanjia as the man who orchestrated a defence that went beyond the courtroom. I think it was also an important turning point in Indian jurisprudence – the case saw the end of the jury system in India.
LikeLike
arielsomebody
August 14, 2016
“that their hero has been emasculated – that he’s essentially a cuckold. When the hero is a patriot, there are more pressing matters than dealing with a wife whose needs he’s clearly not fulfilling”
Is this baradwaj rangan’s attempt to be ‘feminist’? Really pathetic BR. I’m developing a real dislike of this guy’s biases. He however seems to have been given camouflage as an ‘unbiased’ reviewer despite sharing all the ideological slants of his parent ‘The Hindu’s’ Leftist-Marxist-‘secularist’ worldview.
LikeLike
sanjana
August 14, 2016
Actor Akshay Kumar says that the subject of his upcoming film ‘Rustom’ will be loved by women and also save marriages and stop divorces. “It is a different subject, it is based on real-life stories and it is the first time somebody is playing a Parsi Navy officer, neither has anybody played a Parsi main lead or an officer’s role,” actor said.
When asked what one thing he would like to take back from the film, he said, “I am going to take my uniform. And I am not only going to take back, on the contrary, this film is going to give, it is going to save a lot of marriages and is going to stop people from taking divorce, you invest so much into a relationship, so this film is going to tell you what goes into it.”
http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Bollywood/2016-08-08/Women-will-love-Rustom-Akshay-kumar/247262
LikeLike
uniquebluerose
August 14, 2016
lol!!!! I agree with Anurag here….Branganji only you could get such a thought…….I reading this early in morning I spilled my tea laughing hard!!!!!
Fantastic review……Now i want to watch the movies you mentioned here!!!!
LikeLike
sanjana
August 14, 2016
I am drawing an inference.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
August 14, 2016
MANK: You say “pot-aaa-to”, and “I say pot-ahh-to”.
sanjana: You say “tom-aaa-to”, and I say he didn’t say “women will love this movie because the husband forgives his straying wife”.
LikeLike
brangan
August 14, 2016
Radhika: From all accounts, Nanavati seems to have been a very stoic and private man, the salacious details are all about the rest of the characters – so perhaps Akshay Kumar was actually playing him quite accurately.
Perhaps so. But you cannot make a movie expecting people to read up stuff before watching. That’s bad filmmaking. It is the duty of the screenplay to spell out character traits that in turn will help the audience “understand” the performance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Radhika
August 14, 2016
But you cannot make a movie expecting people to read up stuff before watching. That’s bad filmmaking. It is the duty of the screenplay to spell out character traits that in turn will help the audience “understand” the performance.
I didn’t say that the background has to be read to understand the character – just that he probably was true to it. Your criticism of the character’s nobility suggests that there were signals in the screenplay that pointed to his being private and stoic. It looks like you were expecting a more “standard” portrayal of an angry betrayed husband.
And because of this, his fans don’t get to dwell on the fact that their hero has been emasculated – that he’s essentially a cuckold.
I was quite zapped at this comment. Really, is that what you believe? that infidelity by a wife emasculates the husband?or what you believe fans believe?
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
August 14, 2016
Adultery and infidelity even by wives in India is not so uncommon as it is made out to be.. I have witnessed some cases where husbands simply overlook and move on. They dont go on a murder spree. Some divorce their wives. It is not about forgiving but taking it in the stride. They are quite unbelievale stories for some but they do exist. I have seen some husbands accepting kids who definitely are not theirs. It is not confined to one class or one section. Why films make such a great issue about these things? There is much more tolerance than we would like to believe. Yes, on the otherhand there are men and women who suspect and nag their spouses nonstop without any reason or proof. Mere suspicion leads to crimes of passion sometimes. Ultimately it depends on individuals as to how they react to such things. And women routinely tolerate these things more than men which is a known fact.
LikeLike
Parsiv
August 15, 2016
@Sanjana: “And women routinely tolerate these things more than men which is a known fact.”
Please give me citations. Thank you.
LikeLike
Not a Blind Follower
August 15, 2016
Hello Baradwaj,
I observed through the immaculate prose, that you left wanting for more in Story, screenplay, direction and acting.
I can understand direction was under-whelming given the characters were either set in a single scene or not bothered at all. Characters turning into comic relief providers – the lawyer, the editor, the maid, etc. Hamming lawyer, hamming vamp,
However, dont understand the difference of opinion you had in story, screen-play and acting. Given, the brief of original Rustom. I thought Akshay did a commendable job – stoic, vulnerable and assertive when required (sometimes all at once). It never felt that he was not a naval officer. Infact, talking about acting, I liked the director’s touch to constable character, you can see he loathes the wife and throughout the movie the constable had pre-conceived judgment.
In terms of story and screen-play – I thought it was well done because they kept it simple – simple layers, simple frames, simple explanations for average crowd to understand whats going on between the ears of the characters. There have been numerous hindi movies who are wanna-be “Nolanish…” This movie laid it bare when the time was right in a simple story telling flow. No scene (apart from the songs) looked out of sequence or felt hampered the flow.
Would love to hear more about your difference of opinion on film-making process.
LikeLike
Not a Blind Follower
August 15, 2016
Also – I am not a fan but sincerely respect your skill. I have great appreciation of your writing ability and movie knowledge (movie making & just about movies).
However, I observe marked difference in your writing off late. From the customary must make your chuckle last line to snappy headline. It seems [just my opinion] – you had a great balance between writing and critiquing (about moving making, movie, etc.). But it seems off late your writing ability is slowly over-shadowing the critiquing aspect.
LikeLike
Miss Anthropy
August 15, 2016
Eh, infidelity is wrong when it breaches an understood social contract. I don’t think it’s worthy of murder as punishment though. The film, though, clearly thinks that a murderer is a hero. Granted, I’m eliminating some subtleties (“he did it for the aircraft carrier, not his wife!” et al), but meh. Those subtleties were as half-arsed as brangan’s comments on how a “woman’s needs being unmet” are enough justification for infidelity (ohohohohoho, gauntlet thrown).
LikeLike
brangan
August 15, 2016
Radhika: is that what you believe? that infidelity by a wife emasculates the husband?or what you believe fans believe?
No, I am not talking about the HUSBAND. I am talking about the STAR who plays the husband. Stars come with certain dos/don’ts — unless, like Kamal Hassan or Aamir Khan, you have “trained” the audience to expect you to play different characters all the time. So I was talking about Akshay Kumar’s star persona and the fact that the patriotism part of his character took the attention away from the fact that he was a cuckolded husband. (And yes, this would be seen as emasculating a macho star like Akshay.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
August 15, 2016
Does sun need citations?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Miss Anthropy
August 15, 2016
From an impartial viewpoint (with the base assumption that a woman’s infidelity emasculates the cuckold), AK did get emasculated. As sincere as the movie’s attempts were to soften it (“She had no agency!”, “He did it for revenge!”), the wife DID stray with no coercion on the “villain”‘s part.
… Plus, the “villain” of the piece looked… BIGGER than ickle Akki. Ohohohohoho
LikeLike
Anu
August 15, 2016
@BR, I doubt that AK/his image would have been emasculated. I find him one of the most grounded, the most secure of the A-listers. If he were so worried about his macho image, I doubt he would have signed Aitraaz so long ago, where one woman nearly derails his career, and he has to be ‘rescued’ by another.
@Miss Anthropy, it’s not just the film. Commander Nanavati was a national hero, decorated and revered. When the case became national news, sympathy was completely on his side. (We read up the case as part of our studies on media ethics.) Blitz, for one, pitted this national hero against a wealthy playboy, and was firmly of the opinion that the murder was not only justified, but something that any man in his position would do. To be fair, Nanavati shot at Ahuja, and then turned himself in at the nearest police station for assault; the charge became murder only when he received the news at the police station that Ahuja had died.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rohitsathishnair
August 15, 2016
Would this film work in a Talvar-ish template?
LikeLike
MANK
August 15, 2016
And yes, this would be seen as emasculating a macho star like Akshay
Like Anu, i wonder about that too Brangan, because these days he doesn’t really have a macho image . As you said, he is either a buffoon in comedies or the more vulnerable family guy who is a patriot in films like Baby, Airlift etc. it would have been a problem if it was someone like salman.
But Yes the filmmakers have gone to a large extend to reduce the sting of cuckolding. we have Rustom keep repeating that it was his fault that his wife strayed or rather even hints that my be he indirectly did engineer the indiscretion for the greater good of the country. we also have the scene were Cynthia telling Vikram that he will never be equal to her husband before they split up.
the hesitation from the filmmakers to belabor this point of cuckolding would only be because of our traditional expectations of what our pure heroes ought to be.especially about the super patriotic heroes in white , that their wives do not cheat on them. it must not have been Akshay specific.
LikeLike
brangan
August 15, 2016
Not a Blind Follower: Well, I guess what you call “simple”, I call “crude.” There’s a difference between not making a movie complex and not knowing how to make a movie. When I see those reaction shots or that laughable jury discussion, I don’t see a “simple” film. I see a film made rather cluelessly.
LikeLike
Radhika
August 15, 2016
No, I am not talking about the HUSBAND. I am talking about the STAR who plays the husband.
Ouch, you don’t have to shout, man!
But actually you are talking about the Husband as well. You are assuming that fans will confuse the Star with the Husband, and since they believe in the emasculation of the husband who has been betrayed (cuckolded is such an.. archaic!.. concept) – they will see the Star as emasculated too. Aren’t you sort of underestimating his fans? If fans can accept a balding ageing Rajini and see no problem in watching him in a swashbuckling persona on screen, they arent that dim as not to realize, who is the actor and what is his role. For that matter, what is this “training” that Aamir has done? In none of his roles does he play a “cuckold”. True, both he and Kamalahaasan have mastered gimmicky roles but where is Aamir’s risk taking in terms of playing non Star like roles? In fact, one could argue that by playing everything short of a pomeranian, they haven’t really played many realistic roles, though Kamal has the odd Papanasam, it too is very heroic in the protagonist’s portrayal. Also, if training is the point, then well, the guy (Akshay) has to start somewhere, right? He has a good role model in his father in law – for all the vilification of Rajesh Khanna, the man played a series of non-Starry roles – a bawarchi, a constable, an old man with a stroke, umpteen cancer patients.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Raj Balakrishnan
August 15, 2016
I agree, it is very rare for a major macho action star to play a cuckolded husband. Akshay should be appreciated for this bold move. I don’t recollect any major star having done this. There are certain roles that are taboo for major stars: playing a gay person, someone who is impotent or a cuckold
LikeLike
sanjana
August 15, 2016
The word cuckold somehow reminds me of Shakespearean plays. Hamlet? And many others.
LikeLike
sanjana
August 15, 2016
Why people are forgetting about Silsila where Rekha cheats Sanjeev Kumar who is no less than a star. Kabhi alvida na Kehna where Abhishek Bachchan plays somewhat similar role. And also Murder. And Mala Sinha in Gumrah?
LikeLike
Anu
August 16, 2016
Major macho star did play a cuckold long before this. To add to Sanjana’s examples above, If Sunil Dutt isn’t major or macho or star enough, then there was Amitabh Bachchan playing one in Do Anjaane. If Yash Chopra hadn’t lost his nerve, then Silsila; would have ended with the adulterous couple living happily. There was no doodh si dhuli huyi heroine there. Rekha, at the top of her game, was one part of the adulterous couple.
@Radhika, I do think Aamir has taken risks – his ice candy man character in Deepa Mehta’s Earth was pure evil. Raakh, which he did almost simultaneously with QSQT was a huge risk at that stage in his career. Lagaan was a risk of a different sort – remember the ruling Khan had nixed the project? So were Dil Chahta Hai and Rang De Basanti. Now, Dangal seems promising. An A-lister playing a 50-year-old father of four daughters?! A decade ago, that would have been professional harakiri. I’m not sure it wouldn’t be so, today!
LikeLiked by 1 person
arielsomebody
August 16, 2016
@not a blind follower : “But it seems off late your writing ability is slowly over-shadowing the critiquing aspect.”
i would say his biases and agenda, dictated by his employers are over-shadowing the writing ability and critiquing aspect.
LikeLike
Miss Anthropy
August 16, 2016
@Anu: I wasn’t talking about the story beats or the characters within the film. I was talking about HOW the film refuses to bestow anything other than a saintly halo upon AK. The FILM has banged its gavel long before the public has. The FILM has absolved the wife of her agency in the affair. The FILM has taken the sting out of the cuckoldry. Meh. Nuance was never the intent of the film, but the lack of it is boring all the same.
LikeLike
Ajax
August 16, 2016
Rustom is an oversimplified courtroom drama that ends up being more hilarious then thrilling. Rustom is definitely a mass appealing film and has its moments. However, it needed to be a lot more than that to be passed off as an edge of the seat “suspense thriller”.
http://simplebollywoodreviewer.blogspot.in/2016/08/rustom-review-courtroom-drama-thats.html
LikeLike
Not a Blind Follower
August 16, 2016
@Ariel – I thought the same – but then I truly do respect Baradwaj’s skills. Oh, it must be hard for him to be doing this, if its the employer making him do such stuff. But then, I also have seen a typical pattern response from usual fans along the lines, “oh that last sentence…” , “oh the comparison…”, “oh the headline….” . Dare i say – Seems more like Baradwaj’s is playing to his mass intellectual audience 😛
@Ajax – I agree with your comment, Rustom is a comedy court room drama, not a thriller. That to me explains the lack of being cuckold rather than AK being a star.
Also, Kamal Hassan being adventurous and open about different roles. The best joke of the decade. He is a man whose first demand before a payslip is “how can i be different for the heck of it because Im great…” – the man who single handedly made Munna bhai worse in Tamil [killed Circuit character, because he had to be the funny, sad and everything in between]. The man who did Dasavathar – where every character was as bad or worse as the previous Kamal character in that movie. Dont get me wrong, he is immensely talented but the problem he knows this and his ego takes over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not a Blind Follower
August 16, 2016
@Baradwaj – Simple v/s crude – this is the part that I miss in your reviews these days. I actually love your difference of opinion that was evident in reviews gone by. “Crude” would have got its own para or passage that shares/explains your opinion, knowledge and love for movie-making.
I do agree with your reasons based on reaction shots, etc. So true and valid.
But, these days, its a mere 1 line comment. Do you care to share how you would have done differently, what references of other movies, directors you would have loved to fix that. Because Im genuinely interested in your opinion, not intending to get into a debate. It used to be the staple diet in years gone by. But these days, its all about quick entertainment for the intellectual usual fan lot through the prose rather than film critiquing.
LikeLike
sanjana
August 16, 2016
It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that The Hndu dictates what to write in film reviews.
LikeLike
sanjana
August 16, 2016
And more ridiculous to suggest that BR has a sinister agenda.
He is just enjoying and make his readers enjoy his writings.
LikeLike
I ain't a bloody squid
August 16, 2016
The trailer looked like a fun but stupid pot boiler. As you said if the film were bad I thought it the slack would be picked up by Akshay Kumar. These kind of movies have him play it too straight faced, like in Baby, but that was a solid movie. His performance was fine but the whole movie takes itself to seriously, while being ridiculous.
LikeLike
Ajax
August 16, 2016
@NABF : I guess a maker’s commercial priorities take a lot more precedence over sense and logic when it comes to Indian cinema. The thriller genre has not really had too much success among the mass audiences and even the big hits in the thriller genre like Kahaani and A Wednesday attained immense popularity and cult status among only a very small section of the audience. They became huge hits thanks mainly to their shoestring budgets. But once the movie has star value and big commercial value, the thriller genre tends to suffer as even well made spicy edge of the seat thrillers like Special 26 and Baby have had just average theatrical runs (mainly among the urban multiplex crowd). A Johnny Gaddar was a box office disaster while the likes of Wazir and Madras Cafe too performed only in selected multiplexes. That’s perhaps why the makers of a 70 cr budgeted Rustom might have wanted to avoid making an outright thriller in the true sense of the word.
PS : I do not consider the likes of Darr, Ghajini and Holiday to be thrillers. They’re more of commercial masala movies. In fact, the 60’s and 70’s era was a lot more friendly for the thriller genre what with huge grossing blockbusters like Jewel Thief, Johnny Mera Naam and even the timeless classic Deewaar.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 16, 2016
@Miss Anthropy (Love the name!): Ah, yes, I get it now. Sorry. 🙂 Yes, our films have a habit of removing all nuance from our stories. Obviously, our film makers aren’t fans of fifty shades of grey. Or even one shade.
@ all: I’m cringing at the typos and punctuation errors in my previous comment. Despite evidence to the contrary, I can both spell and I do know my punctuation. This is what happens when I type on a keyboard attached to my broken laptop. Apologies.
LikeLike
arielsomebody
August 16, 2016
@sanjana thanks for categorically defending Baradwaj Rangan with the irrefutable argument ‘ridiculous’.
It is ridiculous to suggest that The Hindu doesn’t dictate the ideological line of its employees. Lol.
LikeLike
Radhika
August 16, 2016
@ Anu. Re Aamir. In this context, what I meant about risk, was the risk of emasculation, that BR brought up – of a role that ends up going against the mainstream rhetoric of what it means to be a man, which then impinges on his Stardom. So Earth, while a negative role, was v masculine. So were the others – even in Dil Chahta Hai, his is not an emasculated role, and definitely not in Rang De Basanti. I had forgotten Raakh – yes, that one has him being impotent, not able to rescue his girl from being raped – (though later, in Charles Bronson Deathwish style, he wreaks revenge).
LikeLike
sanjana
August 16, 2016
I dont think that they dictate how to write film reviews.
LikeLike
arielsomebody
August 17, 2016
@sanjana keep thinking.
LikeLike
Madan
August 17, 2016
arielsomebody: Well, I am not one of BR’s diehard fans and have criticised some of his reviews on the comments threads before. Whether Hindu dictates an agenda to him or not is not for me to say. I think it is ridiculous to both make an unqualified insinuation to that effect and to categorically refute it. Only one person can refute it and that’s BR himself. But coming to this review, I don’t find his reference to AK depicting a cuckold as pushing through a feminist agenda and more a reference to the male dominated worldview that a superstar is required to pander to. OK, now suppose BR is indeed a feminist, why would you find that so objectionable as to lash out at him? Perhaps you should examine if you haven’t found an ideological calling of another kind yourself lately. Now does that suffice or would you like me to spell this out more bluntly? I am not interested in an Indian version of culture wars but if you insist, at least be transparent about it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sanjana
August 17, 2016
I am imagining BR tied to a wooden chair in a dark room and asked to write film reviews that suits his employers!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not a Blind Follower
August 17, 2016
@Sanjana – I’m not sure if one of your responses was a reaction to my comments. In case it was – I’m not suggesting it’s BR’s sinister agenda at all. Truly tesorct BR’s talent and his ability to apply the skills in critiquing.
It’s a trend that made me offer unsolicited feedback – humorous prose in the guise of movie review with usual responses of that was funny or loved reading comments by different folks. None of it suggests BR has ulterior motives, but just an independent (probably biased) unsolicited feedback.
Years ago it was good, hard movie review in the guise of prose (dash of wit, humour and sophistication), it’s other way now. Dare I say seems some die hard fans come for their periodic intellectual porn fix 😋
LikeLike
arielsomebody
August 17, 2016
@madan What on earth do you mean? Please go ahead and spell it out bluntly. BR is NO feminist as his many reviews have revealed. His ‘feminism’ is synthetic and only surfaces when it serves to push through another agenda. This is exactly the ideological bent of the leftist-Marxist Hindu paper. It should be no surprise that journalists and culture writers follow the side their bread is buttered. i don’t expect any different from BR. i was under no illusion that he is different or ‘idealistic’. It’s only natural to feel irritated at this worldview being pushed on us even through movie reviews and i’m calling out what i see here. Hope i have made myself crystal clear.
LikeLike
Madan
August 17, 2016
@ Not A Blind Follower: Read arielsomebody’s first comment in this thread and you’ll understand what it’s about. I thought yours was a fair critique. Surely people are allowed to disagree and criticise but trying to give ideological colours to it just makes the whole affair unpleasant. Unfortunately these are the times we live in. Achche din, careful what you wish for…
LikeLike
arielsomebody
August 17, 2016
@madan maybe i’m being naive here in assuming BR even knows his ideological biases and is consciously choosing them. Maybe he’s so used to his echo chamber he actually recognizes nothing else. He has definitely shown plenty of evidence of his serious disconnect from both the audience and ground reality.
LikeLike
sanjana
August 17, 2016
Not a Blind Follower, to some extent I agree with you. But he himself answered somewhere that his reviews are observations from his subjective point of view or some such thing than purely objective reviews.
LikeLike
arielsomebody
August 17, 2016
@madan unpleasant is pretending somebody, in this case BR, can come from an ideologically ‘neutral’ position, as if such a position even exists, when they have always revealed their ideological stance more or less openly.
LikeLike
Filistine
August 17, 2016
If BR does happen to be a Leftist/Marxist sympathiser and his reviews are coloured by that particular bias, why is that an issue? Surely, no one is forcing people to agree with his views. Or even read them, for that matter.
Unless of course, BR is a sinister Cult Leader who has a Lenin tattoo inside his left nostril and is leading a secret revolt against our society through the insidious use of Movie Reviews? If we read his Movie Reviews backward, will that spell out the Communist Agenda? He is also known to drive on the left side of the road, apparently
By the way, how many people here even know what Leftist/Marxist means?
LikeLiked by 7 people
MANK
August 17, 2016
sanjana, Not just Brangan, but every reviewer whether its Khalid mohammed, Raja sen, Anupama chopra OR Roger Ebert, Stephanie Zachareck, Pauline Kael, all of them are writing subjective reviews. i dont know if there is anything called an unbiased objective review.if there was, then we only need one reviewer right?, who can follow all the laws and principles of professional reviewing and put out a review.
LikeLike
Madan
August 17, 2016
“It’s only natural to feel irritated at this worldview being pushed on us even through movie reviews” – As I have done many times to BR himself in requesting him to stop using the grand we, please speak for yourself. No, I don’t feel any worldview being pushed on me. I recognise that sometimes a writer’s worldview may express itself in the middle of a review because writing doesn’t, you know, happen in a separate place. If you really feel so bullied, don’t read it and free yourself of the misery. But since you invited me to be blunt, let me just state it plainly: no, as a Bhartiya Nav Neo Con, you obviously feel compelled to pick up a fight the moment you smell the faintest whiff of leftism in the air. That is very much in keeping with the neo con tradition. Dog whistles, culture wars, it’s no surprise to see the whole ensemble now being imported into our country. Now please do go ahead and enjoy venting your true righteous anger.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Madan
August 17, 2016
“He is also known to drive on the left side of the road, apparently” – Would have surely spilt it had I happened to be drinking tea when I read this. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 17, 2016
“if there was, then we only need one reviewer right?, who can follow all the laws and principles of professional reviewing and put out a review.” – Soon this will come true and only Mahesh Sharma or Pahlaj Nihalani will be allowed to write true professional objective reviews.
LikeLike
arielsomebody
August 18, 2016
@madan goodness, I’ve no idea what a bhartiya nav neo con is 🙂 🙂 🙂 If you don’t feel irritated at his biases good for you. I do and I’m saying so. Why do you get to tell me to stop reading if I don’t agree, instead of expressing my opinion? Why do you get to label me with self-righteous terms without any basis like neo con, dog whistle and goodness knows what else?
His biases are agreeable to you, they’re not to me. What makes my dissent so deserving of your contempt?
@filistine Of course he gets to be biased whichever way he likes 😀 I was just saying that he is, and I don’t feel that is acknowledged, and that his biases irritate me personally.
Glad that we’ve progressed now to admitting all round that he has an ideological bias and is not some mythical ‘normative’ neutral. 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Filistine
August 18, 2016
arielsomebody – you do notice that I had started with the word “If”, didn’t you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
August 18, 2016
arielsomebody:
1) If you find a blog where the author is saying something you don’t like or agree with say it in the same post he is doing so. That will bring more productive dialogue than “Is this baradwaj rangan’s attempt to be ‘feminist’? Really pathetic BR.” If you have thoughts on the emasculation topic or BR’s take on cuckoldry, then say so and naturally everyone will be all ears.
2) This whole “attempts at being feminist”, “feminazi”, “I am not a feminist though I believe men and women are equal and if I am not making sense, I am proud of it” takes always confuse me. Is feminism a religion that has a baptism or “Be born again” procedure? Can a person not have a few thoughts that fall under the feminism bracket, a few that don’t and be willing to express all those thoughts? I am not saying that BR expressed any thoughts that I would personally file under “Misogynistic”. I just don’t understand why a person’s feministic thoughts should be derided as “attempts at feminism” even if he is no card carrying SJW.
3) What makes my dissent so deserving of your contempt? Your tone, basically. Your attitude implies that you reserve the right to throw bile and the right to NOT tell what makes you do that and somehow you think you deserve the right to be taken seriously? It doesn’t work like that even in the real world, why would the blogsphere be any different?
4) Why do you get to tell me to stop reading if I don’t agree? I don’t think anyone is commanding you to not read this. We are just pointing out that not reading BR’s posts is an option. I read it as I like it. I don’t quite get what incentive you get out of this. I don’t like misogynistic songs. I don’t save them in my phone. Even then I can’t control radio play and I have to listen to them and lose my cool. Unfortunately closing my ears and eyes and chanting la-la-la isn’t always an option open to me. I do have to use share autos. Also, the men I interact with sometimes quote these lines it becomes a part of pop culture. However, keeping away from BR’s article means you just don’t have to subject yourself to it anymore, he doesn’t haunt you like a Simbu song, now does he? Atha thaan sonnom. 🙂
In short, nee aadu, ithu un veedu. (A quote from Indian)
neenga aadunga, ithu un veedunga in case you prefer it that way. 😉
😀
LikeLiked by 5 people
Madan
August 18, 2016
“I’ve no idea what a bhartiya nav neo con is” – Naturally as the term doesn’t exist but I thought it was a witty way to bridge the gap between Bhakt Inc and Neo conservatism as understood in the US. There isn’t, aside from the small matter of religion, much of a gap to bridge and both groups somehow feel more threatened by liberals than extremists (esp extremists that belong to the same religion as theirs).
“Why do you get to tell me to stop reading if I don’t agree, instead of expressing my opinion?” – I am not literally telling you. I am just saying that the best course when you find something repugnant is to just avoid it. Of course, I am aware that neo cons prefer interventionism to live and let live which is also why in closing I asked you to carry on giving vent as it is your God given right to do so.
“Why do you get to label me with self-righteous terms without any basis like neo con, dog whistle and goodness knows what else?” – The answer to this question lies in the answer to the question as to why do you get to make baseless accusations as to BR’s agenda. You have no evidence to support it, it’s just your supposition. When you are going to accuse somebody of having an agenda and seeking to force it on readers through a review, you better produce the evidence first and come up with convincing arguments rather than simply stating it and somehow believing people will agree with it.
“His biases are agreeable to you, they’re not to me.” – It is not a question of whether they are agreeable and I do not always find them agreeable. I am just giving him the freedom to interpret the film and its various scenes in the way he wishes to, ahem, as the reviewer. I may have a different interpretation but I would in that case point out my interpretation of it and differ with him. I would not heap calumny on him for it as you have done. Or do you think disagreement is meant only to be expressed by way of heaping calumny on the person (a favoured tactic of the bhakts, I know)?
” What makes my dissent so deserving of your contempt?” – Because it is not dissent but rather inferring an ideological position from a review and then mocking/taunting the person for holding that position. Here’s what you said: “Is this baradwaj rangan’s attempt to be ‘feminist’? Really pathetic BR. ” So I don’t think this is dissent. Dissent is when you express a view that is against BR’s. So in this instance, if you had said you don’t think AK’s character is a cuckold contrary to BR’s interpretation, that would be dissent. But you don’t appear to dispute that; rather you dislike his pointing this out and therefore choose to apply a label on him and then chide him for it. In short, a personal attack. Whether you are free to launch an attack on someone’s chosen worldview itself is for that person to decide and in this case BR has allowed your post to appear on the thread. But just in the same way, I am allowed to express my contempt towards your lowly, cheap tactics and your uncivilised manner of expressing disagreement with someone. I hope you didn’t honestly expect a medal for that comment of yours.
LikeLike
Radhika
August 20, 2016
@ Madan – Bharatiya Nav Neo Con – I like! Methinks you should quickly trademark it before it gets appropriated by a party with no sense of irony. May I recommend you make it Nava Neo, it sort of rolls off the tongue smoother.Hmm, now I can spend the weekend wondering what its logo would look like.
LikeLike
Radhika
August 20, 2016
Brannigan, I saw your comment in Mohenjo Daro : PS: Radhika, wasn’t shouting at you. Was just emphasis 🙂
Yes, I know, I was just pulling your leg, you sounded so indignant with those caps 🙂
LikeLike
Madan
August 20, 2016
@ Radhika: You may (or may not) be aware that the label neo con was applied somewhat pejoratively by the socialist Michael Harrington but Irving Kristol actually liked it (??) and appropriated it. So if what you suggest does happen (albeit highly unlikely), there would in fact be a real life precedent for it. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
Gosh, I wish I had had the sense to migrate to America and become an academic. Guys like Frank Fukuyama or Samuel Huntington preached this neo con stuff, moved the lines from side to side so to speak from the comfort of their armchair, fueled wars that killed people and destroyed whole nations and got famous for it. At least a politician has to win an election but these guys have zero accountability. How cool is that!
LikeLike
arielsomebody
August 26, 2016
oh lovely. lots of replies here.
@ filistine of course i noticed you said ‘if’. please read my reply. it’s no problem at all that he has an ideological bias, just that it’s one i find annoying, out-of-touch and one that i feel isn’t adequately acknowledged. Savvy? Or are you implying that you don’t think he has his biases?
@rahini david
If you find a blog where the author is saying something you don’t like or agree with say it in the same post he is doing so. That will bring more productive dialogue than “Is this baradwaj rangan’s attempt to be ‘feminist’? Really pathetic BR.” If you have thoughts on the emasculation topic or BR’s take on cuckoldry, then say so and naturally everyone will be all ears.
What makes my dissent so deserving of your contempt? Your tone, basically. Your attitude implies that you reserve the right to throw bile and the right to NOT tell what makes you do that and somehow you think you deserve the right to be taken seriously? It doesn’t work like that even in the real world, why would the blogsphere be any different?
i thought it should have been clear enough but i’ll explain.
i was disgusted that BR who has never shown progressive views especially re: feminism (his views on unfit male stars vs female stars, his obtuseness on Iswarya’s petition against stalking in movies, his strange reference to Charlie Hebdo in his Tanmay Bhat post, his insinuation that Tanmay Bhat alone should be ‘sensitive’ ) All these inconsistent positions i have found hypocritical.
In reference to this movie particularly, i found it disgusting that he tries to shoot from the shoulders of feminists, after having such an inconsistent position earlier, just to take some cheap pot-shot and snigger at what he considers ‘patriots’.
My comment was my indignation as a female who considers herself feminist and finds the cause being hijacked by some person who has demonstrated he doesn’t care tuppence for it, but is not above jumping on the bandwagon to disparage somebody else for his own ends.
So now that i’ve explained, are you going to allow me my bile? Have i been given your permission? Thanks so much 😀
“This whole “attempts at being feminist”, “feminazi”, “I am not a feminist though I believe men and women are equal and if I am not making sense, I am proud of it” takes always confuse me. Is feminism a religion that has a baptism or “Be born again” procedure? Can a person not have a few thoughts that fall under the feminism bracket, a few that don’t and be willing to express all those thoughts? I am not saying that BR expressed any thoughts that I would personally file under “Misogynistic”. I just don’t understand why a person’s feministic thoughts should be derided as “attempts at feminism” even if he is no card carrying SJW.”
Again, BR is not a feminist in my opinion, nor has he expressed any feminist thoughts. I’m not equipped with time for a full-on reflective discussion on feminism as a whole. Maybe some other time. It is interesting stuff to be sure, and i have lots of views on it (as i do on most things :D)
“I don’t think anyone is commanding you to not read this. We are just pointing out that not reading BR’s posts is an option. I read it as I like it. I don’t quite get what incentive you get out of this. I don’t like misogynistic songs. I don’t save them in my phone. Even then I can’t control radio play and I have to listen to them and lose my cool. Unfortunately closing my ears and eyes and chanting la-la-la isn’t always an option open to me. I do have to use share autos. Also, the men I interact with sometimes quote these lines it becomes a part of pop culture. However, keeping away from BR’s article means you just don’t have to subject yourself to it anymore, he doesn’t haunt you like a Simbu song, now does he? Atha thaan sonnom. 🙂”
This i find deeply problematic. I am perfectly content to express my dissent and dislike of BR’s views on his blog and to his credit, he is honest enough to allow them to be expressed.
Why do you infer that it bothers me so much, it haunts me etc. and i would be better off not reading?
Nope, i’d rather read, have an opinion and be heard. That works perfectly well for me. Ok by you? Thanks again 😀
What incentive? What incentive do you get , trying to keep this forum space full of like-minded views and thinking that everybody who feels differently might want to stop reading for their own health? LOL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
arielsomebody
August 26, 2016
@Madan
“I’ve no idea what a bhartiya nav neo con is” – Naturally as the term doesn’t exist but I thought it was a witty way to bridge the gap between Bhakt Inc and Neo conservatism as understood in the US. There isn’t, aside from the small matter of religion, much of a gap to bridge and both groups somehow feel more threatened by liberals than extremists (esp extremists that belong to the same religion as theirs).
Would be nice if you could tell me what from my comment incited you to label me with all these terms. You seem to have made a a very confident judgement 😀
Also, you are bringing in a lot of different things, the US, something you call Bhakt Inc, religion, extremism etc and making a lot of presumptions as to my stand on all these.
i find this amusing, not offensive. May i presume to make a guess about you? You are likely very young (<25) and as yet un-emancipated. (Emancipated minors are those that are <18, but married with a child, supporting themselves and family, or served in an army etc)
“Why do you get to tell me to stop reading if I don’t agree, instead of expressing my opinion?” – I am not literally telling you. I am just saying that the best course when you find something repugnant is to just avoid it. Of course, I am aware that neo cons prefer interventionism to live and let live which is also why in closing I asked you to carry on giving vent as it is your God given right to do so.
Again , not sure of your basis is labeling me. Would love an explanation.
“Why do you get to label me with self-righteous terms without any basis like neo con, dog whistle and goodness knows what else?” – The answer to this question lies in the answer to the question as to why do you get to make baseless accusations as to BR’s agenda. You have no evidence to support it, it’s just your supposition. When you are going to accuse somebody of having an agenda and seeking to force it on readers through a review, you better produce the evidence first and come up with convincing arguments rather than simply stating it and somehow believing people will agree with it.
Please read my reply to Rahini. Hopefully answers some of your questions. Otherwise do feel free to ask for clarification. i’ll reply when i next have a block of free time.
“His biases are agreeable to you, they’re not to me.” – It is not a question of whether they are agreeable and I do not always find them agreeable. I am just giving him the freedom to interpret the film and its various scenes in the way he wishes to, ahem, as the reviewer. I may have a different interpretation but I would in that case point out my interpretation of it and differ with him. I would not heap calumny on him for it as you have done. Or do you think disagreement is meant only to be expressed by way of heaping calumny on the person (a favoured tactic of the bhakts, I know)?
Again, read my reply to Rahini.
” What makes my dissent so deserving of your contempt?” – Because it is not dissent but rather inferring an ideological position from a review and then mocking/taunting the person for holding that position. Here’s what you said: “Is this baradwaj rangan’s attempt to be ‘feminist’? Really pathetic BR. ”
So I don’t think this is dissent. Dissent is when you express a view that is against BR’s. So in this instance, if you had said you don’t think AK’s character is a cuckold contrary to BR’s interpretation, that would be dissent. But you don’t appear to dispute that; rather you dislike his pointing this out and therefore choose to apply a label on him and then chide him for it. In short, a personal attack. Whether you are free to launch an attack on someone’s chosen worldview itself is for that person to decide and in this case BR has allowed your post to appear on the thread. But just in the same way, I am allowed to express my contempt towards your lowly, cheap tactics and your uncivilised manner of expressing disagreement with someone. I hope you didn’t honestly expect a medal for that comment of yours.
I thought my criticism was perfectly clear. i suppose that it wouldn’t be, to those that hold a view very similar to BR. i have provided clarification in my reply to Rahini above. It seemed so obvious to me that i didn’t provide a long explanation at the outset.
i’m pretty sure that i’m allowed to express myself here however i like, just as you are. Just don’t ask me to stop reading or stop commenting. i’m not telling you to “Stop reading my comments if you find them so offensive” Whether or not my comments are ‘uncivilized’ according to you luckily has no bearing on the matter. As for your comments to me, they don’t really matter one way or the other to the topic at hand so i won’t bother with whether i think they’re civilized or not.
General :
i wish i had the time to start a film review blog called “Things Baradwaj Rangan would never notice or understand” and review a lot of the movies that BR doesn’t do justice to (like Madras) and new shows that BR doesn’t seem to notice. Sigh. There is totally a niche for that, if anybody is interested. i would love to read.
LikeLike
Anon
August 26, 2016
Arielsomebody: Agree that responses to you are more intolerant than your views. Agree also that BR is not very progressive when it comes to women’s issues. I don’t know if Hindu is making him toe any line but his writing (not reviews) has become inconsistent wrt positions held and terribly cliche ridden. Some of his articles are so poorly argued that I’ve chalked it up to “this is what happens to folks who have to write for big publications”
Mega inconsistency that he never addressed: Tanmay Bhatt needs to maybe be more senstitive. Multiple women getting murdered by their stalkers – maybe it’s time to re-think glorifying stalking in Tamil films? Noooooooooooooo, let’s get data and more data. Can’t make any connections no siree.
I’m not saying he needs to, but Ariel has a point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
August 26, 2016
arielsomebody: I said “he doesn’t haunt you like a Simbu song, now does he?” and you inferred something to the effect of “BR’s posts haunt you like a devil and you are better off not reading this”. As I explained before, some misogyny follows you and some are present only if you prefer to follow it around. You preferred to ignore the point completely. That’s ok.
And let me clarify that I am not objecting to a feminist calling out a misogynistic writer’s stances. Just the troll attitude. Your first comment bothered me and the other comments aren’t far behind.
You ask May i presume to make a guess about you? You are likely very young (<25) and as yet un-emancipated. Who Madan? He is older than 25 and his age came up in another discussion but isn’t that a personal attack? Looks like one to me.
You say, BR is not a feminist in my opinion OK, so he is not allowed any feminists opinions whatsoever from now on? How nice.
So now that i’ve explained, are you going to allow me my bile? I am not the moderator here. You must have noticed that already.
BR: I don’t think you are a misogynistic writer. Not even slightly. 🙂
LikeLike
arielsomebody
August 26, 2016
@rahini david Sorry you seem to have misunderstood me grossly. However i’m not sure it really matters. i don’t want to get infinitely side-tracked unproductively.
“As I explained before, some misogyny follows you and some are present only if you prefer to follow it around. You preferred to ignore the point completely. That’s ok”
I’m not complaining about misogyny. i’m complaining about BR’s biases and hypocrisy. if you’re not understanding this, forget it. it’s not important. Think whatever you want.
That you think my attitude is troll-like and my comments ‘bother’ you also doesn’t concern me. Keep thinking. i’m not trying to win a popularity contest or max votes, i’m just trying to express my point of view. Peace. Thanks.
“You ask May i presume to make a guess about you? You are likely very young (<25) and as yet un-emancipated. Who Madan? He is older than 25 and his age came up in another discussion but isn’t that a personal attack? Looks like one to me.”
Astonished that a guess about Madan’s age is considered a personal attack on him. Whatever floats your boat i guess. Interesting that i’m wrong about his age. I would have pegged such black- and -white views on a younger person with presumably less real-life experience. Since he made many assumptions about me (all wrong) i ventured to make one about him. None of which has anything to do with you , but that’s ok too. 😀
“You say, BR is not a feminist in my opinion OK, so he is not allowed any feminists opinions whatsoever from now on? How nice.”
Yet again, he’s totes allowed his opinion, this is his blog after all. He’s freely expressing himself. And i’m freely reading , critiquing and expressing my personal views of his opinion and what i considered his hypocrisy. Thanks.
“So now that i’ve explained, are you going to allow me my bile? I am not the moderator here. You must have noticed that already”
😀 i must say that part about you not being the moderator is not clear at all. You certainly seem to be taking those duties upon yourself. Not that i mind 😀
Different strokes for different folks.
(especially in this excerpt)
“Your tone, basically. Your attitude implies that you reserve the right to throw bile and the right to NOT tell what makes you do that and somehow you think you deserve the right to be taken seriously? It doesn’t work like that even in the real world, why would the blogsphere be any different”
Best wishes and Ciao!
@Anon Yup
LikeLike
Madan
August 26, 2016
@arielsomebody:
No, I am well past 25, sadly, and long since independent. And no, I don’t take it as a personal attack. I found it as amusing as you, I am sure, did my misfired guesstimates about your views.
I have already explained why your strident attack on BR’s cuckoldry statement struck me as coming from a neo-conservative – because your rage struck me as completely outsized given the ‘wrong’ alleged in this instance. This is what neo cons do, what bhakts do and since they are all around the internet and social media, I made that conclusion.
3.However, now you claim to be a feminist and accuse BR of hijacking YOUR cause. I admit I find that very hard to believe in this context. However, I will take your statement at face value and concede I got that wrong.
But, in that case, I’d like to hear an explanation as to since when feminists gave themselves the sole right to call a man a cuckold. For starters, the term cuckold is way older than feminism and was most likely coined by a man about men whose wives cheat on them (because it was very much a man’s world in those times). So there’s nothing unusual about this being pointed out in a review by a male reviewer; I would add that the mocking intonation of the word cuckold itself makes it more likely to have been used by a man. It is men who puncture a man’s ego by mocking the fact that his wife is not faithful to him; men know that the surest way to reduce a man to tears is to crush his ego and humiliate him. This does not make it impossible for a woman to use the term but I think I have made my point clear.
Further, the cause of feminism is not for you to appropriate. People don’t operate in rigid boxes – feminist/sexist/liberal/conservative. Sometimes somebody who is not feminist in general may make feminist commentary; it is not unusual in the least. This is over and above my contention that pointing out a cuckold has nothing to do with feminism.
As for my contempt, again, your reply to Rahini doesn’t address anything. You insist you shall write in this way and that’s perfectly fine except that you have to endure me or anybody else exercising our right to express ourselves in whatever way we desire. You lose the right to ask how can I be so contemptuous to you once you completely refuse to account for your tone. Yes, please go ahead tearing BR a new one but you also have to put up with me should I happen to disagree with what you are saying. Oh, but don’t try to tell me how I address you does not matter to you. You do realise that you just proved with your “What makes my dissent so deserving of your contempt?” rant that it matters very much to you? I mean, there’s like a tidal wave of hurt pouring out of that line. 😀
Lastly, and no, it has nothing to do with my views. I repeat for the last time that I have disagreed a few times with BR, more often perhaps than say Rahini and had particularly taken issue to his OKK review. This has everything to do with your far fetched conclusions and your tone. It may make you feel good to pretend it’s an us and them going on but it isn’t. I still find your conclusion that BR is trying to forward Hindu’s agenda very unconvincing and because you operate on the basis that your insinuation is very obvious, it doesn’t help matters.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
August 27, 2016
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but for what it’s worth, I didn’t find ariel’s initial comment on BR either strident or farfetched. Strongly expressed, no doubt, but not obscene or ‘throwing bile’.
To be told then ariel she ‘need not read his column’, I think, is a dashed shame. By that same token, people can just bypass her comments, non? I also don’t think that her question about what she wrote ‘that was deserving of so much contempt’ was a ‘tidal wave of hurt’. I think that was a genuine question. I don’t agree with everything she’s written, but the responses to her have been pretty much the definition of intolerant. It’s the caravans closing in on their own syndrome. Just my two cents worth (in an attempt to level the battlefield some).
Ariel sure seems to be fighting her own battles. Perhaps we should allow BR to fight his, if necessary?
LikeLike
Madan
August 27, 2016
@ Anu
On reflection, I will concede that perhaps I was too harsh on arielsomebody but that again doesn’t have to do with BR’s reviews in particular but because I have come to dislike the growing trend of selectively picking up a few sentences to parse them for signs of the author’s ideological worldview and then criticise the author for holding this view. Not movie reviews, the movies themselves aren’t spared this vain exercise in deconstructionism whose sole purpose imo seems to be to prove how smart the critic in question is. I have for instance read a detailed review alleging that Secretariat was just an attempt to propagate the conservative agenda and this is in spite of the author of the review being aware that Secretariat was a real horse and the movie was based on real events. I think we should respect a person’s right to hold whatever worldview he sees fit however repugnant we may find it and accept contradictions within it as long as these contradictions do not take a prescriptive form. If I am not mistaken, I too had pointed out the inconsistency in asking Tanmay Bhat to downplay it and simultaneously defending freedom of expression when it came to misogyny in cinema. As BR is taking a stand re censorship/freedom in these articles, disagreement with it is most welcome. But a movie review is NOT about the reviewer’s ideology, it is about the movie. So pick it apart by all means if you so wish but I reserve the right to express my strong displeasure to it and do not find such discussions welcome, sorry. I am NOT defending BR here so much as the right of a movie reviewer or artist to say what he feels like without lefties and righties as applicable drawing their knives out by peering over his words with a microscope.
But I’d also like to point out the inconsistency in her own stand which is comical considering she criticises BR for being inconsistent. Here’s what she originally said:
“He however seems to have been given camouflage as an ‘unbiased’ reviewer despite sharing all the ideological slants of his parent ‘The Hindu’s’ Leftist-Marxist-‘secularist’ worldview.”
So here she appears to insinuate that BR is a leftie (which is what led me to my original inference about her being a conservative). Later, she turns around and says he is not really a feminist and she objects to him hijacking ‘her’ cause. Maybe she is just not able to articulate what she really feels clearly and that’s fair enough but it is very amusing in light of her own assumptions about youngsters. Well, she’s not exactly very discerning going by this thread. Now the question may arise as to how can I choose to draw conclusions about her worldview based on her words and to that I say that while I don’t support this approach in general, I have always believed that one should never be denied the pleasure of the taste of their own medicine.
Further, re tidal wave of hurt, I may have exaggerated there but it is par for the course. I have had my days of trolling (mostly on orkut) and can do it again though I choose not to. So let nobody be under the illusion that it takes some special ability to troll. No, if participants here generally choose polite, measured language, it is only in service of constructive discussion. Taking a sentence and dissing it as ‘feminist crap’ does not fit my notion of constructive discussion. Again, nowhere have I said one does not have the right to do that if he/she so wishes. No, no, please go ahead but please also allow me to express my criticism of it. You are not exempt from it just because you addressed it to BR and not to me. This is a general discussion space and not a one on one between BR and his readers.
LikeLike
Iswarya
August 27, 2016
Wow.. I’d missed all the action here at a time when this site just wouldn’t load on my browser. I think there has been quite a bit of jumping to conclusions here.
ariel: That initial comment of yours did seem derisive but it was far from “obvious” that you were making your point from a “he-is-illegitimately-appropriating-the-feminist-discourse” position. Frankly, given the lack of context, I too thought you were attacking BR for the mere suggestion that a woman’s straying from marriage might have something to do with the man’s inadequacies at all. This is the typical conservative position that was attributed to you by others as well, I think. Others can correct me if I’m wrong. Your putting ‘feminist’ in quotes wasn’t much help either because the term ‘feminist’ and gulp ‘feminazi’ are used quite interchangeably on the Internet these days, equally as terms of derision or abuse. Further, your strong criticism of the Hindu’s leftist slant almost sealed it. I really thought you were some sort of MRA. That, I think, is why Madan clubbed you with the right-wing trolls, a.k.a Bhakt league. Trust me, as a vocal female commenter here, I had to read through the entire thread now once again to check if there was no gaslighting going on. For instance, I am yet to wrap my head around where you think “The Hindu” stands with respect to women’s rights if we assume that the paper is dictating BR’s views. Quite a major difficulty is that leftish/liberal politics has always, rightly or wrongly, been associated with a pro-women standpoint. Even your statement “It’s only natural to feel irritated at this worldview being pushed on us even through movie reviews and i’m calling out what i see here” was far from clear since the assumed us was not made explicit. That BR is not a consistent or good feminist or not a feminist at all is an attack that can be made both from MRA and feminist positions, you see.
Madan: I don’t think Ariel was arguing that the word ‘cuckold’ was reserved for feminist use. I now see, based on several revised assumptions, that her criticism was in the opposite direction, in fact. As you say, “It is men who puncture a man’s ego by mocking the fact that his wife is not faithful to him; men know that the surest way to reduce a man to tears is to crush his ego and humiliate him” and so the idea of cuckoldry is deeply patriarchal. (Compare the fact that there’s no female equivalent; a sore problem also reflected in the Indian law on adultery.)
There are, of course, contrary views within feminist circles on what constitutes the legit position of allying with the feminist cause and what is mere opportunist appropriation of a discourse that others have been at pains to build. I think that’s where this discussion would have gone (and been much more productive too) if it hadn’t been for completely mixed up assumptions.
I’m just trying to make sense of this for my own sake and not trying to arbitrate or worse, apportion blame.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
August 27, 2016
“I don’t think Ariel was arguing that the word ‘cuckold’ was reserved for feminist use. I now see, based on several revised assumptions, that her criticism was in the opposite direction” – Well, on the whole, I am pretty confused now about what exactly she was criticising and why/from which direction, lol. I give up. This is all too much splitting hairs over a harmless turn of phrase employed in the review.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arun Annamalai
August 29, 2016
This is a mannequin film, nothing is alive or spontaneous with the way it was directed and portrayed. This definitely is a different performance from Akshay than his usual stuff and so it was interesting to watch him, otherwise the rest of the characters were just lifeless, the inspector character looked great but it needed an extra spark to make it feel impactful, the heroines felt like character cards from the board game CLUE. No one performed or were not allowed to perform, just wore the costumes, posed, read the lines, got the paycheck and left the set.
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
April 7, 2017
http://english.manoramaonline.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/2017/04/07/national-film-awards-2016-priyadarshan-malayalam-movies-tamil-pink-vinayakan.html
LikeLike