(by Sairam Yadavilli)
I had waited a week too long. The movie was doing extraordinarily well, acclaimed by both critics and audiences. As I sat to watch the grand spectacle unfold on the large screen, with a large coke in my hand – actually scratch that. I was on a diet and I had just given up soda (I am currently staying in the US and we call it soda here) for the sixth time in the last one year – the anticipation was almost uncontrollable.A couple of hours later, I walked out, less excited than when I walked in. Disappointment was an understatement. However, a couple of scenes stuck in my head.
The celebrated assassin stole the show, putting holes in heads and cutting up corpses. As John Wick carved up two Chinese (or Japanese, or Koreans – I am ignorant as to how to distinguish between people from east Asia)guys, I couldn’t help but think how racist themovie was. Especially in a country like the US, whereracism is the ‘Trump’ card to winning the presidency, I was aghast at how unremorsefully they could show a ‘white’ guy kill people of ‘color’ (not wanting to offend the 3 million groups that might call me racist). And do not even get me startedon the number of guns shown and used – and their obvious negative impact in an otherwise peaceful country like the US. A week later, I am still frantically searching for those 3 million anti-racism, anti-gun violence groups to show up on the most watched debate platforms – Facebook. And a thought struck me – so, people can actually watch a movie without attributing everything wrong with the society to it. But, can people actually watch a movie and not be influenced by it? That’s a question that is open to discussions and debates – over a cup of chai and some pakodas (priorities you see).
A month before its release, Kabir Singh was making all the right noises. A customary chartbuster, about a customary heartbreak, re-released with the customary Arijit Singh vocals – cos who better than him to make us cry over a heartbreak. It had me hooked. Add to that, the acting talent of Shahid Kapoor, the meticulous execution of Sandeep Reddy Vanga and the hauntingly beautiful BGM.
The film was a remake of a ‘South Indian’ film – Arjun Reddy. It had garnered extreme popularity, catapulting its leads to superstardom overnight (just the ‘hero’ actually – cos who cares about actresses in Indian films right?). But, you would have already known all this unless you were living under a rock. Moreover, the original hero – Vijay Devarakonda, was my senior in high school (not that it matters for this review, but I just wanted you to know it). I wanted to watch the film for Shahid Kapoor. I had recently watched Kaminey and Udta Punjab, and was blown away by the sheer skill and talent possessed by him.
Saturday morning. The clouds gathered, cancelling our cricket match. I lazily turned on my laptop and browsed through the many unimportant things that I usually see. Kabir Singh had opened to amazing reviews and turned out to be Shahid’s highest opening day grosser. I was happy, not just for him but also for Sandeep Vanga. The enormous negative backlash that had descended on Arjun Reddy was largely missing prerelease. Slowly but surely, the clouds grew darker.
Sexual harassment and consent have gained global importance lately. The #metoo movement gained momentum thanks to the extraordinary efforts by scores of celebrities and common people – of course mostly women. And then came Arjun Reddy and Kabir Singh.
Arguments, both for and against Kabir Singh have been vehement. “See it just as a movie” he said. “And such glorification is the reason we are so regressive”, she replied.
Firstly, before I am called an MCP, let me clarify. Did I like Arjun Reddy? NO. I thought it was over hyped – just like RGV’s Shiva was (yeah, I know nothing about movies!!!).Having said that, let me begin.
Was there something wrong with Kabir Singh (Arjun Reddy) the person? Yes, definitely. No second thoughts.
Was there something wrong with Kabir Singh (Arjun Reddy) the movie? Yes, definitely. No second thoughts.
Was it the glorification of a male chauvinist, misogynist egomaniac? Actually, that wasn’t one of them.
Movies have gone from being “a break from reality” to “inspired by real events”. Kabir Singh, to its credit, was as realistic as reality gets. Bullies, egomaniacal alpha males, guys who “mark” girls like they are territory, girls who say nothing, and yes, guys who kiss without consent – these were all real-life characters. The guy you talk to daily, your friend from the office (actually acquaintance, cos who would want to be friends with that cheapskate), your female friend of 15 years who keeps up with the abuse of her boyfriend – they were the characters that were brought to life. So, did the movie inspire the characters or did the characters, the movie?
Does a story about a misogynist lead, make a movie misogynist?
Let us assume the character was played by a quintessential villain (say Sonu Sood – cos he has the looks, the six-pack to go and some acting skill and also because he is almost always the villain in any half decent movie), would you still say the movie glorified sexism or misogyny? Did the movie really glorify Kabir Singh’s behavior or did it get glorified because it was played by a charismatic actor (Vijay Devarakonda/Shahid Kapoor)? Hey! But it did get glorified – look at all the cool dudes cheering for Vijay Devarakonda shouting “M*******d”. So, let us do the most logical thing anyone should do – blame the movie and the director for wanting his character to be played by the best actor possible.
Movie – Srimanthudu
Character – Ideal human being – generous, kind, Of course superhuman strength, “ladies-will-orgasm” good looks and below-average dancing skills.
Setting – An employee is worried about his daughter’s marriage. The to-be-groom’s family is asking for 20 lakhs for his higher studiesabroad (now, which course in which country are you planning to complete with just 20 lakhs?)
Scene – The families are finalizing the marriage. Apparently, the groom’s family is very decent (yeah, sure). And in walks our hero (of course he knows everything).
And, instead of asking the family to shove their shameless request for dowry up their “decent” orifices, he goes on to give 20 lakhs to them. “Please take care of her. She is like family,” he says. Cue – applause. How kind, how kind. And no winners on guessing what a blockbuster the movie turned out to be. Are these not the kind of movies we should be speaking up against? Sadly, I did not see a single feminist speak up.
We applaud heroines for rejecting fairness creams, and then applaud them even more when they appear onscreen – with tons of it. We speak out against “item numbers” and “cleavage shots” but spend thousands of bucks to see hundreds of Bollywood and Tollywood films where the heroine’s character has absolutely zero influence on the story. We want pay disparity amongst the leads to be reduced, but we never question why we don’t have movies where the female lead beats up the baddies, does her own stunts, and saves the hero (and the world) for once. And that’s where our women empowerment stops, for, isn’t it easy to speak up against something that can easily be perceived as wrong?
Finally, if you have to look to a movie to point out your moral compass, please stop, look at yourself long in the mirror and realize this: We are a nation that has made Salman Khan a superstar. So maybe we do need to ask people to make movies keeping our audience in mind.
And while you chomp on this, let me go watch Kabir Singh, and see how it is misogynistic exactly.(Misogyny: noun -dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.)
Baradwaj Rangan 
Sri Prabhuram
June 27, 2019
Well said, Sairam. Really echoed my thoughts about how “feminists” can call a film like Arjun Reddy misogynistic and yet keep their mouth shut deal with big budget star films with heroines that barely have an impact to the plot.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
June 27, 2019
But feminists have – and continue to – object to the objectification of women in films, to the lack of good roles for women in cinema, and to the continued glorification of the male gaze. So why attack ‘feminists’ – with quotes, no less?
LikeLiked by 6 people
Anu Warrier
June 27, 2019
My apologies – the quotes was in the comment, not in your article. But the larger point stands.
LikeLike
Spandana Vaidyula
June 27, 2019
Ah, the classic whataboutism. Plenty of feminists have spoken about the valid points that the OP has written about. Do I wish for interesting female protagonist roles? Sure. But and I’m paraphrasing what said this a while ago on Quora. “Compared to rampant regressive treatment of female characters in the 80’s and 90’s, most recent Telugu movies choose to simply ignore their female lead with absolutely no importance to the plot, whatsoever. I guess that’s marginally better than the makers treating blackmail, manipulation, harassment and abuse as romance” There isn’t an excuse for the benevolent sexism in Srimanthudu, neither there is for the aggressive misogyny in AR/ KS. Existence of either of them should not be a valid permit for the other.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rahul
June 28, 2019
Sairam Yadavilli and Sri Prabhuram must be new to this blog.
Just as a way of introduction – this blog has a tradition of feminists (and others) pointing out misogyny in movies.
Hope you guys have a pleasant stay here. Don’t hesitate to ask if you have any other questions regarding this blog. Read up on some old articles. Good stuff!!
LikeLiked by 10 people
Tina
June 28, 2019
Anu, wow – I have to give it to you. Your energy in commenting when its basically pointless. At this point, I just take it that these articles have mostly been written for ‘attention’. Because they know they will get all these comments from “feminists”. This guy used the word feminist and quotes – its a CRY for attention.
Otherwise why keep saying the same thing again and again in so many “write in” articles. We know we have differing points, but no – we cannot co-exist.
The point has been made. But I guess the attention, clicks and comments can still be milked, no?
Click-bait much?
LikeLiked by 6 people
Anu Warrier
June 28, 2019
Tina, yes, I know it’s pointless – most times. But I’m all for giving people the benefit of doubt – if one person can be made to understand that ‘feminists’ are not man-hating gorgons who are out to emasculate all men in a bid to gain power, then it’s worth it, no?
Spandana, hats off, lady. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
KK
June 28, 2019
This is not an article. It’s an endless list of whataboutery. When someone(I was one of them) spoke against Arjun Reddy, it was not because of the character was flawed or they don’t deserve a movie or anything, the complaint was about the glorification, not the portrayal. Shahid also played a drug addict in Udta Punjab but the movie surrounded him with characters, incidents that emphasized the point the film was making. But in this case, we are seeing the movie only from his point of view and no one in his family, friends circle seems to think that his actions are wrong. And yes the film is misogynistic cause it simply doesn’t care about the consent of the woman. Consider the scene where he threatens a woman to have sex with him by pointing a knife at her. There is simply no repercussions of his actions. And the complaint is against the movie’s writing and not the individual performances.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Honest Raj
June 28, 2019
“Read up on some old articles.”
… and the comments section. 🙂
LikeLike
Spandana
June 28, 2019
Thanks Anu!
@Sairam, all it takes is a google search of “misogyny in Indian films/ Bollywood/ Tollywood etc” to yield plenty of results where feminists voiced their opinions. What you said about Srimanthudu is very valid. So please go ahead and contribute to the discussion in a constructive manner instead of bringing it as a defence against something worse. The fact that you pointed out a problem that others didn’t should be a positive thing, not a condemnation of feminists.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Aman
June 28, 2019
Well Keanu is Chinese Hawaiian European…just saying😉
LikeLike
Eswar
June 29, 2019
“Are these not the kind of movies we should be speaking up against? Sadly, I did not see a single feminist speak up.”
That would have been a lot of work to keep track of all the feminists and find out when and what they speak up about. 😀
I understand it’s a figure of writing. And I am sure I have used it in the past. But recently I have started finding it rhetoric, because:
A. It is almost improbable for me to keep track of all the issues a group raises and all the issues the same group overlooks. Simple reasons like work and family commitments, personal ups and downs makes me lose track of these things.
B. For the same reason, even if I were an activist, I wouldn’t be able to focus and call out every event that is happening out there. Now this is lot more true for non-activists like readers here who raise voice about films and related activities. From my own experience I couldn’t speak up every time in every forum, even for the things that I care more like individual rights.
This has made it difficult for me to accuse people of selective outbursts. So if a person or a group criticise or raise voice against one event, say about Arjun Reddy, the response to it is not asking why they didn’t criticise about another event. If one is sincere and really care about only betterment then:
A. They should be happy that the concern in being raised at least now
B. Respond to the actual criticism I.e why they don’t think the criticism is valid
Instead trying to discredit the person or the group of hypocrisy and double standards makes the discussion pointless because
A. They could have genuinely overlooked an incident
B. Even if they are a hypocrite, if the concern they have raised is genuine and valid then that should be addressed irrespective of their credibility
C. It will be inaccurate to accuse large open groups like Feminists, Liberals, Right Wing as hypocritical. Different people who identify themselves with these groups will have different standards. So they feel offended when gross accusations are made and they come out defending themselves and the group. Eventually dragging the conversation away from the real issue being discussed.
LikeLiked by 11 people
brangan
June 29, 2019
Eswar: It is almost improbable for me to keep track of all the issues a group raises and all the issues the same group overlooks.
That’s a great point. I used to take great care to answer all comments (at least to address all POVs) in posts earlier, but find I am no longer able to do so. That takes too much time, and I already have a lot of writing/video-making to do.
So I may choose to respond to a comment that strikes my eye WHEN I have the time. But that should not be construed as me cherry-picking the comments/issues I want to address.
I bring this up because there was this former commenter I bumped into, and he said he no longer commented because I no longer actively participate in the discussions. Well…
But that said, I am so grateful to have this community here, and I do make it a point to read every single comment. A lot of it has really opened up my mind.
LikeLiked by 4 people
vinjk
June 29, 2019
@Eswar
That’s a superb comment!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
June 29, 2019
Apart from the business of selective outrage, I want to add that this business of classroom punishment for the entire nation for the sins of a few is ridiculous. For eg, Sai says we are a nation that made Salman Khan a superstar. Sure, but I NEVER watched a single film of his theater and the only one I watched on TV where he has anything beyond a guest role was HDDCS which I didn’t like very much either. So I am not part of that section of the nation that made him a superstar, period. There is no ONE national culture, especially not in India. There are multiple viewpoints and multiple sub cultures. Just because there are honour killings to this day in India doesn’t mean I will support a film that glorifies them. And this is the rub here. Depict the REALITY of India by all means. Just don’t glorify that which is morally repugnant. QSQT was based around the very concept of honour killing but it was intended, in Mansoor Khan’s words, to show the futility of the intense hatred. It did not say even murder is OK for the sake of parivar. If the older films did not get into so much controversy, it is also because they were often careful with how they trod such territory. Something has gone awry since the 90s. Our filmmakers want to experiment with more uncomfortable moral territory but simultaneously seek the protection of the star system to make the films run. And that is the problem. You cannot have the cake and eat it too. Sairat showed the reality of inter caste marriage WITHOUT upholding the caste system. It did not glorify the couple either for eloping. It simply came down firmly against violence in the name of honour. And that is the way to go about it. And it isn’t even hard.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Anu Warrier
June 29, 2019
@Easwar, great comment.
@Madan, word! It seems incredible to me that when we talk about the glorification of [insert subject of your choice here], we’re bombarded with messages of ‘Art'(TM) being above all else and cries of ‘banning freedom of expression’.
When all we are asking for is the end to the glorification of egregious behaviour, and a little bit of responsibility and sensitivity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
vinjk
July 1, 2019
@Madan “business of classroom punishment for the entire nation for the sins of a few is ridiculous”
This was my complaint in the article about Arjun Reddy.
@Anu: you can’t deny the fact that there is a vociferous section of society that is questioning/raising demands as to “how are such movies allowed to be made?”, “why are they allowed in theatres?” , “the movie would be ok if the movie shows this [some suggestion] had happened to the character”….and so on.
This is a clear call to curtail freedom of expression. Whatever be the movie, glorifying something bad or not, I think it is plain wrong to censor or alter content by force or ban films.
There was Jayaram movie called Veruthe Oru Bharya. The ending and message (not subtle, it is explicitly stated) in the movie was cringeworthy. The movie was a family drama and huge hit in Kerala at that time and completely uncontroversial.
I never ventured to watch another Akku Akbar movie. But that doesn’t mean it is right for me should call for changes in the movie, or even demand to stop such movies from reaching theatres. Sure, I’m no one and have no power to do anything about it even if I want to. But people who have the power hold such opinion what you get is censorship.
Asking to alter a movie or asking to stop a film, no matter how powerless the person asking for it is, should not be seen as being responsible. If you don’t like something, stay away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 1, 2019
This is a clear call to curtail freedom of expression.
No, it’s not. It’s an opinion. It’s a question to a larger society. It’s not calling for a ban. A ban is what happened to Padmavat. It is quite alright to wonder aloud how such movies can be made. Or why they couldn’t be made with a bit more sensitivity. That is freedom of expression too. No one, and I mean no one, has asked the film maker to censor the film, or to alter the content. (And no, writing a think piece on why the film couldn’t have been made without glorifying the protagonist is NOT asking the filmmaker to alter the content. At this point that query is rhetorical.
But people who have the power hold such opinion what you get is censorship.
If that had been the case, then Arjun Singh wouldn’t have been remade as Kabir Singh, no? The fact that it has been remade in Hindi should tell you that no amount of think pieces have the power to ban that film or alter its content. Unlike the violence that followed Padmavat, we are content to express our dislike for the overt glorification of toxic masculinity. And trying to shut us down from even expressing that is the very definition of shutting down freedom of expression.
You say, if you don’t like something stay away. That goes both ways, doesn’t it? If you don’t like the think pieces or the critical reviews, stay away. OR. Read them/watch them, disagree with them, and allow them to disagree with your disagreement.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Anu Warrier
July 1, 2019
p.s You’re talking about a film that’s 10 years old. There were still articles written about the regressiveness of Veruthe oru Bharya by Malayalm film bloggers and some newspapers/magazines in Kerala.
The reason it didn’t get into national controversy is because Malayalam films weren’t that available/ that well-known outside the state that the national press would write about it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
July 1, 2019
“This was my complaint in the article about Arjun Reddy.” – Sure, but the reality of the nation defence, by the same token, is also not palatable. To repeat, I am not showing don’t show the reality of the nation. I have always pooh-poohed the complaints of those jingoistic upper middle class folk who thought Slumdog Millionaire was the West skewering India and ‘wrongly’ depicting it. I said, yeah, sure, they could have shown much worse if they wanted to. However, I am saying that if the reality is GLORIFIED and argued to be the correct moral position, there is a problem. Is that a problem that calls for censorship? No. But it certainly calls for a conversation and for asking tough questions of filmmakers so that they may consider this point of view also.
LikeLike
vinjk
July 1, 2019
@Anu
That could be true. I saw this film at my lab desk and turned around to tell a fellow Malayali that the movie was shit. He didn’t say much but just reminded me that this was one of the highest grosser of the year. I felt like a snob trying to bring down a “cult classic”. So didn’t read anything about it 😀
@Madan
“Is that a problem that calls for censorship? No. But it certainly calls for a conversation and for asking tough questions of filmmakers so that they may consider this point of view also.”
I agree with you. But recently I get this feeling that it is going out of hand. So far, the liberals of our country don’t seem to have much or haven’t exercised their muscle power. Hence their complaints are limited to newspaper columns and blog posts. The religious nutcases and cultural and community-based chauvinists have shown us what violent protest on the street can achieve in this country.
LikeLike
Madan
July 1, 2019
vinjk: And what makes you think the liberal class would take to the streets and burn stuff and all like the religious chauvinists? I mean forget being above all that but we don’t even know how to do that. 😛 All we can do is outrage online. Show me a filmmaker who is affected more by that than violent protests a la Padmavat and I will show you a liar. We are asked to ‘respect’ religious sentiment because this is India. But which religion approves violence against artists? What is so great about them that they deserve a different standard vis a vis liberals? Come now, let’s get real.
LikeLike
brangan
July 1, 2019
A critical comment on my take on Arjun Reddy
View at Medium.com
LikeLike
Rahul
July 1, 2019
There is a tendency by so called centrists to equate liberal and conservative etc. Just so it is clear –
A group or individual is not against freedom of expression if
— They have an opinion that a film should not be made
— They publicize that opinion by writing articles \ distributing pamphlets\tweeting etc.
— They confront the directors \actors who make such films in press conferences \ twitter etc.
— They ask for a boycott of such a movie.
A group or individual is against freedom of expression if
— They want the government to step in and ban the movie
— They make violent threats against the film maker
— They burn cinema halls etc.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
July 1, 2019
@ Rahul 🙂
But of such false equivalencies are strawmen made.
LikeLiked by 1 person
bala
July 3, 2019
Easwar’s comment reminds me of kamal’s father-in-law from uttama villain 😀 (for the “A, B, C”)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apu
July 8, 2019
And here we go: https://www.scoopwhoop.com/entertainment/twitter-reactions-kabir-singh-director-saying-okay-to-slap-each-other-in-love-interview-anupama-chopra/
LikeLike
Soren K
July 8, 2019
Sandeep Vanga’s interview on FC:
God the guy is super salty, and totally misses the point. I mean I’m not even talking about agreeing disagreeing with anything, he doesn’t even address them fairly. And seems like he’s totally fine with his portrayal, like he actually doesn’t see what’s toxic wrt AR/KS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 8, 2019
@Apu – I got to the ‘If you’re in love, you will slap each other’ (or some BS like that) and stopped watching. Man, he sure has a thin skin. It’s okay for him to depict his idiotic character behave in the most egregious manner, but no one can criticise him, because…!
He’s one of those who think offence is the best defence, I guess. I can’t imagine how Anupama sat through that interview.
LikeLike
Apu
July 9, 2019
Anu: Agree! I loved the twitter responses.
And for those who say “this is just a film” or “separate the art from the reality” or whatever – the director thought otherwise.
LikeLike
Madan
July 9, 2019
Apu: He wants to have the cake and eat it too (what a surprise!). On the one hand, he resents all the criticism being directed at the perceived misogyny and not about the film he made itself (technically). On the other, he says if you don’t find it acceptable for someone to slap his lover, you have never loved. In the same breath, saying you cannot generalise the characters and apply to all men and women. So why generalise about love, huh? If violent and beastly love is the only love you know, doesn’t mean it’s the only kind that exists. Anupama Chopra even suggested this to him but he refused to agree. To me, his outward conviction masks an extremely confused individual and I posit the confusion is the source of his anger.
LikeLike
vinjk
July 10, 2019
Related to “the director thought otherwise” comment, let me just put this here…
LikeLike
Soren K
July 10, 2019
@vinijk I don’t know why that video is relevant though. I mean, if you’re gonna go all Barthes now (which is otherwise totally fair), just gotta point out that even without Vanga’s interview, it’s extremely clear that what he says in that interview is essentially reflected throughout AR. Cinematic devices (BGM, shots, arcs) are more than enough to see that it doesn’t just ‘tell’ the story of a toxic man/relationship, but rather actively believes in this being a ‘love story’ and the guy being the archetypical ‘hero’.
Nobody is reading anything extra here, tbh. Even if SVanga holds such terrifyingly bad views, it’s, of course, not necessary that he’s gonna make a trashy sexist film. But AR is, regardless. And this interview just underlines that is all.
LikeLike
vinjk
July 10, 2019
@Soren K
My point with the video was what the director’s intention was is irrelevant. Once a piece of art is out for public consumption, it is free game for the consumers to interpret the way they see it. I don’t expect every or any artist to come and explain his work. In fact, I don’t like it, especially immediately after it is released. I feel it blocks every other possible reading of the work once the artist him/herself explains their thought process and philosophy.
LikeLike
Madan
July 10, 2019
vinjk : I agree on the one hand that an artist doesn’t need to explain his/her work or defend it. HOWEVER, once he has chosen to explain it and say this is what he meant, that interpretation cannot be dismissed and in fact will rank the foremost as that is how the artist by self admission wants you to see it. It thus reflects badly on Sandeep Reddy Vanga that he chose to wade into this debate himself and take a strong stand (to put it mildly). I mean, his film has succeeded big time so why does he hold a brief against those critics who ranted against him? What about those critics who did give it a good rating? Since he made a generalized attack on critics, would he like it if they united against him and thrashed his next film unanimously? All he had to do was say on air that as an artist he has no control over how you interpret the film but that he never intended any misogyny or sexism. I have an inkling as to why he won’t say that. Let’s see how his future films shape up from him. He is an interesting, ahem, character.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Soren K
July 10, 2019
@vinijk I’m saying that it’s absolutely irrelevant in this context though. Sure, a film totally can be more than sum of its parts, you don’t necessarily have to align with the maker’s interpretation of things etc. However, my point being, regardless of the interview with Vanga, you can clearly see the lound, in your face, toxicity-celebration that goes on with AR. I mean, I was really hoping at some point this would change (right from that knife point scene) and director would stop actively being sympathetic to the ‘hero’s’ shittiness – but oh no. And the director’s POV just reaffirms that, I’d say. He’s taken deliberate effort to show this as some sort of ‘true romance’ (no pun intended) and that shows tbh. I emphasised on this again, bringing the whole barthesian ‘director’s-interpretation-doesn’t-matter’ IMO is a total red herring in this context.
LikeLiked by 4 people
vinjk
July 10, 2019
@madan he came across as a petty person. I think the only reason he came for the interview was to attack the ppl who rated his movies poorly. He wanted to show that he doesn’t care abt them.
In his defense, I will say this…some of the critics were unfair. At least they should have evaluated the movie as a movie whatever it’s politics is. Also, the controversy around his comment abt slapping and true love is bit exaggerated. In the interview he goes on to say Arjun/Kabir is “messed up” person, “flawed person”, “I wouldn’t want my son to be like that”…blah blah
He could have straight away said Arjun is a messed up person but I think his urge to hit back at his naysayers took precedence 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
vinjk
July 10, 2019
@Soren K
We had discussed this movie (a lot!) on this blog (See Readers Write In #78, #79, #80, #AskBR and their respective comment section). I don’t want to get into the movie again.
One line summary: I don’t agree with your interpretation.
LikeLike
Madan
July 10, 2019
vinjk : One of the YouTube comments on the review was that one thing is for sure, this man is the real Kabir Singh. The commenter probably meant it as a compliment but it’s apt nevertheless in the sense that his desire to get even came through in the interview.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
July 10, 2019
This Almodóvar interview (centered on KIKA, which has a long and “comical” rape scene) is interesting in this context:
“People and films are not simple things; they have many facets. You have to see them in their complexity, and not just in one of their facets. One of the problems I have here is that radical groups, like feminists, read my films very literally. I think that I am essentially a feminist person, and when I speak of women in my films, I do so with my heart and generally in favor of them. But that doesn’t mean I have to show you women as if they were all angels. If you want, I can explain to you what my intention was behind the rape scene, but it would be like explaining a joke. The strength of the joke disappears when you have to explain it.”
https://filmmakermagazine.com/107628-political-correctness-gautier-and-the-politics-of-gay-cinema-pedro-almodovar-discusses-kika/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honest Raj
July 10, 2019
“I assure you that you can make a comedy out of the most horrible subject matter. You can make a comedy about Hitler as Chaplin did in The Great Dictator. I don’t think that Chaplin felt any sympathy for Hitler.”
Scratching my head in confusion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 10, 2019
One of the problems I have here is that radical groups, like feminists, read my films very literally.
Oh dear.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
July 10, 2019
@Honest Raj, I don’t think the chap knows the difference between comedy and satire.
The Great Dictator was a trenchant criticism of fascism, anti-semitism, Hitler and Mussolini. The speech in the climax was a masterpiece.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 10, 2019
@vinjk, I fail to see how you can think both of this simultaneously.
Once a piece of art is out for public consumption, it is free game for the consumers to interpret the way they see it.
and
…some of the critics were unfair. At least they should have evaluated the movie as a movie whatever it’s politics is
If art put out for public consumption is free game for consumers to interpret it the way they see it, then critics are perfectly free to evaluate a movie however they see it. And if that includes its politics, then so be it.
You really can’t have it both ways. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
July 11, 2019
Anu Warrier: I know that sounds really odd, but I would attribute that to English not being his first language 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
vinjk
July 11, 2019
@Anu the unfairness is to the filmmaker not to me. That para is me speaking for him.
(As brangan wrote) Pardon my English.:-)
LikeLike
vinjk
July 11, 2019
Sorry….was Brangan writing about Almodovar?! I’m confused 😀
LikeLike
Madan
July 11, 2019
Regardless, Great Dictator is a bad example because Chaplin does judge Hitler and also broadcasts a message of love and unity. The sort for which Marianne Williamson is getting laughed at now but I digress. The point is Great Dictator is not at all ambiguous.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
July 11, 2019
@vinjk, even if I take out the ‘unfair’ part of it, the point still stands.
When you say free game for the consumers to interpret the way they see it. then critics are also consumers and should be free to interpret it any which way they like. If that includes a film’s politics or the film-makers’ stated intentions, then so be it. 🙂
@BR – perhaps. It’s tiring, and somewhat like tilting at the windmills at this point, to keep pointing out that ‘Feminist’ should not be a pejorative. Equality for half the world’s population is not – or should not be – a radical concept. Hence, ‘Oh dear!’ 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
vinjk
July 11, 2019
@Anu,
The ‘free game’ comment is my opinion (it’s not written in the comment about the director where I talk about unfairness and all). I stand by that opinion. People are free to interpret the way they want, the filmmakers’ intention shouldn’t matter. It’s best if he/she doesn’t give any explanation.
Those were two different comments. Anyway…
(Why did I even try to read the director’s mind?!!! 😐 )
LikeLike
Honest Raj
July 11, 2019
@Anu Warrier: And then, he says he’s essentially a feminist. ☺
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
July 11, 2019
The ‘free game’ comment is my opinion
vinjk, I think we are talking past each other. 🙂 Actually, what you said now, that you think it’s free game for consumers to interpret art any which way they want is par for the course? I’m saying that critics are consumers too.
Unless, of course, your second comment about the critics is your interpretation of what the director may have thought?
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
July 11, 2019
@Honest Raj – yeah, right? I got whiplash.
LikeLike
brangan
July 12, 2019
Radha Rajadhyaksha in The Hindu:
https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/arjun-reddy-kabir-singh-and-artisitic-freedom/article28413934.ece
LikeLike
Rahul
July 13, 2019
The article of Radha Rajadhyaksha does not seem to be much different from the other articles in the genre of Arjun Reddy Apologia The byline frames it as for Artistic Freedom which is a straw man and a low bar to set to argue against.
“though Preeti’s blank face betrays neither resistance nor consent, it’s the latter that comes into play very quickly” All articles in the ARA genre are skirting around the issue of consent and this is no different. Consent has to be negotiated before every act. Consent cannot be retroactively applied ( She smiled at him later) and it is not an yearly subscription . If it can be acknowledged that he did sexually assault her then it would be a good starting point for a discussion on controversial topics like problems with affirmative consent.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Anuja Chandramouli
July 13, 2019
Thanks for sharing BR… She raises excellent points about the criticism for Arjun Reddy/Kabir Singh stemming from factors outside the realm of art as well as the crippling of creativity by political correctness.
LikeLike
Madan
July 14, 2019
Er, it is interesting to me that we tolerate death threats handed out to filmmakers (Padmavat) or outright censorship and refusing screening of the film (Viswaroopam) but no sooner should a few liberal minded reviewers merely voice their disgust at the toxic masculinity of a film than we get this, “Oh, political correctness is so crippling” and “critics are a bigger problem than piracy”. Sorry, not buying. I know which side is reasonable this time (and I speak as someone who frequently sides against the SJW faction of the left).
I will call this out for what it is. For too many people, Kabir Singh is the cult hero with which they can beat up all sorts of real and imagined foes and therefore they have ganged up and are lashing out preemptively at anybody who simply voices an opinion against it without calling for any censorship. The number of dislikes any video criticising KS, even reasonably, get and the WeSupportSandeepReddy hashtags all attest to this phenomena. Perhaps, Radha Rajadhyaksha does not surf social media but in that case, her analysis is incomplete without acknowledging the outright bullying by KS fans.
Note, I am saying KS fans. I have nothing against people who simply watched it, liked it with all its problems and can disagree reasonably with me. But I have zero respect for people who treat me as an enemy just for dissenting against the film. It is scary how, like Uri, KS has almost become a referendum on whether you are part of ‘Lootyens’/Khan market gang or not (nevermind that I am from suburban Mumbai and have never been to Khan market). The only thing left now is for KS fans to say if you don’t like KS, you are anti national. But maybe I should be patient enough for that to happen as well.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Madan
July 14, 2019
” All articles in the ARA genre are skirting around the issue of consent and this is no different. Consent has to be negotiated before every act. Consent cannot be retroactively applied ( She smiled at him later) and it is not an yearly subscription
“Beautifully said, Rahul! Restecp. And again, I don’t begrudge the right of a filmmaker to depict a relationship where love is thus thrust on the woman and she is shown as returning it without a peek into her mind as to why. But just don’t say consent was obtained/indicated. And that “she was the only one who turned to look at me” argument is the weakest of all. Maybe girls should then just not acknowledge the presence of such bullies lest they be accused of consenting to sexual assault.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kay
July 14, 2019
I remember liking Arjun Reddy as a whole when I watched it first, although I had problems with the early falling in love parts and the climax. But now after reading all the arguments for and against the movie, I completely see how problematic it is. How it normalises just picking a girl and deciding she’s the one for you. Not going into specifics since enough has been said about it.
And, to nitpick, I don’t agree with ‘only she looked at me’ argument because the girl behind Preeti also looks at him. As did the one before her. Her first look at him seems like just mild curiosity to see who this supposedly brilliant and yet, loathed person is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kay
July 14, 2019
Also after watching Anupama’s interview I can’t help feeling an intense dislike for the director. Do people really forget names within a span of few minutes? Or is he putting on an act?
LikeLiked by 2 people
shemz
July 14, 2019
“Consent cannot be retroactively applied ( She smiled at him later) and it is not an yearly subscription“
Thank you for this, Rahul! This should be on T-shirts, bill boards, coasters, everywhere!
She smiled at him, she showed the drawings on her hands to her friend.. these are the justifications used to prove that she was an involved party. Even if she were later attracted to him, there is no indication during their initial scenes that she was. Assumed or imagined consent is what is present there. Also, AR doesn’t know that she showed her hands to her friend. Up until the point when she kisses him in the guest house, he doesn’t see reciprocation from her for his actions. Yet he persevered which only goes on to show that he doesn’t give a damn about consent!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 14, 2019
I’m still wondering where ‘political correctness’ comes in here? We haven’t asked for a ban on Arjun Reddy. We haven’t stopped it from being remade in Hindi. Nor are we stopping it from being remade in Tamil. All through the shoot of Kabir Singh, I don’t recall a single liberal/politically correct/feminist group beating up the director, vandalising the sets, taking out morchas and attacking school buses with children to show our displeasure at a ‘politically incorrect’ film.
We have expressed our disagreement with the character’s portrayal as a hero. We have expressed our disapproval of the way sexual assaut is shown as ‘twue luvvv’. We have argued that while someone may not pick up a gun and become a goonda by watching Gangs of Wasseypur or a serial killer by watching Silence of the Lambs, the sheer volume of films depicting the Arjun Reddy/Kabir Singh school of ‘love’ has – statistically, and in the real world – caused myriad problems for women who are already being forced by a patriarchal system into ‘consenting’ to various problematic situations.
I’m all for Freedom of Expression (TM). But people seem to misunderstand the phrase. FoE, as enshrined in International Law, states that any individual has a right to hold opinions without interference or censorship. BUT. People do not seem to know (or they conveniently forget) that that ‘right’ comes with certain duties and responsibilities. According to Article 19 (which is the specific section in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), FoE can be subject to certain restrictions: with respect to the rights and reputations of others, and ‘for the protection of national security and public interest’ including – wait for this – public health and morals.
An artist has an absolute right to put out his work, without censorship.
A consumer of that art has every right to have an opinion about said art, to express his agreement/disagreement, disgust/appreciation, horror/awe – whatever. People can like AR/KS as a film for whatever reason, and express that they like it. But people can dislike it too, and express that dislike as well. We can even seek to understand why scenes we found problematic weren’t so for people who liked the film. That, too, is freedom of expression.
And I would argue that calling that disagreement ‘political correctness’ is, in fact, an attack on our freedom of expression. Somehow, we are not allowed to discuss the issues we have with films like this. If we do, we are ‘politically correct’ and ‘social justice warriors’.
@Anuja, setting up my irony board here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
vinjk
July 15, 2019
@Rahul, @Madan @Anu
We are talking about a movie here, right? Do you think a movie should be so realistic that every single beat of the characters’ lives, from the moment the story begins, should be shown on screen? I didn’t see many aspects of the characters in the movie. Did they eat anything? I saw them brush their teeth once. They hardly got any sleep too……
Consent was not shown in the movie. Sure, your interpretation is perfectly fine that Arjun was violating her rights and assaulting her. But it is equally fine for the audience who liked the movie to assume there was consent. I liked the movie. When I watch a movie, I assume that I’m only seeing slices of their lives. I actively fill in the gaps while watching a movie.
This is where the political correctness argument comes in. Some people are expecting all the etiquettes/proper behaviour to be shown on screen. For example, did he ask for her consent? It’s not shown in the movie. He may have. He may not have. Believing both are fine. If you buy into the love story the chances (i’m not sure) are that you think he got the consent. I believed in the love story being shown. Judging by the movie’s popularity, many people bought into the film universe.
LikeLike
Madan
July 15, 2019
@vinjk : The point, again, is since it is a film, the filmmaker should own it and say it is a work for art and it speaks for itself. For him to make the argument that the girl turning towards AR was consent is wrong. By doing that, he is simply playing the victim card, “Oh, look, I showed consent but the librandus just have a brief against me.” Say that yes no consent was explicitly depicted, that yes it can be problematic because, you know what, it’s cinema. But he won’t say it because he waded into it with a misogynist agenda as evidenced by him saying it should be OK for lovers to slap each other. Which sounds very gender par and all (oh look, he said it’s OK for women to slap men too, how progressive) until you consider that on average women are weaker so if you give licence to kill, it is the men who will dominate their female partners.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Uma
July 15, 2019
Vinjk- It seems like you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
I watched Arjun Reddy. I really liked it even with its flaws. Part of the reason was because I went to Medical school and this movie was a trip down the memory lane. Other than the guy kissing the girl the day they meet without even asking her and demanding sex at knifepoint, I had pretty much seen everything else that the movie depicted during college days. Most hilarious/awful memory from my college time was when a friend and I were sleeping in the last bench of the lecture hall and a senior who was passing by the lecture hall and saw my sleeping beauty friend fell in love with her and started forcing his louvvv. Some of his female classmates later came to the hostel and tried to convince my friend about his louvvv. My friend clearly said NO.
Had this movie included a few scenes showing Preeti’s POV at the beginning and not depict her like this mute person who just accepts the infactuation thrust upon her, it wouldn’t be receiving all the backlash it has been receiving. The repeated justification is that Preeti liked him because of the one Casual glance. Would the hero had fallen in love if the dark, chubby friend character glanced at the hero? ( As a matter of fact, I think she did in the movie). The chubby friend character glancing up at the hero would have been made into atta figure side track comedy tracks.
Why do our movie show the warning messages during smoking/drinking scenes. I recently came across some stats that smoking numbers have gone down in India due to this initiative. No matter however much we want to claim that it is just a movie, entertainment etc, it is a fact that teenagers, youngsters get influenced by the movies. Sadly, I think I might have been one who probably thought what is wrong with me, am I not good enough, when a Senior didn’t choose to talk with me during a ragging session. These movies influence both boys and girls to think that shoving love down your throat is ok and that this love is some sort of pure Lovvvv
The director cannot cry foul as to why his movie receives backlash while another recent movie that might have depicted toxic masculinity didn’t. It is like saying why women who chose to be silent in 2016 are now opening up and sharing their me too stories in 2019.
LikeLiked by 8 people
shemz
July 15, 2019
@vinjk – consent is not on the same level as etiquette. Not caring about etiquette makes someone boorish but not caring about consent makes one a criminal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 15, 2019
This is where the political correctness argument comes in. Some people are expecting all the etiquettes/proper behaviour to be shown on screen.
No. That’s a strawman argument, and I wager you know it. Look, go ahead and show Arjun Reddy in all his glorious (toxic) masculinity. Show Preeti urban or rural or in-between, to be a sheep who cannot say ‘boo’ to a goose and who buys into that ‘true luvvv’. Problematic love stories have been told before. They will be, again. At the risk of crying myself hoarse, all we are asking for is for the makers not to glorify this character as a role model.
In any case, I think most of the women (and some of the men) who voiced their disagreement/disapproval of the characterisation have said all they feel about this issue on the Remo thread.
@Madan, I really wonder that this is such a hard concept to comprehend.
@ Uma, great comment. But as with all disagreement that Art (TM) is sacrosanct, it will get labelled ‘political correctness’ which is a great way to dismiss any criticism of art. Art/Literary (any, for that matter) criticism actually gets to critique content as much as the depiction. So sayeth my four years of learning literary criticism, but, hey, what do I know?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Soren K
July 15, 2019
@vinijk
//We had discussed this movie (a lot!) on this blog (See Readers Write In #78, #79, #80, #AskBR and their respective comment section). I don’t want to get into the movie again.
One line summary: I don’t agree with your interpretation.//
Of course you disagree – however I don’t think what I’ve highlighted were addressed, except saying ‘it’s all subjective’ (of course ultimately most things are). And of course, ultimately we can go in circles and you can argue for the sake of arguing. Anyhoo, fine with disagreeing, not even talking about liking AR, but rather about the obviously shitty portrayal here. And also as shemz pointed out, it’s not merely an ‘ettiquete’ thing though. And of course, you’re free to draw your interpretations – in that sense I’m sure you could build a great defense for movies like Remo (or any such movies etc) too, dismissing the criticism re: normalization of stalking and other misogynistic crassness that are peddled. In which case, I guess we’ll have to stop here if you don’t even accept some degree of intersubjectivity re: interpretations of these films. Anyway guess I’m done here 🙂
LikeLike
Soren K
July 15, 2019
Tangentially, as an extention to what Madan said, seeing the sort of people and the sort of defenses that’s being published on YT and other platforms – it’s insane. There’s a whole flurry of incel-MRA types who are absolutely spewing venom against “feminazis” who criticized the film. Especially after the Vanga interview. TBH I may or may not necessarily entirely agree with Sucharita or a lot of other takes on this, but I totally see where they’re coming from and relate to a lot of what they’re saying though. We should really stop for a sec with the whole “freedom of speech” nonsense (which is a strawman that’s been addressed a hundred times) and see this sort of crowd that the film and discourse around it has attracted, it’s almost a cesspool IMO. You don’t even have to be “PC” to see it.
(Obviously not talking about interpretations of the film here, again)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
July 16, 2019
Judging by the movie’s popularity, many people bought into the film universe.
And therein lies the rub. Because. not everyone of the ‘many people’ brought into it as a cinematic universe. Someone referenced Kumbalangi Nights where one of the protagonists tries to kiss the girl he’s with, without her consent – the movie playing in the background is Arjun Reddy. Anyone who’s familiar with Malayalam movies would not ignore the sub-text. That there are many, many boys who would replicate AR’s actions in the belief that that is the way to win a girl.
Yes, there are some girls who would react the way the girl in KN did. But for most girls, the real life Arjun Reddys are not men they fall in love with as you believe Preeti did. They are people like Swati and Varnika and Sreepriya and countless others who have been at the receiving end of such ‘love’. And paid the price for it.
As shemz pointed out, ‘etiquette’ is not the same as ‘consent’.
And you seem to be clutching one strawman after the other. So they don’t show characters brushing their teeth. Or bathing. Or sleeping. Do you really, really believe consent is the same as the above? That if not ‘shown’, then it is a ‘yes’? Do you also believe that silence is consent in real life? After all, it’s not necessary that the person who ‘loves’ you has ever seen you brush your teeth or bathe or sleep. (And yes, this is the other extreme – deliberately written to show you just how much of a strawman your argument is.)
In our older movies, and indeed, in real life, consent was not always spoken. There are many, many ways in which men and women signal their interest and their consent. But if seen through the lens of entitlement, then just the fact that a woman looked at you seems to signify consent. That the character then proceeds to act upon that belief and is seen as a ‘hero’ in that cinematic universe is the basic problem that we are articulating.
This is neither a question of ‘free speech’ nor of ‘artistic freedom’. Again, no one has stopped the director from making the movie twice, and to make it again. No one has banned the movie. No one has beaten him up for ‘daring’ to show a love story. What is that if not artistic freedom?
Secondly, for the nth time, no one is saying he cannot show a problematic love story between a flawed man with anger issues and a meek woman who seems to like the aggression. But to glorify that man’s actions – as something worthy of emulating; to suggest, as the director did, that without physical violence there cannot be true love is disgusting – to say the least.
And finally, you liked the movie? Great. Who am I to say what you should like or not like? But to argue that everyone who dissents is being ‘politically correct’ or ‘crippling artistic freedom’ (I’m conflating two different comments by different commentators here) or wanting ‘etiquette and proper behaviour’ is – ironically – trying to curb our dissent.
And I say, ‘ironically’ because you are the same person who claimed that once art has been put out for consumption, it is up to the consumer to interpret it. Except, it seems to me, that we don’t have any right to interpret it our way because – once again – we are being ‘politically correct’. Because you are pejoratively questioning our very right to critique art that has been put out for our consumption.
LikeLiked by 4 people
vinjk
July 16, 2019
Since Uma and SorenK both “accuse” me of arguing for the sake of arguing, let me just state it here: I am not arguing here, on this blog, to change the world. I’m only interested to hear different points of view. I have an opinion but doesn’t mean your opinion are not valid or meaningless. I can see why you would interpret the movie as a glorification of all the toxicity in the movie. But to me, in the universe of that film, it doesn’t come across as a glorification. That’s all.
Art should be and will be critiqued, criticised or praised. But I just feel this movie doesn’t deserve this attention. The reaction to it is way over the top. The film which depict stalking and harassment as cutesy incidents and done by characters which are shown as nice guys are the real threat…IF you really want to target movies which glorify.
Say Vandanam (Malayalam movie) “I love you Gadha” scene, Or may be Premam, where all those guys are stalking and roaming around Mary’s home…
Arjun in Arjun Reddy is a bully and an asshole. Even without Preeti, he comes across as one. He may be the topper, football star. and all…but an unlikeable person.
Anyway…over and out!
LikeLike
Madan
July 16, 2019
vinjk : specifically on this blog, the attention this film is getting is purely because two MRAs decided to carry over their social media fight into this blog via Readers Write In entries. None of the ‘woke’ members did, only they did. It has been pointed out a number of times that both films did in fact receive many favourable reviews but KS fans as well as Sandeep Reddy Vanga himself are hellbent on focusing only on the few negative reviews and on spinning it into a larger liberal conspiracy of sorts against his film. So it’s just that y’all wanna outrage. And that’s your prerogative, so go outrage. But own it. Don’t try to blame somebody else for a discussion that the director and the movie’s fans want to keep alive at any cost. As against the few reviews criticising the misogyny of the film, there is a whole avalanche of tweets, write ups and videos bashing liberals over this. The reaction from the MRA side is totally disproportionate. So if you don’t like the reaction this movie is provoking, it’s largely the fault of Kabir Singh fans themselves. Since they have voted with their feet in favour of the movie, maybe they should go enjoy it some more instead of picking fights just for the sake of it. Because that’s what they and the director are doing. I swear, his vocabulary is pure Donald Trump. Maybe he will become our Prime Minister one day, who knows.
LikeLiked by 4 people
vinjk
July 16, 2019
@Anu
Let me try to breakdown your long comment and reply to it:
(1)
“not everyone of the ‘many people’ brought into it as a cinematic universe. …
That there are many, many boys who would replicate AR’s actions in the belief that that is the way to win a girl….
Yes, there are some girls who would react the way the girl in KN did. …
They are people like Swati and Varnika and Sreepriya and countless others who have been at the receiving end of such ‘love’. And paid the price for it.”
I agree with every point here. But, what are you suggesting we do with these movies (like AR or worse) and upcoming movies (like AR or worse)?
My view is: Let movies be made, whether it suits my politics or moral view. I and “many many” people are mature enough to see a film as a film. I don’t want movies to be spoonfeeding me their concept and I also don’t want to watch movies which go through “kid safety” filters and censorships or even ridiculous warning sign. Probably we can aim for better cinema rating system.
(2)
“So they don’t show characters brushing their teeth. Or bathing. Or sleeping. Do you really, really believe consent is the same as the above? ”
You very well know from my comment that I don’t equate these acts with consent. This is what I wrote in my comment:
“Consent was not shown in the movie. Sure, your interpretation is perfectly fine that Arjun was violating her rights and assaulting her. But it is equally fine for the audience who liked the movie to assume there was consent. I liked the movie. When I watch a movie, I assume that I’m only seeing slices of their lives. I actively fill in the gaps while watching a movie.”
I had written previously my take is that Preeti was not an innocent or dumb girl. She knew what she is wanted and she liked the attention of the college stud. Not going to elaborate here again.
(3)
That if not ‘shown’, then it is a ‘yes’?
In this movie’s universe (AR), I read it as a yes.
(4)
“Do you also believe that silence is consent in real life? After all, it’s not necessary that the person who ‘loves’ you has ever seen you brush your teeth or bathe or sleep.,…”
I don’t mistake a movie for “real life”.
(5)
“In our older movies, and indeed, in real life, consent was not always spoken. …That the character then proceeds to act upon that belief and is seen as a ‘hero’ in that cinematic universe is the basic problem that we are articulating.”
I understand that.
(6)
“This is neither a question of ‘free speech’ nor of ‘artistic freedom’. Again, no one has stopped the director from making the movie twice, and to make it again. No one has banned the movie. No one has beaten him up for ‘daring’ to show a love story. What is that if not artistic freedom?”
Ok. May be you didn’t. I am not keeping track of your comments. But there are many people who think- this movie shouldn’t have reached the theatre OR This movie could exist if there story/character was shown a certain way….blah blah. In another comment section, I had written why this amounts to a call for censorship or banning. I don’t want to elaborate it again.
(7)
“…no one is saying he cannot show a problematic love story between a flawed man with anger issues and a meek woman who seems to like the aggression. But to glorify that man’s actions – as something worthy of emulating; to suggest, as the director did, that without physical violence there cannot be true love is disgusting – to say the least.”
I agree it’s disgusting.
(8)
“And finally, you liked the movie? Great. Who am I to say what you should like or not like? But to argue that everyone who dissents is being ‘politically correct’ or ‘crippling artistic freedom’ ”
I didn’t say “everyone who dissents”.
But you are being politically correct or demanding political correctness in cinema when you demand that movies show explicit consent being asked and given. In film’s universe I am satisfied with subtle signs, a look or smile or …I don’t expect explicit show of such actions in cinema. (On top of it, in AR, Arjun is not a likeable person.)
As I wrote under (6), people who say such things are calling for “crippling artistic freedom”. Again not going to elaborate.
(9)
“And I say, ‘ironically’ because you are the same person who claimed that once art has been put out for consumption, it is up to the consumer to interpret it. Except, it seems to me, that we don’t have any right to interpret it our way because – once again – we are being ‘politically correct’. Because you are pejoratively questioning our very right to critique art that has been put out for our consumption.”
This is just silly. Where did I say you don’t have the right to critique? I don’t agree with you. But that doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to your own opinion. Or do you want us all to stand around you and give you a round of applause every time you express your opinion?!
Just silly!
LikeLike
Jai
July 16, 2019
@ Vineet, wrt your comment above. We already had a discussion on your thread on this issue and while we disagreed on several points, we had a cordial, frank discussion which I appreciated. I also noted that you, in that thread as well as this one, were unambiguous about what you felt about the character of Arjun Reddy/ Kabir Singh— that he was, to use your phrase in the other thread, “the textbook example of an asshole”, or as you put it here, “Arjun Reddy is a bully and an asshole…..He may be the topper, football star. and all…but an unlikeable person”
This is all that people who are criticising the film are pointing out. That the film portrays a deeply troubling character who exhibits reprehensible and abominable behaviour. But, where we differ is, that you feel the movie does not glorify/condone such behaviour, whereas many of us who are dissatisfied with the film and calling it out, feel that the movie is, in fact, subtly excusing very reprehensible conduct by the titular protagonist.
Just two thoughts I’ll put here, and then it’s over and out for me too, as regards this topic.
One, while creative vision goes only so far and no more, and the audience has the full right to interpret the character beyond or other than what the director has in mind; I think you’d agree that Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s interview was odd. It’s pretty clear that the director has a very troubling idea of what constitutes true love. He even seems to hint that some frankly abusive behaviour which would probably qualify as domestic violence, is acceptable and even required in the context of “real love”. It was very illuminating to be given a peek into the mind of the person who “created” this character, so to speak.
Secondly, I would like to leave a thought here which also addresses a “definition debate” which was raised by Sairam in writing this thread. Sairam, you’ve said “And while you chomp on this, let me go watch Kabir Singh, and see how it is misogynistic exactly.(Misogyny: noun -dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.)”
Do you not feel that a peremptory and disdainful stand of “this woman is my territory”, without even ascertaining if the said woman is interested in a romantic relationship first, shows prejudice and contempt towards the concept of a woman’s free choice? Misogyny very much includes treating women as chattel, you know. This excuse of “how can Kabir Singh/ Arjun Reddy be misogynistic when he clearly desires Preeti” shows a very limited understanding of the concept of consent.
But leave all that aside. Let’s not enter into discussions about tags and definitions and labels. Let’s just agree that Kabir Singh/Arjun Reddy’s behaviour was obnoxious and not worthy of emulation. Beyond that, if you want to feel he was not a misogynist, fine, choose your label or tag or euphemism for his behaviour. Just as long as we are clear that the character is, as Vineet puts it, “the textbook example of an asshole”! 🙂 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
vinjk
July 16, 2019
@Madan
What is MRA?!
I don’t do any social media fights. I have a twitter account which I use mainly for following some folks and getting some interesting things to read, watch and learn. This blog is the only place I even bother to write comments.
LikeLike
Madan
July 16, 2019
@vinjk: I wasn’t referring to you but the two guys who wrote readers write in submissions on this film to rant against woke social media. I am saying there was nothing going on here in the blog about the film. And these two gentlemen, in their infinite wisdom, still chose to discuss some other woke group’s reaction here. Is it then fair to question the reaction the film is getting? I don’t think so because in this case, the MRAs (Men’s Rights Activists) are the ones instigating the debate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
July 16, 2019
vinjk, I just want to understand what you mean before I can respond. Are you saying that the kissing scene was between two lovers? That their love affair had already started when that kissing scene took place , and it was not shown because it was too mundane like eating drinking etc?
LikeLike
Rahul
July 16, 2019
vinjk “The reaction to it is way over the top. The film which depict stalking and harassment as cutesy incidents and done by characters which are shown as nice guys are the real threat…IF you really want to target movies which glorify.”
In Arjun Reddy the girl has no choice after being marked as Arjun Reddy’s property. There is a scene during ragging where the girls are asked to strip. She knows what will happen if she is not his love interest let alone if she spurns his advances. The fans of the movie are finding this love story very realistic. I am not disagreeing – I have seen instances of the girl falling for the goon – sometimes it is the best way to save oneself from other goons. Other times just for the sake of your self respect you fall for the goon, because there is no other way to justify your helplessness.
You are seeing implicit consent in that kissing scene. i am seeing a continuation of the territorial behavior that Arjun Reddy has indulged in regarding Preethi since the time he saw her. The reason why consent is so important in the scene and not mundane like eating \drinking is because SHE DOES NOT HAVE AN OPTION TO NOT CONSENT!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
July 16, 2019
As I wrote under (6), people who say such things are calling for “crippling artistic freedom”
No. People are opining that glorifying such characters is problematic. And yes, that it’s problematic that thesee films are continuing to be made the way they are. That is only an opionion. It is not a call for censorship. Nor for banning. That’s you interpreting their opinion your way.
An opinion – or even many opinions – cannot cripple artistic expression unless there’s a groundswell of support for it. There isn’t.
Or do you want us all to stand around you and give you a round of applause every time you express your opinion?!
Man! Why am I not surprised?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
July 22, 2019
I am actually reading the articles in the ARA genre with an open mind , but it is getting more ridiculous with every new one that comes in . Sreehari Nair wrote an entire article defending AR\KS without seeing either movie, just because he felt bad for Vanga after that Anupama interview !! And all of it seems to be based on the straw man of “what can be considered art?”
I am wondering, where is this knee jerk defensiveness coming from ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
July 22, 2019
Rahul : Probably the same place from where Scott Adams’ audacious prediction of Trump winning a landslide came from. Because what it was really was he couldn’t digest the thought of a woman ruling over him. And he, as it turns out, knew the average American male better than mainstream pundits. Modi has been quite politically correct that way and does not give misogynists the hero they are looking for to vent their suppressed anger. But SRV does via his film and via the interview. I say it again, a great career awaits him in politics.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
July 22, 2019
Rahul, thank you for saying that! I thought I was the only one who thought that the whole premise of the article was flawed.
LikeLike
vinjk
July 22, 2019
@Madan
” Scott Adams’ audacious prediction of Trump winning a landslide came from. Because what it was really was he couldn’t digest the thought of a woman ruling over him. ”
Really? Was that his reasoning for the prediction? I remember reading his first post predicting Trump victory but I don’t remember this reasoning. Could you share the link?
LikeLike
Madan
July 22, 2019
vinjk: He did not say that openly, not in America he wouldn’t (though Trump can!). So he came up with this grand theory of Trump hypnotising people through his words etc to show why he would win. But hand in hand, he also complained about women telling men what to do and other such rants against what he called the ‘matriarchy’. He also said he would endorse Hillary for his own safety (implying some big feminist mob would kill him if he didn’t). It wasn’t hard to read between the lines. Especially given he’s doubled down on supporting Trump since then. He explained away “go back to where you came from” as New Yorker trash talk (ie not racist).
LikeLiked by 1 person
vinjk
July 22, 2019
Yea…after reading your comment I went to his blog and checked.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kaushik Bhattacharya
July 25, 2019
I don’t comment frequently on this site though like brangan said at some point, a lot of the comment sections have opened my mind up a lot so I’m always fascinated to read them.
I wonder if all this fuss over KS/AR is driven by the fact that the movies were so successful. If they had bombed at the BO, would people have been so up in arms for/against it??
LikeLike