Propaganda

Everyone engages with a piece of art in the context of their own lives, political leanings and aesthetic preferences. However, one must not assume that they operate in a vacuum and react to the piece of art within just one or two paradigms.

For some, one of these factors might play a larger role, but it is not in the absence of the rest. Anything can be weaponised. Art can be weaponised to promote politics, or politics can be weaponised to condemn art.

A more preachy and paternalistic elite might outrightly brand Dhurandhar: The Revenge and its prequel as propaganda movies. And the public which can’t been seen as a homogenous block might also be politically influenced by it. But that will not be the sole result of these two movies.

One can take a step back and think of Haider. If it was a true masterpiece and a propaganda movie (as political opponents of the movie maker might say), the public reaction to Article 370 should have shifted drastically.

But that has not been the case. Politics if any in great art either reinforces existing beliefs or gets ignored most often. Someone who liked Haider as a movie might still believe that Article 370 should go.

So, everything one doesn’t like from a political POV can’t be labelled as propaganda. Alternatively, every piece of communication is some form of propaganda.

Whatever be the case, the movie goer votes with his/her wallet and has their logic to watch or not watch a movie. In case of both Dhurandhar movies, the audience have voted with their wallets.

Flip Flop

I must say I was carried away by “propaganda” of the review industry. I had decided not to watch the movie as people said it had too much of PM and it just a justification for demonetisation.

I read the whole plot on Wikipedia and satisfied my curiosity. In addition, I thought I can’t survive in a theatre for four hours and felt spending more than five hundred rupees for a movie was just absurd.

But, for better or worse some of the clips related to the movie appeared on my Instagram feed and I got curious. I was obsessed with the scene where Sanyal recites the Shabad after Jaskirat says he’s a defeated man with nothing left to give.

Soora so pechaniye, jo lade deen ke het

Purja purja kat mare, kabhoo na chadde khet

Translation:

Recognize the one as truly brave who fights for for righteousness

Even if cut apart limb by limb, they do not abandon the field.

The scene can be interpreted as an Olympic level manipulative overture to a man who’s completely lost faith in the system. But still, he is expected to use his abilities to serve the same system. Sanyal finds a hook in his faith and quotes lines from the same faith.

The but the deal closing line is delivered by his assistant Bansal. The man is told that you’re gonna die anyway.

Why don’t you die in style?

And somehow this makes sense to Jaskirat whose initial ambition was to serve in the Army anyway.

Even if we think that everything has ended there is always a thread in the story that can deployed to reinvent a man (or woman). The thought eventually made me want to watch the movie as soon as possible. Preferably the next day itself.

I searched online for tickets only to realise that most of the good seats in all theatres had already been filled (in spite of my single seat requirement).

It seems I was destined to watch the movie. Someone on my Instagram feed had an extra ticket (and very good ones). I grabbed the opportunity.

The Movie Experience

When I told my friend that I had already read the plot on Wikipedia and seen spoilers on Instagram before walking into the theatre, I was asked — why, what’s the point? I just wanted to fill in the gaps and know the entire story.

To my surprise, I was stunned to know that I did not feel the passage of four hours in the theatre. And nothing changed the movie experience apart from the shock/surprise factor. I was able to focus on the narrative flow and aesthetic aspects of the story.

It gave me the space to absorb the music and appreciate the emotional layers of each character. The time I spent in the theatre helped me realise why I am drawn to Jaskirat.

Some might claim that the music was better in part one. I vaguely agree. But the music in the second part had more depth. However, it lands well only when the story is strong. Music is an accessory to the overall movie, unless it is a musical.

However, the music seems to have evolved in a certain direction. It sounds more like a DJ mix of old songs and some rap music. But the songs picked have appropriate lyrics and catalyse the mood and visuals shown to the audience. Beyond this I really don’t have any thoughts about the story, plot or politics of the movie.

People might not like the gore and violence. But one can’t deny that this violence exists in the real world. They might be triggered by Dhurandhar’s politics or any other issue from their own experience. So, any opinion they might express will be totally valid in their own universe.

No Redemption

But the whole idea of Jaskirat redeeming himself via revenge seems to be a failure. Because one can never undo the damage that was done to him or his family. The wound remains and festers.

One can only distract oneself from deep wounds under the guise of bravery, righteousness or something else that can perk up your tits. These “values” it seems are like drugs that modulate the pain of an addict. There is no way to heal the wounds.

There might be no viable path to “redemption” via revenge. It’s a problem that needs to be solved some other way. And not many of us will know how exactly.

My Controversial Opinion

My most controversial opinion regarding cinemas is that we should ban food in the theatres or just dump all the popcorn crunchers in a single corner of the theatre and spare the rest of the population.

Because it is really annoying to hear people munching like buffalos when a serious scene is running on the scene.

The guy next to me ate almost two tubs of popcorn before intermission. During the intermission, he crunched ice-chips. After that I consciously ignored him though he kept on munching something or the other till the end.

If not for Dolby Atmos I would have probably lost my shit. The shameless ice-chips cruncher didn’t feel anything even when I gave him a disapproving stare.

Dhurandhar Title Song- A Marketing Hit

Na de dil pardesi nu, tainu nit da rona pai jaauga
Don’t give your heart to a stranger, or you’ll end up crying every day.

Naal Ranjhe te jogi de, tainu jogan hona pai jaauga
If you stay with lovers like Ranjha or wandering saints, you’ll have to become a wanderer yourself.

Main ishq de alliyan zakhma de, khud hass-hass ke moonh si laangi
I have stitched shut the deep wounds of love myself, laughing through the pain.

Je yaar mera mainu zahar, zahar, zahar, zahar—
If my beloved gives me poison, poison, poison—

One must ask why the first few lines of the song are no way related to the spy movie in any way. It just a warning sign regarding matters of the heart. And it instantly connects.

Since I didn’t know Punjabi, I ignored it for a few days. But the vitality of this song eventually made me Google it. And I was like — BANG ON!

The marketing genius of this song is underrated. It instantly connects and makes people listen to remaining part of the song and eventually decide to watch the movie.

Roping in Hanumankind for this song was another great call as he has made waves in recent times. This was an easy way to gain traction on Spotify and social media.

The song single handedly takes care of a top of the funnel which eventually converts listeners into movie consumers.

The Political Controversy

The movie has several political effects in the domestic and international stage.

Dhurandhar has been banned by countries in the Gulf regions as they thought it would be considered anti-Pakistan. This underlines the soft power of Bollywood and art to influence an international audience on an important matter like terrorism.

One needs to wonder if Gulf nations are friends of India or not. Their stance on terrorism has always been ambivalent at best. Banning a movie to help a terrorist nation save face is not a small move in that context.

On the other hand, left-leaning voices have branded the movie as a pro-government propaganda movie as some of the dialogues carry political power. While this might be true, we still have freedom of speech in this country.

The long and complicated disclaimer asking the viewers to apply their wisdom while consuming the movie should be a good enough way to counteract any negative socio-political impact.

One can also argue that smoking disclaimers never worked and they do influence people to consuming tobacco products by making it look cool. That topic should be taken up with more seriousness.

Yay or Nay?

Generally, I try to stay away from mass-hits as long as possible, but the title song got me into the theatre. The story-line, quality of acting and realistic portrayal of events made me stay till the end. I might have missed some indicators regarding the sequel as I left as soon as the credits started rolling in.

I made the blunder of scrolling through the Wiki page of the movie while trying to ascertain whether my time and money were worth the investment. I read a key plot twist while scanning the page.

In spite of my faux pas I was able to enjoy the movie as the process of reaching that key plot point was long winding and layered.

I don’t want to get into specific actors’ performance, the plot or technical aspects. But I felt every key role was well-projected by actors. It felt realistic, though one can’t certify with full confidence (as we have never met terrorists, agents or politicians from such a close distance).

The movie does offer masala, humour, love story, dance and violence without losing the focus on political rivalries amongst key players. Though it was a long movie, it keeps you hooked. I wish the last fighting scene could have been cut short.

Dhurandhar is a great watch.

Even if it is a propaganda movie, as labeled by few, it is a successful one. We must note that a plausible propaganda movie about the current Prime Minister was a flop (as mentioned by a panelist on a news channel).

You should watch Dhurandhar in a theatre if you can.

Also, I hope that nobody crunches popcorn like a buffalo when you’re watching the movie.

“Every time someone steps up and says who they really are, the world becomes a better, more interesting place.”

Captain Holt

In my previous post I made a very short reference to Brooklyn 99 and remarked that there was no need to analyse it.

I have quickly reached the middle of the fifth season and I’ve been unable to stop my analytical side.

Binging

Before I get into it I wanted to share a few thoughts about the whole idea of binge-watching as a form of “leisure”. The fact that humans are unable to sit quiet and do nothing has manufactured the need for leisure (duh!).

Running, gossip, writing, reading, watching videos or movies are common outlets. But binge-watching is the new kid in town (relatively speaking).

It’s the digital version of smoking in many ways.

I’ve not indulged in binging “Brooklyn 99”. I’ve seen 4-5 episodes at a stretch sometimes. Not sure if that counts as binging.

In spite of this, I can see why these shows are able to fulfil our hunger for stories or rather the need to not sit quietly and do nothing.

Binge-worthy shows have a few common traits.

• Characters with relatable insecurities or quirks

• A gripping plot with cliffhangers at the end of each season or episode

• Some element of fighting for justice/good

This might seem basic or obvious, but still this had to be called out. The first point is quite important because I can see how closely I root for a character with similar insecurities or flaws (both in books and TV shows).

Captain Holt and Amy Santiago

Captain Holt is by far the best conceived character. He represents everything that a progressive and erudite man should stand for. He is a leader who’s just and competent. He is a nerdy bastard, but still has flaws that are out of his control.

In spite of being anal about rules and principles, he knows when to break them.

Being gay erects barriers to a smooth public life. But he endures all the trouble with dignity and knows when to “pick battles”.

His difficulties with forming bonds with his mom and suppressing emotions in public are definitely tied to each other. It’s a defence mechanism.

All of this makes him stick to a rule book, which is a good way to keep fickle emotions at bay and control the narrative.

A stickler for rules has to apply them to himself before he can justify that approach to others. This comes across strongly when he sabotages his interview for the commissioner’s job.

Amy Santiago is the mirror image of Holt in many ways. She too has tried to arm herself with knowledge and adherence to rules.

Her binders and adherence to etiquette are ways to compensate for her deep insecurities. Her hidden personas that pop out while she gets drunk.

It’s quite obvious that she would choose Captain Holt as her mentor.

But choosing the fun Peralta after a difficult situationship (that runs for two seasons) reveals another aspect of human nature.

We need fun and entertainment from external sources when we can’t give to ourselves.

In addition to this, her competitive nature makes her pick Peralta who doesn’t threaten her personality in any significant way.

Also, it helps to know that he’s cute and they make a “adorable” couple. Otherwise, his credit card debt and rather wonky ways of being would barely meet standards of logical selection.

[Though I would want to speak about Rosa in greater detail, I feel it would break the flow of my thoughts here. Just want to say that her abrupt breakup with the crazy Pimento was cruel and vague. It made no sense to me. ]

Sergeant Terry Jeffords and Peralta

These two are typical people pleasers. They have so many emotions and stress points in life. They cope by trying to appear as cool as possible and crave for approval.

Terry is a particularly extreme case in that sense.

Terry’s desire to throw a party for an unknown co-worker who gets pissed by an harmless joke about his own ass is just one of the many evidences of his unreasonable need for universal approval.

But Peralta’s character has more layers. His daddy issues, fear of abandonment, borderline inappropriate jokes and desire to be publicly praised as a “genius” point towards a special kind of childhood wound.

Though he disapproves his mother’s decision to take back a cheating father, he inherits her lack of self-worth. He often volunteers to be the embarrassing clown in any serious situation to bring down the temperature of the room.

His inability to express his feelings towards Amy or stand up to bullies in the prison demonstrate his lack of self-worth. The absence of any form of morality is depicted via his “friendship” with a cannibal in jail and Doug Judy.

He somehow develops a moral compass after coming out of jail. To be honest, Peralta’s policing style has the undertone of a saviour who needs to be rewarded for his smartness. You can often hear why he does what he does. But he often does it to prove himself and seek admiration.

The conscience that an accused person might be innocent comes as late as the fifth season for this character.

In spite of these flaws, both Terry and Peralta have a self-sacrificial streak that encourages them to take unreasonable risks just to prove the world that they are nice people with a kind heart.

Perfect Chemistry

Jake and Amy are a perfect pair because of the contrasting character traits. Similarly, Terry and Captain Holt are a classic work-couple of sorts because they bring contrasting personalities to the table.

The power imbalance between these two characters adds value to the plot and the enduring charm of this show.

Similarly, one can examine different characters of the show and delved into different permutations and combinations. The variety of personalities in the show is what draws the viewer into the world of 99.

But for now, I shall stop my rant and get back to chilling. Enjoy the weekend!

Note: If you have any critique about these random thoughts, feel free to add a comment.

Victoria Beckham

Together, they are greater than the sum of their parts.

~ Show narrator

This might seem like a cliché, but it is the case in all good marriages. Probably, it’s the only good reason to marry anyone. That said, the show is kinda engaging.

There are two layers of narrative overlapping over each other in this three-episode documentary.

The first layer is about the relationship and individual growth stories of Victoria and Beckham. The second layer is Victoria’s prep for an upcoming show she has planned for her label in Paris. The backstory is told along with the ongoing story of the show.

Visually pleasing and well-researched narrative shows the vulnerable side of Victoria Beckham née Victoria Caroline Adams. She happens to be one of the key members of the band Spice Girls (now disbanded).

Apparently she was richer than Beckham when they married, but her desire to reinvent herself after the end of Spice Girls led her on a different trajectory.

Her goal was to capitalise on her sense of fashion and start a label in the highly competitive space. Elusive profits and criticism from the public pose significant threats to her business. The show doesn’t delve too much into sub-par business decisions that may have caused the monetary challenges.

But, the presentation of Victoria as an attention hungry public figure and her transformation from a pop star to a sportsman’s wife to a businesswoman has been narrated well. The show is also critical of the media and public who seem to have judged her unfairly.

Victoria Beckham Holdings was valued at £100 million in 2017. Its current valuation is unclear but continues to earn revenues with the aid of capital infusion from several investors and newer products.

Somewhere, I feel Beckham did not give honest feedback or help Victoria set up a better team during the initial years of the business. Or maybe he was not skilled in the domain just like her.

But it is quite clear that Victoria did realise her business problem after a while and fixed it by onboarding a business partner who could help her.

It remains to be seen if the turnaround mentioned in the show is happening in real life as latest reports suggest that the company needed another loan of £6.2m amidst widening losses.

Overall, this documentary expanded my horizons though I’m unsure whether others would enjoy it as much as I did.

The Diplomat (Season 3)

The Diplomat is a show about a power couple facing serious relationship challenges amidst a turbulent foreign policy crisis between the United Kingdom and United States of America.

The third season carries on the saga from the second. People get promotions in the political ladder even as the foreign relations between the two nations dive further.

But the second half of season three is kinda comical as the lead character is horny and just wants to get laid. The Vice President’s wife is in an open marriage and somehow secret service and the president of her sleeping with a shady spy in the British establishment.

The Second Lady makes a very persuasive bid for physical action with a senior British cabinet member during an official party.

The President’s husband is also suspicious of his wife who now holds the top job. However, there are not strong signals to justify this claim till the very last episode.

All of this infantilises the seriousness of the top positions these characters hold. In addition, the British and Americans take big decisions based on a single man’s inputs without trying to cross check or verify from other sources.

I am not sure if foreign policy and intelligence gathering are portrayed effectively in the show. But, some of the twists and turns make in an interesting watch if not a seriously representative one.

As per expectation, the third season ends on a cliffhanger indicating that there will be another season next year.

Brooklyn 99

I've reached season 4 of this show. Honestly, it is a light hearted show full of absurdity and wry humor. I have no complaints whatsoever.

The most adorable character in my opinion is Captain Holt. Jake Peralta is a people-pleaser and an overacting wannabe, though he has his moments of courage.

The on-and-off situationship between Jake and Amy in the first two seasons has been given some sort of stability in the third and fourth seasons. If not, I would have been very disappointed with the growth and evolution of these two characters.

Of course, one does not have to analyse this show. Just enjoy it. Ciao.

Saiyaara : (of Urdu and Arabic origin) "star" or "planet.

Astronomers have found that stars and planets do change over a long period of time. But in the world of lovers they are a constant.

In the short span of life that we’re gifted with, one can experience love in its true sense only once or maybe twice. Everything else after that is a compromise unless the world can throw a surprise.

As a former critic of Bollywood romantic cinema, I had been seeing this concept from a nonchalant perspective for long, but my opinions have changed. What I felt while watching the movie “Saiyaara” has highlighted the tectonic shift that has happened within my mind.

A Brief Summary

Krish Kapoor is a wannabe star singer. Vaani Batra is a heartbroken woman trying to heal from a past love. Both of them deal with challenges beyond their control. Poetry, music and the desire to ‘heal’ bring them together.

Of course, there’s a villain in the story. Vaani’s ex “Mahesh” might remind you of the Mahesh Dalle reel from Instagram.

Everything else is part of the plot which would spoil the movie for you.

Common Lines

I was expecting the movie to have no commonality with my personal experiences, but it appears that all lovers say the same or similar things to each other. Of course, nobody has a general knowledge about what to say or what not to say.

But the words you utter in a certain moment in a certain context to someone you love always has a power of its own. If a movie or piece of art can rekindle those thoughts, and you acknowledge the intensity with which you said it, you are likely to be shaken, if not rattled.

But that doesn’t mean you have to suffer or repeat old patterns that didn’t work for you. You can only pause and appreciate the unraveling of love in your own heart.

The Feminine Coping Mechanism

This might be construed as a spoiler, but I’ll say this anyway.

One would advocate for a more communicative and open partner. But when love enters the equation, people do withhold and block.

Sometimes they disappear from their lives only to protect them from their worst instincts. If you watch movie and notice the behaviour of the female lead, you end up reviewing the behaviour of someone who chose to disappear and not allow you to speak to them.

The unrecognised final act of love is eliminating the possibility of you hurting the one you love.

Filling Up The Void

Love often comes as a rescuer in the face of the screaming void that creeps our daily lives. The void in the case of the lead actor was his desire to succeed. But he lacks the support system to make that happen.

A drunk father and a dead mother were not there to reason with him and provide the necessary affection and attention. Thus, he seeks it out in the outer world. He desires to be the antithesis of his father in terms of wealth or fame. When he encounters a glimpse of affection that he had craved for, he goes all in and submits to idea of love.

On the other hand the female lead has a family, but for her love is a fantasy or dream. She seeks an immovable star (Saiyaara) in her life in spite of having caring parents. Her desire is to make the poetry of love come true. It’s not a fictional creation. I can say that this is a reality in many cases.

Comparison with Rockstar and 50 First Dates

Even as all these thoughts run in my head, I compared the movie and its songs to Rockstar. It has a similar trope of a lost guy finding fame and love which are at odds with each other. Speaking further on 50 First Dates might be a spoiler.

But if you add the two and give it a spin, you might end up with the plot for Saiyaara.

Recommended?

This is not a review of any sort. But if someone asks me if this movie is worth watching, then I would say that it can make you feel something. If you look out for logical flaws you might find many.

But in reality, that’s a very pessimistic way to look at any piece of art. Ignore the flaws and pick out the reality embedded in it.

The Irresistible Fantasy

Every great story has a hero and that hero wants to do good. If these stories really made a dent in the world, then a lot of us would be fully indulging in “good” deeds.

It seems as if people resent that fact that the bad guys have to opportunity to be bad.

The reason why the masses gobble up these stories is because “good” is rare to find, especially in a powerful individual. It has been the irresistible fantasy of the human race.

Short Summary of Superman (contains spoilers)

A bad billionaire develops envy towards Superman, (the self declared “do-gooder”) and tries to eliminate him.

Apparently, Superman had dipped his fingers in stopping wars and got involved in foreign affairs. He “stops” a war between Jahranpur and Boravia. Boravia is an American “ally”.

Alongside this drama, the message sent across by his parents from Krypton had asked him to indirectly rule the “weak” human race and maintain a harem to spread his seed. This whips up public anger against Superman.

The rest of the story is all about Superman’s fight against the military-industrial complex and adverse public opinion. Eventually Superman always wins. And he re-establishes his “humane” image, overcoming the public opinion and his enemies.

A Sloppy Plot

The movie projects America as a headless state where a random billionaire can play around with black holes and rip apart the surface of the earth to get a small piece of land in Boravia.

It does feel like a stretch. Though the character Lex Luthor claims that he setup the scenario to get Superman killed. It seems to be a small justification in the later part of the movie.

All said and done, it was amusing to know that a guy like Lex Luthor who let his girlfriend into secret areas of his defence-tech empire did not monitor her phone with some code to check for info leaks.

In spite of these observations, I feel that Superman has some comical social commentary on manufactured public opinion. It throws in tinges of pro-Palestine activism along with regular tech-doomsday prediction and dallies with the idea of interplanetary racism.

Manufactured Public Opinion

The human race too is fickle. It latches on to a manufactured story that Superman was “grooming” them all these years with “good deeds” before he would take them for a ride.

Did the public need a lot of saving? Did the human race capable of all sorts of nasty things need a saviour? It appears so since the time of prophets and gods. It’s mostly a hedge against uncertainty at the outset.

All said and done, Superman is stuck in a dilemma. Should he bow down to public opinion and blame himself for someone else’s perception or believe in himself.

The guy, so powerful and super-human, ostensibly needs some therapy. He doesn’t do what he does for claps, praise and approval. But somehow he’s not immune to the opinions and perceptions of others.

He loses faith in himself and surrenders to the legal system and public opinion. One can argue that there was no better alternative. But he could have rebranded himself or abandoned the public till it changed its opinion. (It’s not meant to be a lesson or learning as a seasoned LinkedIn shit poster would write.)

The army of bots manufacturing public opinion against Superman are reminiscent of bot armies and politically charged insurgents flooding media with their agenda.

We can take a step back and see how many fucks we give about manufactured public opinion aired by media on a daily basis. It works with clinical accuracy sometimes and hypnotises billions of people at the behest of powers that be.

At least for now, there doesn’t seem to be any defence other than questioning the establishment from time to time.

Disguised Political Activism

The portrayal of unarmed citizens versus a well-equipped army funded by US seems like a veiled dig on Israel-Palestine conflict. The ugly dictator of Boravia has the same insensitivity towards humanity just like the Netanyahu.

It’s not clear if this was intentional or a coincidence. But one can’t un-see the similarities once you see it.

One should also note that Jahranpur has slightly Arabic branding while Boravia has the vibes of a Western nation. This further hints at the possible allusion towards the middle-east conflict and attacks on helpless Palestinians.

The interview between the reporter girlfriend and Superman captures the same dilemma that “sensible” citizens of the world would raise while discussing Israel-Palestine conflict.

Technology Doomsday and Interplanetary Racism

The creation of a pocket universe and a “black hole” inside it have strong imprints of a technology doomsday narrative.

The use of robotics and super-intelligent machines to combat Superman raise alarms about the new era of digital and drone warfare. Exaggerated visuals almost depict that the earth would be ripped apart if technology progressed mindlessly and reached the hands of bad guys.

However, this narrative has been part of every superhero movie. And it’s a rinse and repeat routine in this case as well.

The subtle touch of interplanetary racism propounded by Superman’s parents and (somehow decoded by linguistic experts) seems to be an attempt to ‘de-humanise’ our species. This is probably a dig against racism in real life. Or probably not. That’s a wild guess and you can make your own choice.

My Review

Did I have fun watching this movie? Hell yes.

Does it have plot issues? Yes.

Are the visuals great? Yes.

Whatever be the loopholes or exaggerations, the dog in the movie steals the show and the viewer feels that he has been entertained at the end of the movie. That's the only thing that matters.

There are two big ideas about destiny. One which says that we can choose our path and another that says that it is already written and we are mere pawns who are here just to act it out.

Of course no one can claim that they have written their entire story. Several factors decide where we walk and what we do. But at every juncture we do have a choice.

The adaptation of the Laila Majnu story by Imitiaz Ali believes in the latter ideology, i.e. that fate is already written and we have no control over destiny. I disagree with this completely and like to substantiate this view.

Summary of the Movie

The movie is a retelling of Laila Majnu legend. It is story of Laila, a middle class woman who falls in love with a rich brat called Qais Bhat. Their families have a land dispute and dislike each other.

In spite of this, the two continue their affair till they are caught red handed.

Qais Bhat puts up a fight and asks his father to make peace with Laila’s father to ensure that he ends up with Laila. A political worker close to Laila’s father manipulates him regarding his supposed ‘honour’ and offers to marry his sought-after daughter.

Laila gets married to the manipulative political worker after some drama and Qais goes into depression. He is taken care of by his friends as he descends into complete lunacy. The love story never reaches a happy ending. Laila dies and Qais goes into complete lunacy.

Lack of Purpose

It is said that human life is absurd and it has no meaning. But we can find some meaning or purpose in our existence. It can be dedicated to art, money or social service, pursuit of power or pure pleasure. One can comment and debate about the choice people make in this regard. It could be good, bad or ugly.

But what is more dangerous is a scenario where people have no purpose and try to fill this void with a self-destructive form of carelessness or worse still — an impossible love story.

This is what happens with the two lead characters of this movie Laila and Qais Bhat. Laila was merely a beauty who enjoyed the pursuit of literally every guy in her city. She had no goals of her own or any sense of direction in life.

The stalking scenes which fill the movie are kinda disturbing as it could encourage guys to do the same in real life. These scenes also highlight the extent of unemployment in Kashmir.

Qais Bhat too is a vagrant. However the only difference between him and other pursuers of Laila is his wealth. He is a rich spoilt brat with a bunch of friends surrounding him.

Without any struggle or purpose, he makes Laila and his ostensible love for her the sole aim of his life. He is absolutely unable to sit with himself in solitude. His yearning for Laila becomes the sole purpose of his life.

This point is further supported by his absurd dream of going to the ‘other side of the mountain’ and living his life in a hut with Laila. That would not only be tough life but also an exhausting venture. It’s probably a good picnic idea though.

Eventually, Qais languishes in this stupid desire to be with an imaginary Laila as he dives deeper into craziness.

I am not writing some self help rant here. But this is my analysis of the two key characters.

The Downside of Honour

The other interesting character of this movie is Masood, Laila’s father. He is apparently a ‘respectable’ man. However, he does absolutely destructive things to protect his honour and marries off his daughter to a deceptive political worker to ‘protect’ his honour.

I am not saying that one should not be an decent person. Honour is important. But it is not more important that what is right. Even if he had a feud with Qais’s father, he could have understood the needs of his daughter and made a respectable compromise.

But his adamant posture on labelling his adversary a ‘thief’ is absolutely crazy in a way. In stark contrast Qais’ father is a far better parent. He sets aside his ego and opinions to ensure that his son marries the love of his life.

Do we need to suffer behind closed doors to protect honour in the eyes of others, who probably don’t give more than two fucks about anyone other than themselves (or close family members)? Absolutely no.

Worth Your Time?

Though this is not a movie review, you would still want to know if Laila Majnu is a movie worth watching. Personally, I feel that the last 40 minutes of the movie has too many loopholes in the plot.

But it is compensated by great acting by the male lead. If you can appreciate the crazy nonsense that is subtely promoted by the movie and understand such things do happen in society, it is definitely worth your time.

The movie has good cinematography, dialogues and the beautiful visuals of Kashmir that you can appreciate. Beyond that, I would say that the movie doesn’t have much to offer.

Self Reflection

I was walking in front of the India Gate with someone important and I told them that I am among the top 1% of individuals in the world in terms of intelligence.

Nobody knows how much of it was a true desire and what percentage of it was just a coping mechanism. More often than not, the goals we set for ourselves are a compensation for something deeper; a wound that has no cure or a solution.

As I finished the last episode of The Bear this morning, it kinda hit me that this phenomenon of people just coping seems to be a normal response to grief and tragedy. I use this opportunity to document my thoughts about the TV show.

The Bear

The Bear is TV show focused on the genius cook Carmen Berzatto (or Carmy), played by Jeremy Allen White. His neuroticism and unpredictable behaviour impacts everyone in his restaurant and personal life. He claims that he is afraid of calm and finds self-sabotage and chaos more attractive.

This shocks me to the core because I had failed to understand a milder version of this malaise in myself. I somehow find it relatable and have been working on it with my therapist for almost two years now. Thankfully, the I am in a far better state right now.

Getting back to the show, there are so many aspects of it that I love. I want to list a few here.

1. The intense camera work and background score that truly captures the intensity of a kitchen in any restaurant. We tend to take things for granted when we go to a good restaurant and have a good meal. The show demonstrates how hard it is to achieve that experience.

2. Amazing character development of all figures in the show in spite of the focus on Carmy. Carmy holds the centre but the remaining characters are not pushed to the background. Everyone has a backstory, a struggle and a growth path along with Carmy.

3. I love the portrayal of grief, sorrow and regret. Everyone feels things so vividly and intensely. It is more easier to put it under the heading of “great acting”. But it is not just that. The intensity is drawn from the environment, the story and the character arc where everyone gets to feel things and the viewer feels the intensity of these emotions.

4. Portrayal of a broken and dysfunctional family that still holds space for love has not been portrayed effectively in many of the TV shows or movies that I have watched. It either goes to extremes or has no nuance. Sometimes everything is portrayed as hunky dory on screen. But the show somehow portrays reality to a large extent.

5. The impact of parenting and home environment on adults is barely talked about in the modern world. We don’t pay much attention to this aspect of our own nature. Understanding our childhood can open up so many doors. The TV show may or may not nudge you to do down that path.

There might be many more points hovering inside my head on this topic. But I will stop here and allow you to explore the TV show on your own.

Coping Mechanism and Grief

Sometimes there is no solution to grief. You can’t undo the clock. Though the rational response to such grief is acceptance, human beings can’t respond to it like a machine. They act it out and some self-destruct in the process. Nothing can heal the heart in a meaningful manner.

If one observes the characters in the show, one can see that smoking is a really viable coping mechanism for these individuals. They have no other response to an unexpected event or a feeling that can’t be managed. It is a visceral response. How can the human body process those emotions without smoking?

In other cases, achievement or a job or a mission can become a coping mechanism. One can ask whether Carmy truly wanted to be a world class chef or he was just distracting himself from his grief and acting out his childhood issues.

One might find answers to such questions in Season 4 of The Bear. Even if you don’t have such questions or the desire to find answers to that, you should watch the TV show if you have some time. It is a work of art and a good portrayal of the human condition.

The Plot

Thelma is a 93-year old woman living alone. She is in touch with her grandson, daughter and son-in-law who live in the same city. But still, she desires to be independent and wield control over her life.

Thelma is not tech savvy so her grandson tries to teach her how to use a computer. This is the adorable part of the movie.

In addition to this, Thelma is introduced to Mission Impossible movies via an ad in the newspaper. And she is kinda given a brief summary of the movie by her grandson.

Her love for her grandson leads to her losing money to a phone call fraud where the caller mentions that her grandson has been arrested. She being a digital novice is unable to transfer money to the fraudster via electronic methods.

Thelma ends up posting the money to an address. This does feel like a hole in the movie plot because an arrest can’t be handled effectively when the person is getting money via post. But anyway, I didn’t pay too much attention to this.

But once Thelma realises that this was a scam, she wants to get back her money and exact revenge. In addition to this, she wants to do it without looping in her grandson or daughter or son-in-law.

What ensues is a fun adventure of a 93-year old. Anything I mention beyond this will be a kind of spoiler. So, I advise the reader to watch the movie and enjoy it.

My Grandma

Of course the movie struck a personal chord as I was reminded about my stubborn independent grandmother when I watched the movie. I do regret my inability to spend more time with her during the last three years.

I remember that she wanted to drink coffee in spite of the warnings by the doctors. Before coffee culture and the associated obsession became a cultural phenomenon, I had already seen a ‘Kaapi’ addict in my grandma. She used to barge into the kitchen and eat whatever she wanted. Eventually we had to lock the kitchen to ensure that she ate only the dishes recommended by the doctors.

The movie also reminded me of the days when we bought her a smartphone and taught her how to use it. Unfortunately, she didn’t live up to the age of 93. We lost her in January this year. But the sweet memories remain.

Overall, I would say that Thelma is a sweet watch. I would give it a 10/10. Do watch it on Hotstar.

I was looking for something interesting to watch on a Friday night. Also, I had not used my Netflix account for a very long time. The chill vibes of my notice period at work have made me relax and pay attention to other interests, especially cinema.

The Plot

The movie captures different aspects of academic life in the conservative Wellesley College, where women are not judged based on their academics, but their ability to land a good husband. The women who are educated here are taught how to ‘behave’. Many of the attendees get married during their course period.

In such an environment, a teacher Katherine Watson enters the scene and tries to share her progressive thoughts (i.e. marriage is not very necessary for a woman’s happiness). She teaches art history beyond the contents of the books (which have been memorised by snobby students before the start of the semester).

Messed Up Personal Life

In spite of her progressive ideals, she seems to be messed up on the personal front. She has a kind of long term relationship which she breaks off when her partner visits her.

Then she indulges in a casual relationship with a colleague who has the reputation of sleeping with his students. But she is kinda “heart-broken” when she finds about his lies regarding his military credentials.

I felt it was not so surprising for a guy without many morals in the first place. Making bad choices and then regretting them is a trope one can see in real life as well.

Katherine’s attempt to preach what to pursue in spite of her students’ awareness about their options was a force fed propaganda. If people willingly make choices in spite of knowing the options it is due to lack of courage. I feel that courage is not a teachable skill.

In spite of all these contradictions, I feel Katherine manages to support a student during her separation (and indirectly inspire her to make that decision). She leaves a positive impression on other students as well.

Similarities and Differences

After finishing this movie, I felt that Mona Lisa Smile is a male version of Dead Poet’s Society. It seems very obvious though there are differences in the kind of themes dealt in both movies.

Let me elaborate.

• The setup is in a university where a rebellious lecturer enters the scene and questions status quo.

• In the beginning the students are a bit resistant to new ideas but they are forced to question things they held dear to the heart.

• Both movies have a student who rebels against the teacher who questions the system.

• In the end the teacher is forced to leave because the system refuses to change or make space for their voice. And the students are forced to mourn the loss of their dear teacher.

Now, the structure of two movies seems to be same, but there are distinctions.

For example, Mona Lisa Smile deals with issues related to women, marriage and independence of the female gender. On the other hand, Dead Poets Society is about having the courage to do what one loves irrespective of the societal pressures.

In addition, the end of the movie doesn’t have a drastic tragedy as seen Dead Poets Society if you believe that divorce is not a tragedy.

Conclusion

One’s path to independence and joy can be messy and chaotic, full of missteps and contradictions. You might feel that you landed up in a less than ideal scenario. But you do so without pressure or prescriptions from the society.

It may or may not seem better than the conventional path, but it might bring fulfilment to you. Of course, this path can also end up in a tragedy. You can’t discount the possibility.

Though one might debate the similarities with other movies or the impact of the movie, one can definitely appreciate Julia Roberts’ acting and the visual brilliance of the movie capturing 50s USA.

It is definitely a recommended movie for those in the impressionable age.

I would give a 4/5 rating for the movie (though this writeup was not a spoiler or a review, I did feel like sharing this thought).

Pam Cheated. Jim is an Asshole. Period

Sometimes, I used to get into the argument that Jim-Pam relationship was built on cheating. But I could not articulate how exactly for quite some time. In addition I didn’t even know this was considered some sort of ideal relationship in the internet-verse.

This had been a peripheral thought, but I feel I should really vent about this.

On screen romantic stories are not restricted to vague fantasies. Sometimes they play out in the real world. It’s also true that this piece of art is probably reflecting behaviour of people in the real world as well.

Let’s be clear. Jim clearly knew Pam was about to get married when he was about to kiss her. And Pam knew she was in a relationship when she was responding to the kiss. What else do you need to know? I am not sure if I am being a nitpicker here.

So I did a brief Reddit search on this topic not to find an opinion similar to mine but a contrarian one. Though I have learnt how to trust my own gut feeling, I want to know an alternative opinion as well. So, here’s what I found.

Redditor’s take

Ok I'mma take the time to write out my opinion at length since it's almost diametrically opposed to yours. But of course I respect your perspective. Maybe we can discuss a bit :)

Firstly, I would not consider her interactions with Brian in season 9 close to cheating and thus would reject your description of her as a 'natural cheater'. I also wouldn't say she's 'emotionally cheating' on Jim - not the biggest fan of the term, but I looked into it a bit, read an article and it really doesn't seem like that's what Pam was doing - she shut down any explicitly romantic advances that Jim made (based on: www.brides.com/emotional-affair-and-a-physical-affair-1102788).

Emotional cheating as explained in this article is mainly to do with contact mediated by technology (thus it not being physical cheating), which is not applicable here.

You have a point of course that Pam handled her relationship with Roy & parallel connection to Jim quite poorly. In my eyes, that makes her flawed, but not a bad person. I would consider Pam in the first two seasons to be extremely repressed, stuck, and insecure.

She doesn't believe she's worthy of what she really wants. Honestly, I feel for her. She's stuck and unhappy - you can see it in her face, her clothes, her choices and her job. (She says 'I don't think it's many little girls' dream to be a receptionist'. She's clearly stuck in her job too.)

I don't know exactly where this mentality came from, but it's clear that it's there. It's not a coincidence that she has a sort of glow-up from season 3 onwards. Her becoming more self-assertive and honest isn't a coincidence either.

Because I empathise with her and her unhappiness, I forgive her for not breaking up with Roy earlier or communicating better with him. She just doesn't know how to, and I honestly believe she doesn't consciously know how she feels about Jim.

Add that to the fact that Jim and Pam so clearly make each other happy, and that Roy is not a good partner by any stretch, he's borderline abusive (he's insensitive to her needs, immediately dissuades her from pursuing her dreams upon hearing about them, doesn't want to be bothered with her thoughts and feelings, grabs her etc.) - and Jim and Pam have my sympathy, even though they definitely don't behave ideally (Jim with Kathy is another example).

I also get frustrated at how repressed Pam is in season 2, she does end up hurting both men because of it, but it's also so beautifully human - we fuck up, we don't know what we want, we make mistakes.

Also, it was one kiss. They kiss, Pam gives in to her feelings for like 10 seconds, and then she stops Jim from another kiss because she plans to marry Roy. Then, without any further contact with Jim, she decides to call off the wedding and break up with Roy. So it's not like she and Jim had an ongoing affair or anything. It was one kiss, he kisses her, she gives in for a moment, then withdraws.

Finally, because you called Pam a negative character and compared her to Todd, I'd like to dispute that too. Yes, Pam definitely displays poor judgment in season 2. At the same time, throughout the course of the show, I'd argue Pam is the heart of the office.

She does a lot of the (under-appreciated) emotional work, she is there for people. She's sensitive and creative and obviously deeply loves Jim and her family, and comes to love her coworkers as well. Pam also embodies the show's message, in a way. It's no coincidence that she gets the last words in the finale: There's a lot of beauty in ordinary things. Isn't that kind of the point?

Can you tell Pam is my favourite character? The Take has a good video on her too: www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3p0JMTYZT8

PS: On the note of the fans celebrating Jim and Pam's relationship: I believe it was Greg Daniels, the show runner, who said that with their relationship the writers wanted to mix a realistic, grounded love story with a fairytale romance. Make it like half and half.

Everything I've said so far about Pam's and Jim's flaws is obviously the realistic part - I think the idealistic fairytale aspect, which captures so many people's hearts, is the incredible connection Jim and Pam have. We can thank John and Jenna for the amazing chemistry they had with each other and the way they interpreted their roles.

I think that's why it's aspirational to many people. That's why people say they're looking for their Pam/Jim - because how incredibly close those two seem, and how absolutely smitten they are with each other. How does Pam put it: As a kid, you assume your parents are soulmates. My kids are gonna be right about that.

Credits: u/TheTreeOfLyfe

My Thoughts on the Jim/Pam Story

After reading this, which seems to be the most elaborate explanation defending Jim-Pam thing I am even more enraged. When a woman does this to a man, it is “beautifully human”.

But when a man does the same, it is termed as cheating and inhuman. Amazing. People who support this are classic hypocrites with a different set of standards for themselves and others.

Everything that they do is “human” while what others do is “brutal”.

To be honest, I agree that Roy was not a great guy. He was from lower middle class who lacked opportunities that Jim had. And Pam did pick him for a marriage. She locked him in and entangled him emotionally.

When he comes to take revenge on Jim, he is portrayed as a violent man and somehow Dwight becomes a hero for saving Jim and punishing Roy. While I admit it was not a dignified response, is Roy not human?

Could you blame him for what he did? It would be unfair to expect him to turn into a Buddhist man after this fiasco. He had probably invested himself in Pam emotionally and financially before this happened.

So, what this person is saying is that Pam did a teeny tiny 10 second mistake. But the stage was set for this long back. It was being consistently built up by the “emotional cheating” which the Redditor claims did not exist.

I think emotional cheating sets the stage for further violations in any relationship. So, that is the moment to walk away. Men don’t get this. They are far too involved in work or they have put the woman on a pedestal.

Now that I have actually processed how I feel about this “romantic” story, I think this is my litmus test for a decent person. I think I would really suspect the character of a person based on this issue.

Those who are Jim-Pam fanboys/fangirls in spite of knowing the facts are massive closet cheaters themselves. They will condone such behaviour and use people the same way Pam used Roy.

Additional Notes

Some of my readers sent in comments which I shall reproduce them (paraphrased version).

Message: A key dimension that must be assessed while judging Pam, is her sabotaging Jim and Karen's relationship. You give Jim hints. You reject him. He starts seeing Karen. You break up with Roy. You hate seeing Karen and Jim together. You sabotage their relationship. You end up with Jim.

My view: This is a male centric view. However, Jim is equally responsible for not making it work with Karen. So, again, I feel there was an active dynamic between the two which left two other people broken. So fuck them.

Message: Thing is these are people who were very popular in high school and then life didn't go as planned. So they are in a place where they feel superior to everyone and hence they feel connected. The shitty behavior etc is just part of the behavior of people in that kind of clique. Also I think most people are totally okay with the concept of cheating your way out of an unfulfilled relationship if it's with the love of your life.

Saw this happen in my batch. This couple who crushed on each other but guy didn't want to commit. Girl was engaged to someone else. Then came to the US to meet him and ask once and for all do you want me. He finally said yes. She canceled wedding the day before. And now they have two kids. Not good to endorse it because it leaves a good chunk of hurt people on the way.

My view: Even if the love secured through deceit endures and results in something fruitful it is quite disgraceful. It can be a happy ending but it can’t be a role model for others. And very often Karma catches up as same patterns repeat with someone else.

There’s always a strong individualistic streak that wants to protect our true self and personality based on logic, morality and theories. But all of this often crumbles in the face of love.

‘Nobody Wants This’ is yet another TV show that captures this strange process of transformation.

Change (but to what extent?)

A Jewish priest called Noah discontinues an incompatible relationship, meets a podcaster at a party and falls in love. The question of compatibility is not explored thoroughly from a rational perspective but the story flows with dramatic pace and exposes different aspects of ‘love’.

There are several ways to break down this show, but the exercise would reveal spoilers. But it definitely makes you feel triumphant and sad several times.

To what extent should either of these characters change to make ‘love’ work? This question drives the story and keeps the viewer hooked till the last episode.

This is not a unique or a mind-blowing question. But there is no answer to such questions. That’s probably a good thing because there would be no drama in the world if we can answer that.

Vulnerable Male Characters and ‘Icks’

The show excels in portraying vulnerable male characters who can express emotions and be flawed. There are no muscular macho men who’re always winning.

The male characters hide truth and their doubts at several points. But they are able to clarify these and express what they feel to the more emotional female characters in the show.

This is probably a good change, though I don’t claim to have done a huge survey of all male leads in popular cinema/TV shows. But I can vouch for the fact that men often find it very hard to break the serious-stoic-strong dude trope.

A guy making mistakes often gives the female characters an ‘ick’. This is supposed to be a cool term coined to explain why women leave relationships. But it also demonstrates that some kind a reassurance and vulnerability from a man’s side can address the ‘ick’.

Female Competition and WAGs

Though one might be familiar with female rivalries, friendships and power-struggles, this show brings out these dynamics in a raw and visible manner. This not only fires up the viewer, but also helps him/her to explore these dynamics further.

WAGs is a new term that one might come across in this show. Apparently WAGs is short of ‘wifes and girlfriends’.

It’s interesting how the female character needs to be liked and approved by the spectators of a relationship who have no clue about complex dynamics between the couple.

However, their participation somehow spices up the drama and makes the relationship ‘work’. The approval ratings sought from spectators enable the couple in the show to work together and solve problems, bringing them closer in the process.

In spite of the uneasiness that can be caused by spectators of a relationship, one can’t deny the drama that brews due to competition for power among various female characters who surround a man in demand.

Yay or Nay?

There’s plethora of shows on the internet these days and one can always argue for or against a show.

I watched this mostly because of FOMO and curiosity. I started off on a very critical note but I ended up enjoying it after the fourth episode.

I wouldn’t call it yet another romcom, though it has all ingredients of one. But I recommend it for those who want to explore the fundamental question I mentioned above.

To what extent should individuals change to make ‘love’ work?

"Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life.”

Oscar Wilde, "The Decay of Lying”

Art is powerful and captures life in a way that no real story can. It is both a reflection of reality and an articulation of what people want for themselves. It is so influential that there are many people in India who expect their lives to be like a Bollywood movie.

Many women actually expect their partner to be like Shah Rukh Khan (while they may not be as hot has Kajol or Aishwarya themselves). This has been documented in a book “Desperately Seeking Shah Rukh” by Shrayana Bhattacharya. A very similar phenomenon is prevalent among the male gender as well, no doubt.

The more I understand the real world outside the boundaries of logic, the more shocked I am. Probably, the root cause might be my own belligerence to accept people as they are rather than expecting them to behave as I thought they should.

Watching ‘CA Topper Tribhuvan Mishra’ was another milestone in this journey of understanding the human psyche outside my own head.

Summary of the show

Netflix has been able to promote content that would otherwise be banned in theatres. They truly deserve kudos for supporting this show which addresses an often ignored issue.

An honest government employee loses access to his life savings due to a bank scam. He is forced to earn extra as he is a family man without much savings.

He becomes a male escort with the pseudonym “CA Topper”, encouraged by praise from his wife and economic opportunity revealed by a prostitute.

The man becomes famous in the shady extramarital sex market for women. However, the police system and “patriarchal” setup is out to get this “nice man” and women who are exercising their “right” to great sex and pleasure while continuing to reap benefits of a marriage with another man.

The behaviour of CA Topper’s clients is justified with these reasons:

1. Their men are also fucking around

2. Husbands don’t think about their pleasure and treat them as baby making machines.

3. The husband doesn’t dance like a Bollywood actor

4. In some cases, the male partner is watching his wife do it with CA Topper. (This is the only ethically valid case among the stated reasons).

[ Note: The real way to deal with a husband who’s not upto the mark is to divorce and start afresh. Hiring a gigolo and justifying the act is not a real solution. ]

One of CA Topper’s client, Bindi, whose husband is a local don of sorts. The husband, Raja Bhai, finds out about the extramarital affair and one of his employees gets killed by CA Topper during a scuffle. The second half of the show gets into crime investigation domain.

Bindi apparently falls in love with CA Topper because he “listens” to her, fucks her well, gets her great cake and can dance to Bollywood songs.

Bindi, being the delusional Bollywood fan she is, thinks she can runaway with her lover CA Topper and fit her husband into the murder case.

But CA Topper has not fallen in love. He doesn’t fall in love with any of his clients because he believes that his wife loves him and he is doing this for his family.

In his mind all these sexual encounters are pure business where he credits sexual pleasure and debits money in exchange. Him being nice and considerate is only a part of his nature.

The mental gymnastics performed by CA Topper are valid, with the only exception that he has not informed his wife about this new job. As a result of his crazy sex life outside marriage, he is unable to pleasure his own wife (because he’s tired after all the banging).

Now Bindi gets angry when her crazy plan is rejected and wants CA Topper and his entire family to be killed. The writers have managed to portray her as a hurt and disappointed woman while in reality she is a scheming self-centred bitch.

She joins her husband’s hunt for CA Topper (whom she was protecting till he rejected her) and surprisingly falls in love with her husband again. She goes on a shooting spree with her husband and informs CA Topper’s wife about his real job during the fight.

In a dramatic, yet, poetic ending, CA Topper finds that his wife was also having her side-chick and sees her taking the kids away from him to start her new life.

Misinterpretation of ‘Sexual Liberation’

The show in a way promotes sexual liberation of women with tokenism and zero logic. Let’s first explore the term sexual liberation.

Sexual Liberation

Sexual liberation refers to a social movement advocating for freedom from societal norms and restrictions regarding sexuality.

It encompasses the right to express one's sexuality without fear of discrimination, embracing diverse sexual orientations, identities, and practices. This includes access to comprehensive sex education, contraception, and abortion, as well as the right to consent, engage in, or abstain from sexual activity based on personal choice.

Sexual liberation challenges traditional views by promoting agency over one's body, advocating for sexual health rights, and fostering an environment where sexual decisions are respected, whether they involve activity or celibacy, within or outside conventional relationships.

Source: Grok

The fundamental characteristics of sexual liberation, i.e. right to have sex with anyone and the right to sexual pleasure do not override the emotional and social boundaries that define a relationship.

The boundaries that make sense to me are as below:

1. The open sexual relationship should have consent of all partners involved.

2. No partner should be made to feel inferior in the equation.

3. Consent for this kind of arrangement should not be secured through manipulation. Whoever is uncomfortable in this equation should voluntarily leave the relationship.

4. If you have taken the marital vow, you are bound by it unless the open sexual relationship is explicitly negotiated with the legal and casual partner.

CA Topper Tribhuvan Mishra’s makers have diluted this concept to ensure that they don’t offend their core audience with real logic.

They are somehow ok with women having sex with a nice guy who can create magic in the bed. And the male characters who are emotionally violated by the extramarital affair are villains.

I don’t stand as an advocate of men’s rights, but as an advocate of a fair system that respects sanctity of love and relationships.

The vindictive character Bindi who goes after her husband and illicit lover based on her delusional ideas of love is enough to turn your stomach (if at all you have a conscience).

That said, independent unmarried women hiring a gigolo is perfectly fine and they should not be feeling guilty about this. This point has been well captured by the show.

Overall, the show, though well made has treated the concept of ‘sexual liberation’ and ‘right to pleasure’ in a cavalier manner without actually highlighting how a person can have an ethical non-monogamous relationship (and enjoy good sex). Of course, that is not their social obligation.

But the makers of this show have inadvertently murdered the real meaning of sexual liberation.

I love interesting characters who grow and evolve in TV shows. The arc of a character is probably as important as the twists and turns in the story.

If the reader has watched Mirzapur, he/she would have an idea about the inner nature of each and every character.

You can put Mirzapur’s characters in several buckets.

Some are manipulative, while others are impulsive. Few are caring, while majority are mute spectators. But almost all of them are power hungry.

Character arcs of most of the players in the TV Show Mirzapur don’t change in Season 3. The only exception to this trend is Ramakant Pandit.

The man finally admits that his allegiance (or addiction) to usool or principles is futile and accepts the brutal fact that everyone acts on the basis of self-interest.

Ramakant Pandit

Ramakant Pandit is the father of a two famous goons of Mirzapur (Guddu and Bablu) . He is indifferent to the priorities of his children and decides to live his honest life and ignore the chaos created by his children.

His indifference and lack of control over his sons leads to several deaths in the family. He is quite helpless. However, none of this changes his hold over his precious ‘usool’ (principles).

In spite of all the tragedy and bloodshed, Ramakant wants to be a principled human being. This guy is literally addicted to principles even when he is dealing with a fundamentally opportunistic world.

Ramakant Pandit is so straightforward that he collects evidence against his own son and hands it over to the police force. He offers to go through punishment for killing a police office who tried to kill his son in a fake encounter.

Senseless Addiction to Principles

His senseless addiction to principles is infectious in Mirzapur Season 3. The man works for justice even in the jail. He helps many falsely imprisoned inmates to file their bail petitions.

Ramakant protects a new inmate from getting beaten up. He evokes respect even from a savage inmate. At the same time he ignores his wife’s and children’s needs. He justifies his indifference in the name of principles.

He agrees to argue his own case (and save his skin) only after excessive persuasion by his wife. Of course, one can understand his passion for principles. But he is delusional in a universe where opportunism is the norm.

The Poet and His Priorities

It takes a poet to break Ramakant’s addiction to usool (principles). A fairly innocent guy brutally kills an important businessman in the show in exchange for a better future for his family. This shocks everyone.

Ramakant goes to speak to this murderer. He asks why he chose to commit a crime when he had potential to do something with his life. The poet says that his priorities are above the society’s or any other person’s opinions.

The poet says that he got a deal and he took it. And he asks Ramakant to fuck off and stick his principles up his ass. Not literally but metaphorically. I am exaggerating the words but in real terms this is the psychological impact on Ramakant.

Inability to Love

After Golu’s death, a broken Guddu comes to speak to his father. He asks him how he finds the strength to bear so much difficulty.

Surprisingly, Ramakant lets go his addiction to principles. Ramakant finally realises that his obsession with “usool” is futile. He admits that the only principle that one should subscribe to is “self-interest”.

He regrets that he could not learn how to love or teach his son the value of love. This sounds like a passing remark, but it is a very significant one.

By the end of the scene he asks Guddu to do whatever he sees fit and drops the habit of making value judgements.

Self-Love and Craziness

I think love, in appropriate doses, can save people from going to extremes. Maybe if each of these characters accepted themselves, they would not seek refuge in principles or violence.

Ramakant would not have judged others for being “dishonest” if he was able to love himself and his flaws. Guddu would not do crazy things to become ‘King of Mirzapur’ if he loved himself as a normal citizen, albeit a powerless one.

After finishing Mirzapur Season 3, I am more convinced in the idea that the absence of self-love drives people crazy and pushes them into a chaotic vortex.

Maybe, The Terminal is one such movie.

Summary

The movie is about a bunch of college students who are harassed by their college seniors. They befriend a neurotic don, Rangan, who hails from their state to beat up the seniors who harassed them.

However, they are sucked into an even more dangerous and violent universe of the don. At this point, the students need to choose between loyalty and self-preservation.

The climax is epic, stunning and redeems the hero’s softer side. However, I would not commit the sin of giving away a spoiler.

Fahaad Dazzles

Although dazzling, dangerous and powerful, the don, Rangan (Fahaad Fasil) is also a lonely soul. He seeks out genuine friendship and admiration from the college lads.

He showers them with booze, apartment amenities and even whores. But he demands absolute loyalty from them. This part is unsaid. The lads didn’t know that they were signing a check they could not cash.

Rangan is also sentimental, given the lack of maternal love and approval. He vows not to hurt anyone with his own hands but directs his minions to carry out brutal violence. The hypocrisy of the don is almost comical.

However, the man is a savage when he is pushed to the wall. He is capable of taking on a large gang with a small knife. The choice of weapon makes this short king even more legendary than he seems to be.

The layers of grief, brutality, tenderness and flamboyance make Rangan a powerful, yet soft-hearted gangster. He drives the movie despite the mediocrity of the storyline.

That said, I was quite amused by the use of Kannada words by Fahaad Fasil to manage his Kannada-speaking minions. In addition, I liked the mention of Tumkur, my hometown where the college kids hide briefly to save themselves from the wrath of Rangan.

Other Thoughts

Though I don’t want to intellectualize the movie’s message, I do feel there’s an underlying theme that makes the main character adorable.

He is lonely and deprived of love. He plans to make up for it by being powerful and acquiring a gang of his own. Then he wants to be a giving man so that he can win the legitimate love of humans.

When he realises that he’s lonely even after all his best efforts he is overpowered by grief that shows up as anger, or Aavesham (in Malayalam).

This is the most peculiar form of anger. And it can make a man a savage or a saint. The final choice, however, is left to the individual’s conscience.

I was introduced to the Imitiaz Ali universe of movies via Jab We Met. I think the movie inspired idiotic girls to be proud of their chaotic persona.

Though I felt that it was a cute movie, it did not inspire me to watch other movies of this director.

Then came Chamkila on Netflix. I was super impressed. I have written a post about the movie on my blog.

Chamkila did not immediately inspire me to watch Tamasha. It was a random decision. But I liked the movie because the lead character in the movie was a product manager (which is my profession).

However, the first true attempt to explore Imitiaz Ali resulted in watching Rockstar twice on the same day. Once at home and another time in the theatre.

I ended up live-tweeting my commentary on the movie and later wrote this post to structure my chaotic thoughts. You can find my tweet thread here.

TLDR version

The premise of the movie is—pain drives artistic brilliance. This is the thought that drives the lead actor, Janardhan Jhakad (aka Jordan/JJ) to seek some sort of manufactured pain.

The dude pursues a popular girl, Heer Kaur, on the campus and makes a pithy attempt at falling in “love” with her.

As fate would have it, this random thought draws both characters onto a very destructive path with terrible consequences.

The heroine lands in depression after getting married to a rich dude who resides in Prague. Her reunion with Jordan eventually exposes her trauma bond to him, and her dual personalities which are irreconcilable.

On the other hand, vulnerable and love-starved Jordan loses his mind due to his obsession with Heer. In the process, Jordan reaches peak fame while he continues to self-destruct from an emotional POV.

The Forbidden Fruit

The female protagonist, Heer, appears sorted on the outside but harbours internal chaos that is hidden from the entire world. When she meets Jordan, this is fully unleashed. This exposes the double life led by a lady of high social standing.

On one hand, she wishes to enjoy marital bliss in a wealthy household. At the same time, she wishes to have a romantic relationship with Jordan. This is not explicitly stated. But it is obvious from her actions.

Heer wants to have the cake and eat it too. Her periodic outbursts against Jordan are just a way to hide her flaws. Her physical weakness or illness is either caused by her moral dilemma or worsened by internal conflict.

Throughout the movie, the director touches upon the tempting nature of the “forbidden fruits” of questionable sexual/emotional relations.

The hero's views on wedding guests fantasizing about the bride provoked a strong reaction in me. Is this a normal thought? Or, did the director add it to the script for a comical impact?

The desire of a man to encroach on someone’s marital life or romantic life sounds barbaric and disgusting to my mind.

Overall, the normalisation of extramarital relationships in the name of love, and improving the health of the female lead is a very bad idea.

If Heer is unhappy with her husband, or her husband is not happy with Heer, they should have divorced and sought happiness elsewhere. Of course, rational choices by characters would not have made Rockstar a hit movie.

The Hero's Journey

If you ask me, I would not count Jordan as a hero in the first place. He is a deeply vulnerable and disturbed personality who needs a therapist.

The real heroes are those who can bear grief with dignity and enable people around them to live a happy and fulfilling life.

The real heroes ensure that they don’t worsen the wounds they might have caused inadvertently. They are brave enough to admit to mistakes, look inward and try to be better daily.

Jordan faced rejection at college, at home and in romantic life. Though he attains fame, he draws on the animal spirits of the masses (which might have been hurt by the same forces that damaged the ‘Rockstar’).

The stardom doesn’t bring happiness to Jordan as the character admits to his confidante Khatana Bhai.

Villainisation and Utility

Any Tom, Dick and Harry can be elevated to the status of a hero or a villain by the crowd. The status can shift based on the circumstances and the utilitarian value provided to the crowd by the person in the limelight.

Therefore it becomes very important to do good without the desire for claps. Any performative act will eventually draw bouquets or brickbats.

As long as Jordan’s presence was aiding Heer’s recuperation, he was a hero. But as soon as he got her pregnant and put her life in danger, he turned into a villain.

For others, he is not a human being capable of making errors. He is just a tool to meet their needs.

If Jordan knew that having sex with Heer could put her life in danger, he would have never slept with her.

Even Jordan stops believing that he’s human because of his Rockstar, saviour status. He takes the blame on himself and burns from within. I can understand how this can move the masses and charge them emotionally.

But in reality, I can only see a tragedy.

Key Takeaway

My takeaway from the movie is this —a hero can suddenly turn into a villain and a villain can suddenly turn into a hero. The reversal of fortunes for a wannabe hero can be calamitous as it destroys his/her self-image.

And he/she has zero control over the way the public sees him/her.

I received a movie recommendation from a friend during a casual conversation while scrolling through Netflix on his smart TV. Though I was somewhat interested, I ended up watching Top Gun Maverick last week. This week, I decided to catch up on Amar Singh Chamkila as the song “Vida Karo” was somewhat viral on Instagram.

The Movie

The movie is set in 1980s Punjab, where performers singing songs with raunchy lyrics were quite popular. During the same period, Sikh militancy/terrorism was also quite rampant. Amar Singh Chamkila shot to fame during this period.

Coming from the lower strata of society, he had truly shattered the glass ceiling in performing arts. However, he doesn’t seem to be an ideal personality. He gets married to his co-singer through deceit but still manages to manipulate the public to accept his second marriage. He leaves his first wife shattered though he promises to support her financially.

Slowly, the government and the Sikh terrorists lay their eyes on this man due to his popularity and his potential to “pollute” the public conscience. However, Chamkila was not a perverted individual per se. He figured out what the public wanted and excelled in an art form that catered to the base thoughts of the public.

At some point, he ends up singing devotional songs (which become popular nevertheless), but the public demands that he sing his earlier raunchy songs during his public events. No matter how he calibrates his act, he is pressured by his fans, media, and religious elements to behave as per their standards.

Chamkila realizes that nothing makes sense and decides to behave as he sees fit. He decides to sing his songs without fear, and his better half joins hands with him. Finally, Chamkila is shot dead.

Conscience Keepers and Fear

The moot point is whether an affinity for raunchy songs needs to be fed by artists or not. However, the conscience keepers who claimed to preserve society’s conscience by controlling the consumption of cigarettes, alcohol, and sexually exciting content were enabling something far worse, i.e., violence and murder.

If the baseline is so low, then any conversation about conscience and decency in the realm of entertainment becomes a farce.

That said, the public must not be forced to follow a certain moral code just because the religious gurus prescribe it. Chamkila and his troupe believed that they made songs that the public would definitely love. And the sales figures of his music prove his point. But I still don't know where you can draw a line between conscience and freedom.

From what I can understand, Chamkila sang quite openly about extramarital sexual relationships and a vivid portrayal/objectification of women. If the movie has portrayed society accurately, one can notice that even women loved these songs. That still doesn’t quite justify the content that was popular. But killing and threatening a man for singing a song is quite regressive in a democratic free society.

It’s like putting hordes of people in jail for consuming porn in the internet age. As a viewer, I admire Chamkila for freeing himself from fear and continuing with his art. I loved it when he says that the world doesn’t work on the basis of logic. It’s quite true. He decided to live freely and allowed fate to decide whether the bullet would kill him or not.

Can a person choose to live without fear despite its tentacles surrounding his neck? That choice decides whether he’s doing justice to himself. Chains of conscience (as defined by gurus or gunmen) are often an excuse for the influential people to claim power and put down other competitors.

Every other parameter is just a matter of opinion.

Flashback

I was introduced to the first Top Gun movie when I was an intern at the Aerospace Department of Indian Institute Science. One day the prof came to me with a pen drive and told me to watch a couple of movies. Back then I had a red Dell laptop which I had got after much fighting with my mom. Almost a decade later Top Gun Maverick was released and I wasn’t as excited to watch it. But as all good things happen in my life, I started it accidentally.

The Movie Experience

The first hour of the movie was a tad boring to be honest. I gave up multiple times during the first one hour. Here’s a top class pilot who’s not getting promoted and his rival/admirer, Iceman, at Top Gun has reached higher echelons of the navy.

Maverick is being humiliated by a middle-man type admiral played by John Hamm. The ace pilot is asked to work as an instructor at Top Gun after disobeying another order by his superiors. The individual contributor is now asked to be a team leader. And Maverick is not ready.

But he gives it a shot because his rival and admirer Iceman asks him to help the navy. To make matters complicated, Goose’s son, Rooster, is part of top gun. For context, Goose is Maverick’s close friend and wingman at Top Gun who died accidentally during practice. Maverick doesn’t want to risk Roosters’ life. But at the same time, he is accused of stifling Goose’s career in his attempt to protect him.

Adrenaline levels and tension skyrocketed during the last one hour of the movie. Though I knew the mission would be successful anyway, I did not think of all possible drama that could happen during the course of the mission. I was thoroughly entertained by the movie.

There are intense emotions at play and of course there’s a difficult mission with a power-packed dog fight sequence. But Top Gun Maverick doesn’t dilute the intensity and powerful storytelling of the movie franchise.

Instinct, Guts and Glory

Very often, instincts play a big role in deciding whether you win or lose. But it requires a fundamental philosophical framework to make instincts work in your favour. Sometime, if the philosophical framework is wrong or inappropriate, it always leads to bad results.

I have been playing with the idea of balancing instincts with rational logic. Though Maverick seems to be an instinctive guy, he is very organised in his thinking. A difficult mission can be safely achieved only if you can push the pilot to the limits and execute with precision. And to achieve the specific target, the pilot has to believe that he/she is born to achieve the miracle.

If the team had chosen a less risky execution plan where they were not pushing the limits of sane flying, they would have died during the mission anyway. So Maverick is perhaps a very aggressive rational person.

It’s not mindless statement when he says “Don’t Think, Just Do”. It means — push your limits and attain glory. Instinct in this context is not a random act that is performed with no thought process. It is a desire to be insanely good. It requires insane confidence and belief. It requires a killer instinct that will simply flatten the opponent.

So, here’s my new funda.

Instinct is rational logic plus confidence — on steroids.

The Backdrop

A viral tweet about the plumber scene got me interested in the movie “Kapoor and Sons”. The YouTube link to the scene I am referring to is below.

But it didn’t quite motivate me to watch the film. I didn’t even Google it or try to watch its trailer. I never felt like watching it.

But this Friday night, the thought randomly hit me. I checked if this movie was available on any of the streaming platforms. I found out that it was available on Netflix. The trailer shown on Netflix was rather uninteresting, pointing at a plausible love triangle in the movie.

Layers

The movie has several layers built into it.

1. That of an unhappy married life.

2. An old man trying to fulfil his dream.

3. Neglected son trying to find his identity.

4. A golden son trying to protect his reputation.

5. Orphaned child trying to cope with her emotions.

These layers merge into each other quite smoothly and make way for an intense cinematic experience. The plotline thickens even as it moves at a glacial pace and arouses intense emotions in the eyes of the viewer.

At the heart of the movie lies the idea that everyone is flawed in some way or another. These flaws should be accepted or forgiven to maintain a relationship with an individual. Of course, the flaws will hurt people in the surroundings. To what extent, and are they worth bearing? And when do you realise that the forgiveness or acceptance is too late or too feeble?

When the individual realises that he/she is flawed and tries to mend ways, should the victim, often a close family member, forgive? Or is it too late for some apologies? And how do you deal with the regret that ensues after you’ve failed to forgive or accept a person’s flaws?

These are the questions that “Kapoor and Sons” tries to address through its script.

Accepting One’s Flaws

The movie laid bare some of my core wounds related to flaws and forgiveness. Of course, I have forgiven everyone who has wronged me. But I have often failed to accept myself, especially my flaws.

In the past, I believed an individual can be almost flawless if you try to live life from a rational POV. However, I have only recently learnt that emotion is also a component of rationality. By stifling emotions, even your rational decisions can’t be implemented.

Even Lord Rama, the perfect man, is not flawless. Then how can an individual be flawless? One can accept others’ flaws only if the individual can accept that he is also flawed. And it’s natural to be flawed and make mistakes.

I’ve learnt this the hard way. And maybe I’ll be able to deal with other humans far more effectively if I can accept myself and recognise that even I am flawed. The process began barely a month ago. But I’ve travelled far in this direction.

“Kapoor and Sons” reinforced my thoughts in a very persuasive yet emotionally sensitive manner.

The Inspiration

The verses of the famous Kannada poet Gopalakrishna Adiga probably inspire the movie's title. This song was taught to us during music class at school. It has a very deep meaning. I shall quote only the first three paragraphs of the poem.

ಯಾವ ಮೋಹನ ಮುರಳಿ ಕರೆಯಿತು
ದೂರ ತೀರಕೆ ನಿನ್ನನು
ಯಾವ ಬೃಂದಾವನವು ಸೆಳೆಯಿತೋ
ನಿನ್ನ ಮಣ್ಣಿನ ಕಣ್ಣನು

yaava mohana murali kareyitu
doora teerake ninnanu
yaava brindavanavu seLeyitu
ninna minchina kaNNanu

Which enchanting flute called you towards the distant shore?

Which garden lured your earthy eyes?

ಹೂವು ಹಾಸಿಗೆ ಚಂದ್ರ ಚಂದನ
ಬಾಹು ಬಂಧನ ಚುಂಬನ
ಬಯಕೆ ತೋಟದ ಬೇಲಿಯೊಳಗೆ
ಕರಣಗಳದೀ ರಿಂಗಣ

hoovu hasige chandra chandana
bahu bandhana chumbana
bayake toTada beliyoLage
karaNagaLadee ringaNa

Flowerbeds, moonlight, a lover’s kiss in embrace

Distractions within the fences of the garden of desires are echoing in your ears

ಸಪ್ತ ಸಾಗರದಾಚೆ ಎಲ್ಲೋ
ಸುಪ್ತ ಸಾಗರ ಕಾದಿದೆ
ಮೊಳೆಯದಲೆಗಳ ಮೂಕ ಮರ್ಮರ
ಇಂದು ಇಲ್ಲಿಗು ಹಾಯಿತೇ

sapta sagaradaache yello
supta sagara kaadide
moLeyadalegaLa mooka marmara
indu illigu haayite

Beyond the seven seas lies a dormant ocean

Has the rustle of silent waves reached your doorstep ?

The poem questions the individual who has been sucked into chaos because of his desires and craving for a better lifestyle.

This is the philosophical crux of the duology “Saptha Sagaradache Ello”. The idea is brilliant. I loved the movie, the music and the acting. But somehow, I am unhappy with certain decisions with the plot line.

Let’s dive in.

Nostalgia

For the first time, a movie took me back to the days when I was listening to the tape recorder at home. Whenever I performed puja under my mom or grandfather's guidance, we played devotional songs in the background.

During those days (early 2000s), there was no smartphone. MP3 players were around, but we didn’t have that at home.

Instead of calling two parts of the movie “Part 1/Part 2” or “Chapter 1/ Chapter 2”, the makers have called it “Side A/ Side B”(like a tape-recorder cassette).

This made me feel nostalgic about my childhood.

The Summary

The story revolves around a lower-middle-class guy who accepts responsibility for a crime he did not commit to ensure a better future for himself and his partner. Everything that happens after this is a result of this bad decision.

The entire story has layers and intricacies to it. There are interesting explorations of human emotions like love, greed, revenge and sacrifice in the movie. Anything I say beyond this would be a spoiler. (However, I might hint at certain plot elements while putting across a point).

Triple Attack

There are multiple types of villains plotting against the foolish protagonist in this movie.

1. A super rich villain who wears the mask of a saviour.

2. A middle-class villain who sees the protagonist as a stepping stone.

3. A third-class villain who seeks sheer pleasure in torturing the protagonist.

I find this triple attack quite interesting for Indian cinema (where the fight is generally two-way—one villain and one protagonist).

Sidenote: The research done around jail life and the visual portrayal of it is absolutely brilliant.

Triangular Drama

In the second part of the movie, the protagonist comes out of jail. He deals with his carnal desires by approaching a sex worker (while still being in love with his past partner). Eventually, there’s a romantic trauma bond created between the sex worker and the protagonist.

This is fucked up at many levels. Maybe they should have sent this guy to therapy. On top of this, a former jail friend turns into an enabler, watching and aiding all idiotic things done by the protagonist.

Sidenote: I appreciate the attention to detail given to the lives of sex workers. It is hard to find a movie that portrays this ostracised community empathetically.

My Thoughts

The whole drama starts because the lead actor cannot accept his economic status and live according to his own values. He takes the risk even though the woman in his life is satisfied with their relationship already.

Whatever he did was unnecessary. He had to accept himself or choose legitimate paths to climb the economic ladder. Or maybe that’s the whole point of the movie: about people trying to seek greener pastures despite having almost everything necessary to lead a good life.

I went through the emotional roller coaster as I watched the movie. But when I took a step back and observed it from a logical lens, I realised that it is just another fucked up portrayal of love in Indian Cinema.

Should You Watch It?

Go ahead and watch it as a piece of art and recognise the flimsy grounds on which the love story is built. But if you’re emotionally vulnerable and going through some sorta breakup, then don’t watch it.