The trailer had left me squirming and irritated. There is a
seemingly out of control alcoholic with anger management issues who seems to
maintain his Six packs despite all that guzzling and who consequently falls in
love with a demure girl. It did not around any curiosity in me other than to
cringe every time the hand smashing into someone’s face was regulated by
equally strong base sound of a cargo smashing to the ground.
So I desisted. Then began the self-indignant interviews by
the NDTV Anchor, a lot of twitter noise over belittling of the women, a strong
bitter interview by the hurt director to one review writer abusing another review
writer calling him names for his physicality.
Also noted writer friends on Facebook squabbling over their
opposing views. It got me anxious not because I was missing out on possibly an
artistic movie whose intentions I probably misunderstood but about the most
debated movies in recent times that seems to be overflowing at the box office.
Surely some chord struck with the masses and the self-appointed moral cops were
worried. Then a friend from the aggrieved section who should have been annoyed
was agog over the movie and felt it was to be watched. That got me completely
curious. I needed to change my stance of not wanting to watch it.
So I did on the last show of the movie in my town too late
to write a review that could matter to anyone.I came out of the theatre with completely mixed feelings. It
was a roller coaster of quality. With some great highs and some really pathetic
unwanted parts in the storyline. There was a fresh touch to the bohemian love
story propped by some superlative acting and yet the story suddenly lapsed into
some disgusting overtones of immoral standards of behavior in society.
The argument is that it is a story as told by the director
whose vision it is. There are gangster movies, bank robbery movies or even
violent love stories that have been prevalent over time. So why does this stand
out for persecution.
The answer lies in the recent headlines in our country and I
think the movie makers cannot ignore the situation around us and move on
ignoring the undeniable fact that the movies can have a copycat impact on
impressionable minds in society.
Shahid Kapoor is an alcoholic surgeon (not sure which comes
first) who has in his final year at the medical school fallen in love with a
demure first year student while all the time sleeping around sometimes even
attempting sex at knife point. These are points where the story seems to derail.
Not because they show the character as bad but because they show the characters
infringement on women safety as comical and turn serious sexual harassment /
near rape scenes for raising laughs. When the almost psychotic and sex crazy
doctor chases his house maid for breaking a glass it is diminished to a
ridiculous comic moment with even a dialogue about maid unions thrown in. It
was to me absolutely irrelevant as it did not help to establish the character
in anyway.
The hero walking into a class and marking his territory with
his new found affection is as unbelievable as it is repulsive. Had there been a
reaction of either protest or acceptance by the girl it could have perhaps neutralized
the impact and worry of copycat mimics in real life but the movie seems to
admire its male protagonist and follows him admiringly as he goes around in a
maniacal manner forcing the girl out of class and she follows him inexplicably like
a little lamb. IT is never made clear that she admires him secretly but seems
to submit to his aggression to buy peace.
It is perhaps the director’s intentional silence at this
stage that triggers rage and fear in the watchmen of social morality.
The reason why it cannot be simply ignored as a story and
enjoyed thus is because of the dangerous society we live in today. A society
where girls big and small are no longer safe in villages or cities.
Where the
abuse is no more restricted to just rape but violence and fatal injuries of the
most heinous kinds. Exposure to high speed internet, uncontrolled content on
the net has got people ignore the law and not fear it. They seek the pleasures
they see on their little screens as a right to be attained with violence if
necessary. A mental disease seems viral.
Movies which celebrate such psychotic behavior may help to
encourage and reassert the criminal behavior in such elements as movie is seen
as a socially acceptable and admired value benchmark for fashion and attitude.
But then why does the movie make a mark with the masses.
Because post the first half of psychotic hormone propelled behavior of the
hero, the second half actually moves into saner phase and chronicles the pangs
of a distressed hero very well and also attempts to put the women in a stronger
position as the hero desperately tries to win her back. It is here that the
director is in the right bracket and where he makes the movie work for the most
part.
Kiara does not make any artistic attempts to act besides
sticking to the requirements of the role strictly
But it is Shahid Kapoor who is simply outstanding delivering
the dictates of the director with unerring ease and sliding into the role as if
born for it. Despite his less than bulky physique he can make you believe that
he can bash up people and be really violent. He is very good and probably
delivers the best role of his career.
The director Sandeep Reddy knows his art and has a flair for
invoking freshness into love scenes or creating possibility of intense drama
with a pulse on human interaction and obviously allowing space to his main
protagonist to evolve. He does a superior job here than in the Telugu version.
He should perhaps desist from getting annoyed with review
writers who he goes after abusing them for their physicality. I do not think
Rajeev had any ill intentions other than to artistically review the movie professionally.
Anupama made an effort to reach out to him to get his views despite also not
really going gung ho over the movie.
There is a middle of the road path that movie makers should
tread with Review writers.
No comments:
Post a Comment