Flouting traditions
THE SEXES
The power of cinema? Or something far deeper? I am astonished that a commercial movie like Karan Johar's Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna has created such an unholy furore. Just before I started writing this column, a senior financial analyst (female) told me, "Shame on Karan for making such a film. He is sending out such a terrible message."
I nearly fell off my chair as I protested, "It is only a film and there is no message in it. Treat it as a slice of life. Come on, what's Karan saying that is radically new? Take a look at the various surveys conducted by media."
It is true. Adultery, extra-marital affairs, infidelity and multiple partners are no longer considered taboo topics.
Going by the ease with which young Indians are willing to share intimate aspects of their lives with near-strangers on camera, for public consumption, it is safe to conclude that permissiveness is here to stay. So, why is the big fuss over KANK? My own feeling is that middle-class Indians have received a big jolt. KANK has got to the core of our collective hypocrisy. Had it been a prettified version of modern marriage collapsing photogenically, preferably with the heroine dying in the end, people would have come away feeling vindicated. The fact that the two protagonists in KANK-Shah Rukh Khan and Rani Mukherjee-do get to waltz away to the sunset without blood being spilt comes as a let-down to people who want them to pay for their betrayal. KANK has shaken up beloved values we want to cling on to.
The so-called Indian traditions that we glorify have to be preserved at all costs. And what do these traditions say? That it is imperative for a woman to stick on in a loveless marriage, because it is her duty to do so, and it is equally imperative for a man to preserve the marriage if there are elders and children involved. Karan has turned all these cherished ideals on their heads by showing his protagonists bucking the system and following their hearts. He has done so without attacking any value judgments, without providing easy solutions and answers. It would have been easier to pontificate and the masses would have loved him for it. Most people are reluctant to exercise their own judgment. They want troublesome issues to be simplified for them-presented on a platter, offered as tiny pellets.
Had KANK worked out a neat ending for the naughty couple and made the two suffer, audiences would have loved Karan for showing them the way. What KANK failed to do is provide a road map, a moral compass. You were left free to draw your conclusions and people don't like that. It puts the onus on them, forces them to examine their lives, backyard and identity. Hindi cinema is known to spoon-feed viewers. Dialogues are deliberately kept at a simplistic level, so as to remain accessible to even the dumbers in the front row. Karan obviously decided to sidestep this convention and stick to the story on his own terms. This included creating a quirky character called Sexy Sam, an aging roué, a compulsive womaniser and a source of great embarrassment to everybody. And that character is played by an iconic actor-Amitabh Bachchan, much to the horror of common janata.
Frankly, I found Sexy Sam extremely endearing and could instantly connect him to at least three lecherous rakes in town. The fact that Bachchan played it with a certain panache made the character adorably caricatural. But I have heard people condemning him and saying, "It is extremely disgraceful and embarrassing to watch someone like Bachchan descending to such a pathetic level. Sexy Sam could have been played by Gulshan Grover or Paresh Raval, but not Bachchan."
By saying that the true picture begins to emerge. It is the KANK package that is giving offense, not the content per se. Had KANK been made by Ram Gopal Varma or David Dhawan, nobody would have paid the slightest attention to it. Just the fact that a mainstream director has managed to rope in the reigning superstars for a potentially explosive subject that deals with people trapped in loveless marriages has jolted a section of our society.
KANK is not a great film. But it has definitely shifted the goal post and made somnolent viewers sit up and say, "Oh my god! Is this about us? And is that really me?" There lies its real success.
- Shobhaa De
THE SEXES
The power of cinema? Or something far deeper? I am astonished that a commercial movie like Karan Johar's Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna has created such an unholy furore. Just before I started writing this column, a senior financial analyst (female) told me, "Shame on Karan for making such a film. He is sending out such a terrible message."
I nearly fell off my chair as I protested, "It is only a film and there is no message in it. Treat it as a slice of life. Come on, what's Karan saying that is radically new? Take a look at the various surveys conducted by media."
It is true. Adultery, extra-marital affairs, infidelity and multiple partners are no longer considered taboo topics.
Going by the ease with which young Indians are willing to share intimate aspects of their lives with near-strangers on camera, for public consumption, it is safe to conclude that permissiveness is here to stay. So, why is the big fuss over KANK? My own feeling is that middle-class Indians have received a big jolt. KANK has got to the core of our collective hypocrisy. Had it been a prettified version of modern marriage collapsing photogenically, preferably with the heroine dying in the end, people would have come away feeling vindicated. The fact that the two protagonists in KANK-Shah Rukh Khan and Rani Mukherjee-do get to waltz away to the sunset without blood being spilt comes as a let-down to people who want them to pay for their betrayal. KANK has shaken up beloved values we want to cling on to.
The so-called Indian traditions that we glorify have to be preserved at all costs. And what do these traditions say? That it is imperative for a woman to stick on in a loveless marriage, because it is her duty to do so, and it is equally imperative for a man to preserve the marriage if there are elders and children involved. Karan has turned all these cherished ideals on their heads by showing his protagonists bucking the system and following their hearts. He has done so without attacking any value judgments, without providing easy solutions and answers. It would have been easier to pontificate and the masses would have loved him for it. Most people are reluctant to exercise their own judgment. They want troublesome issues to be simplified for them-presented on a platter, offered as tiny pellets.
Had KANK worked out a neat ending for the naughty couple and made the two suffer, audiences would have loved Karan for showing them the way. What KANK failed to do is provide a road map, a moral compass. You were left free to draw your conclusions and people don't like that. It puts the onus on them, forces them to examine their lives, backyard and identity. Hindi cinema is known to spoon-feed viewers. Dialogues are deliberately kept at a simplistic level, so as to remain accessible to even the dumbers in the front row. Karan obviously decided to sidestep this convention and stick to the story on his own terms. This included creating a quirky character called Sexy Sam, an aging roué, a compulsive womaniser and a source of great embarrassment to everybody. And that character is played by an iconic actor-Amitabh Bachchan, much to the horror of common janata.
Frankly, I found Sexy Sam extremely endearing and could instantly connect him to at least three lecherous rakes in town. The fact that Bachchan played it with a certain panache made the character adorably caricatural. But I have heard people condemning him and saying, "It is extremely disgraceful and embarrassing to watch someone like Bachchan descending to such a pathetic level. Sexy Sam could have been played by Gulshan Grover or Paresh Raval, but not Bachchan."
By saying that the true picture begins to emerge. It is the KANK package that is giving offense, not the content per se. Had KANK been made by Ram Gopal Varma or David Dhawan, nobody would have paid the slightest attention to it. Just the fact that a mainstream director has managed to rope in the reigning superstars for a potentially explosive subject that deals with people trapped in loveless marriages has jolted a section of our society.
KANK is not a great film. But it has definitely shifted the goal post and made somnolent viewers sit up and say, "Oh my god! Is this about us? And is that really me?" There lies its real success.