A lot of discussion in the media and social circles today is about how Raanjhanaa, which is a stalker-glorifying movie denouncing women, turned out to be such a blockbuster, and how all of this is being lapped up happily by the audiences, questioning the sensibilities of everyone involved with that movie and those who have gone around hailing the film and the performers in it. For one, I've found it plain stupid as to how people can twist what they view in a film, to argue against the filmmaker and those involved with the film. We saw that with Vishwaroopam, where Afghan terrorists being portrayed as Muslims was the problem which was responsible for keeping the film away from screening in Tamil Nadu for like 2 weeks. Yeah right, we could have Jews mascquerading in burqas in Afghanistan, committing terror acts and then their "masks" being torn in the climax. Now people have a problem with Dhanush following Sonam Kapoor along the streets of Baranasi and slitting his wrists whenever he feels like getting Sonam Kapoor to do something for him which she doesn't want to.
Firstly, I've always believed that there are two extremes of films in the world. One, those who show things as they are, and two, those who show things as they would like them to be. The latter encompasses everything from fantasy, commercial cinema, and even animation film, while the former comprises of art-house cinema. But on an average, every film has a mix of both, some sort of a linear combination of both styles of film making. Ones that maintain a balance between the two turn out to become the extraordinary filmmakers, one from Indian cinema who has done the same and I've admired is Mani Ratnam, who is an exponent of this
"mixture" cinema as I'd like to call it. Now, why I'm talking about all this is, people don't realize that Raanjhanaa is something that belongs much closer to the first brand of cinema than the second.
For those who talk about glorifying stalking, the film does NOT glorify stalking at any point of time. In fact the title justification comes in the second half, when the guy realizes the extent of loss experienced due to the shit he has put the girl through, and then sincerely tries to become a better person. In fact, I'd call the first half depiction of Dhanush even stereotypical. It is a depiction of people in rural India. In areas where people go to the extent of honour killings, fearing which girls don't toe the line, and guys pursue them persistently until they aren't given with a choice but to accept their feelings for that guy, is how life in rural India is. I'm not saying that's right, all I'm saying is that's how people are, and it's unfair to pin the director down for portraying his lead protagonist in such a manner. If someone sitting in a posh apartment in Versova or Bandra thinks Aanand.L.Rai's portrayal of the sexes in rural Raanjhanaa is insulting, they can shove their opinions up their own asses, because while the portrayal may be something you don't like, it most definitely is accurate (Oh, and you can ask me how I know, well, I've seen such characters in my experiences with rural India).
I think many people have a problem with the fact that towards the end of the film, Dhanush becomes "the Raanjhanaa", he defines purity in love, in spite of having been the guy who regularly stalked Sonam throughout the first 40 minutes of the film. Ironical, considering these people who have decided to discard almost everything we've been brought up with, have decided to keep one of those tenets we grew up with, which is that to tit-for-tat. How can someone with such a terrible history, go on to become one who defines rural love eventually, isn't it unfair? How on earth can we give someone the chance to become good, after all once bad, he is supposed to be always bad, right? How can we shove under the carpet all his stalking and wrist slitting crimes in the name of sensibilities, in spite of the city-grown girl hanging out with him, using him for her benefits and giving him the ultimate friendzone hug at every available opportunity, telling him that she isn't interested in him? Why can't people just watch a movie for what it is, rather than try to over-analyze without even understanding the various emotional dynamics at play in the film? The film is a wonderful musical, with A.R.Rahman's music and Dhanush's acting making you want to watch it a multiple times for the sheer delight on watching them together, and I sincerely believe that those of you who haven't watched the film, and have gone around sharing various articles on the blogosphere about how the movie is a pile of shit should go and watch the film in the theatres and enjoy it.
Firstly, I've always believed that there are two extremes of films in the world. One, those who show things as they are, and two, those who show things as they would like them to be. The latter encompasses everything from fantasy, commercial cinema, and even animation film, while the former comprises of art-house cinema. But on an average, every film has a mix of both, some sort of a linear combination of both styles of film making. Ones that maintain a balance between the two turn out to become the extraordinary filmmakers, one from Indian cinema who has done the same and I've admired is Mani Ratnam, who is an exponent of this
"mixture" cinema as I'd like to call it. Now, why I'm talking about all this is, people don't realize that Raanjhanaa is something that belongs much closer to the first brand of cinema than the second.
For those who talk about glorifying stalking, the film does NOT glorify stalking at any point of time. In fact the title justification comes in the second half, when the guy realizes the extent of loss experienced due to the shit he has put the girl through, and then sincerely tries to become a better person. In fact, I'd call the first half depiction of Dhanush even stereotypical. It is a depiction of people in rural India. In areas where people go to the extent of honour killings, fearing which girls don't toe the line, and guys pursue them persistently until they aren't given with a choice but to accept their feelings for that guy, is how life in rural India is. I'm not saying that's right, all I'm saying is that's how people are, and it's unfair to pin the director down for portraying his lead protagonist in such a manner. If someone sitting in a posh apartment in Versova or Bandra thinks Aanand.L.Rai's portrayal of the sexes in rural Raanjhanaa is insulting, they can shove their opinions up their own asses, because while the portrayal may be something you don't like, it most definitely is accurate (Oh, and you can ask me how I know, well, I've seen such characters in my experiences with rural India).
I think many people have a problem with the fact that towards the end of the film, Dhanush becomes "the Raanjhanaa", he defines purity in love, in spite of having been the guy who regularly stalked Sonam throughout the first 40 minutes of the film. Ironical, considering these people who have decided to discard almost everything we've been brought up with, have decided to keep one of those tenets we grew up with, which is that to tit-for-tat. How can someone with such a terrible history, go on to become one who defines rural love eventually, isn't it unfair? How on earth can we give someone the chance to become good, after all once bad, he is supposed to be always bad, right? How can we shove under the carpet all his stalking and wrist slitting crimes in the name of sensibilities, in spite of the city-grown girl hanging out with him, using him for her benefits and giving him the ultimate friendzone hug at every available opportunity, telling him that she isn't interested in him? Why can't people just watch a movie for what it is, rather than try to over-analyze without even understanding the various emotional dynamics at play in the film? The film is a wonderful musical, with A.R.Rahman's music and Dhanush's acting making you want to watch it a multiple times for the sheer delight on watching them together, and I sincerely believe that those of you who haven't watched the film, and have gone around sharing various articles on the blogosphere about how the movie is a pile of shit should go and watch the film in the theatres and enjoy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment