Read the full article on Film Companion, here: https://www.filmcompanion.in/chhapaak-deepika-padukone-laxmi-agarwal-acid-attack-survivor-meghna-gulzar/
As an actor, as a very beautiful actor, Deepika Padukone is well within her rights to play an acid-attack survivor. Then, why is this movie making me uneasy?
Spoilers ahead…
I’m having some trouble wrapping my head around an actor like Deepika Padukone in a drama like Chhapaak – but it’s not what you think. It’s not the “woke” thing. It’s not, But how can she…? It’s not even, But how dare she…? It’s not about one of the most beautiful women in the world playing a woman who’s lost what the world conventionally defines as beauty. It’s really about something that I’ll get to eventually, but let me first talk about why, as an actor, as a very beautiful actor, Deepika Padukone is well within her rights to play an acid-attack survivor.
At the core of this argument is the very definition of “acting”. A dozen dictionaries say the same thing in different ways, so here’s what Merriam-Webster says: the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras. That’s what I believe: Deepika Padukone is “representing a character”. Or even take how we use “acting” as an adjective: as in, “acting president”. We refer to someone who has, temporarily, taken on the duties of another, or someone who is, temporarily, substituting for another. So that’s what it is. Deepika Padukone is “representing” Laxmi Agarwal. Deepika Padukone is, temporarily (i.e., for the duration of the movie), substituting for Laxmi Agarwal.
Continued at the link above.
Copyright ©2020 Film Companion.
Baradwaj Rangan 
N Madhusudhan
January 7, 2020
Isn’t Charlize Theron doing a Monster also an example of extreme un-beautification? It wasn’t not just another “no make-up look”. She went on to do other films after that and the character she played in the film is dead in real life. It’s understandable where your dilemma is coming from.
Also, when it comes to film promotions, i suppose both the press and the viewers like to see the best dressed up versions of their stars regardless of what kind of film they’re promoting. If it’s an event, how they look takes the centrestage. Like you said, it’s pure business. If they tone it down a bit, they’d eventually make it to one of those “worst dressed celebrities” lists. Unlike a Rajinikanth or a lot of others stars down south, bollywood stars don’t seem comfortable going de-glam for film related or other public events. It’ll probably stay that way.
The bigger picture, of course, is that Laxmi Agarwal’s story is being told and a reasonably talented actor is playing her. I guess that itself is a step in new direction as far as bollywood is concerned. Baby steps, maybe.
LikeLiked by 2 people
SudharsananSampath
January 7, 2020
I think you arrived at an answer at the end. Life … goes on. I think this very unfairness forms the basis of our life. We scoff at this unfairness yet we shudder at the thought of everything being equal. In my opinion such a fair place where everything at peace with each other cannot exist. It will collapse. Even this hand wringing is an action against something. This restlessness is the essence of our life. If you are at peace always, what else is there to do. I once saw a homeless old woman on the street, taking a dump while crying in shame. A Lamborghini drove past her. Not a fuss was made. Life … goes on.
So anyways, that’s why I am ok with Deepika playing that part.
LikeLike
rsylviana
January 7, 2020
Even I feel a bit weird when I see DP peddling the whole “see I care so much about survivor’s stories” narrative in her Mrs Ranveer Singh avatars. I know these both need not be mutually exclusive but it still makes me feel a bit queasy.
P.S – It would be great if the actors use a small percentage of their remuneration, for that particular movie atleast, to something that would help their real-life counterparts or their causes.
LikeLike
anwar naieem
January 7, 2020
brilliant piece the last paragraph is heart breaking that’s what industry is all about we use vulnerable people’s story and when it’s done we remember them “yeah this star played her character” then the actual survivor.
LikeLike
Dhruv Krishna Goyal
January 7, 2020
Interesting take! As someone who generally avoids watching the interviews before watching the films, I have had a different outlook from watching the trailer (which is another one of those annoying ones that detail the whole character arc in 3 minutes) of this “de-beautification.” It’s perhaps the scream of Padukone to seeing herself after the acid attack in the mirror that adds a strange meta-textual angle to this for me. That of one of the stars of Bollywood realizing how much she is defined by her “beauty” and going on a journey (based on the trailer) to make her understand the unimportance of it compared to one’s own inner identity. If one of the “most beautiful” people can go through that transformation, then I feel, it might serve as a pretty radical message to relatively less glamorous people who go on to define themselves entirely on their appearance.
LikeLike
Karthik H.S.
January 7, 2020
There was a similar discussion on Rajeev Masand’s director’s roundtable. I don’t understand what the confusion is about. The only thing that should matter is how good an actor is for a role. A bad actor, no matter how eligible or apt, is still a bad actor. Fardeen Khan playing the character of a rich, privileged guy would still give you a headache.
And then there are stars who just don’t let us see beyond their stardom. Leo DiCaprio (unpopular opinion), is always playing Leo DiCaprio in every film, with the same set of expressions.
On the other hand, Charlize Theron, with all that makeup, still made us forget the star and revealed the monster so well. Or Alia Bhatt, playing the Mary Jane character in Udta Punjab despite being nowhere close to her in real life. Isn’t that what matters?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Maru
January 7, 2020
Hmmm….. didn’t quite expect this hand wringing coming from you brangan and I’ve been reading your blog from its early days – interesting! 😀
As far as I can tell there are 2 parts to your discomfort – the first is Deepika in fashion forward avatar promoting herself playing a version of Lakshmi Agarwal. I’ll confess that I see the incongruity/dissonance too even if I don’t share the same level of discomfort. In some ways I wonder if its not better to go with the “in character” looks that actors like Vidya Balan have adopted for some of their movies. Not that there’s anything wrong with Deepika being unabashedly herself while promoting her movie. However this story is so visceral in the reactions it evokes it may seem less jarring to some of us to soften that fashionista presentation during promotions. I only hope that Deepika does not appear in “distressed” jeans to promote this film – that would truly distress me. It seems like the very definition of entitlement and thumbing your nose at the less fortunate when privileged people fork out big money for artfully torn clothes when less fortunate people who wear the actual non-artistic versions would give their eyeteeth to wear whole, non-ripped clothes.
The second part of your discomfort seems to be seeing one of the most the beautiful faces we know mangled and perhaps the asymmetry of it hitting home in ways it doesn’t usually – I can be you but you can never be me. That part I think most of us make peace with pretty early on mostly because we can make up in achievement and success what we can’t in looks and fame as Lakshmi Agarwal has in the most brave and exemplary way. I’m not sure that I agree that when Deepika goes on present herself as a diva Lakshmi disappears into the background. If the film is successful, more people will know of her story and of others like her than before and hopefully that leads to positive action in combating acid violence. I imagine that would be what she’d be most gratified by.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isai
January 7, 2020
I just read this article and the comments and then went to a news website and saw that Deepika has joined the protests at JNU. Why she alone? was the question that immediately came to mind. Is her movie releasing this weekend? Yes, says Google. But, mainstream actors won’t do this, unless… Is she the producer? Google again says Yes. If she is this desperate for the opening, then is the movie not that good? Yes, tells my instinct. Time will tell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KS
January 7, 2020
I’ve never seen BR so undecided about his own thoughts…
LikeLiked by 5 people
Enna Koduka Sir Pera
January 7, 2020
A very confusing article, but you write so in your article itself that you are trying to process these contradictory thoughts. I will write my theory as to what could be inducing this reaction.
It is a mixture of two things present at the same time that could be inducing such reactions in people. It is a sense of inferiority induced in that particular characteristic, inflamed by the other person flaunting their beauty to elicit such a reaction. The unease then arises from the other person having the attitude of ‘Oh I have it, let me flaunt it’. A similarly very beautiful person in the conventional sense, who doesn’t display such a flaunting nature, who is more humble about their looks and consider it to be a genetic lottery where they had no say and go along without taking any pride in it, is less likely to elicit such a reaction. This applies in day to day life too. I have been annoyed with friends constantly describing their own beauty and worried about things that may affect their beauty. In contrast, friends who are beautiful, but don’t necessarily make any reference to it and treat it as yet another aspect of their personality have never created that unease. So, the inferiority per se can be inflamed by the other party flaunting their perceived superiority.
This nature can be extrapolated to features beyond beauty: wealth, education, knowledge of English in the Indian context. We always like to surround ourselves with people who are humble, acknowledge the role of nature/luck in deriving some of these characteristics rather than actively flaunting it.
So, coming back to this particular instance. In many of her earlier interviews, I have seen Deepika proclaim that she knows she has the best body in the business, she knows nobody can be as sexy as her in the current crop of actresses. This sense of flaunting is probably the feeling we see in the Chapaak promotions (not by words, but through her fashion) and in this setup about external beauty being violently tarnished, it is even more irksome and this is probably what makes us uneasy.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 7, 2020
Deepika is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn’t. Her luminescence is unquestionable, and if she dresses like an ‘average’ person, then she’s going to be trolled mercilessly.
To me, the fact that she uses her privileged platform to tell the story of the lesser-privileged is a plus. As is the fact that she put her money where her mouth is and actually produced this film with no guarantees about its returns. In real life as well, she has used her privilege to set up a foundation for depression. It is a huge advantage when someone as beautiful as she is, as privileged as she is, as rich as she is can give voice to her demons. It allows others to know they are not alone.
So, yes, her remuneration from her films is going towards causes she cares for.
And there was a bizarre moment in a press conference when an idiot asked her why Ranveer Singh wasn’t credited as producer because ‘ghar ka paisa’ was put into the film. If RS had been producing a film, I wager not one mai ka lal would have asked him why Deepika wasn’t being credited as producer too. I’m glad she shut him down very quickly.
LikeLiked by 9 people
MKP
January 7, 2020
If I cut all the fat,are you actually saying you have a problem with her dressing up? Cos all other actors were always in character when they did promotions. The closet sexism is coming out Mr BR.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Madan
January 7, 2020
“I’ve never seen BR so undecided about his own thoughts…” – Ditto. Don’t see the problem here. If anything, I welcome it from DP. Felt she is a little uncomfortable getting ugly for the camera, so this will hopefully have gotten her over the hump for good.
LikeLike
Sanjay
January 7, 2020
And finally, Deepika joins the ‘tukde tukde’ gang and advances her significance!! How dare she ignore Ricky Gervais as pointed by one of the commentators here. Kabir Khan’s interview with Rajeev Masand offers a view point on this topic. ( link posted in the other thread)
LikeLike
WTH
January 7, 2020
Oh please…Pick on the Deepika because she is stunningly beautiful. What is it with you men? Now women who are beautiful cannot pick and choose what roles they want? As it is, they have very little to choose from. Now you men have a problem with them being beautiful, so it irks you when they do what you think they shouldn’t do?
Please go pick on some of those average looking male actors who are much more highly paid than the female actors, and who do a lot of asinine, moronic and politically incorrect things onscreen and off it and get away with it just because they are men.
In your reviews, I see you time and again giving way more leeway for men to get away with a lot of imbecilic, misogynistic, chauvinistic and idiotic behavior.
Accept the fact that some women are stunningly beautiful and they can garner a lot of attention with their beauty and draw a lot of audience to the theatre because of their beauty and talent.
Let the women be exquisitely, ravishingly beautiful and select whatever roles they want. You need to get over it.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Enna Koduka Sir Pera
January 8, 2020
To sum up what I am saying, it is not the clothes per se, but the attitude with which the clothes are worn that probably affects people. It is the fact that she is going back to showing that she is a diva (not by the clothes I again insist, but the attitude) standing next to a person who has been violently attacked, which may seem insensitive to people. This is only my theory and it could be wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Faroo
January 8, 2020
“But when these beautiful people un-beautify themselves, it feels… unfair! Like fame, like money, the true value of beauty is understood only by those who do not have it….and yes, when Deepika Padukone un-beautifies herself in Chhapaak, they seem to be telling the rest of us: “I can make myself look like you, but whatever you do, you’ll never be able to look like me.” ”
This might be the crux of the angst.
For most other movies, part of us see ourselves “becoming” the person played on screen — the don, the beautiful maiden, the dashing spy, the revolutionary, the fighter etc. We don’t really look at whether it is practical — just that it is possible. Mary Kom might not become Priyanka, but could become Cynthia Rothrock.
In this case, no amount of miracles will make Lakshmi into Deepika. The fantasy of movies breaks down.
LikeLike
Santa
January 8, 2020
This is perhaps the most atypical write-up I have read on this blog, to the point where I was wondering for a fleeting moment if it was written by BR or someone else 🙂
Also, the constant use of ‘beautiful’ came across as a bit jarring. Yes, it is clearly mentioned at the outset that this refers to ‘what the world conventionally defines as beauty.’ Still, ‘good-looking’, ‘attractive’, or ‘glamorous’ somehow seem more appropriate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Enigma
January 8, 2020
It is great that Deepika Padukone is taking up the role of an acid attack survivor, it is time that society paid some attention on acid attack victims and heard their stories. Who knows, some potential perpetrator may have a change of heart. This is a huge problem, especially in a country like India and influential people have to speak up on behalf of these victims. People who throw acid on women are the lowest of low and deserve to be ‘encountered’ – no point in taking these bastards to court, just get the job done. India is filled with these scumbags, probably because India is neither fully conservative nor modern (as in western liberal). We have all these poor guys from rural areas who have never spoken to a girl in their lives, suddenly sitting in a room filled with girls wearing western clothes. They fall for any girl who smiles at them and go bonkers when their ‘proposals’ are laughed out of the room.
Deepika may or may not be a good actress (I haven’t seen a movie of hers in a very long time), but well done to her for taking up this role.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sedhupathy M
January 8, 2020
I don’t care much about how beautiful Deepika Padukone looked at the movie promotions.
However, I do share the fundamental unease that comes when a star plays a real life character and the movie promotions overwhelmingly play up the star’s efforts de-glam herself, as they put it, rather than that real life character’s life itself. That becomes a kind of cynical exploitation. Exploiting a pain to apply a fresh coat of glamour to the star.
Deepika Padukone is an actor. Looking like the character she plays is kind of expected of her. So why do they believe Padukone deserves a trophy for doing that little? This whole let’s-applaud-Deepika thing attempts to reverse what we’d like to believe the star’s primary intention: that her stardom would serve an important story.
If the story ended up serving Deepika Padukone’s stardom and be forgotten, what is the point?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heisenberg
January 8, 2020
BR Sir no offence but reading this piece made me feel – “Sir neenga mind voice nu nenaichu sathama pesitu irukeenga”. 🙂
LikeLiked by 6 people
mobayg
January 8, 2020
I think this may be an example of the subconscious prejudices the makers may hope to address. Expecting that acid attack survivors would not “dress up” because of their physical appearance.
Deepika dressing conservatively wouldn’t be any more appropriate in my opinion. From the little I’ve seen, Laxmi is not dowdily dressed on the promotion circuit either.
The hope will be that we all can be confident/free to express our individual styles however conservative or flamboyant, and not predicated on society’s constructs of beauty.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Karthik
January 8, 2020
The answer lies in your article itself, BR!
People pay for whom they want to see. And if a mediocre-looking Deepika ends up promoting the movie, it might churn lesser numbers (or lesser audience) than a glamorous Deepika.
Also, it seems more genuine on the person’s front to dress up for an occasion (in this case, promotions) the way they usually do, than dress up according to movie’s character and lead a fake life temporarily. At least, she seems more real this way.
As long as the cause is real, the materialistic stuff does not really matter.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Srinivas R
January 8, 2020
“If she is this desperate for the opening, then is the movie not that good? Yes, tells my instinct. Time will tell.” -its a bloody big risk to take, given how she will be shamed, he character questioned and patriotism questioned. Why would the producer take such a risk. The movie may or may not be good and from the trailer, it looks to be very templatized, but i think that it’s a combination of her history with Hindutva right wing + the fact that ABVP goons admitted to carrying acid to the campus attack, that made her do this.
LikeLiked by 10 people
rsylviana
January 8, 2020
@Srinivas R – True ! Whatever maybe my reservations around DP’s promotional outings for Chhappaak , mad props to her for partaking in the JNU protest especially after how the right-wing radicals behaved during the Padmavat release.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Vikram s
January 8, 2020
Thank you for sharing your unease with us, readers of the blog.
Here is what I have been thinking-
1.was it ok for Aamir Khan to promote Dangal in a slimmed avatar?
2.shouldnt a healthy person have played his role in Dangal?
3.why don’t we get uneasy when paunchy, bald, old, male movie stars get beautified through cgi and makeup and cavort with girls who are closer in age to any children that they might have? Why doesn’t the dichotomy of their onscreen persona and off-screen appearance cause us unease?
4.why don’t we get uneasy when leading ladies of an earlier era are forced to play mother roles whereas their contemporary leading men are still at it, playing heroes? In fact, they play mother to their leading men from an earlier time…
5.dont we know that what we see on screen is make-believe? Why should it be our concern that the actor who plays whatever role on screen is promoting the movie off-screen and is not dressed like the character that they have played? In fact, wouldn’t it be highly disingenuous if an actor from South Mumbai plays a tribal and chooses to promote that film dressed as a person of tribal origin?
6.havent we all known all along that, behind all that weight-shedding or weight-putting on, or behind all the layers of latex, there is a dishy Leonardo do caprio or George Clooney or Charlize Theron or Nicole Kidman with a prosthetic nose?
LikeLiked by 6 people
Isai
January 8, 2020
“its a bloody big risk to take… Why would the producer take such a risk. The movie may or may not be good…but i think that it’s a combination of her history with Hindutva right wing….that made her do this.”
Your analysis would be correct if this is a mass, commercial movie like Om Shanthi Om. If this is an exceptionally well made movie like Dangal, that will have a wide appeal, she stands more to lose than gain. And if I was a stakeholder in such a movie, I would have strongly advised her against doing this NOW.
But, if this is a niche movie and after seeing the final copy, if they feel it has, at best, an average making, then it makes business sense for her to COME OUT and EXPRESS her stand. In this scenario, she stands more to gain than lose, since a lot of the ‘un-woke’ crowd who may dislike her for this will anyway not have come to see such a niche movie, while the woke people will feel inclined to support her.
I saw Kabir’s interview and could easily understand why he chose to publicly express his stand. But, Deepika did a ‘Bharat Ki Laxmi’ video for Modi just 2 months ago, long after Padmavat. That, plus the timing of this move plus the business logic makes me suspect her motivations. I do wish that I am wrong and it is only my general cynicism towards women that is stopping me from recognising this brave selfless decision. Let’s see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amit Joki
January 8, 2020
First of all, I saw the promotion on The Kapil Sharma Show and the first thing that came to my mind was, “they look similar!”.
So, I think casting Deepika is a creative choice because they look similar and not a business decision. Let’s make it clear that the actor and the character are two different things and as long the actor can play a character both physically and histrionically, nothing else matters.
But apart from all this, I feel bad for Deepika. She went from Padmavat to this and I am thinking this is somehow a result of the notion of what a married woman is supposed to do. I hope I can still get films that a pre-wed Deepika would have walked right into.
Anushka too who would constantly be in limelight has disappeared for a bit. I am worried because this is the trend, Jyotika, Rani Mukherjee and their ilk doing these socially good films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WTH
January 8, 2020
I agree with Vikram s’s comment.
I am glad that through this post and some of the comments, a lot of hidden prejudices against beautiful successful women have come out in the open. I see a lot of commenters eager to express their agreement in unison to all sorts of grievances about Deepika’s looks, glamour designer dresses and the unfairness of it all.
Do you think male actors don’t dress in expensive clothes when they stand next to not so glamorous looking people? They do. But no matter how much the men try, they cannot come close to the kind of glamour, beautiful women like Deepika or Aishwarya own without even trying.
If educated, middle-class men can hide such prejudices and hatred for beautiful successful , privileged women, imagine the kind of angst those uneducated frontbenchers in cinema theatres carry when they watch these beautiful actresses dressed up in glamorous dresses on screen. I am sure they blame the women for making them feel inadequate in the way they look. It is this angst that makes these men act in such perverse ways to women and that makes them have a problem with everything women do: be it their beauty, their glamour, their designer gowns, their short skirts.
People need to stop picking on women for doing the exact same thing as men, just because they do it better. She is an actress. She is doing the exact same thing as a male actor, dressing well for her movie premiere and public appearances.
B.R has no problem with the horrific, toxic, inexcusable behavior by male leads in movies. To quote you:”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”.
You are “magnanimous” enough to excuse the filmmakers who make movies glorifying and glamorizing toxic masculinity and atrocious, harmful, appalling behavior by men in movies that can influence thousands of impressionable movie-going men in a country like India.
BUT you have a problem with a hardworking actress who “dared” to look glamorous and beautiful in her movie premiere and made you and other men feel inadequate?
Like a previous commentator said, “the closet sexism is coming out”
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
January 8, 2020
WTH: You are confusing what I said about happening WITHIN a movie and what I am talking about, the EXTERNAL factors of a very beautiful actress playing an acid-attack survivor.
The whole piece is about my unease with THIS particular role, and I am trying to understand why. This unease doesn’t happen otherwise — say, when Anushka de-beautifies herself in PARI.
I wrote in my review: “As an actress, this isn’t much of a stretch — she does what’s needed. (The plain-looking face, with freckles, is a nice touch.) ”
But something about an acid attack and its results stirs something in me — it’s one of the worst forms of violence on women. It about effacing one’s very identity — the face. And something about Deepika in this role is making me write this.
Let me also say that it didn’t bother me when Parvathy played an acid attack survivor in UYARE. So when I felt this with Deepika, I wanted to see why I felt this way.
Which is why the piece is titled “hand-wringing”. There is no certainty in it at all. There is no finger-pointing. I am not saying I have a “problem”.
In fact, I begin the piece by saying she is an actress and she should be playing anything and everything.
As for your point:
“Do you think male actors don’t dress in expensive clothes when they stand next to not so glamorous looking people? ”
Of course they do, and you are totally missing my point if you think this piece is saying “Deepika should wear plain salwar kameezes while promoting such a film.” If that’s the point my piece conveyed, then I haven’t written this piece well at all.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Anuja Chandramouli
January 8, 2020
My feelings on this matter are equally contradictory BR, and I will try to explain. For one, I don’t think it is even possible to be entirely for or against FOE or anything (even if we are convinced we have taken an irrevocable stand), there is always an if or a big ol but. A fervent pro – lifer may opt to drag her teen daughter to an abortion clinic without hesitation or a vegan left to survive on a deserted, barren island may chow down on raw fish, a fervent feminist may decide not to #believeallwomen and discredit #metoo because the accused is her beloved son… These things are always complicated and subject to change depending on a vast number of factors.
That said with regard to this particular issue, I am totally okay with Charlize playing Aileen Wuornos and Hilary Swank playing Brandon Teena but I was far less impressed with Eddie Redmayne’s affected, showy performance in The Danish Girl (some things are subjective right?). In the same way, I don’t mind Padukone playing this character but I get offended when I see a fair skinned actor in inconsistently applied shades of brown paint. It shows a certain sensibility that has me hopping mad. I rationalize this by thinking that an actor has to transform physically and mentally to play a Monster, disabled person or an acid attack survivor, whereas while applying brown face the actor just has to sit still. That said I also get irritated when Taapsee and Bhumi play old ladies when a Shabana or a Neena Gupta are available damn it! Go figure…
Also at the very heart of art is the troubling fact that it glories in the face of suffering and is underwhelmed with joy for some inexplicable reason. I mean when was the last time an actor who specializes in comedy win an Academy award? An artiste cannot help but lick his/her chops when confronted with the opportunity to witness pain or tragedy. The mercenary that jostles for rent space in the head and heart of an artiste relishes the prospect of using that experience in their work and earning critical acclaim, big bucks and fame. It is why actors love the chance to play a rape victim, psychopathic killer or the victim of some other unspeakable tragedy. Can we ask a rape/acid victim to play themselves? Will they want to do so knowing that they will have to relive the tragedy for the paying audience which is a strange beast capable of being repelled, titillated or both?
Another factor is the overwhelming sense of relief we experience when faced with mounting evidence of the terrible violence and evil unfolding around us, affecting others. We can’t help but be glad that ‘it’ happened to someone far away and not to us or those we care about. Most among us also allow ourselves to be entertained by it. Probably why we love and indulge in gossip as well…
Therefore, we shudder at the depths of human folly and yet there is also a strange sense of satisfaction because deep down we know that this remorseless savagery is the reason homo sapiens are sitting pretty on top of the food chain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sifter
January 8, 2020
Nodding in agreement to what MKP and WTH and Vikram and Srinivas said.
@BR, I’ve been thinking for a while now about how gradually these kinda thoughts (prejudice against women, specially beautiful women, the leeway to men, the relief that the acid thrower was not shown as a monster, how the paedophile was shown in a sympathetic light, etc) gets woven in through the many articles that you’ve been writing of late. Was also wondering how long will your brilliant wit and way of writing hold my attention. Slowly disillusionment is setting in and it will be a great let down for me if it comes down to the fact that i won’t be able to enjoy your writing anymore.
@Anu, agree with you. Damned if she did and damned if she didn’t.
@Srinivas, some who hate her will say she’s doing it for promotion. Some may not like her, but will still say she’s courageous not only because she has acted in it, but because she has also produced it and so the risk is greater. Go figure.
LikeLike
Enna Koduka Sir Pera
January 8, 2020
Based on what BR said further, let me try to narrow down the possible cause even further. And to people commenting that is sexism, hatred from educated middle-class men of beautiful women taking positions of eminence, from how BR has described, it is far from that. I think it is missing the nuance in the argument.
Parvathy is a beautiful actor too, but is someone who is willing to show her “flaws” in real life in terms of how society defines beauty in the conventional sense. She is more “real”, not vain, doesn’t subscribe to conventional beauty standards. So, when she plays an acid attack victim whose face, where face is the first feature associated with beauty, has been violently attacked, there is no contradiction. Parvathy is being seen as someone not subscribing to society defined beauty standards in real life, and is also portraying a role where external “beauty” is gone.
Let’s come to Deepika. She is a beautiful person, but we don’t see her show her “flaws” in terms of beauty even during the promotions for this movie, which is all about it. There could be two reasons for this: a. She has no “flaws” at all in terms of physical beauty and therefore, it is incorrect to blame her for this. b. She has “flaws” too, but is not willing to defy conventional beauty standards even while promoting a movie like this. Vanity gets an upper hand. It is here that a contradiction lies. And, this contradiction is probably is what gives rise to unease.
LikeLiked by 4 people
brangan
January 8, 2020
So I asked a friend who I trust and who writes on gender if this piece seemed sexist. She replied:
“Not sexist sexist but…. did you feel the same emotions when Vikram made himself hideous. He’s very handsome you know. Or when you watched Hunchback.”
I said no. I also dis not feel the same… unease with the goegeous Zeenat Aman playing a burnt-face rustic woman in SATYAM SHIVAM SUNDARAM.
But in all these examples (including PARI), the films are pure fiction. But here, it’s too REAL.
Maybe that is the reason…
PS: Thank you for sharing that what does not bother us in one context may bother us in another. These contradictions are what make people so strange and interesting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Eswar
January 9, 2020
BR: I am sure you know your readers well. At the least the regulars of this blog. To publish this post in spite of that is a brave thing to do.
I have read the post only once and the first thing that struck me was, you have attempted to word a feeling, an emotion that is very difficult to articulate. I have no doubt that any person who is conscious about their train of thoughts, about what is being experienced, would have encountered such an emotion. We would have no literature if human mind was devoid of such contradicting, confusing, and difficult to comprehend emotions.
I don’t know if BR writing this post makes him a closet sexist, prejudice against women or worthy of other associated labels. But even if a person is any of these, the first step to overcome them is to able to face these emotions directly; the emotions that could potentially trigger the actions labelled as sexist and misogynistic. Writing it up is one way of dealing with such emotions.
Anyone who is sincerely concerned about sexism and misogyny in the society, would/should be welcoming of people opening up such conflicting emotions and be willing to engage and discuss with them. Rather than using it as an opportunity to label and try to push them to a corner.
LikeLiked by 14 people
Madan
January 9, 2020
Sifter: Related to what you said, I have a friend who is, on most issues including feminism, probably if not definitely more woke than me. And yet, he will, once in a while, trot out the theory that the male voice (singing) is more versatile than the female voice (he is a musician and singer himself). When I give specific examples of female singers achieving the same versatility, he will even acknowledge and praise them. But after a while, it’s like somebody wiped off the slate and he will go back to this theory.
Basically, that, yes, most of us have a blindspot. For my friend, this is the blindspot. I make peace with it because you cannot expect perfection out of this world. In the same vein, I may sometimes find BR’s writing problematic but it’s on the boderline rather than flagrant misogyny (or rather problem ‘isms’). As in the case of this article too, he is not saying actresses shouldn’t wear make up and dress up for promotions if they are playing an ugly character in the movie. He is saying something about this particular character and DP playing it makes him uneasy. I don’t agree at all on that but that’s that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
January 9, 2020
Sifter: the relief that the acid thrower was not shown as a monster, how the paedophile was shown in a sympathetic light,
You speak as though I am endorsing acid attackers or paedophiles!!!
For me, art is (also) something that opens a doorway to thinking about things I wouldn’t normally think about.
My original thinking: Acid attackers are fucked-up, entitled human beings.
But UYARE shows me a flawed man who doesn’t act out of “you belong to me or no one else” feelings. There is certainly some of that entitlement in this man, yes. But he is so filled with self-doubt and insecurity that when you see the film, you see that it’s more. The fact that she is succeeding and he is not. The fact that she seems to be able to get along without him. The fact that she seems to be slipping away from his hands. It’s not just “you refused to marry me”.
This DOES NOT excuse his actions one bit. The fact that we are encouraged to see what makes a paedophile in HEAD BURST makes me think about such people, who I’d earlier classified as flat-out monsters. Again, this DOES NOT excuse his actions one bit.
So the question is this: Do we want art to take us to icky places where we are asked to confront our pre-existing notions about some very horrible things? Or whether we don’t.
Either attitude is perfectly okay in a viewer. But I wouldn’t judge a viewer who wanted this or that.
Do I want these characters as friends? Hell, I don’t want to be in the same country as them!
But from a distance, from the safety of a theatre setting, if a film allows me to think about why people do such things, I find that interesting (a) as a viewer and human being, and (b) as a critic and writer.
But that said, if you feel a dissonance, then the quality of my prose (thank you for the compliment) should NOT be the reason you read me. You should find someone else.
PS: This is an extension of what I have said even about my reviews. If you are here to simply see me bash up, say, BIGIL, then you would be wasting time reading me. When I saw it, it evoked some contradictory feelings that a THERI or a MERSAL simply did not. And my review is an attempt to come to terms with that.
Even as I am writing, I was going “oh my God, I am saying a few positive things about an Atlee movie” — but the hope is that you push past that “prejudice” and put down what you honestly felt.
And of course, those are the times a large numbers of readers end up smirking, but that is how this gig works, IMO. You either grapple with things or you don’t.
And for those who disagree, I have always kept this comments space open, because — good or bad — I want to see what people have to say about the things I write.
LikeLiked by 15 people
Vikram s
January 9, 2020
BR, quite a few of us (and most certainly me), have issues watching actors we love showing up in roles that take away their good looks. For instance, being a hardcore AB fan, it was tough for me to sit through Paa. In that sense, DP in Chhapak is also in the same category. I know it is looking like a good film but I will not be able to make myself watch it. In your article, you have tried to give voice to this but it has somehow got entangled in gender bias, one possible reason also being the segues that the article makes to discuss DP’s attire in her off-screen appearances.
LikeLike
Priya Arun
January 9, 2020
BRangan saab. Leave Deepika. Leave the film business. As a very popular writer, that too a film writer, I must laud you for your courage in actually publishing this. By baring your thoughts this way, you have become vulnerable to strongly worded comments, that I am sure you expected. Not many (including a small-time bloggers like me) have the courage to think aloud for the fear of being judged. Hat-tip for the willingness to put our the workings of your mind so openly.
Coming to your questions, I think the jarringness happens because this is a true story and gosh, what a story it is! Every time we see Deepika in the promotions we probably wish victims too had a little undo button somewhere. It hurts to see them. It is nothing but a feeling of heightened empathy. I often wish people knew the difference between being empathetic and patronising.
Anyway, like the film hopes to do, let’s also hope that this story gives strength to the scores of victims and also convey a message to villains that no matter what you do, you can never break us.
PS: I might read your posts on FC but I ALWAYS do come back here for the comments. 🙂
LikeLiked by 6 people
Rahini David
January 9, 2020
Sifter: Most of us outgrew Sidney Sheldon. How many of us wrote him a note letting him know that his writing wasn’t working for us anymore? Is that basic decency in NOT writing a note like that too much to ask?
I mean, letting a known writer know that you are feeling an increasing sense of dissonance in his recent work isn’t in and of itself wrong. After all, that is what the comment section is for. But you have almost made it sound as if you consider him amongst the dregs of society.
You are a long term commenter here if I am not wrong. Do you really not think that BR deserves better than what you have written here?
BR: Content is always more important than form to me, especially in written work. I have long wondered what you felt about these comments that imply that your written work is all about fancy form and only mildly about the content. I think that is an unjustified comment considering the quality of the content. I have read your work for over a decade. I have not been reading your work hunting for clever witticisms and alluring alliterations. I have only read it for the content.
This particular article just looks like whatever thought you were having was still at a very viscous stage. It has a neither-here-nor-there feel to it, which is very different from a well-considered balanced stance. It feels incomplete and half done.
But that is no reason why people should be writing to you the way they do. You really deserve better than these comments.
LikeLiked by 6 people
SRIDHAR VISVANATH
January 9, 2020
Actually there is a parallel to this in how Pooja played ‘that’ character in Naan kadavul.
In these cases it is better for a new actress to play. An upcoming actress. Like how Bhumi played a bigger lady in Dum lagake aisa.
The actress can be beautiful. But it is good to have unknown but good actors play these roles.
What you feel is what most audience would have felt but not know how to communicate. More than “woke” etc the aim is for story to be convincing and no “nerudalgal” in tranferring that to the audience
(I wrote “nerudal” to highlight the nerudal in this comment)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rad Mahalikudi
January 9, 2020
Registering one’s thoughts as they go through the thought process and putting it out in open, with no clear cut closure, for others to see and comment is the boldest thing to do. More than agree or disagree, it is a constructive conversation.
BR, following comments, nicely said. Bang on.
So the question is this: Do we want art to take us to icky places where we are asked to confront our pre-existing notions about some very horrible things? Or whether we don’t.
But from a distance, from the safety of a theatre setting, if a film allows me to think about why people do such things, I find that interesting (a) as a viewer and human being, and (b) as a critic and writer.
Without above, there is no space for movies like “A Clockwork Orange” or “Man bites dog” or “Super Deluxe”. Super Deluxe may not be in the same league as other two, but it did push the envelope for a Tamil movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
sai16vicky
January 9, 2020
@BR: Your response inevitably reminds me of Benigno’s character in ‘Talk to Her’. His character is a monster, yes but is treated with so much empathy that it complicates one’s feelings for him. I can’t help but wonder how I would react if I realize if someone I know has committed such an act. Of such fascinating complexities are human beings made and it’s beautiful how art makes us ponder over these questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rsylviana
January 9, 2020
I think the jarringness happens because this is a true story and gosh, what a story it is! Every time we see Deepika in the promotions we probably wish victims too had a little undo button somewhere. *
@Priya Arun – Nicely put !
LikeLiked by 2 people
kasthuri
January 9, 2020
It is so interesting to see that someone who watches movies day in day out is “affected” this way by this movie. Just watching the trailer of this movie made me feel uncomfortable. I know i ll not be able to watch the movie (atleast not in cinema where i have no other distraction during the hard hitting parts). Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
krishikari
January 9, 2020
Upon reflection, I like this post a lot because it is uncertain and tries hard to flesh out a vague feeling, which I don’t share but still…
About DP, I think it’s entirely right to cast the most beautiful woman in the profession in this role. I bet Lakshmi is glad too. Remember they were threatening to cut off her nose during the Padmavat riots. Again, when she appeared at JNU someone tweeted that they wished that her nose had been cut off! She could have been a victim too, this is the country she also lives in. @isai does it occur to you that she could have had a very personal reason for being there during the promotion of this movie? Attacks on women, attacks on students, attacks on films, all connected.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Isai
January 9, 2020
Rahini: After reading your comment, I gave a second reading to Sifter’s comment and I think there is a slight misunderstanding. When I first read Sifter’s comment, my reaction was similar to BR’s (about endorsement of paedophiles). But now I think what Sifter meant was, as a MAN, BR seems to be relieved when other MEN who are paedophiles etc. are shown with some redeeming qualities. This is somewhat natural under some circumstances. For ex: If a Hollywood movie shows an Indian tourist littering and talking loudly in a quiet room, I would be subconsciously relieved if it later shows him doing something positive. But, I think the reason why BR mentioned it in his reviews is not because of this relief but because this complexity makes that character and the movie more interesting to watch (as he explained). So, while Sifter seems to have misunderstood the reason for BR mentioning it in the reviews, you and BR also seem to have misunderstood her remark as Sifter perhaps didn’t mean ‘dregs of society’ or ‘endorsement of paedophiles’ in that comment.
LikeLike
Isai
January 9, 2020
“does it occur to you that she could have had a very personal reason for being there during the promotion of this movie? Attacks on women, attacks on students, attacks on films, all connected”
Krishikari: I think not just Deepika, there would be other stars too who hate these attacks and would like to come out and express their resistance. But, there is say a closed door between them and the public. The key to this door is held by their PR team whose JOB is to ensure that the star’s popularity, which determines her salary, endorsements etc. does not diminish. Now, a highly emotional/impulsive person like Trump or Salman, may break open this door at times saying I will do what I feel like and I don’t care about the consequences. Deepika doesn’t look like that person. Which means the door was opened by the PR team themselves. They would have done this only after doing a cost-benefit analysis and coming to the conclusion that this would give immediate benefits and any damage to the popularity among the ‘un-woke’ crowd can be managed later by doing another ad for Modi etc.
So, the question of whether Deepika came there because she genuinely wanted to express her feelings or because her PR team suggested this for publicity, is IMMATERIAL to me.
I am ONLY interested in knowing why HER PR TEAM ALONE opened that door. My conclusion is that the benefits would be large enough only in case of an immediate release of a niche, not-so-excellent movie that would otherwise have only a limited appeal in the box office. Considering the reviews which shows that this movie is not as tautly made as this director’s previous movies like Talvar or Raazi and considering the twitter tags like #ChhapaakDekhoTapaakSe, #IStandwithDeepika etc., I think my analysis is spot on.
LikeLike
Varsha Ganesh
January 9, 2020
BR – You’ve tried your best (and succeeded IMO) to articulate this vague uneasiness that I had while seeing Deepika at the promotions. Like a couple of folks here said, its something related to sensitivity that I feel is missing but I have no clue what more I want considering she’s poured in her money and time ensuring Laxmi’s story reaches the masses. I chalked it down to my uneasiness with the unfairness of the world that I was projecting on Deepika. But it’s also a little more than that. Personally, I think Deepika is one of the better celebs who seems thoughtful, considerate and has gone through some struggles in her life to make her a little high on the empathy scale. So I seem to unconsciously hold her to a higher standard and expect more from her, never mind that I can’t articulate what that ‘more’ is. I would not expect this from a Ranveer or a Vikram as I’ve already written them off as incapable of demonstrating empathy or being sensitive. I was astonished as I chased this line of thought as I would generally call myself a feminist and this is just a different flavor of the ‘boys will be boys’ argument. I was initially ashamed at this regression into my conditioned past self despite spending so much time and effort trying to unlearn, but I was glad I somewhat identified it so I can watch out for it and do better in the future.
What I`m trying to say through this muddled rant is that we are all works in progress and being able to talk about it is the only way we can work through it. Outrage is great for clicks but not that great if we actually care about change.
Thanks for being brave BR.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Santa
January 9, 2020
“This particular article just looks like whatever thought you were having was still at a very viscous stage. It has a neither-here-nor-there feel to it, which is very different from a well-considered balanced stance. It feels incomplete and half done.”
Thanks for this, @RahiniDavid. This is exactly what I felt when I mentioned that this felt like a very atypical write-up, but I didn’t put it as articulately as you did. I am a regular reader and what brings me back over and over (and will keep bringing me back) is the sense of nuance, thoughtfulness, and balance that pervades the articles here. I always feel like I have gained some insight after reading a new article from BR.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Uma GANESAN
January 10, 2020
I don’t know how many readers of this blog are readers of the high heel confidential fashion blog. There are so many women readers of the blog commenting there that it is not in good taste or it makes them uncomfortable seeing Deepika dressed to the nines in all her promotion appearances for the movie.
Just saying that a lot of people including women have been experiencing this same unease that BR has explained in this post.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Madan
January 10, 2020
Hmm, I am not sure how BR could have written this differently in a way that would feel more complete. Because he was tiptoeing throughout, realising the potential to offend that what he was saying held, and also reaching the ultimate depths of subjectivity. Why should DP being all dressed up for the promos bother you is a very subjective idea. To the other commenter who mentioned High Heel Confidential, I know next to nothing about fashion and in my hot headed college debate days, used to question why you need a fashion industry. Is it YOUR sensitivity that bothers you about DP showing up like that for the promos or is it old fashionedness? I don’t know. But what I do know is this is completely subjective, even another level beyond the usual subjectivity we talk about in art appreciation. This is like the MSNBC talking head saying, “I don’t like Bernie Sanders, he creeps me out” in a discussion about electability and offering no justification. Because it is totally subjective and personal. You cannot convert it to an objective ‘rule’ because you then violate the most basic rule of art appreciation where you separate the actor from the character he is playing. At a very reductive level, there is no difference between expecting DP to look kinda plain or shabby for the promotionals of this movie and calling Naseeruddin Shah anti national because he once played a Pak spy (Sarfarosh). Of course, the latter is a way more malignant assumption, not to mention dumb as hell. But both would commit the same fallacy of mixing up the character and the person playing it. I don’t care if she is playing an acid attack victim. It’s still JUST. A. FILM. Should Kamal have turned up in mental hospital uniform with unshaven hair for Guna launch? There’s nothing wrong with what DP did. As BR himselt acknowledged. Why it would still disturb someone is entirely subjective.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Rahini David
January 10, 2020
Isai:
But now I think what Sifter meant was, as a MAN, BR seems to be relieved when other MEN who are pedophiles etc. are shown with some redeeming qualities.
That was already quite obvious (to me).
LikeLiked by 3 people
R
January 10, 2020
So I have been thinking a lot about this and it makes me so angry because how senseless equating the concern about cis actors playing trans folks or fair actors brown facing to play dark skinned characters or having an actor with (great) hair play a balding character.
Here’s why this whole logic or rationale is ridiculous:
Trans folks are continuously marginalized and deemed unworthy, unattractive and “unnatural” by cis members of the society. So when you go on to have a cis actor play a trans character, you’re saying “hey look, you’re so unworthy and unattractive, you can’t even play yourself!!!” You cannot champion trans rights by dismissing or ignoring trans actors. You are doing the same thing that you are criticizing the world for. It’s hypocritical, ignorant and disrespectful and reiterates the idea that trans folks are unworthy or unattractive.
If a movie about an acid attack survivor/victim (s/v)’s life shows incidents prior to the attack, how would you get an actor who is s/v of acid attack to look they did pre-acid attack? You could use CGI or a lot of prosthetics but its most likely to be jarring or straight up ineffective. If you counter by saying well how would trans actors play a character prior to transition? The same way you get cis actors to play trans roles, you use make up and put them in clothes that “conform” to the gender they were transitioning from.
Same as point number 1. bald people or dark skinned people are continuously told they are unworthy of praise and are unattractive simply because they are bald and/ or brown. When you can have actual bald and/or brown actors play those roles, choosing to have “conventionally attractive” actors take on what is deemed as ugly traits, to play these roles is rude and disrespectful. It continues the idea that look “you can’t even play yourself!”.
In my very humble opinion, your issue with Deepika playing an acid attack S/V is that you have a hyper sexualized perception of her (let’s blame the media and society for this, ok?) and you have deemed acid attack s/v to be unattractive (again, let’s blame society and media for this). Trying to align both of these ideas is what is causing your dissonance IMHO.
You didn’t have an issue with Parvathy doing Uyare because Parvathy is not seen as a glamorous icon nor is she (usually) hyper sexualized by the media. I believe her feminist beliefs somewhat deems her unattractive in the eyes of the media and most men.
Even Anushka isn’t seen as a glam icon or “sex symbol” (ugh) as much as Deepika is by the media and society. Which is why Pari was easier for you to digest
I’m not attacking you for feeling this way, I’m telling you as to why I think you feel this way.
Also, I see a lot of people eating up the trans actors should play trans roles as liberal or political correct crap, it isn’t. It’s about respect. You’re already shoving them to the edge of society for not conforming to your beliefs, least you can do is give them that space when you make a movie about them or with a trans character.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Isai
January 10, 2020
“That was already quite obvious (to me).”
Rahini, then kindly quote which sentence of Sifter means/implies ‘BR is ENDORSING paedophiles’ or Sifter considers BR as “amongst the dregs of society”. I read her comment for the 3rd time now but am not able to find the above meanings/implications. Eswar rightly mentioned about how one shouldn’t label and push someone to a corner for expressing their emotions. This applies to Sifter as much as it applies to BR.
LikeLike
Rahini David
January 10, 2020
Isai: While what Sifter wrote seems quite plain to me, what you write is completely incomprehensible to me. What your ORIGINAL understanding was, what your SUBSEQUENT understanding is are all bewildering me no end. Maybe if Sifter feels wronged/misunderstood because of BR’s response or mine, he/she will probably voice it.
I did not label Sifter or push him/her to any corner. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by you and me continuing this particular thread.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sai Ashwin
January 10, 2020
@R
Thank you so much, exactly after reading this line from BR.
BR has always been averse to politics in films, blaming “woke-ness”,”pc culture” and shit. Condescending mentions “messaging” in films but the fact he is he only mentions these when the “message” is uncomfortable to his privileged self. He wants to completely look at films in a sort of political vacuum which might be why he is able to talk about politics in foreign films but not in Indian films (at least not positively).
“Because if you believe otherwise, if you go down the rabbit hole of “only trans actors should play trans roles”, then you should go all the way. If you believe it was wrong to paint Bhumi Pednekar brown in Bala, then it was also wrong to have Ayushmann Khurrana play bald. If you believe it was wrong to make Priyanka Chopra play Mary Kom, it’s also wrong for Fawad Khan to play gay in Kapoor & Sons.”
I was like “what kind of idiotic false equivalence is this?”. Didn’t expect such troll level nonsense from BR. And honestly, this entire article kind of “exposes” BR’s hypocrisy and beliefs. And then even more non-sense here
“It’s like freedom of expression. You are either for it or against it. You can’t be for it, but with exceptions. You can’t say, I am all for freedom of expression, unless someone’s making graphically offensive jokes. That’s a very slippery slope. As disgusting as these jokes are, if you stand up for freedom of expression, then you are saying, “I hate that this stand-up comic is trying to make people laugh with this material, but hey, that’s what it takes to not be authoritarian.”
BR doesn’t even understand what freedom of expression means. Freedom of expression is literally the state prosecuting an individual for contrary opinions. The so-called “twitter mob” are well within their rights to lash out against any person for their regressive practices. I don’t know how BR can’t understand such a simple concept. This exactly how people defended Kabir Singh or recently Joker from criticism, when people called the film “regressive”. Like their go to card to any sort of “ethical” criticism is “muh freeze peach”.
And then literally in the next paragraph, he starts to defend capitalism. And to quote him only “You are either for it or against it”.
So this
“That is the nature of the business. And it’s literally a business, an expensive business. It’s easy to sit on your Twitter high chair and sneer that the protagonist of Mary Kom should have really been played by an actor from the North East. In an ideal world, yes. In an ideal world, our screens would be filled with all kinds of faces and body shapes and language-speakers and accents, and a proud, bald actor – like the great Malayalam star Gopi – would instantly be cast in Bala. But we don’t work like that. By “we”, I mean us, the audience that consumes Hindi cinema. We shell out money only for specific faces, specific body types. We make stars out of only certain kinds of lookers, especially when it comes to actresses.”
This entire paragraph reads like a old boomer who is uncomfortable with criticism and wants to rationalise the status quo. “ohh the ideal world is too hard to achieve, but the world right isn’t so bad” something only an upper-caste/class privileged man would say.
BR you don’t need to be revolutionary to not be a bootlicker of the status quo.
And By BR’s logic, we can caste anyone to play anyone. So why not cast Tom Cruise to play Martin Luther King Jr? Or caste Leonardo DiCaprio to play Ambedkar? Oh what you say its “blackface” but no you said there you shouldn’t be exceptions and that you are either for it or against it.
And now coming to DP/Chhapaak, I just wanna ask BR when he kept watching all those poverty porn films made by westerns going to Africa or some other similar crisis place and making a film there, did none of those make you feel uncomfortable the way Chhapaak does?
Why didn’t Capernaum, a film in which kids and infants who were separated from their parents (held in detention centres) and the filmmaker shot the film anyway exploited them, making them cry, go hungry etc. But you dont seem to feel uncomfortable with it? Even though the filmmaker herself admitted to feeling bad about the explicit exploitation. A film who’s entire “message” seems to be a simplistic “poor people shouldn’t have kids”.
Why this selective outrage, BR? Like you yourself say “You are either for it or against it. You can’t be for it, but with exceptions.”
LikeLike
ItsVerySimple
January 10, 2020
There was a MADRAS to school you about caste and understanding caste-representation. Unfortunately, there will be no such moment that will make you see why it is important for trans actors should play trans roles and why it cannot be clubbed with the rest of the nonsense-equivalence you have managed to write. It is unfortunate that the rest of the piece is more-accessible garbage that people are focusing there and don’t seem to see and engage the enormous stupidity in this line.
I am not going to explain why you are wrong – because #1 – There are enough voices who have made the point better that I will ever explain and I am sure you have read many of them and still continue to be dense about this. #2 – I have read your earlier hand-wringing about who should play trans roles (of course nobody debates who should play a cisman’s or a ciswoman’s role), how art is so pure and holy to be put above everything else etc., – but someone needs to at least tell you every time you make this point that you are wrong. Exhausting? yes. Necessary? Yes.
It’s hilarious to watch the reactions to this piece on Twitter and the comments here. Of course, it is easy to dismiss Twitter as the woke crowd. Ignorance is, always, bliss.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 10, 2020
@ R – you articulated my roiling thoughts on why this article made my stomach churn. Thank you.
@Rahini, you know I like you, lady, but your comment to Sifter was unworthy of you. 😦 Whether you need to defend BR or not, answering Sifter’s actual remarks is one thing. To take what she said about disillusionment and turn it into ‘dregs of society’ is quite a stretch, no?
As for writing to an author to let him/her know their writing doesn’t work for us as a reader any more? What’s indecent about it? An author (or actor or director or composer or artist) has put their work out there for their public to consume – what’s wrong or ‘indecent’ about letting the artiste know – civilly, as Sifter did – that there is a dissonance that we, the consumers, feel?
Because while I think this was BR honestly wrestling with why he felt the way he does, I see the same dissonance that Sifter, WTH, Srinivas, Sai Ashwin and some of the others have seen and commented upon.
Or are you saying that even civil disagreement about BR’s writing or the thoughts he puts out or expressing our disillusionment about both is not decent now?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Madan
January 11, 2020
“it is important for trans actors should play trans roles” – Hold it there. Trans actors should play trans roles, yes. The reason for that is exceedingly simple. For the same reason that (cis) men don’t act as (cis) women (except as a joke, like Mrs Doubtfire/Chachi 420). There are limits to an actor’s ability to enact that one should respect and forcing the audience to take it seriously when an actor acts out a gender they don’t belong to is going too far. Therefore trans people should play trans characters in the movies. Of course, it’s entirely another thing if an actor has adopted a cis gender identity for marketability but is in fact trans in reality and then those in the know cast this actor in a trans role.
The same however does not apply to ‘shades’ of colour. Please understand, I am not talking about white people enacting black characters. I don’t want that, at all, and hate it. They are different races and, again, one would be expecting too much suspension of disbelief from the audience to accept a white man playing a black man, no matter the disguise. HOWEVER, Bhumi Pednekar is NOT lily white herself. I hope people can apply their mind and realise that the regular photos they see of her probably if not definitely involve tons of makeup to turn her skin an ‘acceptable’ shade of fair (now I have put the acceptable in quotes for a reason so don’t complain that I am saying only fair skin is acceptable, I am not). So the gap between her real skin colour and that in Bala is not as huge as people seem to think. I think it should be allowed both ways, for more dark skinned actors to play fair skinned characters and vice versa. It’s good for actors too to know both sides of the picture. As a matter of fact, it happens a lot more often than people realise because, again, we judge how they look by their made up look on the screen or promotional events etc which itself is already a mask. Likewise, saying Ayushmann shouldn’t play a baldie would be absolutely ridiculous. If you take these virtue tests too far, you destroy the very essence of acting which necessarily involves becoming somebody you are not (also, if you accept the Bhumi/Ayushmann premises, please tell me how do you propose to defend Nawaz acting in Ramayana from the bhakts). Do it, but within limits that don’t defy biology.
LikeLike
steadymeandering
January 11, 2020
Somehow when I read your article an image of Kamal in Anbe Sivam kept popping in my head.
Like when I was a kid it irked me that such a handsome man should deface himself. But I feel like that in itself is a bravery. And somehow when Deepika does it, it seems braver because she is more defined by her beauty. For me, that aspect will make this film more shocking and real for viewers who may unfortunately not care that much if some newbie played this role. And I applaud you for being honest with what you feel and putting out the contradictions you feel when watching it. Doesn’t make it right/wrong but atleast it is out there
LikeLike
Rahini David
January 11, 2020
Anu, Isai and perhaps Sifter: I stand by what I said about Sifter’s comment. Perhaps it is only fair to explain why. But I may have to come back after a week as it is not easy to write much on a phone.
LikeLike
sai16vicky
January 11, 2020
@Anu:
I don’t think the issue is about the disagreement. It is more about cherry-picking specific articles of BR to make general comments on his writing itself. I mean one could obviously have disillusionments with a writer and one doesn’t need even a reason. BUT if you’re going for a WHY, why not make it a more convincing one?
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 11, 2020
@sai vicky, I’m sure Sifter can answer this better, but my understanding of her comment is that she’s pointing out the trend she’s noticing in several of BR’s recent articles. And it’s the cumulative effect of these that led to this particular comment.
I’d say that’s a valid reason to state. I’d even argue that stating it is actually the decent thing to do, because BR is not just some random reviewer/ author. He’s someone we all interact with on his blog, someone who puts his words out for us to discuss and comment on. And yes, disagree with.
And if his writing creates that feeling of dissonance or disillusionment, voicing it, especially as politely as Sifter did, is a valid response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
January 11, 2020
@saivicky, Sifter may be better able to answer as to her motivations, but as far as I understood her comment, she was pointing out the general trend in recent articles. That’s not cherry picking. That’s articulating why she feels the disillusionment. And I think it’s a convincing argument – for why she feels the way she does.
Now… you don’t have to agree with her. Neither does Rahini. Nor anyone else. And I really want to hear Rahini articulate the ‘why’ of her response. Because I know she can. But I still maintain that to say Sifter implied BR was the ‘dregs of society’ was a far reach and that expressing civil disagreement/disappointment/disillusionment with a writer with whom we have interacted is ‘decent’ – and I don’t like that there’s a question mark after the word.
Speaking for myself, I read Sidney Sheldon, and I outgrew him. Even if I’d interacted with him on the Internet, I doubt I would have gone to the trouble of telling him why I’d outgrown him. Simply because I don’t care enough. With BR – again, at least for me – I’ve interacted with him on this blog. He seems like ‘one of us’ (and no, you don’t need to tell me that’s also an illusion), in that he often breaks the fourth wall to ‘talk’ to us. So I’m also more likely to listen to his response and give him the benefit of the doubt. But when I disagree with him, the tone of my ‘voice’ is stronger, disagreements are more emphatic, and I’m more likely to call him out for perceived or implied opinions. But as with all my comments – to him or others – he’s more than welcome to respond, ignore or not publish.
As long as I am civil even amidst my anger/disappointment/disagreement, I hardly think it’s indecent to question his thought processes.
LikeLike
sai16vicky
January 12, 2020
@Anu:
That’s what I don’t see actually. I have been following BR since about 2009 and he has always written about these things in one way or the other. A laundry list warning below.
(1) Characterization of Benigno in ‘Talk to Her’, which I refer to in my comment above.
(2) The open-ended one-night stand in ‘Sila Nerangalil Sila Manidhargal’.
(3) About an incest angle in a very old TMS movie, whose name evades me now (‘Sivakavi’ perhaps?). Similar references in reviews of ‘Nadunisi Naaygal’ and ‘Sarkar-3’.
(4) ‘Crimes and Misdemeanours’ referencing Woody Allen’s real-life ‘crime’.
The point I am trying to make is that his writing has always touched upon bringing in touchy aspects of life into art and art imitating life, life imitating art, yadda yadda yadda. Which is why I was saying Sifter’s comment is cherry-picking.
So, what is specific about the recent trend that Sifter (or you) sees/see in recent times that is not there in the examples above? I am asking this purely out of curiosity since you have been a long time reader too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Josh-E-Maddy
January 12, 2020
Sorry to digress. One thing is for sure ‘woke’ has to be the most annoying, pretentious and pseudo-intellectual word ever. Seeing a writer of Baradwaj Rangan’s calibre using this word is like Charles Dickens writing like Chetan Bhagat to be ‘hip’ and ‘relatable’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
January 12, 2020
“So, what is specific about the recent trend that Sifter (or you) sees/see in recent times that is not there in the examples above? ” – It’s the times that have changed, haven’t they? I know a guy who used to joke he was going to watch the men’s tennis final (he meant the Williams sisters playing each other) and who now bristles with self righteous woke anger (I find these extreme flips curious as someone who never questioned their femininity ever). Over the last few years, the notion has taken root that even thoughts that may APPEAR to be sexist or bigoted in some way are malignant. This does influence the way we react to words that we may have let go of in the past. And it doesn’t mean those words were egregious and should never have been said; I am not so convinced of that. It’s not, in other words, the equivalent of nigger no longer being acceptable. This is much more nuanced and complicated and for some reason, society seems to wish it wasn’t so complicated and tries to simplify it into opposing positions. Just like the politics of our times.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Anu Warrier
January 12, 2020
Madan, thank you once again.
@saivicky, I just offered an explanation of why Sifter may have said what she did. As I said, it’s better she explain her motivations. To me, it seemed that she offered a couple of examples that were especially egregious to her – perhaps more of a ‘last straw’?
But. If you read closely, I wasn’t objecting to Rahini (or you) disagreeing with her. I was disagreeing with her assertion that Sifter had impled BR was the dregs of society and that questioning a writer about his writing/intentions is not decent.
For myself, BR and I have clashed over his writing or perceived sympathies long before this. I think I began sometime during the Remo thread? And on the article he wrote explaining it away?
So have many others.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Isai
January 13, 2020
“what you write is completely incomprehensible to me. What your ORIGINAL understanding was, what your SUBSEQUENT understanding is are all bewildering me”
Rahini: I think you and BR wouldn’t have responded to Sifter in this way if it was the only critical comment in this thread. But, since Sifter’s comment was preceded by many such comments, I feel there was an accumulation of irritation(or discomfort in my case), that got vented on Sifter since she agreed with those comments and hers was perhaps the easiest to refute. Initially I was speed reading the comments and I remember nodding at BR’s response. But, after I googled your ‘dregs’ comment and gave another ‘cold’ reading to Sifter’s, I realised that both your and BR’s responses are disproportionate.
(I got the same feeling in the Arjun Reddy thread: While the movie does have problematic scenes, what bothers me is that we don’t follow PROPORTIONALITY and conveniently vent ALL our pent up frustration on a single person/issue).
You are protective of BR. Even when I criticised his response to Bigil’s criticism, you responded by misquoting me on Aval Varuvala. I thought the soft corner, that was clouding the judgement, was for the movie, but later realised that it was for BR. So, next time you feel like responding to someone’s criticism of BR, do double check the facts and ensure that the response is not dictated solely by emotions.
“Maybe if Sifter feels wronged/misunderstood because of BR’s response or mine, he/she will probably voice it….I don’t think there is anything to be gained by you and me continuing this particular thread.”
Isn’t this a bit unfair? You intervened when I criticised BR. You responded when I asked a question to RC, without even waiting to see what it was about. But, when I respond to your criticism of Sifter, ONLY because I feel it is DISPROPORTIONATE, you are asking me to stay out of it. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
LikeLike
brangan
January 13, 2020
Isai: since Sifter’s comment was preceded by many such comments, I feel there was an accumulation of irritation(or discomfort in my case), that got vented on Sifter since she agreed with those comments and hers was perhaps the easiest to refute.
It was neither irritation nor discomfort. Also, I was not “refuting” Sifter’s comment.
I wish you would stop attributing “motives and possible underlying emotions” to comments and reviews and interviews, which you tend to do a lot — and yes, THIS time, there IS some discomfort about this tendency of yours.
I read my comment again, and hardly find it an angry retort or some such thing.
I was merely trying make a point about how I view these perceived problem areas (like a film that’s empathetic about a paedophile).
Sifter made a point that interested me and I was continuing the discussion and explain my POV about “problematic art” — that’s all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rahini David
January 13, 2020
Anu Warrier: It all boils down to what we consider “civil” and what we don’t.
I’d not want any one to use the statement “you articulated my roiling thoughts on why this article made my stomach churn” when talking about an article that I wrote in which I tried my best to articulate what I felt about a nebulous thought.
You disagreed with BR in this. That is fine. But would YOU be ok with ME making statements to someone here that Anu’s thoughts were making me throw up? Or that her ideas were starting to be like enema to me? You say “I’d even argue that stating it is actually the decent thing to do, because BR is not just some random reviewer/ author.” Do you mean he is almost a friend? Are you of the opinion that you have earned the right to say these things to him by reading his work for years and engaging with him regularly? Are you REALLY stepping back and seeing if you have started saying things to him that you wouldn’t tell a friend or about a friend? You need to proofread your statements for kindness. Cut down the snark.
This article about a certain squeamishness BR felt about something is very valid (IMO). The topic has a high chance of being construed as anti-Deepika and it does not seem that he accounted sufficiently for it to be seen that way. But this article is definitely coming from a kind, compassionate person. That kind compassion should be accounted for when you engage with him. IMO, you haven’t done that.
And the whole statement “he’s more than welcome to respond, ignore or not publish” shows me how different you and I are about this topic. I’d never write anything to BR or any other writer that would make them consider not publish my comment. If I felt I did, I would openly and publicly apologise for my language. It is not about disagreeing. It is about disagreeing with the correct tone.
Civil disagreements are not about avoiding M*****F***** and A**H***. There is more to it and that is my old fashioned notion.
This applies to Sifter too. I would not talk to any man in the way Sifter talks to BR even if my moral high horse was very high. There is no point in complaining that the bitter-gourd curry was bitter and that the restaurant was not worth it anymore just for its fancy crockery. There is no attempt to see things from his POV. She seems to want her POV in his language. That is very petulant IMO.
Sorry but this is my last comment in this thread. I really don’t care about the responses I would be getting for this.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Isai
January 13, 2020
BR, I read your comment to Sifter again and yes, except for the 1st line, what you told me is absolutely right. But, when you begin with “You speak as though I am endorsing acid attackers or paedophiles!!!”, with 3 exclamation marks, it is hard to think, at least for me, that you are not angry or even irritated. I don’t know about Sifter, but if I was in his/her shoes, I wouldn’t have thought that you wanted to ‘continue the discussion’.
I responded to Rahini’s comment and included yours because I did/do feel your first line was a bit harsh.
“yes, THIS time, there IS some discomfort about this tendency of yours.”
Thanks for letting me know. Henceforth, I will keep my comments to a bare minimum, so that this tendency of mine doesn’t bother you. Ciao!
LikeLike
brangan
January 13, 2020
Isai: Thanks for letting me know. Henceforth, I will keep my comments to a bare minimum, so that this tendency of mine doesn’t bother you. Ciao!
Are you serious? So commenters can say anything they want, but the one time I respond in kind, you’re going to walk off in a huff? 🙂
My comment is that you have a tendency to not just reply to the comment or article at hand but try and unearth possible reasons or states of mind behind it. If that’s how you feel like continuing, by all means please do.
But pointing it out isn’t a reason for a “Ciao!”, IMO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isai
January 13, 2020
“the one time I respond in kind, you’re going to walk off in a huff?”
When did I say that I will walk off?
“you have a tendency to not just reply to the comment or article at hand but try and unearth possible reasons or states of mind behind it.”
You are absolutely right and you are not the first person to tell me that I tend to overthink. The problem is, I can’t help it. But, when that is discomforting the blog HOST, I think it is only appropriate that I stop posting these thoughts HERE. I will continue to comment on how I felt about the movies. Thanks a lot for the wonderful reviews. Take care.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
January 13, 2020
Rahini, wow! That’s some leap you made about ‘my roiling thoughts’ and ‘the article made my stomach churn’.
I emphasised that I understood where BR was coming from. In fact, in my first comment to you, I wrote, “Because while I think this was BR honestly wrestling with why he felt the way he does… and continued with how I could see where the others were coming from.
As to I would never write anything… that would make them consider to not publish my comment.
Again, your interpretation baffles me. This had less to do with profanity/civility and everything to do do with the fact that this is a moderated blog and BR can choose what he wants to do.
And man, talking about civility and kindness, did you not read your own comment? Or are you so far up your moral highhorse that you cannot see it?
Anyway, over and out.
LikeLike
Kay
January 13, 2020
In other news, apparently there are YouTube videos by makeup bloggers on how to get Deepika’s look from Chhapaak. Not linking any of the videos here since I don’t want to add to the views.
LikeLike
BR is not woke enough
January 13, 2020
BR, you are not woke enough for the set of people you need to be woke enough for, to be part of their uncancelled, acceptable group. The thing is, they want you to be. Woke enough. Here’s a list of things you need to change/ be doing:
1) you are a brahmin. You need to be virulently anti Hindu or at the very least, extremely snide about Hinduism, while also being very positive or neutral about other religions.
2) You need to be very, very vocally anti caste – to a crazy extent – by which I mean that you cannot like any upper caste film makers or their films. You can only talk about them to call them out. If you like something, you need to first check the caste of the artist and then decide how to write about it. That’s how you atone for being upper caste.
3) You need to get with the trans program. Trans women are women – more women than women themselves.
4) Toe the right line on women’s issues whether you mean it or not – ok here, even I’ve had problems with you in the past – this is one area you might actually need to work on.
5) Call shit out constantly on twitter. Outrage like there’s no tomorrow. How you are in real life does not matter. Need to sound right on social media – that’s all that REALLY matters.
Get in the right group, get published at the right places! Profit!
LikeLike
Prachee
January 14, 2020
I think your discomfort is because you can’t imagine Deepika and Laxmi having a common cause. But they do. Deepika is far more privileged than Laxmi, and has not had her face disfigured, but let me remind you that not too long ago, during the controversy about “Padmavat” people had threatened to cut off her nose. It’s sad, but many women in India have experienced the fear of being physically assaulted, of their faces being disfigured. Rape, murder, acid attack these are the go-to threats of most men in our society.
While thousands of women have suffered acid attacks, and the rest of us live in fear.
LikeLike
Solomon-the-Unwise
January 14, 2020
But you have almost made it sound as if you consider him amongst the dregs of society.
and
But would YOU be ok with ME making statements to someone here that Anu’s thoughts were making me throw up? Or that her ideas were starting to be like enema to me?
Hoo, boy! Talk about misinterpreting someone’s statements. Vive le hyperbole!
It is not about disagreeing. It is about disagreeing with the correct tone.
Civil disagreements are not about avoiding M*****F***** and A**H***. There is more to it
And Irony wept as it died a quiet, agonising death.
p.s. Long-time lurker here. Was enjoying the discussion until things got personal. Now I’ll go back under my rock.
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
January 14, 2020
Prachee: I make that point in my piece, here:
Also, there is the extra-textual angle, the “this could happen to anyone” angle. An acid attack isn’t just the domain of a certain kind of woman from a certain section of society. You could be Deepika freaking Padukone and this could – heaven forbid! – still happen to you. So one could argue that this kind of casting is especially significant, because it also makes us consider an extreme end of victimhood — a big-time movie star whose very livelihood depends on looks.
LikeLike
Voldemort
January 20, 2020
Well, isn’t this horrible?
https://www.ndtv.com/entertainment/the-internet-slams-deepika-padukone-for-turning-her-chhapaak-look-into-a-tiktok-challenge-2166273
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
January 20, 2020
@Voldemort : More than horrible. Well, guess it’s thanks Deepika for proving the cynics right. An acid victim look??? The mind boggles at the very thought.
LikeLike
Voldemort
January 20, 2020
Madan : and in my hot headed college debate days, used to question why you need a fashion industry.
Haha. Sounds interesting. Would like to hear more on this!
R : Also, I see a lot of people eating up the trans actors should play trans roles as liberal or political correct crap, it isn’t. It’s about respect. You’re already shoving them to the edge of society for not conforming to your beliefs, least you can do is give them that space when you make a movie about them or with a trans character.
Word!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
January 20, 2020
Voldemort: I used to think that the fashion industry sold frivolity and made people buy stuff for the sake of it, not to mention make them feel unworthy for not being ‘fashionable’. It’s not that my views have changed so much about the fashion industry itself, but that I have a more libertarian outlook these days and think, well, ok, if people think their source of self esteem is some expensive branded toy, so be it, not my business. I have also come to see that in many ways, this herding suits ME and my interests. I can afford tickets to a nice classical concert at NCPA only because the demand isn’t that high. I could afford to watch Shreya Ghoshal in concert for maybe 1/20th the ticket price of Coldplay’s Mumbai show which happened to fall on the same day. I got myself a now out of production Wilson 6.1 95 racquet for half the price of the RF 97 that the crowd buys (with many buying it only because it’s endorsed by Federer, with its weight making it grossly unsuitable for most recreational tennis players). Sennheiser earphones are affordable because they don’t have the branding of Bose. But Sennheiser will deliver you the sound mix conceived by the artist unadulterated without nonsense like bass boost etc. I could go on. If I profit from the fashion industry and the largest marketing/advertising racket, why should I care?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sutheesh Kumar
January 21, 2020
Madan,
That like is for the Sennheiser love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
January 21, 2020
Sutheesh Kumar : Ah, nice to meet another Sennheiser fan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Priya Arun
January 21, 2020
Well, isn’t this horrible?
Maybe I’m feeling more sad than shocked. Talk about gut-feel, inexplicable restlessness and hand-wringing. (sigh) Or let me be naive here and wonder if she meant the pre-attack look?
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
January 25, 2020
Something more to chew on, continuing the discussion in this space…
“When the time is right, we will have a conversation about Uroob’s Rachiyamma and why I played the character and what my take is. As for if I will ever represent a woman, who in real life is dark, it’s a very big question and the answer will be ‘no’. But when it comes to a fictional space and when the thing is about adaptation it is a big tricky space.”
https://jfwonline.com/article/rachiyamma-is-dark-skinned-but-you-are-the-fairer-version-fans-disappointed-with-parvathys-look-actor-responds/
LikeLike
Voldemort
January 26, 2020
Madan : Thanks for the great reply.
BR : I think I asked this in some other thread also, did you get to watch Queen? If yes, what did you think of it? If no, why not?
LikeLike