Read the full article on Film Companion, here: https://www.filmcompanion.in/asif-ali-ayushmann-khurrana-arjun-reddy-kettiyolaanu-ente-malakha-baradwaj-rangan/
This could be a fascinating case study of how “arrogance” on screen (like in ‘Arjun Reddy’) makes it less easy for us to fully embrace a character, while innocence and humility make us sympathise more readily.
Spoilers ahead…
On the surface, Nissam Basheer’s Kettiyolaanu Ente Malakha is an Ayushmann Khurrana Movie™ made in Malayalam. Translation: It’s a cutesy, small-town dramedy centering on a “masculine problem”, but there’s more rootedness, more realism. Asif Ali plays the Ayushmann Khurrana character, Sleeva, a prosperous, 35-year-old farmer, who owns and manages 65 acres of rubber and pepper and what-not. Looking at him, though, you wouldn’t see this prosperity. His shirts are always crumpled. He’s always in a mundu — most tellingly when he goes to a girl’s house to discuss marriage. We see the earlier suitor (Shine Tom Chacko in a cameo) leaving. The man is in a perfectly creased shirt, perfectly creased pants, perfectly gleaming shoes. He is dressed to within an inch of his life. He is dressed to make an impression.
But Sleeva doesn’t care. He doesn’t want to make an impression because he doesn’t know that an impression needs to be made. He is like someone at a store buying something functional –like a notebook or a pocket comb. “Okay, I’ll take this”. This happens to be Rincy (Veena Nandhakumar), and to Sleeva, she is as functional as a notebook or a comb. He needs someone to take care of his mother, after she’s taken a bad fall, and therefore he needs to get married, and therefore he needs a woman, and therefore… Rincy.
Continued at the link above.
Copyright ©2019 Film Companion.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Prashila
December 4, 2019
BR, great review, but I don’t see this as a Ayushman Khurana movie at all. His movies have an edginess which is also very safe and often cutesy. This one seems rough, and not just around the edges. I cannot see him in something like this, Nawazuddin maybe.
I would have badly wanted to watch this, if the woman was made an equal part of the story too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
krishikari
December 4, 2019
Interesting take coming from you BR, analysing how exactly the film has manipulated you. I do go to a movie to be emotionally manipulated but it has to hit the right buttons to work and different people have different sympathy buttons. I was reminded of the obnoxious behaviour Mohanlal exhbits in Munthirivallikal thalirkkumbol, he’s not physically abusive, so more deserving of understanding but it still left a bad taste in my mouth after viewing because there’s something about his attitude I just hated. There he was beeing rooted in the millieu, not playing an innocent but I don’t think this innocence/ignorance would move me to sympathy in this film. Nobody has any excuse for being that stupid. And no film has any excuse being so one sided, so will be skipping this one.
I get the Ayushman comparision. I loved Barreilli ki Barfi, men behaving badly and getting away with it. Why it worked for me was that the target of the bad behaviour wasn’t the woman but another guy – the paavum one, and they made it funny. Only Ayushmann could have done that verging on being a total jerk role.
The idea of men using innocence or ignorance to get away with absolutely horrific behaviour not just in films but in life, reminds me of Anna Vetticads interview with Salman Khan – The dangerous innocence of Bollywood’s most controversial superstar. not a huge fan of her film reviewing style but I think she got that analysis right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
December 4, 2019
Like Prashila, I would have loved to watch this movie, if the woman had been an equal part of it, and if it hadn’t, as you say, normalised marital rape.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apu
December 5, 2019
Beautifully written and very well analyzed. Looking at the movie through your review – I feel a deep sadness about the normalizing of marital rape.
Not sure if this is off topic, but a couple days back I was having a casual discussion with my husband about Darr, and why it was a hit. I had not seen it in a movie hall, so I heard that viewers actually cheered SRK when he hit Sunny Deol. My husband’s point was that it was because SRK was a better actor, and someone without a negative baggage like for e.g. Ranjeet or Amrish Puri. My point was – he was easier character to root for, because (1) no guy wants to see himself in the role of the “villain” (2) SRK’s character reflected their frustration around not getting the girl of their choice – both reasons being dangerous. The point is, Darr normalized obsessive behavior around women with a classic romantic song “Tu haa kar, ya naa kar, tu hain meri Kiran” which sounds creepy once you know who sang it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
December 5, 2019
Prashila: What I meant is the general air — especially in the early parts — is that of the classic Ayushmann Khurrana Movie™. Small-town. Masculine issues. Comic flavour. Etc. Later, it turns into something else.
Anu / Apu: I don’t know how to define “normalising” in the context of this film, so let me explain (and then, you tell me if this is “normalising” or not).
So the film certainly makes it clear that what Sleeva did is wrong. But his “punishment” is very minor (the equivalent of a rap on the knuckles, because he is such a “nice and innocent guy” in all other aspects). But he is told to get counseling etc., and his friend even says “how can someone not know about such things in this day and age”.
My only real problem was that the victim — the wife — was shown so little in terms of coming to terms with the trauma. The only thing she does is call her brother and say she wants to leave and he says “I will support you in whatever you want to do”.
So by not showing the woman’s trauma, the film ends up making the rape look like “Okay, so this guy did not know any better, so let’s forgive him because he is still such a nice sweet guy”.
Now, I don’t have a problem with this storyline as such — this is how THIS woman chooses to deal with this situation (and the film does not give any lectures that “extrapolate” her choices to the world at large). There is no endorsement that “this is how a woman should behave in this situation”. The film sticks to its small world (and I know some people will see it as endorsement, nonetheless).
So my main fascination was about how an “arrogant” guy can come off as “problematic” whereas a “sweet” guy can do worse things than Arjun Reddy and come off as “sweet”. Because I ended up being totally manipulated WHILE I was watching the film 🙂
So I would love to hear whether this is “normalisation”. And it would be great if you could add a hypothetical screenplay scenario of two that could have been included to make the rape less “normalised”.
PS: Did this article come off like I was being harsh on the film? Because I really liked it and it’s superbly made and the acting is awesome. I was just trying to talk about this ONE aspect about it — but a lot of people seem to think I am bashing the film, so…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahini David
December 5, 2019
Did this article come off like I was being harsh on the film?
Absolutely not.
So my main fascination was about how an “arrogant” guy can come off as “problematic” whereas a “sweet” guy can do worse things than Arjun Reddy and come off as “sweet”.
I don’t agree with this at all. Meaning I typically find it ten times more problematic when sweet people are %%%%. Does anyone else feel that way?
P.S. I am not saying BR shouldn’t see it that way.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Apu
December 5, 2019
BR: I totally got your point. It might not be a generic normalizing as in “if a sweet person rapes because he did not know any better, and it was his wife anyway, so he should be forgiven.” However, it still breaks down your barriers to accepting this kind of behavior,
What is problematic is that the character might resonate with several viewers.
I agree with your point that not showing the trauma of the victim, and mainly showing it from a man’s gaze glazes over much of the brutality of the crime. One way to not “normalize” or reduce this impact would be to show the trauma. The other might be to show the perpetrator go through the incident in his head over and over to see where he went wrong and cringe at it. or even put himself in her shoes.
Not sure if that would be in line with the character.
I will write more once I give this more thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sorenkierky
December 5, 2019
I’ve not watched it – but I think many, if not most, people have pointed it out how problematic the film is in this respect? Especially with the one-sided, ‘he’s an innocent guy’ take without showing her POV at all. However, people are just somewhat more sympathetic AFAIK because it at least acknowledges marital rape, and holds the guy responsible (ofc despite him getting away with a rap on the knuckle).
In AR, AR can do no wrong. Not just Preethi, but even his friends like Shiva totally enables him and indulges him. Not to mention Preethi, BGM and horrific things he does (like the rape attempt at knifepoint), that’s not even acknowledged. I could go on (I’ve pointed these out before too). But why do you think people are easily ‘forgiving’ here? I guess if you’d felt so, maybe it could be because of the making? Don’t really think it has anything to do with him being more “innocent”™ in itself, tbh.
LikeLike
vinjk
December 5, 2019
I absolutely want to watch this. For two reasons, I go to movies to be emotionally manipulated. If the logic inside that movie’s universe works well, I generally have no problem. I don’t look at movies as vehicles for morality messages.
The other reason is I think Asif Ali is a very (very!) mediocre actor. So if he got BR weeping for him at the end, he must have done something different.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
December 5, 2019
BR, how does the film make it clear that it is wrong if the escapade is met with amused understanding? I can acknowledge that in the universe of this particular film, it is accepted, even condoned by most. Unfortunately, marital rape is more widely prevalent than people guess.
Not having seen the film itself, I guess I should not be commenting on this particular scenario, and it seems like the film got a few things right in that he’s advised to go for counselling, his friend does seem to call him out on his ignorance, and the wife who wants to leave is supported by her husband.
However, in the larger scheme of things, marital rape is still rape and glossing over the act does a huge disservice to society. How could the script have made it better? Definitely by showing her trauma, for instance, since the violation from someone she is meant to trust is a greater betrayal of self. By not dealing with the fallout with amusement, as if it is something to laugh about. By letting the protagonist – as Apu says – have a moment of inward reflection? I don’t know; it’s not as if I want the director to make the movie I want to watch; it’s that this thoughtlessness in plotting – as if the most important point to make is a ‘nice man’s’ sexual awakening – glosses over the consequences of his supposed ignorance.
whereas a “sweet” guy can do worse things than Arjun Reddy and come off as “sweet”.
I don’t think he comes off as ‘sweet’ at all! No matter what the fictional villagers think of him! And putting a jerk into a mundu instead of designer jeans doesn’t make him less of a jerk!
The other reason is I think Asif Ali is a very (very!) mediocre actor.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! Can’t stand the guy, don’t understand how he’s considered a good actor, and was sorely tried by the fact that I seemed to be in a minority of one where Asif Ali is concerned!
However, it still breaks down your barriers to accepting this kind of behavior, What is problematic is that the character might resonate with several viewers.
@Apu – Yes! That’s exactly it. And especially because a ‘sweet, innocent man’ is doing it.
A friend is filing for divorce; according to her husband, she has nothing to divorce him for because ‘I have never even raised a hand on her!’ And he’s a ‘sweet, innocent man’ too. Gah!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Spandana
December 5, 2019
I haven’t watched this movie and I don’t intend to. But I want to come back to one argument that I keep hearing over and over again whether it is this movie or Arjun Reddy or Kaatru Veliyidai. That THIS particular character who was a victim of marital rape or partner abuse is okay with it, so the rest of us should somehow get over it. They say that THIS film is in no way condoning abuse in general or that THIS character should not be held as an example to other survivors. I even heard the ridiculous argument that it is somehow a win for feminism citing a twisted logic is that feminism is all about choices, right? If THIS heroine chooses to stay in an abusive relationship, it is ultimately demonstrating her agency. Yay? Strange that female agency seems to exist in our movies only when it comes to self destructive behaviour.
Where are those films where victims decide and manage to remove themselves from toxic relationships? Where are those films where their internal journey goes from normalising their suffering (due to various reasons) to finally reach a tipping point? That itself is a huge step in the right direction. Where are those films where survivors go through counselling to recover? Where are those films depicting potential support systems for the victims from friends and family to police, law enforcement, child support, mental health professionals and what not? Can somebody tell me when everybody scolded Asif Ali’s character for raping his wife and sent him to therapy, did the film have anybody actually comfort Veena’s character or sent HER to therapy or even let her express her trauma? (I genuinely don’t know. If they did any of that, I’ll give them a cookie) Give me ten alternatives where characters demonstrate better judgement and I’ll accept a nutcase like Preethi Shetty. Without any of those, It is not enough to say that THIS film does not normalise abuse when every film we keep getting does the same.
KV was actually interesting showing the heroine’s transformation from someone who was delusional about the man she was in love with to realise that he is more guns than roses. It was remarkable for a ‘heroine’ of a mainstream film to reject the ‘hero’ due to his violent behaviour. Until of course that ending which that film definitely did not earn.
Something I have never seen come up is that both KV and AR (I’m assuming the couple in this film too at some point beyond the scope of the film) have the central couple being parents to small children. The adults consented to their messed up dynamics, their children did not. The negative affects on the child’s mental health should not even be a surprise. In KV, Karthi’s violent tendencies even come from his father. I hope I never have to hear Sandeep Vanga defending parents hitting each other before their kids. To him that is love, right? Preethi might be okay with Arjun slapping her and might even slap him back, but at what point does the target of that violence shift from partner to children?
All this brings me to whether with dysfunctional relationships can even earn ‘happy endings’. Plenty of people, even on this site, said that they prefer movies where all ends well, no matter how dysfunctional it was before. That ‘SJWs’ should not bring their agendas to movies. But any sane counsellor would advise victims to walk away at the first indication of their partners’ violence. Studies demonstrate that the biggest predictor of spousal violence is past behaviour. It is that first slap, the first shove, the first beating, the first rape that is the hardest. But once the threshold is crossed and victim learns to normalise it, what is stopping them? How many strikes do they get? What if the last strike was last because it was fatal?
I do not know how a fairy tale ending is even possible. I know that it requires utmost subtlety and nuance, nuance that Indian mainstream cinema is light years away from being capable of.
LikeLiked by 12 people
meera
December 6, 2019
BR this article reminds me of the Madhavan meera jasmine storyline… I don’t think Madhavan was sweet and innocent in that movie but because it was Madhavan and “I” felt that he would never behave like this in “real life” I glossed over it! Does this ever happen to anyone else?
Whereas in this movie this men like Asif are prevalent.. such abuse is very really possible. How do they reconcile? Maybe that can show the wife’s POV … because we have travelled with the husband throughout?
P.S: I watched AnupamaChopra’s 1 + hrs video on greatest legends of Indian cinema. Did not get past 30mins… you have performers like Manoj Bajpayee, Parvathy, Ayushmann, Deverakonda and Sethupathi and she asks about social media, hit film formula… cmon.. I would have love to hear about their individual journeys like Sethupathi finally getting the transgender role right or devarakondas choice for Arjun reddy… surely there were more insightful thoughts and graphs to talk about… one single AskBR would have given them enough fodder for one hour… just saying ☺️
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
December 6, 2019
Spandana: nuance that Indian mainstream cinema is light years away from being capable of…
Thank you for that great comment. But here’s where you have answered your own question. “Mainstream” cinema is — by definition — something that is consumed by a large number of people, and when filmmakers “push the envelope” in terms of the relationship, they try to “compensate” through other means, like a happy ending…
I am NOT saying this is right. I am just saying that the shadings you expect may be possible in an art-house film (or an upscale Hindi multiplex film), and Tamil/Telugu cinema just don’t have an art-house tradition at all (unlike Malayalam/Bengali cinema).
Even with OK KANMANI, I felt the ending was too mainstream-y. The couple needn’t have gotten married. That’s too big a leap from where they are — and they both seem like very strong-willed people who’d think through a decision as big as this.
But hey, the ending sure feels good and it kept a ton of people (including me) smiling 🙂
So what are the options?
ONE: Do not touch such subjects when you are doing mainstream cinema. Either do it the right way or don’t do it at all.
But this option means that the mainstream won’t be stretched at all, even by little bits, and so we are left with …
TWO: Take up these icky subjects and make them with concessions so you don’t alienate too much of the audience.
I would take Option TWO any day — because though we may feel shortchanged, at least we are able to see something “different” and talk about it. We are able to discuss it, criticise it, vent about it — and all of this keeps the subject in the public eye far longer than the movie’s run. (Heck, we are still talking about ARJUN REDDY).
As much as people wonder today why KANNATHIL MUTHAMITTAL did not succeed — and I think it’s a GREAT movie — the fact is that no one saw it then. And I would call that subject “icky”, too, for the mainstream — it had a lot of messy relationships.
Ten years down the line, we may get films that take these “icky” stories forward — and the subjects may become acceptable enough that we are able to see more “nuances” in them.
In the sense that, though we still see nuances in the scenes or lines or direction or performances, the broad arc is till a tad “mainstream” (or conventional, with happy endings etc.)
Re-reading this, I think this has been a confusing comment — but I’ll just leave it here and revisit it if I have the time.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Madan
December 6, 2019
BR: This comes back to what I said once, that for the older filmmakers the moral compass was clear and there were lines they would not cross. This started with filmmakers experimenting with messy characters in the 90s. Grey rather than black and white. Which is great. But then keep it grey only and don’t have these mass whistle podu moments to glorify the hero like he is some messiah come to save the world. I have not seen this film but such mass moments are very much there in AR and the BGM is extremely problematic.
IF they cannot keep things grey and will side with the hero for so called commercial imperative, then I prefer option 1. I would rather such films are not made at all in the mainstream. I am not asking for bans or censorship but I will voice my discomfort with such framing, even more so when the director uses an interview to arrogantly broad brush all criticism of the movie and to also tell people that they ought to slap each other if they truly know what love is. There is no room for benefit of doubt after that happens. In AR, SRV pretty much admitted that he made a film conforming to his moral universe and not merely one that depicted events of a particular character.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sifter
December 6, 2019
@ Spandana- Loved your entire comment. Mirrored my thoughts, but you constructed it in a manner that I couldn’t.
I despair when I also think that all these could be discussed in this platform of privilege, but would never make any positive impact.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Spandana
December 6, 2019
@Meera: Yep, I couldn’t sit through the video beyond 20 minutes. I missed most of what Manoj Bajpayee or Vijay Sethupathi or Parvathy had to say including her thoughts on AR. Alia and Ranveer ruined the whole thing for me. Alia never seems to know what she is talking about. I am usually okay with Ranveer in spite of his wackiness. He is mostly articulate like in his Gully Boy interview. He is probably better one to one. But the group’s personalities did not gel well at all.
Anupama Chopra said that she really wanted Fahadh Faasil in this, but couldn’t match schedules. (So we were stuck with the two Bombay brats). Can I place an formal request for a solo interview with Fahadh?
LikeLiked by 2 people
sorenkierky
December 6, 2019
@Spandana: Exactly. That’s why I disagree with BR’s (and other’s) acontextual, ‘just-see-what’s-in-the-box’ kinda line of thought too. Like, who are we kidding? How many counter-naratives do we have, still? If you’re taking a messy store that deserves sensitivity, then treat it with the sensitivity it deserves. As Madan said, don’t create ‘whistle podu’ moments out of it, for the darker characters. This is the biggest problem here.
AR is a whole different thing, as Vanga seems to be convinced that it’s not a toxic relationship with an abuser, and seems to rather hold it as some sort of an ideal, their romance. Which is evident from the movie too, tbh.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Honest Raj
December 6, 2019
Even with OK KANMANI, I felt the ending was too mainstream-y. The couple needn’t have gotten married. That’s too big a leap from where they are — and they both seem like very strong-willed people who’d think through a decision as big as this.
By the time when the film’s focus shifted from the younger to the older couple, it became obvious that the film was going to end that way.
LikeLike
rsylviana
December 6, 2019
“Mainstream” cinema is — by definition — something that is consumed by a large number of people, and when filmmakers “push the envelope” in terms of the relationship, they try to “compensate” through other means, like a happy ending…
@BR – Wasn’t KV’s biggest downfall the fact that that most of the mainstream thought that this couple didn’t deserve the “happy ending” that it seemingly got. I’ve put “happy ending” in quotes because the ending might be happy for VC but I’m damn sure that it wasn’t/wouldn’t be one for Leela and the daughter.
@Spandana – Wonderful comment ! The sheer number of movies hailing hyper masculinity as something to aspire for and being a-okay with them being trashbags to the people they supposedly “love” is what bugs me too. And don’t even get me started on the “All hail Feminism because the victim chose to stay in the abusive relationship” line of thought. That’s basically every soup boy/virgin boy’s wet dream !
But to be fair, we do get films where victims decide and manage to remove themselves from toxic relationships but the sad part is that those films too miss the nuance they require in etching out both the abusers’ and victims’ characters. Almost all of them paint the abuser as uniformly bad and the victim as uniformly good/naive when anybody who has been in an abusive relationship or knows someone who has been in one would know that more often than not that that is not the case. I remember an answer I read in quora where the question was “How is it to be in an abusive relationship?” and one of the top answers had described in detail as to how the victim would have to walk on eggshells EVERYDAY because he/she wouldn’t know if the abuser is going to treat them nice or is going to be on their absolute worst behavior. I just sat there thinking “This ! Oh My God This ! This is what most of the films,books and people who romanticize such toxic and “passionate” relationships do not understand/care about”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
December 6, 2019
Spandana – Long, standing applause. That was a briliant comment, and you articulated just what I felt. The sheer volume of films that celebrate this kind of toxic masculinity, whether wrapped in ‘niceness’ (as here) or in sheer arrogance (as in AR) and the complete lack of a (or very minimal) counter narrative is what normalises this behaviour.
And no, it is NOT a win for feminity. It is not agency – because people don’t understand that when women (and some men) choose to stay in abusive relationships, it is certainly not because of agency. It’s the very dynamic of an abusive relationship – the interdependence.
Sorenkierky, SIfter, rsylvania – push over and make space for a little ‘un. 🙂 Like Sifter, I don’t know how many times we will have this conversation, and how many times we will make the same points only to be told to chill, it’s only cinema. And it owes nothing to us but entertainment. I don’t even know if having these conversations will effect change, but if even one person is brought to understand the despair we feel when these toxic stories are told and retold and our concerns brushed off ad nauseum, perhaps it’s worth it? We can’t be that hopeless, surely?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahul
December 7, 2019
“Give me ten alternatives where characters demonstrate better judgement and I’ll accept a nutcase like Preethi Shetty.”
Spandana, this is tangential to the point you are making – but what option did Preethi have ? A senior with a history of violence who everybody idolizes has publicly kissed her and declared that she is his love interest. By the way , the kissing scene happened after Preethi was allowed not to strip on account of being AR’s girl. AR’s public declaration has raised the stakes for himself and thereby leaving her with no choice. In private she could have said no if she did not like him. But now rebuffing him would have bruised his fragile ego even more and will result in a blowback. She cannot go to her parents , who have entrusted her to AR for looking after her. In the shitty atmosphere of Indian colleges, teachers and officials generally condone ragging or turn a blind eye towards it. Police? Everybody knows that in India if you have to go to the police specially for something like this you are already fucked.
So , again, what option did she have?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
December 7, 2019
Rahul: I agree completely. Preeti simply chooses the safest option. The deceit in fact lies in MRAs spinning this as consent or agency when it’s neither. This is consent obtained under the pressure of intimidation. And there’s no point in saying women have to look out for themselves and speak up instead of ‘playing victim’. I am sure as a person who doesn’t bear arms (nor knows how to use a gun), I wouldn’t be expected to speak up and look out for myself if I was accosted by the mafia. I wouldn’t be ‘playing victim’ if I obeyed them and raised my hands and/or gave away my belongings to escape, would I? The fact that MRAs think it’s Preeti’s fault shows, if anything, that they are oblivious to the effect such brazen displays of physical power by a man has when directed towards a woman.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahul
December 7, 2019
Madan, also it is important to state that many are spinning this into disrespect of Preeti that she did not have agency. Eh, its an indictment of the society we live in, not her.
Moreover, all this is from the film. There is no subtextual extrapolation being done. I think this is the genius of Sandeep VR. He has shown the blueprint of how a bully can win over a girl but at the same time has given our young AR fans with raging hormones a plausible deniability in their minds. This is why it is so successful and so insidious.
LikeLiked by 3 people
nitinsmailid
December 8, 2019
“Those of you who know my feelings about films will know that I look at a story as something that happens around this particular set of characters in this particular setting. I don’t extrapolate, and I have no problem with any kind of story being told, with any kind of characters or behaviours being glorified — the only important thing is whether the filmic aspects (the writing, the performances, the making) are worthwhile, and whether they make you laugh or cry or think or whatever.”
Thank you BR Sir and thank you God for having us someone with this perspective. Its as good as good can be. Thank You.
LikeLike
rsylviana
December 9, 2019
I am sure as a person who doesn’t bear arms (nor knows how to use a gun), I wouldn’t be expected to speak up and look out for myself if I was accosted by the mafia. I wouldn’t be ‘playing victim’ if I obeyed them and raised my hands and/or gave away my belongings to escape, would I? *
@Madan – Thank you for giving a terrific example to illustrate consent obtained through intimidation. This is what people don’t seem to understand about in multiple cases of sexual abuse and/or harassment. This was what most of us were trying to communicate at the time of #MeToo as well. Hopefully this makes it easier for atleast a few of the folks regarding the whole power dynamics that are at play during an abusive relationship.
LikeLiked by 3 people
nas3f
December 9, 2019
@vinjik what movie role off as if made you conclude that asif is very very mediocre actor?🤔
@anu warrier,honey,why can’t you “stand” asif ali?if you say reason I took can hate asif Ali.🧐
LikeLike
kaizokukeshav
December 11, 2019
The cuteness factor always wins irrespective of how evil actions are. In current world, being unbiased is as relevant as an unbiased cinema. And movies become famous only by invoking the entitlement of an entire section of audience.
Don’t want to explore the topic beyond this because there will never be an answer to entitlement. As someone said, everyone want to go to heaven but no one wants to die. Everyone seeks idealism but no one follows it, and it’s pointless to fight for it.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
December 11, 2019
nasf3 – You don’t need my reasons to like or hate Asif Ali. I assume you have opinions of your own?
Also, I’m not your honey, so please don’t condescend to me.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Spandana Vaidyula
December 12, 2019
Sorry, I was travelling and did not get a chance to look at the responses. I admit I was also a bit apprehensive, but I now know that this is a safe space as long I know what I’m talking about. So, thanks everybody!
@BR – I have absolutely no problem with romantic movies ending happily as you will see. My question is whether a happy ending is even possible in abusive relationships. I don’t know and I don’t think filmmakers should keep telling us that all goes well after end credits because it is extremely unlikely. I think that answers your question. You make a valid point that some discussion of abuse in mainstream cinema is better than none, but so far all the unearned ‘happy endings’ only seem to normalise the problem.
I agree with Rsylvania that KV didn’t really build towards a ‘happy ending’. I also find it interesting that the narrative problem with KV is actually the opposite of AR. KV depicted Leela’s gradual realisation well, but couldn’t do the same with VC’s intended transformation. It failed to communicate why VC deserved a second chance.
OKK is a different story. For one, there was no abuse. Experts can debate over the quality of the film, but I was fine with how it ended. The story is about two people whose relationship finds unexpected depths that they weren’t ready to grapple with. Just because a couple decides to have a live-in relationship and treat it casually, it doesn’t always mean that the emotions aren’t real. There is this great dialogue when Prakash Raj asks Nithya Menon whether she wants her career or her relationship. Nitya replies that if he had asked that a while ago she wouldn’t have blinked before wanting her career. Now she wants both. She calls herself selfish, but the film never treats her so.
Going against my own words, I think this a positive portrayal of female agency. Is the ending confirmative? Sure. But it is not because they had to adhere to norms, it is because the film convincingly (to me at least) brought those characters to a point where that is what they want. Two normal people wanting to get married isn’t debatable at all the way whether the victim of an abusive relationship should continue to be in it.
Been a while since I watched Kannathil Muthamittal. I need to revisit it sometime. I remember thinking it was a great movie with three excellent female parts, but also flash back Madhavan was a weird combination of bossy and aloof to the person whom he was supposed to marry. Is that what you were talking about?
@Rahul – You raise a crucial point as to how Arjun was Preethi’s safest bet at that point. Amen to everything Madan said. I want to add that if her decision making was given proper attention, that itself would have been a very important distinction. Her considering her options, choosing the least bad one and being conscious about why she made that choice in the first place – any of this would have been a valid depiction of female agency. She might not be in a position to do much as long as she fully understands her situation. Like I said earlier, first but huge step in the right direction. But the film had no interest in doing any such thing. The film wants us to believe that she loves Arjun for ‘protecting’ her from her seniors while also ignoring that he was the one who originally put her on the spot. At least, KV made a decent attempt at showing why Leela would initially think the world of VC before understanding his true nature.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Spandana Vaidyula
December 12, 2019
Tangential note, looking at the recent developments in the Disha case from Hyderabad. I don’t want to talk about the incident or its aftermath or put forward any kind of opinion. Whether one thinks the encounter is justified or not is also immaterial to the context of this comment.
I only want to point out the manner in which the police are compared to heroes from cop movies. The argument that cinema is only for art/entertainment and should not be viewed with real life lens or movie behaviour will not be emulated in real life simply doesn’t hold. It never did. It is high time people stopped saying so.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rahul N R
December 12, 2019
“Those of you who know my feelings about films will know that I look at a story as something that happens around this particular set of characters in this particular setting. I don’t extrapolate, and I have no problem with any kind of story being told, with any kind of characters or behaviours being glorified — the only important thing is whether the filmic aspects (the writing, the performances, the making) are worthwhile, and whether they make you laugh or cry or think or whatever.”
Beautifully put.
I think movies must come with huge disclaimers about taking offense. I didn’t know that the fundamental aspect of art was about portraying morality of the times…and it has to filtered through the prism of present day morality to be considered ‘good’ cinema. Where characters ‘must’ be slotted into the liberal versions of ‘good’, ‘bad’, and ‘ugly’. Nuance and shades must be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.
Do artists share a responsibility to the society they live in. Of course. But they can’t and must not be held responsible for enacting a change. A movie watching experience is a product of who you are. There are many out there who do not become misogynists because they watched a movie portrayal of misogyny. It all depends on where one is coming from. But if someone is ‘inspired’ by a movie to commit a crime…it talks about that person more than the movie. If we agree that we need to curb movies such as those…then we shouldn’t have issues with any ism wanting to control the populations based on ancient edicts or books or myths. Then none of us would have an issue with the story of achche din being peddled about in some corner of the world.
Conflating encounter killings with moral lessons from movies. Wow. Violence committed from within the security afforded by the state was unheard of till now. Ya, right. A large section of the population supported fascism without support of propaganda movies. This is a function of man’s fallibility and not an indictment on art. It is easy to lay the blame on art and artists as they remain visible and accessible symbols of ‘larger-than-life’ ideals.
LikeLike
tonks
January 24, 2020
I echo Apu : very well reviewed and analysed. You are right about the manipulation and the gaze, I was finding myself sympathising with Sleeva’s predicament too, despite his troubling act. It’s a sad fact that because of our middle class Victorian morality Indians are ignorant about this aspect of marriage, despite us being the land of the Kama sutra (our ancestors were more sexually liberated than we are). So his ignorance and anxiety is understandable. It would have been a better movie if they had not shown it to be a pucca rape. I find it hard to believe she just conked out unconscious without making any sound or gesture of protest. If she had, then Sleeva who is characterized to be kind and good (just ignorant) would surely have stopped. And he would not have gone on to rape her.
LikeLike
tonks
January 24, 2020
And if she had protested, but he had ignored her, then he cannot be all good and kind. You cannot have it both ways
LikeLike
KEM
January 31, 2020
Did anyone think that it was appropriate that Sleevachan was Christian? It is common in malayali Christian houses to have disciplinarian parents, daily bible readings and family prayers at night that take up an hour or 2, Sundays spent in churches, and parents who are very strict about education. A life mostly spent around family, church, and studies. Christian kids are usually brought up to be no-nonsense adults. Maybe all the Sunday church sermons put on an added layer of guilt and shame about sex and therefore stand in the way of intimacy.
I also thought that it was appropriate that Gopi chettan with whom Asif Ali has the birds and the bees talk is a Hindu. Me being a mallu Christian has always been surprised by the way in which my mallu Hindu family friends are very matter of fact about sexual desire. They tend to deal with it in the most natural and appropriate way, from a young age. I have always thought that they have approached it without the burden of guilt or judgment.
LikeLike
tonks
January 31, 2020
KEM : To me, it seemed it was more of total cluelessness about the sexual act and how to romantically behave around women, than a case of Catholic guilt about sex. Even though Hindus do not have guilt about sex, I thought it is a good thing that Christians at least go through routine marriage counseling before marriage. But during the movie, I deeply felt the humour / irony in the facts of life being taught to couples by nuns and priests who have taken a vow of celibacy. I cannot think of anyone less appropriate who can provide sexual premarital counseling.
LikeLiked by 2 people
tonks
January 31, 2020
One of my cousins who identifies as asexual felt that the initial portions (his disinterest in her) suggested such a thing. But since his interest seemed to have awoken later, that seems unlikely to me. I think they showed the fish (in the fish tank) needing to get used to each other before becoming attracted, as some sort of allegory.
LikeLike
bart
February 4, 2020
Loved this movie inspite of its shortcomings and biased narration… The knack of depicting earthly, routine, mundane stuff as a matter-of-fact and still make it interesting is something that only malayalam films do so consistently… Brilliant casting and performances as well… Great watch and thank you!
LikeLike
Sundaram
March 21, 2020
I read the review immediately after you wrote and watched the movie just yesterday. I think it’s not fair to compare this to Arjun Reddy. In Arjun Reddy I felt uncomfortable with VD’s character throughout the movie and worse was his behaviour of trying to possess her was not called out the entire movie. He is never acknowledged of his flaws although he feels the pain of the separation. Here it’s totally different . Coming to the movie, which I did like it. Although it didn’t get into Rincy’s head enough, there was enough scenes to empathise with her. As soon as they get married their were several shots to show that she is yearning to spend time and talk with him but he avoids her. After that incident, she waits for him to come and talk to her but he doesn’t. When they were alone, she asks few questions… Have we spoken much? Have we spent enough time together? Then how do you do this? These are well meaning scenes and dialogues conveying her mind. Later she feels uncomfortable and not safe around him and so when he comes inside the room, she tells him to not lock the door. Then again she expects him to apologise, start talking to her but he doesn’t. She then wants to leave and while waiting to leave after the function, she observes him and maybe during that time she comes to an understanding that he is like that but he is making effort and gives him the space. Two problems that I had were – he should have shown attending counselling sessions, made him feel that he was done a big mistake and make him repent more and secondly Rincy’s perspective could have been a little more explicit.
LikeLike