Spoilers ahead…
Had Pink been made in Hollywood, it would have been labelled “Oscar bait.” It makes all the right noises. The story is one that will launch a thousand op-ed pieces. In an echo of Shah Rukh Khan’s gesture, the leading man’s name appears after the names of the female actors. The cast makes room for well-regarded performers – Ray and Mrinal Sen regulars, Mamata Shankar and Dhritiman Chatterjee (who plays a judge named… Satyajit). The tone of the filmmaking, for the most part, is echoed in the tone of the score – ruminative plink-plonks heard every now and then, as though someone slipped a sleeping pill into the pianist’s drink. It’s a well-behaved score. Pink is a well-behaved movie. It doesn’t even have an item number over the closing credits, which is something most Hindi films feel naked without. Recall the recent Baar Baar Dekho. The hero spent the movie time-travelling through divorce and infidelity and death. After returning, you’d think he’d sleep for a week. But there he is, with sunglasses, jiving to Kaala chashma. The film says “Make time for true love.” The closing credits say “Thrust your pelvis at the camera.” Pink remains focused throughout. Over the closing credits, we see the event that sets off the story. Three girls, after a rock concert, decide to spend time with a few boys, friends of an acquaintance. Rajveer (Angad Bedi) forces himself on Meenal (Taapsee Pannu). She assaults him and flees. The boys go to court.
Pink may be the first film to literally bridge the divide between the (perceived) sensibilities of the multiplex audience and those that frequent single screens. The film is structured as two distinct types of narratives: the relatively understated pre-interval portions that show us what it’s like to be a single woman in the country’s capital, and a rip-roaring court case post-interval. (In other words, the first half could be titled Flamingo, the second half Fuschia.) It shouldn’t work – except that it does. It’s Damini for today’s times. We don’t get the ejaculatory shot of a frothing beer bottle spilling its contents over the hapless domestic help’s sari. Here, Meenal breaks a beer bottle on Rajveer’s skull. Earlier films showed upper-class men preying on lower-class women. Pink shows us that upper-class women are targets too. Indeed, all women. Which explains the representative nature of the characters. Meenal shares her flat with Falak (Kirti Kulhari) and Andrea (Andrea Tariang). One Delhi-ite. One Muslim. One from the North East.
As in Damini, a male lawyer stands up for the woman on trial. Should it have been a female lawyer, like Rekha in Mujhe Insaaf Chahiye? (There, a boy dumps a girl after she gets pregnant. She takes him to court.) I don’t think so. If feminism is about equality, then men who fight for women needn’t be seen as saviours. They’re just… supporters. Like any good “issue film,” Pink makes us think about these things without lecturing at us. Which isn’t to say the film has no lectures. It’s just that they aren’t pointed at us. They are addressed to the judge, in court, which may be the only place oratory doesn’t sound odd anymore. It helps that the orator is Amitabh Bachchan, who plays Meenal’s lawyer, Deepak Sehgal. Bachchan isn’t playing Deepak Sehgal so much as late-career Amitabh Bachchan. Another film named after a colour comes to mind: Black. But if it’s not a new performance, it’s still an effective one. And very entertaining too. After a particularly incompetent witness takes the stand, Deepak says, “I object. To this awkward performance. He is overacting.” I laughed, and then wondered if Piyush Mishra, who plays the prosecuting lawyer, was squirming. Every line he utters sounds like “Oink!”
A lot of the time, director Aniruddha Roy Chowdhury is saying “oink” too. He gives Deepak a pollution mask and makes him look like a Hollywood serial killer. He gives Meenal a collarbone tattoo of soaring birds – we’re meant to infer the irony that her wings are so easily clipped. Or something. And he loads the odds against Meenal to the extent that her case begins to resemble an underdog story. The boys have political connections. They have the cops in their pocket. They have that smug, self-righteous lawyer, a stand-in for all Indians who get all Arnab Goswami on women’s personal lives. (The nation wants to know…!) Plus, Meenal isn’t… pure, the way Indians define the word, the way Indians define their women. As with the Jodie Foster character in The Accused, there is the suggestion that maybe this girl who drinks and makes lewd jokes was asking for it. (This is the crux of Pink’s argument: No matter what the girl may say or do, no matter what she wears, no matter what her history is with men, when she says no, it means no.) And what does Meenal have on her side? Two easily excited girlfriends who keep annoying the judge by piping up, out of turn. (The boys are impressively stoic. Or at least, they’ve been coached well.) And a lawyer who’s been diagnosed with a mental condition and who says he doesn’t want to cross-examine the first three prosecution witnesses. It’s Devina vs. Goliath!
But other parts of Pink are beautifully subtle. Consider the scene where Meenal goes running in a park and stops for a breather, when she sees Deepak staring at her. (At that point, he hasn’t yet taken up the case. He’s just a neighbour.) She stares right back. Later, another neighbour – another man – stands in his balcony and looks towards the girls’ flat. The film doesn’t make much of this by way of a plot point. But a hint is left hanging, that had this flat been occupied by three unmarried men, these neighbours wouldn’t be looking. Unless, of course, this was another kind of pink movie.
I wished Meenal had been more convincing. We’re told she’s a brave girl, and it’s not hard to see why she’s reduced to a shadow of her former self, especially after being abducted by the boys’ friends and molested in a moving car. Fear has a way of clipping your wings. There’s a moving scene that highlights the difference between our public and private selves, when Meenal is asked to repeat a lewd joke in court and she cannot because her father is present. But Taapsee Pannu overdoes the tentativeness. Kirti Kulhari, though, is marvellous. As is her character Falak, who is willing to compromise and say sorry to the boys in order to avoid legal proceedings, but when they abuse Meenal, she loses it. She loses it again in court, when the prosecution lawyer accuses her (and her friends) of soliciting. You can see in her the many women who put up with many things until they cannot put up with them anymore. Another film would have loaded these characters with sensitive backstories. We’re not even told why Deepak Sehgal takes on this case. (A daughter who found herself in Meenal’s position, maybe?) But there’s no reason, because you shouldn’t need a reason to do what Deepak does here. Pink doesn’t want sympathy. It just wants fairness.
KEY:
- Baar Baar Dekho = see here
- Damini = see here
- Mujhe Insaaf Chahiye = a remake of the Telugu film, Nyayam Kavali (see here)
- Black = see here
- The Accused = 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.
Ramsu
September 19, 2016
First, the minor quibble: if you’re gonna keep waking up in alternate timelines, there’s no way you’d fall asleep after you’ve been the protagonist of Baar Baar Dekho. Given that, you could do worse than dance at a club. Might as well teach the pelvis some geometry.
As for Pink itself, and the role of the supportive men in the picture, the general tone reminds me not just of The Accused, but also of Made in Dagenham, a fictionalized version of the story of the women who went on strike for equal pay at the Ford factory in the UK. There’s a scene there in which the husband of the protagonist talks about how he doesn’t get drunk and beat her up or have an affair, and her response is, That is as it should be.
Pink doesn’t cast AB as a white knight, as much as Sunny Deol was in Damini (as entertaining as he was in that role). Then again, I wonder if I am judging that film by today’s standards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sanjana
September 19, 2016
A very solid review!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul Sanwal
September 19, 2016
I agree with you,unlike your ex-colleague Sudish Kamath,that If feminism is about equality, then men who fight for women needn’t be seen as saviours. Surprisingly one gaping hole no one is pointing, Deepak not calling landlord (Vinod Nagpal) for testimony. 2nd Mamta states that Minal was absconding,Deepak could have produced records of her dance shows performed on those days. I think director took these 2 cinematic liberties to weaken the case for girls ,so that he could use Deepak to convey the main essence of the movie. Finally movie is able to pass the message effectively hence it deserves 5 stars…
P.S. My grammer is pathetic ,please ignore and oblige.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lol
September 19, 2016
Watched the movie and wondered how come bachchan is so bad in his films but able to collect national awards.
LikeLike
Anamika
September 19, 2016
Fantastic review as always.
That tentativeness bit about Meenal was exactly what bothered me in her performance. The other 2 girls were amazing. This would have been a perfect movie for me if the boys were not politically connected and so influential. The prejudice in society regarding how women ought to behave applies across social strata. The men could have been coworkers and we could still have a similar story. Even laymen working through the legal system could be guided to bribe the police and file a backdated FIR.
Secondly, did Piyush Mishra have to be somewhat of a caricature? He seemed like yet another one of those lawyers in Hindi movies that know they are defending the guilty party.
Finally the judge – He always seemed disgusted by the prosecution lawyer. That is not unbiased.
LikeLiked by 3 people
An Jo
September 19, 2016
**BR Saab have to disagree with regard to your take on AB’s performance and couple of other things. For now, this is a link to what I thought [and most of it is there in the review].*
This is a metro-centric film… — no two thoughts about it. This is the story of women who stand up to fight because they are privileged by the accidents of birth – just as I am writing this piece on a 500$ laptop when someone else some-where is struggling for days-on-end to make two ends meet… That the women struggle to answer questions in open-court about their sexual preferences or lives or boyfriends or whatever, throws a powerful light on these dynamics…
LikeLiked by 1 person
An Jo
September 19, 2016
Oh by the way, I ‘object to this awkward decision of having Amitabh recite a poem and place it during the end-credits after our ever-busy audience decides to rush out of the cinema hall because 10 minutes, those 10 minutes could decide the course of your next 7 years of birth-and-death cycle according to Hindu-philosophy of salvation..’
I am still reeling under the impact of this marvelous rendition of Tanveer Ghazi’s TU CHAL..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vidya Murugan
September 19, 2016
“Pink..a solid courtroom drama”
I’m not convinced.
It’s a solid drama, makes all the right noises and is set in a courtroom, but where are the convincing and conclusive arguments? A court is (hopefully) not like a college group discussions where the loudest voice wins. The defense kept digressing, as AB’s Deepak Sehgal even admitted in one instance, into what would be better suited for op-eds than courtrooms. I am not sure on what basis the judge even came to a decision. I can only assume it is because ” kanoon andha hota hai, judge nahi” ( quoting Saurabh Shukla as the judge in Jolly LLB, which incidentally I thought was a better courtroom representation)
Why does Deepak Sehgal stare so creepily at the girls and the apt initially? Why does he have a terminally ill wife, who dies? Why does nobody ask Andrea, why she didn’t shout or create a scene when Dumpy molested her in the other room? Why the hell did Vishwa get away with a warning- he should have been put away for life. The girls went trusting him. In a way he lured them.
Pink is a good movie and makes some very valid points. I did like it, but it could have been much better.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Vidya Murugan
September 19, 2016
P.S- ( a daughter who found herself in Minal’s position maybe?) – I think at movie mentions that Deepak and his wife are childless.
LikeLike
brangan
September 19, 2016
Vidya Murugan: I meant that they COULD have given him a backstory like that to justify his taking up his case, but did not — and this worked for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
September 19, 2016
“The defense kept digressing, as AB’s Deepak Sehgal even admitted in one instance, into what would be better suited for op-eds than courtrooms.” – I am very much divided on this (generally speaking and yet to watch the film). I have not seen criminal proceedings (have heard that star prosecutor Ujwal Nikam uses plenty of rhetoric to secure convictions) but civil proceedings are definitely more sober and pretty dry compared to what they show in our films. I have observed one prominent tax laywer who used to grandstand in the podium but even he did so by showing off his knowledge of the Constitution (and making pertinent connections to the case at hand) and there was no scope for digressing into commentary. So, yes, sometimes the way films depict the courts gets a guffaw out of me.
But it’s not just our films. David Kelley, himself a lawyer in his youth, pretty much used Boston Legal episodes to air his commentary on the state of the nation. He did likewise on The Practice too, so it’s not a one-off. Given that judges everywhere struggle with a mountainous backlog of cases, I doubt judges there have the time of day for a pontificating lawyer. Maybe filmmakers feel presenting courtroom proceedings as they actually unfold sans all the spicing-up would not make for compelling viewing.
LikeLike
Vidya Murugan
September 19, 2016
Yes that’s what you wrote. Didn’t read that bit correctly 😬.. Oops!!
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
September 19, 2016
In an echo of Shah Rukh Khan’s gesture, the leading man’s name appears after the names of the female actors.
This has always been the trend with Bollywood as far as women-centric films are concerned. Except for KB, I don’t think any of the popular Tamil filmmakers gave top billing for their women in the opening/closing credits of their films – case in point: Mouna Raagam. 🙂
If feminism is about equality, then men who fight for women needn’t be seen as saviours. They’re just… supporters
Is SRK attempting to be a ‘supporter’ or a ‘saviour’?
LikeLike
Bharath Balasubramanian
September 19, 2016
Hi BR, thanks for a nice review. I just could not understand some plot points and almost no one is talking about it across reviews. Wonder what you or some of the commenters here think. First, how does it come to pass that Meenal’s van molestation is never brought up in any of the court discussions? After all, Deepak was an eye witness to that incident and he actually called up the police station as well as the commissioner (or someone high up). The car could have been identified back to the guys. Maybe not, but surely it must at least be brought up in a court case? Second, that flip by Falak was utterly unconvincing to me. I could have accepted even if she had said “Even if we had taken money, no means no”. But she goes beyond that and says, yes we did take money. Third, they mention the IT act as an accusation in the final sentence, but if this was identified back to the guys then that too should have been bought up to besmirch their characters. Ignoring all this, the movie was reduced to a “A few good men” like setting where the accused conveniently shouts out bad things to make it easy for everyone, not to mention a sermonizing Amitabh. In the case of “A few good men”, Nicholson was built up to that final scene. Here that was not the case. Like you mention, the guys have been coached well and don’t talk out of turn. I found this to be an important movie, but not a terribly convincing one, cinematically speaking.
LikeLiked by 3 people
tejas
September 19, 2016
@Rahul Sanwal –
Deepak goes for a different line of argument though. By establishing that the SHO added the FIR in the police diary at a later date, Deepak proves that the entire police activity was influenced. He does not try to prove Meenal not guilty, he proves that the complaint done from the other side was entirely in wrong and done as a pre-emptive strike.
The courtroom drama works as a feel-good factor instead of a strong logical rebuttal. I kept thinking about My Cousin Vinnie during the entire second half (How marvellous was Marisa Tomei in that!!). The case gets resolved quite easily in both the films, with one side having glaring holes in their arguments. But the bleak tone of the first half keeps one on tenterhooks.
Also, so glad to see Bachchan get a proper Angry Old Man role – not the traditional masala hero of Buddha hoga tera baap, but the social superhero of Deewar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An Jo
September 20, 2016
LikeLike
Sinjini Sengupta
September 20, 2016
http://sinjinisengupta.blogspot.in/2016/09/pink-to-suzette-jordan-to-us-and-to-you.html
Mine. Read and feed me back, if you would. 🙂
LikeLike
An Jo
September 20, 2016
@ Bharat Bala:
1.’First, how does it come to pass that Meenal’s van molestation is never brought up in any of the court discussions? After all, Deepak was an eye witness to that incident and he actually called up the police station as well as the commissioner (or someone high up). ‘
This is brought up by Deepak. Remember the scene where he says, and I am paraphrasing, ‘my client was raped,,.. molested, your honor..’
Falak was utterly unconvincing to me regarding money exchange.
Remember the earlier scene when she is shown as a person willing to compromise? The one who initiates the compromise phone-call with that common friend? She calls up the common friend and seeks to quell the matter by reaching a compromise. In the midst of the conversation with Rajveer, she loses her cool because she cannot take the chauvinistic BS from Rajveer – मुझे तुझसे कोई प्राब्लम नहीं हैं and replies: ‘But I have a problem with you!!’ and then blasts him.
She is a character unlike Andrea and Minal. She is far more matured and restrained than the other two. Hence, being of that type, it is more plausible that she bombs- out her inner hold-ups in a sequence. And that’s what happens in that scene. When Deepak mentions in the following scene that you have given the prosecution victory on a platter, she replies, and I paraphrase; ‘Bloody Hell, it doesn’t matter whether I have taken the money or not. THEY have made up their mind that money has exchanged hands. What’s the point in arguing?
This film demands a second viewing – at least for me, because I am not sharp enough to catch nuances at first screening. Hopefully I will have better understanding after that..
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dracarys
September 20, 2016
Hmm…
There was
black – for blind / disabled ppl
Blue – for brave, adventurous men
Now Pink – strong yet abused women
Next it should be ‘rainbow’ to cover for LGBTQ group???
LikeLike
Praveen Kumar Santhanam
September 20, 2016
Excellent Review !!! In my opinion I found that the movie spoke about Gender Exploitation on how both genders see themselves and tend to exploit each other in many ways. This movie is very important how opposite gender should see and respect each other in a society where all are coexisting with multiple social norms affecting our lives. With pertaining to all the social evils happening around in our country for both genders, the movie delivers much needed thought provoking messages
LikeLike
An Jo
September 20, 2016
Fine discussion here..and absolutely love that she brought up that criminally under-rated movie called NISHABDH..one of the most jaw-dropping performances by AB..]
Also doubly glad that the ‘mis-use’ of laws by women are also valid points of discussion… you know, when you bring up such points, you are bound to be BOMBARDED and blown-to-smithereens by you know who…..”BENSON & HEDGES’ champions of free-speech and liberty..
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
September 20, 2016
AnJo, I’m so glad to see someone else who liked Nishabd. Thank you! 🙂 I thought I was the only person who liked the film. The people I know who watched the film hated Amitabh’s character; they found it skeevy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
filmynerdblog
September 20, 2016
Came across your review on Pink’s Filmzoned page. This is so well put that there is a difference between a lecturish film and a film having lectures. I know a lot of people had this issue with the film, that it seems lecturish at times. But a court room drama calls for arguments, and evidently the filmmakers chose such a setup to make their point, and it works very well in the film. Also a lot of times Deepak Sehgal’s arguments in the film seemed to not be about the case but generally about society, but actually our courts are known to be influenced by societal arguments, rather than just law at hand. So it makes sense to bring those arguments.
LikeLike
tu13dekh
September 21, 2016
I am still chortling over how the “nice guys” among my friends have started on a rant deriding the movie. Feminist agenda, muh bluh. In a way I am glad Deepak doesn’t have a backstory, they managed to side step the pitfall of sounding like an over eager UPSC candidate answering the ethics paper. One doesn’t need to father women, to understand gender issues eh?
BRang. Muh man, are you still annoyed over that buff garden variety?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mani AJ
September 21, 2016
And now for the Tamil remake (let’s say PANGU – meaning share) … can’t wait for Kamal to blow the lid off the courtroom …nudge nudge – wink wink – tongue rightly in cheek … 😉
LikeLike
An Jo
September 21, 2016
@Anu:
Yes I am one of those miniscules who loved NISHABDH. Ramu had a fantastic theme at his disposal. He did it superbly but he got carried away with Jiah’s ‘physicality’: That actually wasn’t a problem with me; but it did create problems with the audience in the sense that they got a message that Amitabh was playing a dirty old man. It actually wasn’t that at all; Amitabh’s character plays a ‘photographer’ capturing nature’s wonders stuck in the rigmarole of marriage and familial duties for 27 years; and he sees someone who is COMPLETELY devoid of the ‘pressures’ of leading a life acceptable to ‘normal’ folks. Amitabh gets attracted actually to that ‘free-spirit’. But where Ramu didn’t succeed was that he focused on Jiah’s physical attributes, while his character, Amitabh’s Vijay just focused on the ‘free-spiritedness’ of Jiah. There was a conflict between what Ramu was portraying and what Amitabh’s Vijay was sensing and experiencing.
And what a fantastic subversive tactic by Ramu to name Amitabh’s character VIJAY; you know, that Vijay who would light a dynamite in TRISHUL and walk as though he were taking a stroll in a garden, and have that very same name-sake character confess at the onset of a movie that he wants to commit suicide because he has failed everyone and cannot imagine life without a girl more than half his age!!
BTW, there were hordes of people objecting that he was part of Nabokov’s Lolita..I went to watch this movie first day evening show in Mulund and boy, was i shocked to see women-folk protesting against Amitabh romancing a younger woman!!! HOW. CAN. HE. DO. THAT??
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0824375/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv
LikeLike
Nanda
September 21, 2016
On positive reviews, I went to watch this film. Disappointed with the patriarchal concerns. The courtroom scenes and Bachchan’s acting leaves a lot to be desired.
LikeLike
Anuj
September 21, 2016
PINK is a strong courtroom drama mainly catering to the urban multiplex audiences as the style of film making is niche and devoid of mass entertainment. However, that does not dent the theme’s relevance as woman security, safety and dignity is as much an urban issue in India as it is among the smaller towns and villages. Pink is a hard hitting movie with its heart in the right place. Although the pace does slack at times, you just cannot prevent yourself from getting sucked into the drama in the post interval sequence. A must watch for every Indian. Its not a movie that an ideal society needs. But unfortunately, its a movie that we as a society deserve! Read my review on :
http://simplebollywoodreviewer.blogspot.in/2016/09/different-shades-of-pink.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
arv!
September 21, 2016
certainly it’s a great movie of these times. while one can’t really pick faults on an overall analysis, I wish that part 1 of the movie could have been improved upon.
I hope we get to see more such movies rather than masala and tamasha movies we see all the time!
Great review!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
September 21, 2016
I think Falak had taken money from Rajveer and co. After her testimony Andrea says to Falak ( I am paraphrasing)– “Why did you implicate us along with you?” While the more logical question would have been – “Why did you lie?”
The other two girls either had come to know or had guessed about Falak’s invovlment. Understandably, the prosecution lawyer did not press this point -while it implicated Falak, her admission that she accepted money to put other two girls in a vulnerable position, implicates Rajveer and co as well.The prosecution’s strategy seems to have been to create enough doubt about the girls, not to have Falak admit to accepting money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
September 21, 2016
An Jo, I didn’t have a problem with Jiah’s physicality either. I think it was her youth and vibrancy that appeals to AB, and that made sense to me. ‘Attraction’ doesn’t need to have a rationale. Photographers are very visual people, so seeing her through the lens of the camera can only have magnified her vital attractiveness, and her absolute conviction that he needs to live life. If I remember right, she all but seduces him. Isn’t it almost a truism that we are attracted to people who are attracted to us? I wager it would have been very hard for any man to resist the person Jiah was.
I loved that film to bits. And I thought it was very very brave of Amitabh to take it on.
LikeLike
Deepak Jeswal
September 22, 2016
Err ermm Raaz Reboot review? 😞😞 its such a great comedy film. I thought u will have fun time dissecting it 😜
LikeLike
Venky
September 22, 2016
A friend of mine had an interesting point in a private email conversation – “Pink is used ( and here the literature student who- will- critique- anything- to -death comes in) is a mixture of bloody red (pure feminine energy) and sparkling white ( traditions, customs, sense of purity), exposing perhaps the dichotomy in our society.”
I thought it was interesting to read this movie from the lens of the colour..how a conventional colour like “Pink” could be used subversively in the movie. I don’t know if there were any subtle visual clues that highlighted this blend of red + white in the movie. May be, there was. I missed it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sifter
September 23, 2016
The review is great in parts, but is it only me who feels that some ‘life’ is missing from the way this movie is reviewed here?
LikeLike
Ashish Madathil
September 24, 2016
The first half was great but I was actually quite disappointed with the second half of this movie. I thought it was men mansplaining women’s rights to women(a list of rules? Really?). I disagree with your point that men in this case are merely supporters. I do think this was a rescue mission by self-proclaimed rescuers. It almost seemed in the second half that all the women had to take a backseat to let Amitabh Bachchan shine and be the star. He kept “digressing” A LOT. Like…dude, finish your case and move along. It seemed like it was more about him and his star power hogging the limelight than about the women and our society’s dynamic with one (way less than)half of our species.
I don’t care how liberal and progressive Bachchan or Shoojit Sircar or Ritesh Shah are (or appear to be in public). It might be a story about women but the narrative is still set and controlled by men. i. e. the writer, the director and the most influencing entities of this film are all male. How is that empowering? I do think there are subtle differences in perspective when men write stories about women and when women do. A man cannot understand and therefore will never fully be able to do justice to a woman’s lived experiences. For instance, I do believe that in the last act of Luck By Chance, Konkona’s character would’ve forgiven Farhan’s character and they would’ve reconciled if Zoya Akhtar hadn’t also written the movie.
This might be a false equivalence, but it’s like watching a Dalit story written and made by upper class people….or a movie about the systemic oppression of black people made by white people. In all these cases, the makers are limited by their privilege – social privilege associated with their identity – and will not be able to transcend it completely. Likewise us men will never fully understand what it’s REALLY really like to be a woman in this country and thus successfully put it in film. We end up sermonizing instead of listening. I find it problematic that the gaze and the narrative in this film is still male. It runs the risk of being patronizing.
In addition, it’s presented almost as if Deepak Sehgal’s extremely creepy behaviour in the first half offsets his defense and counsel in the second half.
Also is it too much to ask to have a woman to recite the post-credits poem? An old man telling young women to “find themselves”? Wow. I’m sure they were waiting for him to tell them that.
Sorry for such a long rant. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ramchander Krishna (@ramctheatheist)
September 24, 2016
“Pink is a well-behaved movie. It doesn’t even have an item number over the closing credits, which is something most Hindi films feel naked without.”
Rangan, although I agree with this point, I felt what Pink did in the end credits was completely unnecessary and went against the film’s core. Through the character Falak, the film makes it clear that even if the women had asked for money, even if they were indeed prostitutes, what the guy did after the Meenal said NO was wrong. Whatever may have happened within the resort doesn’t matter. Under no circumstances was it justifiable that the guy forced himself on her, against her wishes. Period.
Until the end credits, the film had also pricked the standard prejudices in society. Meenal is not a virgin. Falak was in a relationship with a widower who has a child. Andrea is a fashionably dressed North Eastern girl. The film placed these women in front of us and made us, the jury, to ponder if we’d indict them or not. Pink didn’t play it safe like Queen, where Kangana already has our pity votes after a halted marriage. And she returns a virgin from all her hungama in Europe, save only for a cutesy kiss with a European dude. They could have easily given us some bits of each girl’s past to make us feel sorry for them. But no, this film didn’t soften us towards these girls.
But, the end credits destroyed all of this. By showing what actually happened that night, it was holding us by the collar and screaming, “Hello hello mike testing 123. Ladies and gentlemen, just to make it clear, these women actually didn’t ask for money. They are good women you see. Look at these behen****** and how much lust they are having. You see there, yeah that’s how he grabbed her. You see she couldn’t free herself. Look at her trying to break free. And there that’s the bottle of alcohol that will shortly be shattered on his head. Smash! Done! Thank you. Now you may leave the theatres. Oh wait Amitabhji wants to recite a wonderful little poem.”
LikeLiked by 5 people
Kid
September 24, 2016
Ramchander Krishna:
“But, the end credits destroyed all of this….. Now you may leave the theatres”.
This is the best, the most intelligent criticism I have read on the film (I loved your “defense” of the film). Thank you, I have been educated on the film after reading your comment
“Oh wait Amitabhji wants to recite a wonderful little poem.”-
You have a problem with Bachchan reciting a poem in the end credits?! Seriously?! Heck, it’s not even a part of the film proper. I found this “opposition” completely illogical. And that “Amitabhji” bit is quite revealing- looks like Bachchan continues to ruffle some “Tamil” feathers inspite of the fact that he has got nothing to do with Tamil industry (there is an entire history to all of this w.r.t Bachchan and Tamil audiences which was evident during this year’s national awards as well). I hate to say this, but I would be happy if those Tamilians, who have issues (and by issues, I mean those issues which have got nothing to do with his acting or his on-screen work) with him, would boycott his films (I don’t think anyone loses out by not watching Pink for an instance. I do like it quite a bit, but this is no “compulsary viewing” like Visaranai). Hopefully then the more thoughtless kind of criticism of his would stop.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kid
September 24, 2016
I would have never thought a day would come where folks in this country would object to Bachchan being “central” to a Hinfi film. Just a few years back when Bachchan did that cameo in The Great Gatsby, a number of foreign critics had great things to say about him (some of them had even said that he and Leo were the only good things in the film…one can only imagine what they would have said if he would have had a full-fledged part there). The majority opinion in the West was that he should have gotten a much bigger role and he should be doing more Hollywood films. Just to quote another example, very recently The Guardian in its Wazir review compared Bachchan favourably to Dustin Hoffman-[ “This inbuilt ambiguity – that Daanish’s second chance might just be Pandit’s power play – owes much to Bachchan’s ability to describe both a genial host and something more shaded; Hoffman would surely have struggled to summon a comparable hum of menace”]. They also have very positive things to say on Pink (and his performance). After all this, when I see people objecting to him being central to a film, I feel sorry for the audiences. Again feel free to criticise him and his performances, but atleast do it for the reasons.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Naren
September 24, 2016
Why should Tamilians only bother about Amitabhji, he will shamelessly align with Sonia and Modi, and even Mallus from Thilakan to Mammooty to Fahaad era see this overrated man get rewarded. Hopeless.
LikeLike
Madan
September 24, 2016
Kid, I think you are conflating two different points. I read Ramchander Krishna’s comment and he does not say he has an objection to AB being central to the film. And as to Ashish’s comment, he is objecting not at AB having a central role in particular but of the male-dominated gaze. It is a critique rooted in the PC/privilege debate. I am not enamoured of THAT debate hijacking the arts, but anyway I will decide for myself after watching the film. But I just wanted to point out that Ashish doesn’t seem to hold a grudge against AB in particular.
And by the way, AB has been vacillating (which is his wont). He is slyly pushing himself in the Modi camp (witness his unnecessarily harsh criticism of Harsha Bhogle) but also keeping a foot in the leftie one by being part of films like Pink. In an interview, he clarified that he was not a feminist. Must have urgently felt the need to clarify this so that he doesn’t lose favour with Bhakts. His big fan, comedian Raju Srivastava, has had no such compunctions about switching sides. This movie isn’t about AB’s politics, but if you want to bring it up,yes, it is understandable if people, and not just Tamilians in general, have a problem with that aspect of AB. It is his choice but we are surely allowed to point out the manner in which he negotiates these choices. As a Mumbai-born Tamilian, I like AB more than Kamal any day. But when it comes to politics, Kamal is much more honest about his positions than AB. AB has no convictions, sorry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rajaj
September 24, 2016
This blog overrates Amitabhji because he lost his market and doing supporting roles. Number of graceless choices this man took is not being highlighted enough by Indians, never mind tamilians
LikeLike
Ashish Madathil
September 24, 2016
Um…I have no grudges against anyone. Is Bachchan a great actor? Absolutely! Is Pink a good film, a necessary film? Absolutely. Like I said, I don’t care about the personal politics of the people involved. Indifference is not the same as hate. It was just a rebuttal to BR’s point about why it’s OK for a man to save women in a film about women and that it need not be seen as saving but supporting. A man who spent the entire first half staring into their apartment no less. Forget that he is male. And that he has Bipolar. He hasn’t fought a case in 10 years! The women could’ve asked their influential boss, who got them to file a complaint, to get a good lawyer also no? Circumstaces seemed tailored to get a star vehicle to step in. Whoever the star may be…but i digress, your honor. 😛
To my mind at least, certain creative choices made in this film cannot be justified by “But, XYZ is a great actor…” What I was expressing was merely exhaustion with the tired trope of the authoritative man saving the day. Even in a film that positions itself as a feminist film. Like in Hollywood, however diverse the cast, whatever the issue, it’s still the white man who saves the day. If these tropes aren’t subverted in the arts, where else then? Anyway, my limited observations would’ve been the same if it was Bachchan or Kamal or Rajni or Ranbir Kapoor/Ranveer Singh/.
Peace. 🙂
LikeLike
Kid
September 24, 2016
Madan: Not conflating anything here. That “Bachchan centrality in Pink” comment wasn’t directed towards Ramchander Krishna. I had a problem with his objection towards “Bachchan’s poem” in the end-credits of the film (and I raised the Tamilian point there after I saw the way he addressed Bachchan….). On Ashish’s comment, I don’t care whether he likes or Bachchan or not (we all have our biases. Hating a star is hardly a crime). I did however have issues with this comment of his-
“It almost seemed in the second half that all the women had to take a backseat to let Amitabh Bachchan shine and be the star.”.
So, after all these years, Amitabh Bachchan now has to make sure that Taapsee Pannu and Kirti Kulhari take a backseat so that Amitabh Bachchan can shine and be the star of Pink. Clearly Truffaut, while making the “one-man industry” comment w.r.t Bachchan, didn’t foresee the emergence of these two titans (Pannu and Kulhari)!. BTW considering Ashish brought up Luck by Chance ending, he might do well to remember Arth, but also Mahesh Bhatt’s first film “Manzilein Aur Bhi Hain” which actually has arguably the most radical kind of man-woman relationship being depicted in Indian cinema (for anyone who hasn’t seen it, he/she should. It’s made on zero-budget and is not a fully realised film, but it is very intetesting). Gulzar has number of films which are quite very progressive in this regard. There is the little known Vinod Pande who had actually has made number of works which have some really radical gestures being ( Ek Baar Phir is his best work, but there are other films which are worrhwhile as well…Yeh Nazdeekiyan, Sach etc). There are other directors as well- from Ray to Balachander to Balu Mahendra to Kangal to a number of luminaries from Bengal (in Bollywood, you have a terrific work like Sudhendu Mukherjee’s Bachchan-starrer “Saudagar”). All these films have been made by men. I do agree that when depicting female characters, a female director would bring the kind of sensibilty that a male director can’t. But it’s ratther odd to state that men can’t understand feminism and can’t make sensible works on the topic
Madan, here is the thing. Reading the comments of a certain segment (read “class”) of people (mostly from Bombay), it’s amply clear to me that had someone like Abhay Deol been there in the role of Bachchan, most people wouldn’t object half as much regarding the mansplaining/male-saviour thing as they are doing so now. The Bachchan opposition is rather evident in this regard (I mean people have him reciting poetry in the end credits…this when no one has an issue with routinely people have item songs, which have nothing to do with the film’s plot, being placed with the end-critics. These sort of commnets are rather revelatory). In one of his comments, Ashish has a problem with an “old man” reciting that poem and saying those lines. Is this for real?!.
On your second paragraph, I agree with a lot of what you are saying (I have no issues if someone harshly criticises Bachchan’s political leanings or whatever. The Harsha Bhogle commnet certainly can’t be defended. Nor the letter for that matter…and we can go on about these thins. And I cometely agree with the Kamal comparison you make regarding the “convictions” bit). But what has his ideology/political leaning got do with his performances/films?! The only place where I disagree completely is when you say that “also keeping a foot in the leftie one by being part of films like Pink.”. Firstly, it’s a bit odd to link feminism with leftist politics. But even leaving that aside, it is odd to make that comment because it’s not the first film where Bachchan has starred in recent times which has these issues being spoken about…Piku had many such gestures as well and Bachchan’s character was representative of some of the director’s ideologies on this front. But most importantly Bachchan had co-produced (Saraswati Entertainments, a company he owns has co-produced these films) these films (and he wasn’t even the central lead in Piku). These are hardly commercialy safe ventures so unless an actor truly believes in this subject, he would invest his money in it. Bachchan incidentally also is the face of the Beti Bachao campaign of UN (this has got nothing to do with Modi). He did a very progressive film, Saudagar, way back in ’73 when BJP didn’t even exist (btw notice that Bachchan has never publicly any of Modi’s political campaigns/statements/work).
On the Tamil resistance, I was talking about the resistance towards Bachchan the “actor and star”. And there is an entire history to it. Again, just about every time he gets a National Award, Tamils have an issue with it (they apparently don’t have an issue when Saif Ali Khan gets one for Hum Tum). BTW unless Bachchan gets a National Award, these awards have no meaning according to such folks. The minute he gets it, it becomes the most coveted award on planet. The dishonesty in these arguements is everyone to see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tonks
September 24, 2016
If you had no intention of making out with a guy would you go into a hotel room alone with him, separating into pairs, especially if you had only just met that day for the first time? I found it a little difficult to believe this scenario. Perhaps they did it because they were drunk and this addled their brain a little..? And because one of them wanted to use the toilet.
I was confused at first as to whether Falak actually did take money from them, I later decided she hadn’t. But it’s difficult to see her character admitting to it in court, how much ever provoked, if she hadn’t actually.
I loved the theme, the importance of the “No” irrespective of anything else. It would be nice if the movie made even some people stop and think before judging girls for their choices, dress and behaviour. In Nirbhaya’s case too, I’d felt that maybe a difference in culture was partly responsible for the crime.
LikeLike
Ashish Madathil
September 24, 2016
Sigh!
LikeLike
Madan
September 25, 2016
“Reading the comments of a certain segment (read “class”) of people (mostly from Bombay), it’s amply clear to me that had someone like Abhay Deol been there in the role of Bachchan, most people wouldn’t object half as much regarding the mansplaining/male-saviour thing as they are doing so now.” – Really? Much of this is news to me as a longtime Mumbaiite. (a) Nobody really talks about Abhay Deol very much anymore, he had his moment under the sun and it’s over. And even when they did, it was not by means of casting an unfavourable light on AB. As regards as the mansplaining thing, if I were to casually spring it up on unsuspecting colleagues, they might regard me as if I came from another universe. I don’t know where Ashish is from – and I don’t care as I usually dislike getting involved into heated identity discussions and regard it as the bane of the country (sadly identity dominates world discourse as well now) – but if I may hazard a guess, either he is NRI or he lives in India but happens to read American/English media a lot and is abreast with what is happening there. Neither the “I was raped” or “My choice” videos got a favourable response in India so they are yet to become mainstream issues even in the metros, heartland toh bahut baad ki baat. At any rate, I don’t think this Abhay Deol-mansplaining alliance represents a significant constituency in Bombay/Mumbai and nothing to be worried about. If you really got me talking, I would say that while I appreciate AB’s acting, I have a lot more time for Gary Oldman. And nobody in Bombay will ever tell me, “Dai, Peter adikkadhai” for holding that view, that’s the beauty of maximum city. Maximum choice. But moving on….
” Firstly, it’s a bit odd to link feminism with leftist politics. ” – It is not at all odd if you trace the rise of feminism in the 1960s in America and Britain and also pay attention to where/who coins words like mansplaining. It’s a war out there – which is why I have refused to endorse Ashish’s line of argument on this without first watching the film – and AB as usual is far sighted and keeps a foot in the leftist camp while simultaneously also aligning unobtrusively with the rashtravadi camp. To your Saudagar example, I would simply say he has always been doing this so it’s nothing new. After all, a left-right mish mash is also helpful to balance parivar and individual desires, if I may put it that way? Unlike Kamal, AB believes in the institution of marriage. 😉
As for the Tamil resistance, I don’t deny its existence and FWIW both sides have their merits. AB merely bears the brunt via a tall poppy syndrome, representing the face of Bollywood success and thus facing the barrage of criticism from the South camp which thinks their actors don’t get due recognition (this is extremely debatable as I would much rather an Ilayaraja or Mani get more recognition than any of the stars who have made tons without taking many risks at all). But back to the point, I disagree with your inference that Ashish or Ramchandra’s insertion of AB’s name is linked to these undercurrents. Even if it is, again, we have to see it not only in the context of Tamil-Hindi politics but the excessive adulation of AB in recent years. What’s the big deal if AB does guest commentary in a World Cup match and why does that become more important than the cricket itself …I mean it was being hyped up for two weeks in advance! And having first criticised Bhogle on shockingly misinformed grounds, AB proceeded to butcher the national anthem adding his own jazzy improvs in blissful disdain of the fact that the anthem is meant to be sung in precisely that much time only. My music teacher in school would have given us a GPL for doing what AB did that day and then he runs away with the plaudits because the public is blindly in love with him; the way this performance was hyped one could be forgiven for thinking it was a reprise of Whitney Houston delivering the Star Spangled Banner. It does make my blood boil – the hypocrisy of pretending to be a nationalist and simultaneously being vain enough to murder the anthem – though I am so far able to keep it aside when I watch the films he is part of.
LikeLike
Deepak Jeswal
September 25, 2016
Sifter : count me in. I felt so. But resisted saying so since everyone seemed to have liked the review.
Honestly I felt as if BR had much issues with the film but had to pen a positive review. Just a feeling.
LikeLike
tonks
September 25, 2016
It must be tough to judge such cases where it’s one person’s word against another. The movie made it easy for the judge by showing Meenal cying and breaking down, her face and expression the picture of innocence and by making Rajveer lose his temper and blurt out his prejudices. But in real life, in such a case, how does a judge decide if a woman is telling the truth when she says she said ‘no’.
This write up makes a point :
http://m.huffingtonpost.in/aanchal-arora/pink-is-a-powerful-film-yet-its-also-a-failure/
I have my serious doubts on how much such movies are impacting those who are completely unsensitized. Until we think of an effective trickle-down mechanism, change won’t come as rapidly as we dream it will. My brothers, father, and others who are reading this already think like Amitabh’s character in the movie. What’s needed is for the same message, and essence, to settle indelibly into the kind of audience that needs it. We need to devise ways of taking this message to the streets. Pink was powerful for me and my ilk of the educated intelligentsia, and it may have been a starting point for others, but it was a failure for the majority of Indians mindsets
LikeLike
Madan
September 25, 2016
@tonks: That was an interesting article. I had kind of brought up the same point where there was an intense discussion on misogyny in Rajini films once before (no, not the discussions in the aftermath of the Swati murder but about a year before that). There is a growing gap between the attitudes in metros and small town India. Why, there is a gap between say Mumbai and Chennai. I don’t really know what the solution is. But I presume there would likewise be a gap between Boston and Nashville as well (maybe not when it comes to respect for women but on other matters like tolerance for ‘other’ gender orientations). Perhaps, we should draw comfort from the fact that at least the metros have moved on somewhat in attitude (because if the gulf was less in earlier times, doesn’t it mean the metros too were more feudal/patriarchal in mindset?) if the overall box office success of Pink is anything to go by.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vashisht Das
September 27, 2016
while on inspiring milestones like Pink, we regret to notice that the other, time-honoured kind of ‘inspirations’ that afflict the average, lazy plagiarists of hindi cinema has begun to contaminate the so-called intellectual / hifalutin beards like anurag kashyap and abhishek chaubey also :
http://thereel.scroll.in/817533/udta-punjab-versus-high-society-inspiration-or-a-striking-coincidence
LikeLike
An Jo
September 29, 2016
LikeLike
Jetlagged
October 1, 2016
Three movie this year, that had a wives in hospital taken care by husbands….. The first two…”iraivi” and “waiting” had the explicit mention of the guilt that husbands went through/is going through that probably is pushing them to show the care and affection. This one doesn’t hint anything like that….. Because that is not important. Because you shouldn’t need a reason to do what Deepak does.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 1, 2016
Tonks, just watched the film yesterday; the girls don’t split up to go with the guys to their respective rooms on their own; they’re all together in Rajveer’s room, and the guys manipulate the situation so two of the girls leave with them. As Falak mentions later in court, she couldn’t take the smoke any more and stepped out; Rajveer signals to Vishwa to step out with her. (Andrea has already left with Dumpy because Rajveer claims that the flush isn’t working and Dumpy escorts her to his room.
The reason the girls trust these boys is that Minal and Vishwa are schoolmates, and she trusts him, and therefore, by association, the others. As we see, Vishwa is the one who does not want any part of what takes place later.
Falak admits to taking money, I think, because she wanted to get that point out of the way – the case is not about whether they took money or not. Even if they did, sexual assualt is sexual assault. She’s shown as someone who will put up with bullshit up to a certain point – witness her initial apology to Rajveer – but will, if pushed, dare you to do your worst. So here, it is, yes, we are prostitutes, so what?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Anu Warrier
October 1, 2016
@Ashish, I watched the movie yesterday, in a packed theatre that was nearly 75% women. Neither I, nor the five women who I went with, felt ‘mansplained’ to – and believe me, as independent women with strong opinions of our own, we know what mansplaining is. We didn’t see Deepak Sehgal as the girls’ white knight stepping in to ‘rescue’ them. The girls came across, even in court, even when initimidated by prosecution, as plenty strong, and able to hold their own. But yes, he came across as support in a system where the rules are different; where no one knows exactly what googly is going to be thrown at them. The fight against patriarchy cannot succeed if we do not have enough men in our corner. Not as rescuers but as supporters. Feminism needs men as much as it needs women, if we are to have true equality. We need voices – whether they are male, female or transgender.
From my corner of the world, from the many, many women who watched the film yesterday, Bachchan, Sircar, Ritesh and Roy Choudhary added their – very powerful – voices in support to ours, and we are grateful.
@Ramchander, I didn’t have the issue with the end credits that you seem to have done; in showing us what really happened that night after the film ended and the judgement passed, it forces us to place the truth of the incident against the biases we naturally bring to a he said-she said case. Would the film have been equally powerful if they hadn’t shown those scenes? Perhaps, I don’t know. What I do know is that not one person in the audience of nearly-all women (for a 10 p.m. show) got up to leave until after.
As for Bachchan reciting the poem – why is it seen as some sort of a ‘statement’? That we need an old man to tell us to go find ourselves? I saw it – again – as the voice of support. To tell us that one person has our backs. In a patriarchal society, don’t you think we need the men to give us that support, implicit and explicit?
Not negating your opinion of the film; it just goes to show how what we take away from a film is so subjective. 🙂 I’m just offering my perspective on how a few women at aleast (my friends and I stood around outside the theatre for an hour on a cold night, discussing the film, so I speak for them as well) did not feel condescended to, or in need of rescue or patronised. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
tonks
October 2, 2016
I thought it was interesting to read this movie from the lens of the colour..how a conventional colour like “Pink” could be used subversively in the movie
Venky, I read somewhere that the reason they named the movie so, was because of the sexual connotation around the urban dictionary meaning of “pink” :
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pink
Anu, thanks! I need to view this a second time.
Also, regarding, my friends and I stood around outside the theatre for an hour on a cold night, discussing the film, so I speak for them as well, I’m curious as to what your discussion was about.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 2, 2016
@Tonks: I’m curious as to what your discussion was about.
Oh, about how the film resonated with what we had felt, growing up: that the rules were different for men and women; that ‘fault’ would be assigned to us, regardless of what happened; that things weren’t so different in the new millennium; or in the US, where there was a travesty of justice in the Stanford case; how ‘feminism’ is a bad word today, and how it is not just a woman’s movement; how it needed the voices of men who felt the same way to give it purpose…
All we needed was an adda and a hot, cutting- chai to complete the experience 🙂 — especially when we were standing outside the theatre, at 12.30 in the a.m. (we went for a 10p.m. show), and it was cold, and there was a fine drizzle as well. That we didn’t feel the discomfort, or didn’t care about it, was testimony to the film’s thrall.
I wish we could watch it together. 🙂 I would love to see it a second time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sirish Aditya
October 4, 2016
I can’t understand what the fuss is all about; Don’t know if relevance and earnestness are enough to rate a film highly. Come to think of it, I’m not sure if it’s a relevant film anyway as this review wonderfully postulates (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-pink-powerful-yet-also-failure-aanchal-arora).
The comparisons with Talvar are inevitable- Both are based on popular news, both are “foreign” in their tone and craft, both bring up important issues and are social criticisms at some level. But where Talvar is an astounding example of fabulous writing (I still marvel at Vishal Bhardwaj’s craft at making us laugh in the climax), Pink is atrociously high on cliche and narrative incompetence. What some might call restraint is in this case sheer fuckin’ laziness. Every scene feels stale, stagey, predictable and considering the stakes, terribly inert.
The acting is production line-sque, editing (and cinematography) depressingly routine and ineffective, and the music is a teenager’s discovery of post rock . I can’t believe the good reviews this film’s getting, least from you BR, considering the lack of craft, originality or passion.
But for all it’s faults, it has the good fortune of having Big B- the eyes, the voice, the man. _/_
LikeLike
Ashish Madathil
October 4, 2016
@Anu Warrier: I’m glad you felt that way. 🙂 As did a lot of women, evidently. I can’t possibly invalidate your personal feelings about the film. I completely agree with you that feminism needs the solidarity of all sexes to thrive. We are all in this together. But my comments are also a summary of the opinions and unanimous consensus of the women with whom I went to watch the film. The conclusion was: as an audience, they loved it, but as feminists not entirely so.
My friends and I agreed that the film, the first half especially, was well made. But we couldn’t help but feel a slight disillusionment about the way the second half was handled. But then again, given that the bar on Bollywood’s ability to portray these things sensitively is pretty low and that perhaps putting Bachchan behind this made commercial sense, it seemed like legit, necessary decisions so they let it slide.
About the poem, most of us felt it should’ve been a woman. Maybe it’s the arrogance of our generation or something, but somehow at a purely symbolic level an older patriarch telling young women to break free from the patriarchal baggage that said patriarch played a part in imposing, was a bit much…I just thought I’d present that perspective as the vibrant comments section here made this a great place to voice it.
Irrespective of what you felt about the film’s intentions, don’t you think it’s high time that films about women were written mostly by women? Sure…it doesn’t always have to be that way. Unlike what someone said earlier, I do believe some men understand feminism. There is a Paul Feig for every Melissa McCarthy and the ones who made great films about women in the past had a wonderful, androgynous mind. But is that enough of a justification for the monopoly of just one sex of people in the film industry? Aren’t men taking all the credit for appropriating and shining light on the complicated whirlwind of events, incidents and issues affecting women, while the number of women behind the scenes calling the shots, like directors, writers and executives are abysmal? The creative control behind projects like these and many others on general subjects are still the domain of men and the narrative is still tightly in their control, no?
LikeLike
R Balasubramanian
October 4, 2016
My post is missing. Is there any benchmark? I laboured to write a post yesterday, for only then, I happened to see the film.
Film kicks off from frame one and thanks that there is no meandering in build up. Great film, nevertheless not a flaw less.
Piyush Mishra, quite jarring or is it created for a contrast.
However, subtle, the line of defence taken by Deepak is give away for the discerned in the very few frames. No complaints but a simple statement.
The casting director deserves a special mention. When I saw such a name in title card in the beginning, I was happy that there had been one. It was not a just title card.
Area that beat the logic or common sense: Of, course, these are only value additions
The landlord of the girls should have been brought to trial as a defence witness. He has been harassed over phone and also directly approached by the plaints. Though the case is on breaking the judgemental attitude of the system, it should not have harmed to have witness that can bolster it. In fact, all the witness are against the defence. Moral ground apart, landlord and even the driver of the taxi in which the girls flee from the scene of incident should have been used, to make it more realistic.
Very strange, that media is out of the equation. The place Delhi, where nature of crime is as common as brushing your teeth. Before, anything trial by media would have started. The trial by society where the girls live is cliched. A film of this maturity could have well avoided
Ironical, that the movie name itself is gender biassed. “Judgement” would have been more befitting, in terms of the cause that the film tries to establish.
I am in mid sixties fed mostly with craps all my life. I am happy that Indian cinema, apart from 100 crore club, is still afloat. Regular dose of good movies.
P.s. BR one request, I wish you avoid references movies and names. It is not that you are name dropping. For the unknowns, it will cut the flow, for the knowns they can visualise. For the writer, your reach will increase.
Thanks. I am an avid follower of your analysis. You have once said, they are not reviews
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 4, 2016
Ashish, I think you’re conflating two issues here: the arrogance of your generation (ouch!) and feminism. 🙂 Again, personal view here: I didn’t see Bachchan’s recitation of the poem as the voice of patriarchy ‘telling’ women to find themselves. To me, the words mattered, the message mattered, not who was delivering it. Secondly, from a purely aesthetic viewpoint, it’s not that easy to recite poetry effectively. Many people can’t. AB can.
don’t you think it’s high time that films about women were written mostly by women?
No. Also written by women? Sure. Otherwise you are saying that men and women should ‘mostly’ write about themselves and not about the ‘other’. Talk about the arrogance of your generation, indeed. 🙂 If we want to understand each other, and to be understood, we need to see each other from different perspectives, whether it be male or female. Or Juhi Chaturvedi shouldn’t have written about sperm donation – what the heck does she know about it? (Or Hrishida or Bimal Roy couldn’t have made their movies about female protagonists, or Tagore or Sarat Chandra couldn’t have written their strong heroines or…)
You cannot argue that Pink dealt with a sensitive issue only from the male perspective, surely? I thought it handled the women very, very sensitively. I thought it gave voice to the countless women who have faced sexual harassment, and then been harassed by the system as well.
On the other hand, I definitely think we need more women film-makers, more women lyricists, more women story-tellers, script writers, and so on. Film is essentially a male preserve, or has been. That should change. Definitely.
But in the meantime, I will take what I can get – the light being shone on issues that have been too long swept into dark corners.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Madan
October 4, 2016
“don’t you think it’s high time that films about women were written mostly by women? ” – First of all, I completely get off on this cultural appropriation business because as we can see the concept of privilege is infinitely extendable as long as somebody chooses to feel aggrieved. But assuming I accept the premise that since women themselves best know what it is like to be women, only they should make films about themselves. Now, the problem is it won’t take long for the men to stand up and say (and they already are, in America, see MRA) that they don’t women making films about themselves. It won’t take long for white men to say only white men should make films about themselves and that no black should essay a role originally written for a white (so no black Cleopatras). And in this way, the dominant, privileged demographic will gain even more control of the medium. Why? Because more men go to watch movies and white men having the biggest wallets are the most lucrative market of all. Is it not better to have different groups represented in varying lights, white, black and several shades of grey in between, in the films and in the novels than to squabble over who is best qualified to write about who? Do I think that the same subject (as Pink) approached through a woman’s gaze would be interesting (especially because we rarely get to see it in the movies)? Absolutely. Would I like to see more films made by women and about women? Absolutely again. But does it somehow invalidate the very premise of a film about women if it happens to be directed by a man? No, I don’t think so.
LikeLike
Ashish Madathil
October 5, 2016
@Anu : Like I said, it doesn’t always have to be that way. Some of the best bro-flicks like ZNMD and Chashme Buddoor were written and directed by women. But it is worth considering the flip side also right? Could it be that Sircar is merely capitalizing on the zeitgeist and the general mood regarding gender in our country over the past few years? And perhaps it’s patting itself on the back too hard for being more than just that?
Speaking in general about appropriation, it seems a bit hypocritical , don’t you think ,when Jared Leto wins an Oscar for playing a trans woman when that role could’ve gone to an actual trans woman? If we don’t have a diverse approach in our casting decisions and hiring people, how do we give all kinds of people equal opportunity, which is fundamental to achieving equality? (Kabali was a great example of a diverse crew, with its exploration of themes of oppression and songs being written by Dalit scholars etc)
There used to be a time when in many cultural traditional art forms, female characters were performed by men in drag. But today it’s rather fluid, where women play men and vice versa. in the 90s, it was wonderful to see a Kathakali show in which my dad played Duryodhana and his friend’s daughter played Krishna. What if we had stopped at that? Would it not have been the struggle of our times? We can’t deny that there is a (upper class/caste)male hegemony that needs to be broken. Like it has been broken on a smaller scale, say. in literature and publishing.
Ok, I seem to be giving too much unsolicited gyaan now, having reached insufferable levels of mansplaining myself. 😀 I would just like to end by saying that I’m glad it resonated with you and many others and it is one of the best and most important films to have come out in recent times. Minor problems aside, it will do for now.
LikeLike
Apu
October 5, 2016
Anu Warrier: I have not seen the film, but you echo-ed my thoughts about “mansplaining” and “films about women being made by women”.
“Do I think that the same subject (as Pink) approached through a woman’s gaze would be interesting (especially because we rarely get to see it in the movies)? Absolutely. Would I like to see more films made by women and about women? Absolutely again. But does it somehow invalidate the very premise of a film about women if it happens to be directed by a man? No, I don’t think so.”
Thank you!
I think we confuse feminism with “relevant for women only”. Feminism is not against men, nor does it affect women only, it is about patriarchy and patriarchal systems hurt men as much as women. And yes, we need everyone in it.
The logic of “for women need to be by women” does not get us anywhere, else films about war victims would have to be made only by people from that particular war-torn country.
I think I will take what I get, as long as it does not paint any gender, community, generation in broad strokes. If a certain issue troubles, motivates, moves a filmmaker enough to get creative with it, I am not too sure I will look at his/her gender, community, location as long as he/she is not lazy and does ample research to represent the issue and the players in a sensitive way. (In fact, it is sometimes interesting to see what “the other side” thinks about me.)
Also: “how ‘feminism’ is a bad word today”…yeah, every time I see someone say “But I am not a feminist” or read a rant against “feminazis”…sigh!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ashish Madathil
October 5, 2016
“And perhaps it’s patting itself on the back too hard for being more than just that?”
it = the film
LikeLike
Honest Raj (formerly 'V'enkatesh)
October 5, 2016
Apu: “how ‘feminism’ is a bad word today”
It’s not just the men, but a few educated ‘modern’ women too. Such people associate themselves with labels like “Anti-feminist but pro-gender-equality”!
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
October 5, 2016
@Apu: Thank you.
yeah, every time I see someone say “But I am not a feminist” or read a rant against “feminazis”…sigh!
I think they forget that the reason they can say that is because the vanguard of feminism fought for their right to speak up. They are reaping the benefits of those brave men and women who fought for equality; today, they feel perfectly fine denying those sacrifices.
@Ashish: No one here is saying that we wouldn’t like to see more female perspective; of course we would. Of different stories, not just women’s. The more light we shine on an issue, any issue, from different viewpoints, the better we can understand the problems, the easier it becomes to find a solution.
But you are again conflating so many different issues that are endemic in the industry: casting, more women at the forefront, more women’s films…
About Jared Leto playing trans: how many trans actors are available who can fit that role, not just physically, but actually? If there were, and they decided to go for Leto, because ‘economics’, then that is another part of film making. Finally, it is a business, and people who invest (usually white men) want returns. Can we change that? We should. Absolutely.
But in the case of, say, Margarita With a Straw, Shonali Bose auditioned several people afflicted with cerebral palsy to play the role of Laila, before going back to Kalki. I wish casting for a role was as easy as you seem to think. Yes, we need diversity – no one denies that, and we should work towards it. Glass ceilings must break.
What any of this has to do with Pink, I have no idea. You seem to find fault with the makers picking up sexual harassment as their theme, because it is the topic du jour – why should they not? Isn’t that what film-makers do? Make films on current, relevant social issues? That, today, in the new millennium, we are still having to discuss sexual harassment in terms of the victim – what was she wearing? Who was she with? Was she drinking? Was she a virgin? – is shameful. The kernel for the film came from there. I didn’t see anyone patting themselves on the back for being anything – they seemed surprised at just how much the film resonated with people. That, today, it’s sparked off something more than just a discussion of the film itself is a bonus.
As Apu says, I’ll take what I can get, and if one of the most relevant feminist films was written and made by men, then I say, more power to them! Please write more. In fact, please write more films that resonate so strongly with so many people – write about caste, about religion, about disempowerment, about class struggles, about misogyny, dowry ills, patriarchy, female infanticide… make content king again.
Also, you seem to confuse ‘feminist’ with women. Some of the best feminists I know are men. 🙂
LikeLiked by 5 people
Aravind Ramachandran
October 8, 2016
Watched it with my 17-year old son, and somehow felt let down.
My point is the perpetrators are so caricatured (rich kid, politician uncle, despicable lawyer and he practically incriminates himself when put on the stand) there’s just no dilemma to deal with for the judge, or for us for that matter. Take the case of the Stanford student a year or so ago where in a similar situation (a girl gets molested when she was drunk and passed out) the father wrote a touching letter asking the judge not to penalise his son for his whole life for a moment of indiscretion. That’s where the real issue and tussle is – how do you dispense with justice when the perp is not such an unlikable person but someone that is otherwise normal and everyday, but gets into momentary lapse of discretion and gives in to basal instincts.
Of course the verdict must be the same in that situation as well, and THAT should come out in our moves. Then my 17-year old, and many others like him, will relate to it. Now he doesn’t, and the movie just became another good vs evil saga, but in art-deco style.
Felt the same way seeing Rustom. And as for the refrain of movie makers that it is what our audience will understand, I beg (actually scream) to differ. That’s all they can make.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
October 8, 2016
‘a moment of indiscretion’ ‘ a momentary lapse of indiscretion
Weeping softly How many moments did it take Brock Turner to drag a semi-conscious woman outside, to behind a dumpster and to assault her?
Let’s be very clear here: no ‘momentary lapse’ of discretion excuses assault. With that and ‘give in to his baser instinct’, you sound like you are excusing the assault just as turner’s father did. You thought his father wrote a ‘touching’ letter? No. He wrote an extremely brain-dead, blind-to-reality letter when he asked the judge to let his son go free because ‘he had been punished enough for 20 minutes of action.’ Does 20 minutes seem to you like moments?
Did he spare a thought for the young woman whose life will, for a long time, perhaps forever, be defined by those 20 minutes? Who spent hours and hours, days and days in the courtroom, being assaulted all over again – by the defence counsel, who impugned her character, questioned her morals, delved into her sexual history, and suggested to the jury that since she did not remember the details of what happened, they should believe what Brock Turner says happened – that the sex was consensual. [And it didn’t matter that security cameras had caught him making passes at three different women, including the victim, and being rejected each time.] Do you still think the prosecutor in Pink was ‘villainish?
I have news for you – this is how women are treated in court when they press charges for sexual assault. It is not personal. They are there to win the case for their client.
Re: there was no dilemma to deal with for the judge in Pink – there was no dilemma for the judge in the Stanford case either. Despite the jury handing a verdict of guilty, the judge, pals with Turner’s father, gave a travesty of a sentence – 6 months. Brock Turner was out in 3, never having seen the inside of a prison, where he truly belonged. If they had shown that in Pink, would you have considered it ‘realistic’ or a ‘caricature’?
You have a 17-year-old son. I suggest that, unlike Turner Senior, you teach him what consent really, really means. He doesn’t have to ‘relate’ to the young men who stand accused whether they are rich and entitled (Pink, the Stanford case) or poor and without political connections (Nirbhaya). Talk to him about the two men who found the Stanford victim, and came to her rescue; the men who cried when they saw her condition, and who not only called for medical attention, but also chased and caught Brock Turner, whose ‘momentary lapse of discretion’ ended when he ran away.
And if you want ‘touching’, I suggest you read the victim impact statement in the Stanford Case. I suggest you have your son read it too. It is the most powerful statement I have read in recent times, and lets you know in no uncertain terms what it feels like to be a woman who pays for a man’s ‘momentary lapse of discretion’ for the rest of her life.
Like AB in Pink, BR, I apologise for the digression. Back to scheduled programming, folks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Saurabh Sharma
October 10, 2016
This is by far the best review, i have read.
It even made some beautiful points about the movie, which definitely made movie more impactful to me now.
LikeLike
Madan
October 23, 2016
I agree with some who said the film is a very important one especially for the way it spells out the importance of consent, but that as a film per se it is not a particularly good one. It was alright but felt like a remake of Accused. I watched it today on TV and some, in fact many, of AB’s dialogues were indecipherable. I had to really strain to understand at least contextually what he was saying; maybe it wasn’t so bad in the theater. He did finally kick into form around the time where he first argues forcefully about the importance of consent but until then I didn’t really enjoy his acting and the others were competent but not remarkable. Though produced by Sircar, it felt less polished than his previous work and the BGM was very intrusive. Being involved with the legal side of things (though only tax law and never criminal law) I found the proceedings engrossing but it may not have been so interesting for a general audience as there was no excitement over discovery of important evidence. The case is purely circumstantial (though it is never explained thus, curiously, by either prosecution, defence or the judge) and there is mostly suppository passing for facts. Yes, it felt more like using the case as a platform to discuss both the relevance of consent and also the patriarchy’s reaction to independent women. Which, as I had said earlier in the thread, was done in Boston Legal but it wasn’t usually done at the expense of mounting a solid case. I didn’t feel like the case was well fleshed out and yet the film was somewhat slow paced (and I say this as someone who is usually tolerant of and even fond of leisurely paced films) and struggled to make its point. Solid maybe by Hindi film standards but as such, no, did feel it left a lot to be desired. But I was happy with the larger moral/social arguments put forth which I found quite balanced and agreed pretty much all the way with.
LikeLike
An Jo
October 23, 2016
@ Kid:
Loved reading your comments: Very individualistic in the face of ‘groupist’ comments out here.
And one thing that is noticeable in the thread is how Amitabh makes people uncomfortable, especially the ones who feel Tamil actors who tried their hand at Hindi cinema during the time of Amitabh’s reign and didn’t make a big impact was due to Amitabh! Somebody put it here better than I could ever think or write and very smartly when he said Amitabh is a victim of the tall poppy syndrome. [Amitabh ‘ji’ is a classical condescending address here.]This has gone on for too long: And it’s surprising that an actor past his box-office prime –but still calling the mega-shots when it comes to histrionics–causes so much churning amongst some, or maybe even many. And it’s ironic, that many of the Rajnikanth super-hits in the ’80s were remakes of Amitabh’s mega-hits in Hindi!!
Secondly, why is Amitabh’s political leaning or the supposed ‘lack’ of convictions so much at discussion here? And how’s that even relevant to the context of this film? Did any-one question Tapsee’s leanings? Or Piyush, Anurag Kashyap’s alter-ego [who, by the way is quite convinced living in Modi’s India is like living in North Korea]. Is there something called ‘logic’ one can add in-between the eternal struggle between the ‘left’ and the ‘right’? That a woman drinking and smiling along and enjoying drinks and food with you isn’t translated as ‘available’ should actually be pure common-sense! In any part of the world, ‘NO’ means ‘NO’ should actually be a natural behavior and reaction. That Amitabh is a major part in such a film and that he endorses such thoughts in a film should never be a problem! Why is it questioned? By acting in PINK and then supporting the ‘state’ of Gujarat tourism implies that Amitabh is hands-in-glove with Modi is a dishonest statement and reading of the highest kind. There is a section of us that believe that Modi can work toward the betterment of India, that DOESN’T imply we are hands-in-glove with anything Modi works on!! In fact, we believe — at least I –that he needs to be scrutinized with the highest microscopic power possible, because the promises his govt made, need to be delivered, at least half of them –and that’s because I firmly believe in the diktats of the Indian Standard Time: We say ‘one’ second for everything when we know that nothing can be achieved in ‘one’ second. [And by the way, not that Amitabh needs any support or endorsement, for those who are criticizing him for having his feet on both the sides, he has made it absolutely clear that he will not be a part of any ‘political’ exercises of the current govt and that he is supporting Gujarat tourism or whatever because of the ‘state’ per-se and not the ‘state-machinery.’]
And, for the sake of argument, if Amitabh is a closet-patriarch or a closet-right-wing but DID work in movies like PINK or PIKU featuring women-centric themes which are supposed to be ‘pre-rogatives’ of leftist folks, hey, doesn’t that prove that he is a top-notch actor once again?? Just as Hassan played a Vaishnav persecuted by Shivaites in DASHAVATAR as bloody convincingly as only he could, in spite of being an atheist in real life of the highest order?
Finally, the crux of the reason I wrote this comment is because Amitabh or Kamal or Salman or anybody, their ‘convictions’ or lack there-of or how they behave with their family members or whatever is of least concern to me. That’s the way I operate. What matters to me is how they connect to me as actors, and nothing more. Of course, there’s a ceiling on that. I cannot continue to see Sanjay Dutt in the same light as I did in Munnabhai if he were indeed proven that he acted willfully against his country. In my personal capacity, I will stop watching his movies in the theater. Whatever Woody did, it doesn’t diminish his cinematic brilliance. I will enjoy his art, but I will make sure that I don’t watch it in a theater or in a way, that indirectly might, or might not, affect him at all. And so, I never watch Salman’s movies in a theater: Of course, it doesn’t matter since his ‘bhai-dom’ currently has unlimited subjects: But all I say is, that’s the importance I give to actors, and that’s what I can do within my capacity if I am THAT hurt by someone’ s decisions or leanings..
LikeLike
Madan
October 24, 2016
“That Amitabh is a major part in such a film and that he endorses such thoughts in a film should never be a problem!” – I should hardly have a problem with that since I entirely agree with the film’s premise. Nor with the open letter he wrote to his granddaughters. I don’t however see those attitudes, which reflect a secular outlook towards life, as compatible with his blatant bullying of Harsha Bhogle. What’s wrong if a commentator merely talks, I repeat, talks about the rival team’s cricketers? Bhogle was just doing his job as a commentator. The insertion of a nationalist tone into this was completely disingenuous. It was pretty clear to me what AB’s agenda there was and I have the right to call it out. And by the way, that has nothing to do with being broadly supportive of Modi’s economic policies. It should be simple enough to pursue these without beating up imaginary/non existent foes with the stick of nationalism but apparently BJP hasn’t learnt any lessons from their 99-04 term in power. I do not believe that somebody who believes in the freedom of women to pursue their independent lives is compatible with a belief in hyper nationalism because patriarchal values go hand in hand with the latter. It is an impossible contradiction to manage. But back to AB, I admire the chameleon-like ease with which he slips from siding with the overtly-minority and lower caste votes seeking SP to the hyper nationalist BJP and given time he may even support Muffler Man tomorrow. It is admirable and disgusting for me at one and the same time. It also doesn’t have to do with only the films he takes up. He didn’t just stop with being a part of Pink. He timed the open letter to coincide with the release of the film. I don’t recall Kamal giving a long patriarchal rant in a press conference to support the release of Singaravelan. In Kamal’s case, the separation of his personal values and the films he chooses to be a part of is much clearer than it is in AB’s case.
It does not detract from my enjoyment of Pink as a film. I am able to separate ideology from cinema or any other art form. I would have a problem if the actor was really a criminal at large, hence it is difficult for me to watch Sanjay Dutt or Salman films at this point. It was not at all difficult to avoid Salman films for me since I have never been interested in them but Sanjay Dutt is a fine actor so it’s a real shame.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An Jo
October 24, 2016
I think you are being extremely harsh when you use the word ‘bullying.’ That was hardly the case. Maybe he got carried away by a ‘succession’ of incidents where Bhogle was being harsher on Indian players. I don’t know but all I am saying is, Amitabh’s statement was NOT to be taken seriously at all! The weirder part is not what Amitabh tweeted, it was the fact that his tweet was taken ‘seriously’!!! Amitabh to cricket is what I am to costume designing: My knowledge of costume designing is limited to ‘gaping’ at the costumes: So is Amitabh’s knowledge on cricket. He just tweeted a random thing. Now if the board decides to drop Bhogle because of a tweet by a famous star who happens to be active on Twitter, would you really blame Amitabh or the board? Who actually is the imbecile here? Amitabh can write a bloody long essay on his blog about how Indian commentators don’t talk highly of Indian players! Who cares? [Oh by the way, none else but the captain of the Indian team M.S. Dhoni supported his tweet! Go figure..] Amitabh doesn’t even own an IPL team for Baba Ramdev’s sakes..My only contention is that whatever Amitabh might have tweeted, it is and should have been taken as a mere stand-alone ‘comment.’ If Amitabh can influence who can comment or not in a series, then Jadeja can as well start commenting on who to cast in films and render the job of a casting director impotent! The fault lies not with Amitabh, according to me, but with those idiots, IF they decided that a mere tweet from a pan-Indian star was an important KPI for hiring or firing a well-known and extremely knowledgeable commentator.
Secondly, as I mentioned before and at the risk of repeating myself, the fact that Amitabh is on manageable terms with SP or Modi or even Kejriwal maybe or whoever doesn’t even bother me. You should maybe listen to that interview of Amitabh with Arnab where Arnab is genuinely shocked to discover that Amitabh is susceptible and vulnerable to political machinations! He is afraid that the powers-that be would come after him and his family!!
Amit is a very reticent man. He exposed himself to a degree that is quite un-Amitabh of him in the Arnab show. He talks of the days when a person harassed him day-in and day-out in the LETTERS TO THE EDITOR section. It gives you a totally different facet to his personality and what he’s gone through and how it’s shaped him.
And as I said before, any actor’s political ‘ maneuvering’ is really something that I don’t want to judge. My respect toward Amitabh is just as a monolith of an actor: It starts there, and it stops there.
Dev Anand was the ONLY actor who stood-up publicly against Indira Gandhi’s emergency dictator-ship. None of the other actors [I am not sure of the South] from the HIndi film industry openly protested it. Kudos to him. At the same time, I do not want to judge other actors for NOT having put themselves in the line of fire..
LikeLike
asmamasood
November 9, 2016
My review- “Pink”: ‘Respect’fully Yours:
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 9, 2016
Madan, thank you for this interview. I never thought I would say this, but I liked Arnab Goswami in this avatar. Amitabh was honest. And I can understand why he would prefer to lay low.
LikeLike
An Jo
November 10, 2016
@Anu:
I posted the Amitabh interview and comment and not Madan. I know you are not fond of me since ADHM but come on, give the devil its due where it is at least just a you-tube link!! Just kidding..old fashioned so no emojis fom my side…
Aside, just busy here protesting the elections..dunno why…it’s fun to be in rallies..until the tear-gas shows up…
–
LikeLike
MANK
November 10, 2016
An Jo, i was just about to post exactly the same thing to Anu 🙂
And speaking of elections yeh aap logon ne kya kar diya udhar , kisko jitha diya, now what use of protesting
Now RGV’s Nuclear looks just about probable 😀
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 10, 2016
An Jo, I could have sworn! yesterday that Madan’s comment and yours had been scrunched up together – the first part of his comment and the last part of yours. Or I’m even worse off than I thought!
I don’t hate you, c’mon! 🙂 I disagreed vehemently with your response to us on ADHM, but I assure you, I’m capable of agreeing with you on another thread. My responses are to particular statements, not to particular people. (Poor BR can vouch for that!)
As for the elections – I’m still in deep mourning. I am going to be in even deeper mourning in January when that clown takes oath of office.
p.s Thank you for the video. I loved it.
(MANK, now I think I’ve possibly reached the venerable age you attributed to me!)
LikeLike
MANK
November 10, 2016
Anu chechi , hi hi, samathichallo , athu mathi. 🙂
And cheer up, Hopefully Trump the president cant be worse than Trump the presidential candidate , so there is still hope.
btw, you have Trump , we have RGV. check this out
http://indianexpress.com/article/trending/trending-in-india/us-presidential-election-2016-ram-gopal-varma-michelle-obama-melenia-trump-remark-4366348/
LikeLike
Madan
November 10, 2016
Is it possible to not be surprised but still shocked by an event? Coz that’s my reaction to Trump winning. Especially after Brexit, I was prepared for some such catastrophe like this. I was even more prepared when my prog rock loving friends across the oceans were so cocksure Clinton would win. That’s the soundtrack of hubris. Even so, the chilling realisation that this man will be President of a country in which my relatives, obviously not of the same ethnicity as the majority of that country, have lived for years has sent shivers down my spine. Cannot put into words how worried I am and yet I would rather not call them up and transfer my worries when they are probably hoping to get on with a normal life. I know Trump apparently is a big fan of Hindu whatever the heck that is supposed to mean but I wonder if his fans can tell Hindus and Muslims apart. They didn’t need Trump to mistakenly bump off Sikhs they took to be Muslims, as it is.
LikeLike
An Jo
November 10, 2016
@Madan:
Firstly, I doubt whether Trump knows the difference between Hindi and Hindus. Secondly, bumping off Sikhs considering them as Muslims has already been accomplished in 2012 even when Obama was the chief – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting
What’s stunning is how everybody got it wrong! Everybody! The rust belt just kicked the Dems with such an unimaginable force. That belt was so frustrated that they just didn’t care..and TRUMP MEANT it when he said he could shoot somebody in NYC and nobody would say anything! This’s got to the EASIEST presidency to win in centuries perhaps: Absolutely no knowledge, no IQ, no home-work, nothing required; you could have replaced DT with a mannequin and he would have won. The gap between the coasts and the rust belt is so wide that ANYTHING Trump does or did was acceptable to them. If states like Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan*, Pennsylvania* that voted Obama twice decided to vote for him you can imagine. Just as late as last week, he could get away by saying that Hillary plans to get in 600 million refugees/immigrants in her first week as President when it took 240 years with the help of brown, black, whites, oranges to come into the country to reach around 300 million..
Get me my industrial jobs back, get those steel industries running, give me my ‘superiority’ back – to hell with everything else..
LikeLike
An Jo
November 10, 2016
@ MANK – NUCLEAR is definitely probable but with some minor obstacles that Modi has thrown in with his 500 and 1000 rupee idea…once he figures that out, he can go back to shoving cameras up people’s arses and steering wheels and lavatory pipes..
Too many things to sink in one day…
Modi’s demonitisation..
Trump’s election – with the date in Indian format being 9-11
RGV’s Nuclear announcement..
But nothing could be more disastrous than the last one…Then he went one step ahead and started tweeting…that’s more explosive than NUCLEAR..
LikeLike
Madan
November 11, 2016
@ AnJo: Yeah, re the Sikh, I was referring to that incident only hence why I said they didn’t need Trump to mistake Sikhs for Muslims. They would not have self identified as Trump supporters in 2012 but they were the kind of people who would have admired his election campaign.
And there were warning signs when Sanders picked up Michigan and only lost Ohio due to the black vote in the primaries. Sanders and Trump had similar positions on trade so there was always the danger that the rust belt would in fact listen to Trump. And so they did. Trump ran an intellectually bankrupt campaign but that is because he chose to be a classic populist. I think this is where the mainstream media completely misread his approach. I am not saying we can suddenly expect a super-intellectual new Trump now that he is in the White House but he was basically campaigning like Laluji or Mulayalam (except that they are left wing socialist populists and therefore a little more palatable, gulp!). He was delivering his message in digestible capsules and threw facts to the wind. Something that Sinclair Lewis has his own demagogue do in It Can’t Happen Here which Trump seems to have adopted as his playbook and very effectively. The coasts may have cared about his lack of intellectual heft but not the Mid West which he painted red, except Illinois where my aunt lives so hopefully that is still safe for Hindu.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
November 11, 2016
Madan, you’re right to be concerned, We all are. A friend’s niece was racially targeted yesterday in RI, which voted overwhelmingly Blue. So if it can happen here in a Democratic state, I shudder to think of the mood in the Red states. 😦
Trump’s win has emboldened the racists, bigots, misogynists to come crawling out of the woodwork. It’s not as the if the US is new to these attitudes; earlier, there were checks in place. As one Muslim man put it, ‘We knew the President of the USA had our backs. Now the POTUS is the one yelling at us to ‘get off the plane’ because we are terrorists!’
LikeLike
Rahul
November 12, 2016
I floated a theory on this board that this could be a movie like “A separation” where there were no clear ethical lines and it was hard to figure out what actually happened. But nobody gave me any grass (kisi ne mujhe ghaas nahi daali)
LikeLike
Sakkaravarthi Kaliannan
March 5, 2019
https://www.thenewsminute.com/sites/default/files/styles/news_detail/public/NerkondaPaarvai_750.jpg?itok=ggwaBhw1
Interesting that they decided to remove the colour pink for a grittier look.
LikeLike