Quantcast
Channel: bollywood – The Ladies Finger
Viewing all 56 articles
Browse latest View live

Deepika Padukone’s Nostrils Hold The Key To Her Awful Tamil Accent

$
0
0

By Sneha Rajaram

Fancying myself a second-generation immigrant out of Tamil Nadu, I find myself unable to comment on the authenticity of Chennai Express’ portrayal of the south. I even almost found myself unable to type the word “authenticity” here, that’s how much I don’t know about Tamil Nadu.

But, argh! Deepika Padukone’s Tamil-Hindi and Tamil-Tamil accents in the movie are fair game for anyone. For someone brought up in Bangalore, shouldn’t she have a better idea of what a Tamil accent is, for Hindi, Tamil and English?

But let’s get off our high horse. That’s no fun. Yesterday I kept a biscuit packet open in the kitchen, nibbling bits of biscuit off it now and then, until my boyfriend saw a lizard doing the same. So I made a grimace of disgust something like this:

sneha

Harry Potter, in Goblet of Fire, exchanges words with Lucius Malfoy about his mother, like so:

You know your mother, Malfoy? […] that expression she’s got, like she’s got dung under her nose? Has she always looked like that, or was it just because you were with her?

 Narcissa Malfoy being somewhat posh, has a rather more subtle disgust on her face:

malfoy

In fact, it’s only visible if you look at the ravines connecting her nostrils and the corners of her mouth.

See, I can picture Padukone’s accent coach finally throwing her hands up in despair and saying, “Okay, don’t worry about the accent, I’ll show you a shortcut to the Tamil accent. Just make this grimace.”

And so we have Meenamma making these grimaces in the movie, all while delivering non-disgust lines:

deep1

deep2

deep3

Note the ravines between the nostrils and the corners of the mouth. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the secret to the Tamil accent! Apparently Tamilians were so disgusted with the likes of Padukone, that when she had to research her accent with them they spoke with their faces set in a rictus like this.

Sneha Rajaram divides her time between her living room and bedroom. She likes to eat Maggi noodles (atta) and read fantasy and sci-fi, chicklit and speculative fiction (whatever that is).


Oh Sunny Deol, We Sympathise With You Too

$
0
0
sunny

An 18-year-old next time. I swear!

Imagine, we thought we only had to sympathise with Kannada actor Jaggesh when he cried and said that women half his age refuse to be his heroine. How naive were we! Our sympathy needs to go much further. All the way to Sunny Deol. (Hat tip to Rukmini Shrinivasan who alerted us to this crisis.)

It all began when a reporter asked why his 57-year-old self was cast opposite a 19-year-old Urvashi Rautela in Singh Saab The Great. Deol at this point wondered aloud why A-List heroines refuse to work with him and then went through the several stages of grief.

Denial: “We are acting. We are not really husband and wife. If she’s much younger, that’s fine. A lot of wives are much younger than husbands. That’s no secret. And by the way, I am sure Urvashi is not 19 year (sic) either.”

Anger: “I search for new heroines, like Urvashi Rautela. These girls do not ration dates. While working on a film I don’t have to deal with my heroine’s tantrums when she’s a newcomer. Now if you give an A-lister co-star I won’t be able to work with her.”

Bargaining: “I get a chance to give new talent to the film industry. So yeah, I’ll be seen with new co-stars in the future.”

Depression: “The top heroines turn me down whenever I ask them to work with me. They want to work with Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan and Hrithik Roshan.”

Acceptance: “There are lots of new talented and pretty girls in the industry. And trust me, these new girls won’t look mismatched with me. I am open to adapting myself to the changes around me.”

Oh, Sunny! Have you met Jaggesh?

 

What Hindi Cinema Speaks About When It Speaks About Women: Part 1

$
0
0

By Aneela Z. Babar

Earlier this year I had my very own ‘Madhuri Dixit moment’. After five years of being the “Bhabhi ji jinko thoda bahut interior decoration ka shauq hai”, it was time to start discussing potential projects in the world of words and art, defying The Pram In The Hall. In a development that I will hereby declare fortuitous, I received a request in my email inbox to speak on the occasion of Women’s Day to students of a business studies program. Keeping in mind my academic training, the organizers offered me a choice between Conflict and Voice (Gender in Politics) and/or Redefining Feminism in Recent Years. While I was still wrapping my head around these two, I received another request from one of the conference organisers (this was someone who knew me from another life), asking whether I was interested in Women and Bollywood. Social theory, power politics, third wave feminism, positive masculinities! Or having a lot of fun searching for Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham GIFs for my presentation? I later told the group assembled that I had finally experienced my own “Sita/Gita challenge”. They looked kind of young, so I quickly modified it to “my Anju/Manju conundrum”. Some in the audience still looked bewildered so I helpfully added “You know, like Meera and Veronica from Cocktail?” (Oh the look of relief on their faces that I was finally speaking their language.) Hindi cinema has been quite consistent in its portrayal of the South Asian woman ‘s sex aur sanskar ki kashmakash.

sridevi_anjumanju

Then, I had more than enough confidence in Hindi film discourse as “cultural texts”. Just like our religious discourses, the text is so ‘vast’ and all-pervasive. Yes, the language at times may be ambiguous and the interpretations multiple, but every recorded thought and philosophical question one may have raised in one’s lived history has been tackled in a Hindi film script some time over the past hundred years. All one has to do is search. (Most days, my bio sketch contains the line Everything I Have Learnt In Life is Courtesy Bollywood: Awaara’s Judge Raghunath had unpacked Sharifo ki aulad hamesha shareef hoti hai Aur chor daaku ki aulad chor daaku long before Foucault encouraged me to deliberate on nature/nurture).

rajkapoor

I believe Hindi films are a time capsule and form primary research material, not only as an archive of our adventures with celluloid, but also telling a tale of us – of the way we were, what we ate, what we wore, what we watched, who we laughed with and at, who we fell in love with and the language of love, and those whom we could not ever dare love. It remains to be seen whether Hindi cinema has accommodated women’s aspirations, what has and has not changed over the years, and what continues to dictate women’s mobility. It was quite possible to entertain the multi star cast of questions the seminar organizers had posed to me regarding female voice and identity politics by exploring them through the prism of Hindi cinema.

 

Silsila Hai Pyaar Ka – On Women In Love

Six decades ago, Nehru’s (and the postcolonial) Hero – Dilip Kumar could be an engineer, a tongawallah taking on the Man vs. Machine challenge, a peasant who questions class relations, a megalomaniac who is now a cultural marker; he also took on the Mughal Empire on his off days. Women? Women went to college if they were lucky, however they mostly fetched firewood if they were “working class” or pined in ivory towers waiting to be rescued if they were above the basic poverty line. Their only rebellion – to fall in love, following which men (and their mothers) very promptly incorporated them in the patriarchal project. For a considerable portion of our cinematic history their confession of love was marked by a dupatta floating in the air settling down on their heads; where no dupatta was available, there was a shower of flowers. Temple bells. Prospective mothers-in-law giving their stamp of approval by covering the ‘heroine’s’ head with an odhni, clamping down the handcuffs of the khandani kangan. One day I am going to compile video clips of these Modern Misses in quite the avant-garde wardrobe being wooed by Romeos, and how once these women have succumbed to love’s missive and matched their dance steps with Lover Boy, their sari pallu then covers their head and shoulders as they promptly go into pairi pauna mode ready to Meet The Parents[1].

kajol_k3g

I am very fond of borrowing from Amar Akbar Anthony – a cinematic ode to a vision of India we once had; secular and anti smuggled goods, good overcoming bad, and the Indian family and class structure intact as the Good Lord(s Three) wanted it to be. When it comes to dressing the Ideal Indian Woman we have as Bhatia explains for the three female protagonists:

Neetu Singh as Salma is conservatively dressed as good Muslims are, but sports her trademark big hoop earrings; Shabana Azmi is seen in smart flares as long as she is a working girl who cheats innocent men, but switches to cotton saris the moment she moves into the respectable confines of Amar’s home…and discovers love and domesticity. Parveen Babi’s foreign-returned Jenny flaunts colourful dresses, glorious wide-brimmed hats and the occasional skirt with a long slit that shows her legs (Bhatia, 2013:120)[2].

Bhatia’s (2013) writing on Amar Akbar Anthony reminded me of how Neetu Singh, who plays a doctor and wears a doctor’s coat over her demure salwar kameez at work, will however on stepping out in public and attending a concert adhere to what her father (and community) dictates by wearing a burqa[3].

aaa

Class compliance and/or defiance continues to remain a recurring characteristic of a scriptwriter’s vision, and women in these stories who are to cross the lakshman rekha that is class in their pursuit of Happily Ever Afters will quickly make up for their insolence by being the good bahu in their sasuraal (or, at intermittent instances, lose their lives just as the end credits begin to roll).

Those who draw the ‘lose your personal identity’ card will repeatedly remind audiences of the merits of compliance in how these “bade baap ki beti” (but with such well-meaning golden hearts) will adjust so admirably to their changed circumstances. The Widhwa Maa Andhi Behen mother and sister-in-law perform very ably as the family’s ‘inbuilt censors’ keeping a vigilant eye on new members of the family, passing positive and negative remarks about them to mould them in their ways. Adhering to the patriarchal system becomes a useful aid for women to overcome the unequal ethnic and class distribution they may have inherited or married into, and any trouble that may arise in this domestic paradise is when these women cannot ‘fine-tune’ themselves to their changed circumstances. Take Raja Hindustani and Karisma Kapoor’s character paying penance. Urmila Matondkar in Judaai managed domesticity very well.  Bad women of course rip the fabric of society apart, disrupting Happy Indian Family Lives by refusing to adjust. They will wake up late, totter about in high heels in their nightgowns smoking cigarettes and/or order their mothers-in-law to serve tea to their kitty party friends. A particular dreaded breed will the keep the Maa Ka Ladla hostage as the pitiable ghar damaad.

rajahindustani

Hindi cinema also introduces us to the tribe of sullen, defiant heroines who have to learn their lesson. Even before Vishal Bharadwaj turned to the Bard and introduced Shakespearean drama to the Hindi film lexicon, generations of filmmakers had been channelling the Bard’s Taming Of The Shrew. The good hero in these tales guides this audacious and impudent woman on her journey of redemption, reminding us that women can also be mentally and morally deficient creatures on whom ‘virtue’ has to be externally imposed. Rare is the autonomous human (female) being capable of being virtuous as an act of choice and not saving Bharati Sanskriti.

 

Hum Saath Saath Hain – Parivar Politics

Hindi cinema encourages us to think that it is an essential tenet of Bharati Sanskriti that the home will not only be a shelter for the angsty angry young man, but also a spiritual centre that the Hindi film heroine will be expected to guard by means of high standards of virtue and morality (and some watering of the courtyard tulsi). Good women will be those who are either married or on the verge of being discovered by love – these young nubile women who will take up vows promising to take care of their husbands, in-laws and children. And woe upon the one who may hijack this project. “A girl who doesn’t wear salwar kameez, churidar but dons jeans, midis, minis, has bob-cut hair – ghar ka kaam kaaj thodi karegi? Matar thode cheelegi? Badon ki izzat, Hum Umro Se Apna Pan, Chotho se Pyaar,” the treatise for the Quest For the Ideal Daughter-In-Law, reflects in Sooraj Barjatya’s Maine Pyar Kiya

MPK_1

This brings me to the genre of Barjatya movies worth  a dissertation of its own – a classic essay that can rival Maulana Ashraf Thanvi’s Bahishti Zevar (Heavenly Ornaments). Some of the biggest hits from the Barjatya production house (one of them – Hum Aapke Hain Kaun – became the highest grossing Hindi film of all time) came during a period when, clichéd as it may sound, a “resurgent” and “more confident” India was coming into its own. It was for cultural theorists a milestone like the one they had witnessed with the Ramanand Sagar Ramayan and the Mahabharat. Our generation witnessed it for the first time in Maine Pyaar Kiya and Hum Aaapke Hai Kaun, by the time Hum Saath Saath Hain was released this project of Ramrajya, of a (Hindu) Undivided Indian Family had been extended to the Great Indian Family abroad.

player_crop_640x300_4469In Hum Saath Saath Hain an NRI father at a family party unpacks his anxiety about raising his daughter in unfamiliar – read non-Indian – surroundings on his own (his wife has passed away so he expresses his double anxiety). His unease reminds film audiences how important the inside/outside, ghar/bahar private/public division has been for Indian families over generations. For men, being a successful member of the Indian diaspora (and a very prosperous Indian diaspora at that, if all the Yash Chopra and Familia Johar movies are to be believed), it is to learn the language and ways of the colonizer (the Other in case of the NRI) and for women to maintain traditions, markers of faith, language and deportment – whether it is in wearing chiffon saris in the Swiss vales, packing gobi ke parathe for an office lunch in London, or making sure the next generation recites Mere Des Ki Mitti at the breakfast table.

HumSaathSaathHai_1

As Bhattacharjee (1977) writes, for the South Asian men abroad, these men will align themselves with learning Western technology and participating successfully in the economic field (as will many of their former compatriots in communities at home in India), striving to become successful representatives of their community, while at the same time protecting the cultural and spiritual essence of the East. In Hum Saath Saath Hain, the NRI father at the party dispels his audience’s anxiety by declaring that his fears were unfounded as he watched his daughter grow up and into Indian values so effortlessly, with words to the effect that “jaise jaise badi hotegai khud ba khud hamari values” were imbibed. A chirpy Karisma playing the sister-in-law sums it up with a confident declaration: “We Indians will be Indians everywhere” (biological determinism “for the world”). It is as if Sooraj Barjatya had memorised his Partha Chatterjee, where the ways of the world of the colonizer had to be acquired in order to compete on equal terms in the public sphere. But in the private sphere, one’s superiority lay in the fact that the colonizer’s impure and tainted ideology could not reach the home where women protected and preserved cultural traditions to protect the beleaguered self.

HSSH_Karishma

A decade later when the Barjatyas came out with their latest production Vivaah they seemed ready to make some concession to the women’s movement with an indulgent father-in-law declaring that his daughter-in-law should, until she become pregnant (but of course), attend office. He does emphasise that she would come in to work to help the family business, for “women make the best managers”.

There is no angst amongst Barjatya’s women. I find amongst fans of Barjatya’s films a kind of wistfulness for a golden age, where men embraced their masculinity, and women revelled in their femininity – He Gauri Shankar. From shades of what we read growing up on Islam and women, I can suggest that Hindi cinema’s worldview regarding creative and procreative harmony of the Universe is one that enjoins a strict separation of the masculine and the feminine principles. Borrowing from Boudhiba, who argues that in Islam the unity of a bipolar world can be achieved only in the harmony of the sexes realized with full knowledge: “The best way of realizing the harmony intended by God is for the man to assume his masculinity and for the woman to assume her full femininity” (Boudhiba, 1985:156)[4].

vivaah-large

As the details of daily behaviour are indicators of deeper and less obvious prejudices, it is not surprising that chief amongst those who incur the anger of God are “men who dress up themselves as women and women who dress themselves as men” (Boudhiba, 1985). Nothing that most of 90s Hindi cinema hasn’t already articulated for us.

I have to confess that I do share a secret passion for most of Barjatya’s films. Consider this my 50 Shades of Grey, with the caveat that consuming Sooraj Barjatya’s filmography is the equivalent of intellectual porn. It seems appealing to fantasise about being a Barjatya heroine, especially as their lives seem easy and charming, where no one questions gender and power politics. But again just as with very good porn, though one may fantasise about entertaining certain life choices, in our every day lives we steer clear of emulating half of what we have seen on screen.

But then this is just me.

Aneela Z Babar divides her time writing on gender, religion, militarism, popular culture and telling people her boy is toilet trained, sleeping through the night. She is in Delhi for the year with her husband and a boy who is toilet trained, sleeping through the night.

This is a two-part primer on Women in Hindi films. Now that you have read Part 1, go ahead and read Part 2, where the writer talks about the real reel life worlds of women, the myriad faces of Bharat Mata and the New Indian Woman in Hindi cinema.

[1] Amongst the many other reasons that I really loved watching Shahid last year is that it can be the only film I can remember watching which captures how affronted, overwhelmed and frankly suffocated the girlfriend feels when Shahid asks her to don a burkha to meet his mother. The women I watched before this had walked so happily to the guillotine of losing their well coiffed heads; Mariam, Shahid’s girlfriend, is visibly uncomfortable of what she is made to do.
[2] Bhatia, Sidharth ( 2013) Amar Akbar Anthony: Masala, Madness and Manmohan Desai, HarperCollins, India
[3] This has been the body politic for a while now. Of course in the current decade a Goldilocks like audience will pronounce their film heroines as  Too Thin Too Fat rarely a Just Right, and an actress will be defined as brave for she turns up on the red carpet in a sari charting her own course amongst a sea of  Chanel and Dior.
[4] Boudhiba, Abdul W ( 1985) Sexuality in Islam, Routledge, Kegan and Paul, London

What Hindi Cinema Speaks About When It Speaks About Women: Part 2

$
0
0

By Aneela Z Babar

(Note: This is a two-part primer on Women in Hindi films. Part 1 elaborated on Women in Love and Family Politics in Hindi movies. For more jolly braininess read it before you read this one.)

JeevanDhara – On The Real Reel Life Worlds of Women Watching Cinema

I have been candid about my consumption of Barjatya’s repertoire, but what about the rest of us? Does the ‘female film watching public’ toe Leblanc’s (1999)[5] observations regarding housewives encountering the political world – that is, women being conscious of acting in a manner that is neither a complete submission to a power system that dominates them nor a fair execution of what they want to do and believe that they should do? Do women buy the film ticket for a glimpse of other lives (encountering their dilemmas)  in other worlds—just  as their men watched The Angry Young Man during the Emergency years fighting the fights they may have yearned to take up, but never did? In women consuming Hindi cinema, I see parallels of what one reads about women and shrine culture. Women visit places of pilgrimage to have a good rant, attaining catharsis if they are very lucky, leaving the space hopeful that benign powers will come to their rescue. However, they will never question their unequal access to a happier life or entertain any aspirations of “subverting” the system. And as this GIF shows, Picture Ke Aakhir Tak Sab Theek Ho hi Jayega. Happy endings.

However, I will always be grateful to Barjatya films for conveying to us as ideal Indian femininity a character who exhibits no agency when it comes to her life choices, leaving it to a pet dog to choose her destiny for her. (Like in Hum Aapke Hai Kaun, where Tuffy delivers the female protagonist’s letter to the ‘wrong’ brother, which somehow made things right in the end).

Zakhmi Aurat, Mother India, Maa Tujhe Salaam – Myriad Faces of Bharat Mata

You, dear Reader, may come up with your own examples from Hindi cinema that will negate the gloomy picture I am portraying, but as it is for religious texts, any discussion on this subject is tantamount to pulling one film reference/religious edict out from our hat which is sympathetic towards women, only to be challenged by another reference/ruling that our religious discourses and Hindi cinema can be quite regressive when it comes to women. For as it is with religious discourse, the overarching language will always be one that explains gender difference as biological determinism. And though different interpretations and traditions within Hindi cinema make it hard to generalize, it can be said that overall, our film scripts are sex-affirming, adhering to cultural and religious stereotypes.

MotherIndia

So naysayers will come up with their “women driven” Hindi film lists; a very dear friend suggested (amongst others) Trishul and Deewar – and quotes powerful lines from the two films where the mother shapes (or tries to change) the male protagonist’s outlook towards the tussle between good and bad (in both films Amitabh Bachchan plays the Angry Young Son to this determined woman). In Trishul, the mother makes the son promise that he will take revenge on her behalf: “Main tujhe rehem ke saaye mein na palne doongi… Taaki tap tap ke tu faulad bane, maa ki aulad bane… Main doodh na bakhshungi tujhe ye yaad rahe.” In Mother India of course, we have the larger-than-life Mother who takes it upon herself to rid Bharat Mata of the bad son.

However, these powerful mums are not as genre-defying as they may appear at first glance. Rousseau[6] may have been the first to honour Spartan mothers by reproducing tales that constructed the Spartan woman as a mother who reared her sons to be sacrificed on the altar of civic need. Such a martial mother was pleased to hear that her son ‘died in a manner worthy of (her)self, his country, and his ancestors than if he had lived for all time a coward’. Sons who failed to measure up were reviled. Nationalism and militarism are built on the edifice of motherhood, its pillars are women who exhort their sons and brothers to take up arms to defend them. So in Hindi cinema, too-good patriotic women are willing to sacrifice their men; for in the end these wars and revenge dramas, and taking up arms are all about their (the women’s) protection – of course no one asks these women whether they want to be protected or not.

sarkar_1

Some of you may also offer as examples of the New Indian Woman in Hindi cinema, the female business figure in the power suit. She was there in Corporate, an Amazon, transcending gender differences in smartly tailored business suits. However, Bipasha Basu’s Nishigandha Dasgupta becomes a true heroine only when she makes a “womanly sacrifice”, giving up prestige and her career for love. She has the audience sympathy when she is shown as a mother negotiating court kutchery; shorn now of her blazers and power dressing, she wears a behenji cotton suit as she goes about her business. Some years later when Sarkar Raj was made, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan agreed to play the role of a ‘NRI corporate woman’. The publicity material has her “playing a corporate woman named Anita Rajan. Anita is the CEO of an international company, and comes to India to build a power plant”. While the press releases lavish praise on Amitabh Bachchan and his son Abhishek’s energy and dynamism, how everyone is looking forward to watching this film as it is now a virtual powerhouse with the two talented performers coming together and sharing space. There is also some speculation whether the scriptwriters will ever disclose the real-life parallels, considering many believe that Bachchan Sr and Jr play the Thackeray father and son in this film project. However, when it comes to Aishwarya, the publicity material about her revolves around “Designing Ash’s look in Sarkar Raj”. Falguni Peacock, the fashion designer, speaks about her meetings with Ash: “It was Aishwarya’s idea to wear a tulsi bead around her neck to show her love towards her country.” The designer goes on to speak about Aishwarya’s makeup and hair, sharing their thoughts on the colours, the fabrics, denim jackets that they had to source to make Aishwarya look like an NRI.

And lest we forget, the Bachchan men and certain other male actors (and protagonists) grow up to be thespians. Women actors become divas. We infantilise them, for divas throw tantrums and have nakhras. Thespians have gravitas and age gracefully.

TheLUNCHBOX-Photo4

But yes, there is defiance when it comes to these images (as there was earlier too in what was classified as parallel cinema) in what now is now defined as Multiplex Features – these spaces emerging as the new “parallel” cinema with new stories taking up myriad readings of feminism, hopefully the precursors of narratives of change. Today, however, I continue to see agency defined as one where the female protagonist will insist that she is ‘doing auraton ke kaam’ (what women do).

A closer examination of stories such as Lunchbox show that though the female protagonist might not have acceded completely to the power structures within the situation/communities she is placed in, she may have succeeded in managing to negotiate her own space and agency within the areas and stories available.

And the Widhwa Maa Andhi Behen I wrote about in Part 1? How exciting that they have been taken over by a comic book (published by Pop Culture Publishing) and are now vigilante heroines. About time women got their happily ever after.

Aneela Z Babar divides her time writing on gender, religion, militarism, popular culture and telling people her boy is toilet trained, sleeping through the night. She is in Delhi for the year with her husband and a boy who is toilet trained, sleeping through the night.

[5] Leblanc, Robin ( 1999) Bicycle Citizens: The Political World Of The Japanese Housewife, University of California Press, Berkeley
[6] Rousseau, Jacques ( 1968) Letter to D’Alembert and Writings for the Theater, Cornell University Press, New York

Are you missing Blouse?

$
0
0

A while ago I wrote a short story which had three dancers and a tailor called Blouse Mohan who didn’t measure, only gazed. I had heard about an apocryphal Malayali tailor Blouse Mohan who deployed this scandalous method to create perfect sari blouses and was tickled to include him in the story. After the story was published, I got a call from *namedrop alert* the famous Malayali novelist KR Meera. “Nisha! How did you know about Blouse Mohan?” Mohan was for real? I was even more tickled. Then after we had both giggled for a bit, Meera dropped the bomb. “It’s very sad, you know, what happened to him.” What happened, I asked. “Oh, you didnt’ know? Mohan married one of his clients. And now he is no longer allowed to stitch sari blouses. He does only salwars.”

KR Meera’s unhappy ending to my Mohan story was a bit like what some dude said about Audrey Hepburn – her downs felt like ups. Mumbai filmmaker Vijayeta Kumar’s short film Blouse, on the other hand, is just all delightful ups.

A little bit about the plot here. A young school teacher Shyam has been posted in a village with a famous tailor. His wife asks him to get a blouse made for her which he faithfully agrees to. Only problem? He doesn’t have the measurements.

Blouse is a short film that feels like a familiar folktale (a fun type) but is actually an adaptation of a modern short story called Naap by the Hindi writer Sanjay Kumar. It was shot in Meja, Rajasthan a blazing summer ago and has since travelled all over the world to many international festivals.

You can watch Blouse as part of the short film set Chaar Cutting which is showing this week at all the PVRs in Mumbai, Pune, Delhi, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and Bangalore. Don’t miss.

Photo credit: Working still via Taxi Films India

What Sunny Leone’s Success Tells Us about Indian Society

$
0
0

Photo by Mira Sharma via flickr/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

By Paromita Vohra

“There’s a curiously distant feeling about the rise and rise of Sunny Leone, from the time she entered Indian households via Bigg Boss in 2012 to April 2015, when her film Ek Paheli Leela became a hit. Soon after, she topped The Times of India list of most desirable female stars, ahead of Deepika Padukone and Katrina Kaif – no small achievement. Yet, her success feels blandly numerical, with none of the visible cultural resonance that accompanies the rise of a new star.

On consideration, it becomes apparent that this feeling arises from a certain invisibility of Leone’s fandom. The number of fans of her various Facebook pages total nearly 15 million. Yet, while images and videos earn plenty of likes, there are hardly any comments on posts. The media compounds this by constantly reporting on her with reference to her past work as a porn star (or, as she prefers to call it, adult entertainment professional), thus providing no fresh persona – a Sunny Leone of the Hindi films, distinct from her earlier avatar.

Let me just come right out and say it – Leone is one of the most boring performers I’ve ever watched. I fast forwarded my way through two of her porn films, so tedious and mechanical was their spreadsheet porn-sex. ‘Baby Doll’ may be a catchy song, but visually it is so leaden that I have never been able to watch its video through to the end, not even for the purposes of this piece. As for Ek Paheli Leela, despite my love of kitschy reincarnation dramas, I found it very easy to take my eyes off Ms Leone when she was onscreen. There’s nothing offensive about her (she is rather sweet, in fact) but there’s just nothing riveting about her either.

When I discussed this with a male friend, he said, “Well, obviously. You’re a woman.” But, as a dedicated viewer of porn, he admitted in the next breath that he wasn’t a fan of Leone’s adult videos, as they were “typical Amriki porn. Too plastic for me”. The real mystery about Leone is not how an adult entertainment artist has crossed over, with such success, to a mainstream entertainment space in India. The pertinent question is, how did someone so completely unremarkable onscreen, and possessed of such limited charisma, achieve this?

One of the reasons particular stars achieve ascendency at particular moments in history is because they somehow embody the social rhythms and cultural tendencies that are still taking shape around them. They represent the gestalt of a moment, an essence of larger social experience and aspirations that have not yet been fully recognised. Often, the officially elite culture does not have the space, vision or the means to recognise these new feelings, these still-forming quicksilver selves. What is this sense that Leone captures through her success?

I missed Leone’s entry into Indian living rooms via Bigg Boss because I was deep in the bowels of television production myself, working on a somewhat arty TV reality show. Called Connected Hum Tum, the show hoped to track the inner lives of contemporary urban women in India. The process of choosing characters involved meeting literally hundreds of women from varied backgrounds. Many of these were suburban or small-town women, who wanted to make it in show business. They had no real connections, training, or frankly, talent. But, they were bursting with a kind of un-channelled assertiveness, a strong need to ‘show the world what I am’. They did not want to be constrained by older identities of family, community or caution. Chetan Bhagat speaks for many young men like this. He suggests (however disingenuously) that they can shrug off the limitations of feudal India with the leveller of English.

sunnyforlf1

What do these young women feel they have as a leveller, given that they come with no other advantages? It is their bodies. They represent the idea of show business not as a place of ephemeral, alchemical talent, but a labour market in which you can acquire a suitable body, which will be employable. In the nourished warren of gyms, dance classes and auditions that is Mumbai’s Oshiwara, thousands of aspirants apply themselves to this endeavour. Having a sexy body is now not a sign of your immorality, but of your professionalism and ambition. Hence, “compro” or compromise, of some sexual nature, is also looked at far more pragmatically. They have rephrased the body, from a symbol of honour and morality to an instrument of work and progress, of the entrepreneurial self. To a certain elite eye, these young people represent vulgarity and desperation. Their “indecent” aspiration finds little recognition – unlike the “decent” MBA-style aspirations of Chetan Bhagat’s following.

It is innumerable young men and women such as these that Leone, with her surgically, impersonally perfect body and her matter-of-fact approach to it as her skill set, epitomises. Coming from an immigrant family, which left its roots to search for a better life, she represents this same unsentimental immigration which thousands of young lower middle-class Indians undertake – one which searches for new destinations, not permanent belonging, and which refuses to be imprisoned or limited by a past identity.

Because of her past work in pornography, it’s easy to place Leone at the cusp of India’s “combination of prurient prudishness and genuine tolerance” and suggest she is a “walking talking double meaning”, as writer Kai Friese recently did in The New York Times. This is the kind of truism about Indian culture that we are now used to hearing from liberal elders. That India, the land of the (yawn) Kama Sutra, has fallen into a state of sexual hypocrisy.

Double meanings can only be a source of contempt if we believe that meanings are, or should be, single. This belief in a linear truth or identity, which only allows you to be one thing at one time, which chooses to fix or expose you, is a deeply moralistic one. Whether coming from the left or the right, it is the judgmental gaze that shames people for their desires. You can do this from the left by talking about how Leone exemplifies Indian hypocrisy, in which porn stars become rich while LGBT rights are denied. You can do it from the right by raving about depravity. The purpose of this gaze, this nazar, from either direction is to shame you for routine human aspirations. It is, in fact, a classically pornographic gaze, seeking always to expose and demean you metaphorically.

As both a performer and a producer of pornography, Leone understands this gaze well and knows not only how to counter it, but how to invert it. Her masterstroke was to appear on Bigg Boss, the ultimate mainstream pornographic vehicle, in which apparently ‘decent’ people reveal their dark and ‘indecent’ selves. In her case, she did the opposite – an apparently ‘indecent’ character revealed her niceness, her (as one YouTube clip calls it) ‘cute-bhara’ self. She was courteous, soft-spoken and all family values: “Bahut accha lagta hai jab sab pyaar dete hain mummy daddy ko, hai na? I miss my parents, but they’re watching from above.” She made rotis, hung out in track pants and told Amar Upadhyay off for being handsy (“he is married and so am I”), sending out the message that she decides the terms of use when it comes to her body, as any person should.

sunny2

Through this vehicle, she established a narrative that no one is defined by only one part of their identities. Yes, she is a porn star, but she is also a professional and a nice person. She established that these childish polarities of good and bad simply did not apply. To some, this is a double meaning. To many, it is just the normal complexity of all our lives, in which we are many different things at the same time. It was a much-needed message and people responded to it fervently.

For instance, Scarlett Rose, a Mumbai-based bikini model and Splitsvilla contestant, told Anushree Majumdar, who profiled Leone for The Indian Express: “Sunny is one of my role models. It’s not easy to be a bikini model; people think you’re a porn artist. When I heard that Sunny was hosting the show, I felt that here was somebody who would understand my line of work,” she says. Unlike Rose, Leone never speaks of being a porn star with even a hint of apology. On the contrary, she takes pride in her self-made identity. With practised yet never fake ease, she never submits to the attempts at shaming implicit in many interviewers’ questions. She refuses to submit to the hierarchies by which people establish themselves as acceptable by differentiating themselves, as Rose does here (“I’m not a porn star. I’m a bikini model”), or as Rakhi Sawant has done (“I’ve not done pole dancing like Sunny Leone”). She slipped up once in an early interview by saying “a porn star is not a prostitute”, but never again has she resorted to such stereotyping.

Leone never offers the victim narrative. She owns her work completely and emphasises that it has always been her choice and no one ever forced her into it. She also never resorts to bad-mouthing or stereotyping Indian culture, which many Indians do in order to set themselves apart from other natives. In an interview with MensXP, when asked for her response to Ekta Kapoor’s comment that India is a sex-starved country, Leone replied: “I don’t think India is a sex-starved nation. I wouldn’t say that about any country. She [Ekta Kapoor] feels that way, and she is entitled to her opinion.” She has laughed at euphemistic questions by saying she receives mail regularly from women as well as couples on how to improve their sex lives. “Sex isn’t something crazy. It happens every day, guys,” she said in one video interview.

By doing this, she acknowledges a whole other narrative of contemporary Indian sexuality – not the old one of repression and moral policing, but one of a great deal more sexual mobility. In fact, part of Leone’s relatively easy transition to the mainstream is because of the ubiquity of pornography for urban and small-town Indians, thanks to the digital sphere. Indians have the fifth highest number of daily visitors to Pornhub, and fourth highest in accessing it from mobile devices. Given this fact, the transition of a body from the pornographic to the cinematographic space is not really so startling. It is travelling from the private to the public space, sure, but it is also travelling from one everyday space to another one.

Leone also never falls into any other cultural stereotyping. When asked in another interview about what she thought about excessive violence against women in India she merely said, “This is applicable to any country in the world. If our teachers and parents teach us differently, the message will go out.” The Leslee Udwins and the right-wing moralisers sure could take this leaf out of Leone’s book.

So, Leone is the other NRI, the one no one talks about and the one the prime minister doesn’t address – the one who isn’t ashamed of India. She speaks well of those other Indians who make a complex interweave of private and public selves, of where they are coming from and where they want to go to create a life for themselves, rather than constantly engaging in defining the idea of India.

Despite all this non-denominational journey of individuality, Leone, in what may seem like hypocrisy to some and dexterity to others (like myself), never challenges basic traditional niceties. Consider that she arrived on Bigg Boss the way most women arrive in their sasurals – in a doli. The other F word is big in her vocabulary – family. She spoke of Ekta Kapoor and Pooja Bhatt, her first producers, as treating her like family. Her earthy immigrant Punjabi is reassuring. She speaks respectfully of her parents (as indeed of all people). Her demeanour is winning – I found myself quite in love after watching many of her intelligent, confident, always courteous interviews.

Leone at a party with husband Daniel Weber. Photo by Anime Nut via flickr/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.She does not challenge family structures – and this is very crucial for success in India, because the family, no matter what you do in it, is still the primary social unit for our culture. Her frontal partnership with her husband also makes Indians comfortable. It allows Salman Khan to say about her: “Unka kaam hai – jo bhi hai unke family mein kuch aitraaz nahin hai.” The idea of a woman not connected to anyone is one Indians continue to find dangerous, unnerving. It is a reminder of the goddess unbound. A woman who belongs with a man allows people to accept much more. Unlike Rakhi Sawant, Mallika Sherawat or Sherlyn Chopra, Leone is not interested in directly speaking up about patriarchy or social injustice, as much as she is in swimming past it quickly.

While Leone definitely signifies a break from certain past identities and modes, she is also part of a certain continuity. A porn professional today is only the contemporary extension of how women usually entered the film industry in the past – sometimes from the world of tawaifs or bar-dancing communities and certainly through arduous trysts with casting couches. This belonged to a time when people entered the film industry from mixed backgrounds and remade themselves, too, when the film industry was the location of so much miscegenation.

Today, families and businesses have been around for two or three generations and words such as pedigree and legacy, which were meaningless before, are bandied about. Second- and third-generation filmy families have made parts – but not the whole – of the industry respectable for their daughters to inhabit, and some other women like them. Corporatisation has provided a finishing patina. The bodies of Deepika Padukone, Kareena Kapoor et al carry a different meaning than heroine’s bodies in the past. Any respectability one claimed came from the division of heroine and vamp, but it was a tenuous one.

However, the barrier that once existed between the heroine and the vamp has now been recast as a class difference. This is why Deepika and Kareena are in A-list films, while Emraan Hashmi and various interchangeable women inhabit the B-plus world of Vishesh Films. It is in this B-plus world that Leone rules. Can she break through that barrier? In response, we need only turn to Leone’s own wisdom and insight. As she said in an interview before the release of her film Jism 2: “There’s nothing too crazy in the film. You aren’t going to see anything here that you haven’t seen before. In India, you know, you can push the envelope, you can’t crack it open.” If she cracks it open, then forever and ever ‘Chitthi aayi hai’ shall be a song dedicated to Sunny Leone.

Paromita Vohra is a documentary filmmaker and writer whose work focuses on gender, desire, urban life and popular culture. She is currently working on a non-fiction book about love in contemporary India. More at www.parodevi.com and less @parodevi.

This article first appeared in the June issue of Man’s World Magazine.

How We Wish this Memoir was a Wee Bit More Aashiqui, A Wee Bit Less Ashram

$
0
0

By Vijeta Kumar

11807396_1000750229965445_1484061920530128668_oThe first time I saw Bollywood actor Anu Aggarwal on-screen was in a movie called Khalnayika – a remake of Hollywood’s The Hand That Rocks the Cradle. I grew terrified of the woman because I figured out eventually that if she stood in a corner, gritting her teeth and narrowing her eyes, it meant that somebody in the movie was going to die. My sister was frightened by the way she ate apples. The knife would cut into the apple sideways and continue all the way up to her mouth. All this would happen while she was calmly overseeing the execution of a murder she had planned.

anu3I guess I was more frightened by the tininess of the knife and how incongruous it seemed in her elegant hands. And in Aashiqui, her debut, she blackmails her agent by grabbing his lighter and holding it to her face, threatening to set it on fire.

All of this came back to me when I set to reading Aggarwal’s memoir, Anusual: Memoir of a Girl Who Came Back from the Dead (HarperCollins). Aashiqui happened, as Aggarwal says, when director Mahesh Bhatt looked at her one day and said “You are a star!” He wrote the film for her and convinced her that she would be playing the real life Anu. She took a long time considering the role and eventually only agreed to do the movie only if certain conditions were met. As she says in her memoir, she would not:

– Wear fake eyelashes or pink rouge to highlight and display the rose of her cheeks.
– Wear white base to look fair.
– Wear falsies to enhance breasts, which were then deliberately shaken in item numbers.
– Wear navel-revealing frilly skirts.
– Wear fake smiles.
– Entice with a damsel-in-distress look of a single girl dependent on her father or brother.
– Curl or cut hair in steps.

anu2

She would have, she insisted, her own fashion designer.

Shooting began immediately after Bhatt had agreed to these conditions. He gave her a copy of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s Love in the Time of Cholera to prepare her for her role. Anu Varghese, much like Marquez’s character Fermina, is all passion. While Fermina struggles between Florentino, her former lover, and Urbino, her husband, Anu Varghese struggles between Rahul (played by Rahul Roy) and going to Paris to become a supermodel. In the end, Rahul wins. This is why the movie remained incomplete for me, and I want to say, for her too. Because she was a woman trying to be independent and almost becoming one, until love came in the way.

I was hoping to find out more about her work in Aashiqui and Khalnayika, but this was among the book’s few letdowns for me: it covers little to nothing about her experiences of having acted in these movies. Anusual’s focus is on Aggarwal’s journey towards becoming a Yogi – or style Yogi, as people would later call her.

One of the few puzzling things about the book is the different voices Aggarwal uses in the narrative. The book opens with a musician named Rick – seeing her for the first time and falling madly in love with her. (In yet another connection to Latin American writers, Aggarwal was also carrying a book of Pablo Neruda poems with dried roses for markers in her bag that day.)

On a late sunny afternoon, Rick, the jazz drummer, felt his heart pulsate to a new beat. With breathless excitement he looked at her – the girl from another town with an enigmatic air about her. Her wide shoulders defied the old-fashioned Victorian idea equating a woman’s beauty with sloping slim shoulders. I dig you, Anu, was a thought he did not put into words; it was a new association.

Much of what Aggarwal says is in the first person, except when somebody is falling in love with her or somebody is insanely jealous of her beauty, which is when she jumps to using the third person.

The long-jumps into the third-person narrative became easier after the fifth time it happened. By then, I was convinced that it was Anu Aggarwal looking back at Anu Aggarwal in Mahesh Bhatt style so I didn’t much mind the leap or the tone. Also, I started to imagine Morgan Freeman reading these bits, and that kept me entertained for the rest of the book.

The fact that Aggarwal returns to talking about being dark-skinned very often in her memoir indicates that some part of the book is a response to the fair skin brigade. She recalls more than three incidents where people around her wondered if she could be made to look fair to be able to appear onscreen. From Anusual, you get the sense that she entered Bollywood knowing very well what it was like, but she quickly became one among the few heroines who managed to resist ‘typecast’ roles for women.

This is evident when she tells us how thrilled she was to act in Mani Kaul’s 1994 Indo-German erotic short film, The Cloud Door. Also, this is where she offers an altogether different kind of voice when narrating a scene from the film. The Cloud Door is about Kurangi, an Indian princess whose pet parrot tells her erotic stories. Her father tries to kill the parrot but it goes to the princess’ lover and brings him to her. Kurangi and her lover make love that night. And the parrot watches them, telling them not to forget it. Here, she is waiting for her onscreen lover:

Under the full moon, her body glistened with perspiration that came from desire. The round depression in her visible navel rose and fell like the waves in the sea do in high tide.

1488070_820238948016575_6406661807012781376_n

Image courtesy Anu Aggarwal Facebook page.

Later in life, after rejecting offers from Hollywood, Aggarwal joined an ashram in Uttarakhand. This part of the book really had me intrigued because here she was deemed a natural outsider. I was curious to see how she survived two worlds, both of which she was an outsider to. Stories like these can easily slip into tales of victimhood, but Aggarwal steers away from calling herself a victim.

Aggarwal does yet another voice, while talking of how she grew intimate with the head swami, whom she calls Swamiglee.

Passion of love came from the unbearable lightness in the lotus of the heart, and not from heaviness of the weight of lower chakras where sexual organs, the wetness, and hardness reside.

Her intimacy with Swamiglee prompted a lot of the other bhakts to hate her and eventually she was kicked out of the ashram, put in a car and sent home. Her eviction was planned when Swamiglee wasn’t around.

Even so, she isn’t bitter when she recalls that episode. She is strangely detached from the humiliation that the reader may feel for her at this point. Later in the book, even when she recounts the accident that almost killed her and put her in a coma for 29 days, she assumes the third-person narrative again before clumsily ending in a matter-of-fact tone.

She goes from

In unexpected October rain, in thunder and lightning, she had been hurried into the hospital in the wee hours of the morning. Four strapping policemen had held a luscious female body that looked opiated, dripping wet with rainwater, oozing red viscous blood […]

to

Anu’s clothes, doused in blood, lie crumpled in a plastic bag, like red-stained junk paper.

and finally to

Flat- pressed on the bed strapped in wires, titanium knots; I am inside the Intensive Care Unit. In a comatose state I lie ‘asleep’ in a space where fatality is normal. Though unconscious to the world, I was alive.

When she came out of the coma and later underwent multiple surgeries, the doctor operating on her arm accidentally severs her nerve. This left her right arm paralysed. The morning after the mishap, she sent the doctor a gift. A Dutch plate made of eggshells, with red roses and light green leaves etched on it.

“To ease his grief,” she says.

Her stories are intriguing. They are written in much the same way we wish somebody talked about us, because we don’t want to be caught saying too many nice things about ourselves, and certainly not in the way they are said in the book.

I am a sucker for celebrity biographies and autobiographies. For a long time, a small, black copy of Brad and Jen: The Rise and Fall of Hollywood’s Golden Couple sat on my shelf behind a hard-ass copy of War and Peace that I don’t think I am ever going to touch in my life. When I was 19, I believed that I was the descendant of Rajmata Maharani Gayatri Devi after I read her autobiography and spent a week poring over her stories. When I had finished reading it, I was less in love with her because she had entertained all my curiosities and had answered them all, patiently.

Reading Aggarwal’s memoir has offered me possibly the opposite experience. The reader is left more curious about her and her life. I am fascinated by how much of her independence was left incomplete in Aashiqui, and how mysteriously it seems to have been fulfilled in this memoir.

Vijeta Kumar teaches English by day and binge-watches Gilmore Girls by night. She blogs at rumlolarum.wordpress.com.

The post How We Wish this Memoir was a Wee Bit More Aashiqui, A Wee Bit Less Ashram appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

Salman Khan learns to share in Prem Ratan Dhan Payo. Almost. 

$
0
0
A still from Prem Ratan Dhan Payo

All families are happy in different properties.

Here’s the plot. Ill-natured Vijay Singh (Salman Khan) is the Yuvraj of Pritampura. There’s a plot afoot to overthrow him orchestrated by his own brother Ajay Singh (Neil Nithin Mukesh) which nearly succeeds. Basically, your usual ho-hum princely state intrigue, certainly not plot-worthy in itself. To protect the prince, his aides plant a look-alike to play him. The good-natured and non-royal Prem lacks the prince’s attachment to tradition, surliness and entitlement. Prem’s man-of-the-peopleness is never more apparent than when he sings a rather endearing song about chiwda, burfi and gujjiya. In other words, food you’ll be hard-pressed to find in a multiplex. Hardly a surprise then the film is apparently doing really well in single screens.

For the short time that Prem is installed in place of the prince, he continues unschooled in the art of being egotistical and reticent. Instead he’s likable, goofy and unpredictable. He discovers a terrible rift between the Prince and his two half-sisters Chandrika, (the older one played by Swara Bhaskar) and Radhika (Aashika Bhatia). At the start of the film, we are shown how dysfunctional these sibling relationships are. When the real prince visits his sister she refuses to see him without a lawyer present. Into this situation walks Prem-as-prince, who tries multiple times to mend fences with his sisters. He simply doesn’t understand why they refuse all contact, especially when he turns on 100-watt filmi charm. Or tries to win them over with Croma house appliances. Thankfully, his sisters don’t fall for the bargain: a toaster as compensation for a life of shame.

Then we are told that story. The sisters’ mother was a tawaif shunned by the late king and his late wife, after a fight broke out between the children. They had suffered the trauma of illegitimate birth. So, when Prem-as-prince finally asks Chandrika what it will take to reconcile them, she says, point blank “The mahal you live in”. Chandrika only meets her brothers with a lawyer present because a re-allocation of property is the only acceptable balm to her psychic wounds.

In a grand act during his coronation, Prem-as-prince has property deeds drawn up. Chandrika and Radhika are now part owners of all the property Pitampura has and, we are told, some mansions in Paris and London. The prince’s advisors are unambiguously against this — they see such a move as gambling away hard-won tradition. Prem had just said no to the practice of primogeniture — the rule by which the first-born son inherits all property and a deep structuring force of patriarchies across time. It’s really not often a man from a landed-caste offers to give up half his property share for sisters. In real life or in a Salman Khan movie. In India, women account only for 9.5 percent of land-holders.

The audience’s surprise is mirrored by Chandrika who is thrilled by this gesture. She rushes toward Prem and embraces him. Then, in a counter act of ‘goodwill’, she rips those property papers to shreds as if to say, only the gesture mattered not the property. I almost had to avert my eyes. She clearly doesn’t want her brother to think she is a gold-digger.

It’s worth asking Sooraj Barjatya and the makers of the film what is so unthinkable about a woman getting the family property and keeping it. Why did the plot have to do such a quick backtrack? All I could think, looking at Chandrika was “don’t do it, sister!”. No male family member’s approval is worth this. Take the property and run. Then watch the brothers take each other down (which incidentally covers the rest of plot) from a safe distance.

Swara Bhaskar as Chandrika in Prem Ratan Dhan Payo

How about turning that into a swift jog? Swara Bhaskar as Chandrika in Prem Ratan Dhan Payo.

 

 

The post Salman Khan learns to share in Prem Ratan Dhan Payo. Almost.  appeared first on The Ladies Finger.


Is it Weird that a Dickens Novel Speaks More Intimately to Women than Fitoor?

$
0
0

By Deepanjana Pal

kat

We know that despite the genteel images that we see of Victorian women in illustrations and paintings, the late 19th century was not a good time to be a woman. A cursory glance at what happens to the ladies in Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations is proof of this. One woman is beaten within an edge of her life, another catches fire, the heroine is a victim of domestic abuse and the one female firebrand is humiliated into submission. Fun, fun, fun. And yet, in the way Dickens breaks their wills and their bones, there is an unmistakable glimmer of rage against the conservative, patriarchal machine. The women don’t emerge victorious in Great Expectations, but in their defeat lies a furious lament that is in many ways more memorable and powerful than happy endings.

In contrast, their 21st century avatars in Abhishek Kapoor’s Fitoor appear to be better off, which is what you’d expect given we’ve had 155 years of progress and a few waves of feminism since Dickens wrote his novel. Miss Havisham is transformed into Begum (Tabu), an opulently-dressed, hookah-puffing aristocrat who is rich and domineering. No tattered wedding gown and cobwebs for our Begum. She wears diamonds, lavishly-embroidered outfits, and lipstick that draws attention the elegant lines of her lips as she utters poetic, Urdu-inflected dialogues. She lashes out at anyone who tries to tell her what to do with her wealth and property. She commands the attention of everyone from a lowly village carpenter to a powerful, Pakistani politician. She radiates majesty, even if it is of the withering variety.

tumblr_o0ygxqOjNM1rw4dy3o4_1280

Then there’s Firdaus (Katrina Kaif), the Indian version of Estella. A graduate of London School of Design and smoker of thin cigarettes, Firdaus seems to be the quintessential modern, Indian woman. She wears plunging necklines with elegant ease, takes the Metro home after a night of CYsI4x2WQAAmI8Tpartying, has sex outside marriage and knows how to cut a clingy lover down to size. (At least she does on paper. Kaif’s performance doesn’t quite live up to that potential, but that’s a separate problem.)

And yet, despite all this superficial dazzle, these women are hollow Katrina-Kaif-Pashmina-Fitoor-340xmoulds of modern femininity that crack and crumble too easily and too soon in Fitoor. Begum quickly comes across as brittle, rather than strong. She is informed by one fact alone: she was abandoned by her lover when she was pregnant. Bizarrely, this makes Begum insist Firdaus get married so that Firdaus doesn’t suffer a similar fate. Miss Havisham, CYsI6AYWMAA3gMyon the other hand, moulded Estella to become a weapon to break men’s hearts. Estella the femme fatale was Miss Havisham’s revenge upon her fiancé for having made her suffer and men in general who would seek to contain and control women’s fates. Begum, on the other hand, would rather Firdaus submit to a man in order to be secure and respectable.

Tabu’s performance gives Begum a little glint of fire now and then, but Fitoor doesn’t have the courage to create a truly twisted grand dame. We never see her pulling Firdaus’s puppet strings the way we see Miss Havisham do with Estella, for instance. Neither do we see her leading the hero Noor on and fill his head with delusions. When Begum finally does break down, it’s horribly jarring because the film has no understanding of how nuanced and complex madness is. Without reason or precedence, Begum begins to hallucinate and mistake Noor for her lover and her father. She shrieks and is reduced to near-incoherence, before dying as a mangled mess of a woman. While Miss Havisham was also shaped by her heartbreak, she mined that grief to create a persona that had an obsidian hardness to it. She isn’t a pleasant woman and her cruelty has surgical precision, but there’s no doubting her power.

fitoor-trailer-posters

Firdaus’s character is even more disappointing than Begum’s. Unlike Estella, we don’t really see her being schooled by Miss Havisham’s cruelty. Instead, she’s a pampered brat. Once she’s older, we see her in a business suit and in front of a Macbook, which suggests she has some sort of a job and career. At one point, she vaguely waves her hand to indicate a place that may be a home or a restaurant or a movie set, and asks, “How do you like my work?” Which means she’s the architect? Or is she the interior designer? Or the person who fitted the countless bulbs in the room? Whatever she may be professionally, the point is that Firdaus is independent-spirited. So why does she submit to Begum’s will and accept a marriage to a man that she doesn’t want to marry? For some reason, seeing photos of Begum and her jilted lover give her the gumption to break her engagement. And so she runs out of the arms of one man she doesn’t really know and rushes into those of another man she knows even less. One would threaten her with physical violence; the other would stare at her creepily, get drunk and make a scene. Fantastic.

Begum, Firdaus and Noor (Aditya Roy Kapur) all live in cocoons woven out of their intensely personal heartbreaks and pain. They don’t really belong to our times (or any time, for that matter). They’re not informed by what’s happening in the India of the 2000s. They’re just character traits that have been picked out of Great Expectations and dressed in six packs, straightened hair and other accoutrements. Unlike Dickens’s Miss Havisham, Estella and Pip, they’re isolated from the conversations that inform their times — all because those adapting Great Expectations didn’t realise that the pulse of the characters in Dickens’s novel (particularly the women) beat in the debates that were taking place in his time.

BreakhisheartGreat Expectations appeared in serialised form between 1860 and 1861 and there’s one characteristic that this period shares with our present. In those years, there were debates raging across England about the rights of women and the need to reform laws in a manner that gave women basic civil and legal rights. In 1856, the Married Women’s Property Act, which allowed women to be the legal owners of any money they earned and property they inherited, was introduced to Parliament. It would pass into law only in 1870. Until 1858, when England saw the first divorce law with some reform, a married woman had no way out of a marriage. Once she gave up singlehood, she practically had no civil rights. She had no control over her earnings and property. She had no right to choose where she lived. She didn’t even have the right to sign papers. A married woman was effectively dead to the law. Dickens was an editor and journalist in addition to being an author and a horrible husband. There’s no way he didn’t know what it meant to be married in Victorian England.

Even though he treated his wife callously, there lurks in Dickens’s writing a subtle sensitivity to the helplessness of women in Victorian society. One indication of this is that Dickens makes Pip suffer — albeit with less viciousness — all the trauma that the women in Great Expectations do. Like Mrs. Joe, Pip is beaten. While trying to save Miss Havisham from the fire, Pip is burnt and his arm is disfigured. Mirroring how Stella loses her sense of identity because of her childhood with Miss Havisham, Pip falls ill and into delirium at one point. He is a man and he is the hero, but Pip is shaped by the women around him and their experiences. He’s also characterised by vulnerability, which was considered a feminine trait in Victorian England as was forbearance. It was also considered the critical element of a marriage, which essentially reduced women to chattel in the eyes of the law.

Strengthened by reform, the divorce law of 1858 made it possible for women to get a divorce, but only if a wife could prove evidence of extreme violence by her husband; the sort that would result in loss of life, limb or health. Here’s a snippet from the law:

“Mere austerity of temper, petulance of manners, rudeness of language, a want of civil attention and accomodations, even occasional sallies of passion, if they do not threaten bodily harm, do not amount to legal cruelty. … Under such misconduct…the suffering party must bear in some degree the consequence of an injudicious connection; must subdue by decent resistance or by prudent conciliation; and if this cannot be done, both must suffer in silence.”

This is the society and mentality against which the cruel, aggressive and heartless women and mothers of Great Expectations are reacting. These are the conventions, with their expectations of oppressive domesticity, that Miss Havisham attacks, imprisoned as she is in the stigma of being the rejected bride. This is the law that Estella has to appeal to when she is eventually separated from her abusive husband.

While Fitoor‘s Firdaus is just a spoilt little rich kid, Estella is a fascinatingly complex character and the only woman in Great Expectations who is able to travel freely outside the home and hearth to some extent. She’s an abandoned baby and daughter of the wild and fiery Molly (who we are told has wrists stronger than those of most men and may be a murderer). Estella was saved because she was a pretty baby and her spirit is snuffed out just as her beauty is cultivated like an asset. She grows up, manipulated and emotionally abused by Miss Havisham. Violence and domination are normal to her and her only way out of Miss Havisham’s clutches is to get married. Like many victims, it takes time for her to break the circle of violence that she considers natural. Rejecting the weak and sensitive Pip, Estella picks as her husband a strong, conventionally masculine man — one who will abuse her so badly that she can prove legal cruelty in a court of law and be separated.

The woman who survives all this is the one we hear at the end of Great Expectations, when she tells Pip, “I have been bent and broken, but — I hope — into a better shape.” It’s telling perhaps that the novel doesn’t end with Pip and Estella getting married. It’s an ambiguous ending, with the two holding hands and walking on a garden that now Estella owns.

Compare that to Firdaus running in a floaty white outfit, tears running down her face, gazing gratefully into Noor’s eyes as he wraps a shawl around her at the end of Fitoor.

Our laws in India today don’t dehumanise women to the extent that Victorian England did, but we’re having similar conversations, which is why it’s a curious coincidence that this is the time when Bollywood chose to make and release an adaptation of Great Expectations in Fitoor. Unfortunately, Fitoor doesn’t really care about what’s happening in Indian society or the changes that are being negotiated. Its only interest is in peddling a pretty fantasy that doesn’t care for details like logic and emotional intelligence. And so it is that the women Dickens created 155 years ago still speak more intimately to us today than the 21st century heroines of Fitoor.

The post Is it Weird that a Dickens Novel Speaks More Intimately to Women than Fitoor? appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

Bareilly plans to drop a big jhumka-shaped drop of happiness in our lives

$
0
0

jhumkar

This is possibly the best news we’ve heard in years. Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh has decided to redeem human civilisation by creating a 14 meter tribute to Sadhana’s jhumka. Yes the very same jhumka that she sang of in Mera Saya.

We’ve complained before that the world and India particulary is short of women in statuary. While a jhumkar does not make up for that deficit, how great is it to have not another dude on a rearing horse, dude nobly looking off in the middle distance and so forth. Get thee and thine to Bareilly.

PS. Sadhana-ji is not actually wearing a jhumka in this song, is she?

PS. PS Is Jhumkar Gira Re the coolest piece of singing in the sub-genre of Jewellery, Lost? And if a replica of the lost nose-ring of a close contender, Mera Laung Gawacha, was to be immortalised where would it be located?

 

 

The post Bareilly plans to drop a big jhumka-shaped drop of happiness in our lives appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

What if the Media Shamed Male Actors the Same Way it Shames Female Ones?

$
0
0

By Kunjila Mascillamani

sultan sk

Bollywood baffles me. What counts as news in the entertainment world is bizarre, and it’s as though you need to carefully read between the lines to see if there is anything remotely cinema-related about what is being said.

We heard that Shweta Basu Prasad is going to star with Naseeruddin Shah in a short film, Interior-Café Night. NDTV then felt the need to announce this on Facebook like a police record, with the caption, “Shweta, who was arrested for alleged prostitution in 2014, co-stars with Naseeruddin Shah.”

NDTV’s headline refers to an incident in which Prasad was arrested in 2014 for an alleged case of prostitution. While her name was splashed all over the headlines at the time, none of the men involved were similarly named.

Of course, we haven’t seen the same degree of shaming by the media for the long list of actors who have criminal cases against them. We decided to see what that might look like.

1.Salman Khan (1)

2. Amitabh Bachchan

3. Madhur Bhandarkar

4. Sanjay Dutt

5. Shiney Ahuja

The post What if the Media Shamed Male Actors the Same Way it Shames Female Ones? appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

Heroines of the 90s Were Low on Glucose, and Other Things I Learned from Bollywood Movie Posters

$
0
0

By Amla Pisharody

dilwale-dulhania-le-jayenge_0_0

Recently, when talking to a friend, I was directed to a fascinating project: the Headless Women of Hollywood. It was an eye opener: it showed how film posters used sexualised, fragmented portions of women’s bodies to sell movies. For example, the poster for the Bond movie For Your Eyes Only has a woman in the foreground, but we only see her from the rear, and waist down, clad in revealing swimwear (perhaps) and wearing high heels. What we see isn’t a person, but a woman reduced to her body parts. Of course this wasn’t the case in every mainstream Hollywood movie poster, but it made me wonder. How did mainstream Bollywood depict women in their posters? So I decided to look at movie posters from the present all the way back to the 90s, to see how women in them were portrayed.

I chose to look at films about romance — the boy-meets-girl, melodrama ensues, and they live happily ever kind — because going by logic and common sense, shouldn’t men and women be equally important? Since nearly every Bollywood romance is heterosexual (hopefully this will change), I found the type of film that I wanted rather easily. But finding the women on these posters — especially in poses that didn’t make me want to gag — was a much harder enterprise. Dividing the posters and DVD covers up into three groups: the 90s, the 2000s, and post 2010, here’s what I found.

The 90s: Saviour Dudes and Women Low on Glucose

This was my least favourite category to look through. Not because it had practically no equal portrayal of women, but because it showed me what I might look like if I don’t exercise more often.

Most heroines of the 90s, it appears, could not stand without help from the hero. I mean, The Hero. The 90s woman manages to be helpless and/or lovestruck, juxtaposed against a strong, masculine man. For example, one version of the 1995 hit Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge poster has Shah Rukh Khan not only picking up Kajol but also draping her over his shoulders, a position she looks extremely comfortable and happy in.

Sometimes this is subtler, with the woman lovingly placing her head on the hero’s chest or leaning into him, while he looks away into the distance or protectively towards her, like in Dil, Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, Bombay, Lamhe, Dil Se, Dil Hai Ke Manta Nahi and Shola aur Shabnam, among others. One of my favorite movie posters from this period is of Phool Aur Kaante. The sexy heroine, Madhoo, is wrapped around Ajay Devgan, who lifts her awkwardly with one arm and holds a rifle in the other hand, looking like the poster child of “MARD” (even though to me it looked like a sexy rendition of Vikram aur Betaal).

Nineties posters also had women on either side of the leading man to emphasise his mardaangi, like in Dil To Pagal Hai, but if the woman occupied the centre of the poster, like in Sajan, the men would be on either side of her with only their faces in the background. The men, in these posters, are sexual beings, but it feels like the women are sexual only with reference to The Hero.

The 2000s: Multiple Men, Fading Sexy Women

This decade was quite interesting. While some films like Jab We Met, Chalte Chalte, Kal Ho Na Ho, Namaste LondonFanaa and Salaam-e-Ishq had women share space equally without looking like they’d stepped out of the pages of a men’s magazine, for a majority of movie posters, the man was the focus.

Sometimes, to emphasise how important the man was, they were shown twice as large as the women, or even just shown twice. In Jannat, the woman, Sonal Chauhan, is on the left side of the poster, looking up at Emraan Hashmi’s massive face, gracing the poster like the Lord himself. One of the posters for Yaadein has Kareena Kapoor and Hrithik Roshan’s huge faces in the background, with a tinier Hrithik in the foreground with his arms stretched out and an “I’m-so-cool” look on his face. Jodha Akbar, Dev.D, Devdas, Tere Naam, Cheeni Kum, Dil Ne Jisse Apna Kaha, and Lucky: No Time for Love were some of the many movies that either had fading women or men who appeared twice.

If women received equal focus, they would have to be sexualised. My favourite example of this is Barsaat with Bobby Deol drenched in the rain, staring into your soul, while on either side of him Priyanka Chopra and Bipasha Basu, both drenched and in white clothes (gone transparent), with expressions that scream of more sexual chemistry with the rain than they ever had with Bobby Deol in the entire movie. Mujhse Shaadi Karogi, Do Knot Disturb, Aashiq Banaya Apne, Neal ‘n’ Nikki, Suno Sasurjee and Andaaz are some of the movies that have posters along the same lines.

Posters from this decade were also sprinkled with protective males and low-energy females; Vivah, Veer-Zara, Mere Jeevan Saathi, Love Story 2050 and Saawariya were front runners.

2010 onwards: Loads of Different Women

Posters from 2010 onwards show a marked improvement in the way women were portrayed in posters.  Tamasha, for example, has Ranbir Kapoor and Deepika Padukone laughing and walking together, both the same size. The same goes for Shuddh Desi Romance, which allows equal poster space for the leading actors, with neither relegated to stereotypes. My Friend Pinto, Hasee Toh Phasee, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, 2 States, Tanu Weds Manu, Cocktail and Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani are heartening examples of posters that have represent female actors without needing to be sexist in the bargain.

Of course, every now and then, there’s an Ishaqzaade, Ek Tha Tiger, Heropanti, Kites or something else that pops up to relegate women to beings that need saving or carrying or rescuing. Even Deepika Padukone in Bajirao Mastaani(2015), a fierce warrior who could stand her own ground, had to be held up in one of the movie’s posters by Ranveer Singh.

The last few years have been marked by positive portrayals of women in cinema, and better representation of women onscreen. How women appear on posters is merely a reflection of the attitude to their presence in cinema. Will the figure of the wilting heroine badly in need of an energy shot gradually disappear from posters of Bollywood films? I’ve got my fingers crossed.

Co-published with Firstpost. 

The post Heroines of the 90s Were Low on Glucose, and Other Things I Learned from Bollywood Movie Posters appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

Why Does Katrina Kaif Have to Suck on a Bottle to Sell Juice, While Shah Rukh Simply Needs to Hold it up and Smile?

$
0
0

By Sharanya Dutta

It’s festive season, and it’s impossible to look through newspapers or magazines without being attacked by a barrage of excitable advertisements featuring beautiful people. Indo-Pak sabre-rattling and surgical suspicions with a side of Manyavar suits and Nakshatra Jewellers. We should be glad for this raunak in our lives but we have one question to ask. Why are female celebrities always made to do bizarre things in our ads?

Here is a newspaper spread from recent times.

While Farhan Akhtar looks the part of a legit country musician and lives by his code (in the oh so subtle punny ad for Code by Lifestyle), Kangana Ranaut has been stuck in this stomach-pain-miss-can-I-go-home pose in the ‘she’ version of ad. Please note that she perseveres and does not go home because she’s ‘pretty damn strong’).

ads1

Then we have baniyan-ed Saif advertising the Amul Macho ‘bade aaram se’. But this ‘aaram’ is not for the women in the ads. In one, ghungroo-ed and ghoonghat-ed Sana Khan is out at the ghaat, shy because the other women are judging her. Suddenly she unveils herself to reveal a pair of her husband’s blue underwear (whose elasticity seems directly proportional to the number of orgasms it can give women looking at it). This is known as Amul Macho’s ‘toing’ factor. ‘Crafted for Fantasies’ (the tagline) seems to work for Sana, who we’re supposed to imagine  orgasms by the time she’s done washing it.

In another bizarre ad,  orangutans steal her husband’s tighty-whities and then play out a ‘fantasy’. We’re not very sure we understand this one, to be honest.

ads2

We used to associate chocolate with sugar rushes and some childlike pleasures. But check this out – Dairy Milk ft. THE Big B is limited to glee, but the woman’s face must be coated in chocolate, in a shot tiresomely inspired by ancient porn.

ads3

Then there are the deodorant ads. Axe used to have the monopoly over sexist advertisements in this department, but Wild Stone decided to give them a run for their money. About the Axe Anarchy ad, Kyle Marancos, senior brand building manager of Axe, says, “Men and women are driven by attraction, and Axe provides the spark they need to act on that attraction.” Wild Stone just inserts women, mid-orgasm, everywhere. The men all show off their immaculately shaved chests and heavy-duty muscles, and women are either draped around them like so much sexy seaweed, or like in this case, Diya Mirza’s best come-hither look. Also, it seems like the smaller the company, the more they feature scantily clad women as bait.

ads4

Honestly, by this point we expect condom ads to be sexist. The women, even Sunny Leone, need only be pursued, penetrable, yielding. While the men, such as Durex’s favourite Ranveer Singh, are active, celebratory and in jolly pursuit of the next lay.

ads5

When Levi’s released the Live Unbuttoned collection, we knew who they’d be unbuttoning first. But it still doesn’t explain why Kangana Ranaut (who, according to Google search looks her “sultry best in an enticing Levi’s ad”) may as well have been advertising Fevicol.

ads6

And finally, everyone’s all-time favourite. We are supposed to imagine that Katrina would deep throat that bottle (or hived mango?) if she could — either that or she has learnt to imbibe the mango goodness directly through her skin, and it feels soooo gooood. King Khan just decides to use the Frooti as an ice-pack — sans orgasms — and that’s okay.

ads7

The government is considering a ban on celebrities for starring in ‘misleading’ ads. What exactly constitutes misleading, we wonder? Hyper-masculinity? Aphrodisiac deodorants? Mangoes substituting for dildos? Advertising agendas of ‘Buy Product, Get Orgasm Free’ or ‘Here are some boobs’ are getting a bit old, don’t you think?

In case you thought we were only citing dated ads, here is a collage of an ad from the 1960s and one that was featured in the Times of India on 9th October 2016. Guess which is which.

ads8

Co-published with Firstpost.

The post Why Does Katrina Kaif Have to Suck on a Bottle to Sell Juice, While Shah Rukh Simply Needs to Hold it up and Smile? appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

These are Some of the Cool Things that Happen in Dear Zindagi

$
0
0

By Nisha Susan

dear-zindagi-still

Dear Zindagi has several lines of dialogue you are unlikely to have heard often or at all in Hindi cinema before. A woman telling a man to pull up his [unsightly low-slung] pants before he goes in front of the camera. A woman telling a man, “I need to pee.” (In Bunty Aur Babli, Babli implies it when she asks Bunty to come guard the railway station loo. And in Raj Kumar Santoshi’s Lajja, Manisha Koirala learns to pee on the side of the road while drunkenly cavorting with Madhuri Dixit.) A woman announcing that she failed 2nd standard. A man saying that his former lover would never have achieved success if they had stayed together.

I was looking forward to Dear Zindagi in a vague way, aided by the memory of watching Sridevi’s kabuki mask-like, but still absorbing face in Gauri Shinde’s first film English-Vinglish. In Dear Zindagi, Alia Bhatt is also often expressionless-yet-not, prickly and grouchy to hide her wealth of feelings. At one point, when Kaira (Bhatt) hears from her friend Fatima (Ira Dubey) that her lover has gotten engaged to someone else, she bites into a green chilli and eats it with steady viciousness. You want to look away from her tiny red lips, but you can’t. She sniffs, and when her friend asks her if she is okay, she blames the chilli. Then she goes back to the studio to edit the music video she’s directing.
Alia Bhat

English-Vinglish was the journey of a well-adjusted, middle-aged woman who thinks well of herself. She only has to understand why the world doesn’t think well of her – just because she doesn’t speak English. In Dear Zindagi, Kaira doesn’t think well of herself, others do. She veers between fragility and irritability, and we don’t know why. We don’t quite know why she’s so mean to her parents and relatives. (That’s a lie. The relatives are so well-calibrated in their smugness that I was ready to slap them on Kaira’s behalf.) We find out what has created her brittle unhappiness, as she finds out, through her therapy sessions with cool shrink Jahangir Khan (Shah Rukh Khan).

This explicit exploration of the inner life of a young woman is fairly unprecedented in Bollywood. In Tanu Weds Manu 2, we do get a chance to see Tanu’s emotional struggles with her self-destructiveness. But the black comedy of that movie and that heroine didn’t permit the earnest pursuit of mental health. Instead, in the opening scene Tanu manages to turn marriage counselling into an opportunity to get her husband locked up in an asylum. In Queen, Rani needs the trip to Paris to recover from heartbreak and gain confidence in her own ability to navigate the world.

dear-zindagi-4

It’s soothing, therefore, to hear Khan the therapist tell Kaira that she doesn’t have to forgive her parents or confront them for abandoning her. To hear Khan tell Kiara that she is not ‘cheap’ but ‘superfine’ to not settle for the first man who comes down the pike. Kiara has literal-minded nightmares about society judging her for being unmarried and unloved (troublingly Shinde visualises this mocking society as working-class men and married middle-class women). It’s even more soothing when Khan tells Kiara that no, society – no matter how judgemental – doesn’t have to think well of her as long as she thinks well of herself. So soothing that you are tempted to ignore the outrageous wish-fulfilment that is the tailpiece of the movie.

alia-bhatt

A friend who went to Dear Zindagi with me began with pessimism, saying warily that the scenes of Kaira zooming above her sets in a cinematographer’s crane are likely to be the most empowering things about the movie. (He changed his mind.) For me, the wish-fulfilment moment was when Kaira tells the newly engaged ex-lover Raghuvendra (Kunal Kapoor) that she has decided to not work with him on his next project. Raghuvendra, dejected but trying to be a good guy, begins some spiel about what he thinks. This sets off Kaira like a bomb. She yells at him because she has already announced her decision, he wasn’t going to get a chance to now pretend it was his decision. Ah, the ridiculous, petty, total satisfaction.

Shinde’s story stays true despite any temptations that may have come along. Kaira doesn’t find herself via a romance with her ex-lover, a new lover or even in her crush on Khan. The climax is a classic emotional breakthrough about her childhood. If you have any doubts that Bhatt can act, this is the scene for you. She cries hard enough to melt a rock. This is also a scene of unintentional comedy. SRK, who should be a proud therapist, has never looked more uncomfortable than he does at this stage. He looks like he wants to say, “I hate tears, Kaira.” My formerly pessimistic friend explained, “No one told him he has to do anything but smoulder. Or maybe it’s those pants.” It’s true that the pants seem very tight, Aki Narula. It’s also true that SRK is frequently a smouldering shoulder in this movie, but he is also more. Shinde’s several on-the-nose pitches and Khan’s sussegad style makes an attractive case for therapy.

Kaira has her breakthrough and slowly makes her peace with her family. Which brings us to that fantasy tailpiece. Her long-stuck short film about a cross-dressing Portugese soldier is finally made. It is screened on the beach to an audience of her whole life. All her friends, her whole family, the man she broke up with (Angad Bedi), the man who broke up with her (Kunal Kapoor), the man who wasn’t quite right for her (a shockingly muscular Ali Zafar). They are all there, flushed with admiration, applause and goodwill for Kaira. There’s also a new man who has solid potential of being the next love interest (Aditya Roy Kapoor).

You can shake your head. I did, briefly, but for decades we’ve watched the wish-fulfilment of male directors and called it art. I, for one, am not grudging Shinde the chance to create a world in which things work out for grouchy women.

Co-published with Firstpost.

The post These are Some of the Cool Things that Happen in Dear Zindagi appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

The Upside-Down, Super-Fit Movie Star is Apparently a Thing. Just Ask Sonakshi, Bipasha and Diana

$
0
0

By Ila Ananya

I was in Shanghai last week, and one morning my aunt was finally successful in getting me out of bed to go for a walk at 7.30 am. We saw about 15 women in a park, most in their 40s, doing exercise-dancing to music. I stared at them long enough for all of them to turn and glare at me, but if you’re as unfit and dying-to-be-instantly-fit as I am, the sight would have made you feel too like you should be doing what they were doing so happily.When my colleague recently showed me Instagram photos and videos of incredibly fit, Indian women movie stars, I thought of those happy women back in Shanghai. Browse their Instagram feeds and you soon realised that it’s only the male stars who appear constantly shirtless, showing off their extra-built abs and arms, while the women prefer videos showing them kickboxing or holding their plank positions for ages.

And then there’s a whole other sub-genre that has easily became our favourite — the upside-down super-fit women movie stars. It’s apparently a thing. They’re fun because they don’t always give off the feel of an intense exercise-routine that you can never do. And only occasionally do they work as a gentle reminder that I could do cartwheels and handstands in school, but I can’t do them anymore.

One Monday to another —> Progress! #ShoulderStand #Sarvangasana #Yoga #YogaChallenge #MondayMotovation #Fitness

A photo posted by Diana Penty (@dianapenty) on

Take this really calm looking picture of Diana Penty. She looks like she’s relaxed and used to looking up at her toes. It’s also the perfect set-up photograph: first, it’s in black and white, which makes everything look all peaceful and easy, and then it’s also right in front of a door, with all the light streaming inside. She’s also perfectly aligned with the doorframe, making you imagine holding yourself up in that position with no difficulty. Until you try to do it and crash.

💫

A photo posted by @lisahaydon on

While Penty’s photo looks calm, it does give off an exercise-vibe. It reminds me that I like to look at yoga books but hate attending yoga class. I love to run but hate jogging when people can see me. And I don’t mind a treadmill as long as the gym is empty. My colleague and I have a running joke about our non-existent exercise that always remains a plan — but this photo of Lisa Haydon, with the sunset and sea, makes her seem like she’s happily and effortlessly walking around on her hands. Why? Because it’s just so much fun, of course.

Sonakshi Sinha does her own version of Haydon’s happy cartwheel pose – except you can tell it’s a serious exercise moment with her yellow sports shoes and gloves. Sinha has quite happily captioned the photo, “I’m not upside down, the world is!”. Standing upside down is obviously much tougher than these stars make it seem, and these images tell people like me that if I can just find that one exercise routine I love, I’ll soon be able to be as happy and carefree as them. Finally a worthy aspiration for stars to set up for us all.

Happy Friday everyone!!! Hope #fitspo week on Facebook has been fun for everyone!!! #yogaday #weekendfitness 😇

A video posted by Jacqueline Fernandez (@jacquelinef143) on

Rise and shine, it’s yoga time!!

A photo posted by Jacqueline Fernandez (@jacquelinef143) on

Jacqueline Fernandez is smiling as she stands on her head and waves her legs gaily, looking as though it really isn’t enough strain to be upside down – she needs more. It must be so easy to stay balanced and swing your legs around without falling into a tangle. It’s just like her other photos of being upside down with rather cheerful captions about how it’s yoga time. You might also remember that Fernandez was one of the 1,623 women (along with Sakshi Malik and Kalki Koechlin) who, together, made the Guinness Book of World Records in Mumbai earlier this month – for the most number of people holding an abdominal plank for a minute.

Aerial Yoga Class by the sea! Magical experience! Monkeying around post class 😊 @fsbali #fourseasonsjimbaran

A video posted by bipashabasusinghgrover (@bipashabasu) on

Hanging upside down after an aerial yoga session by the sea, Bipasha Basu says she’s just “monkeying around.” She makes it look easy in the same way that Sinha and Haydon made us feel like we might just succeed at it if we try. Basu’s many Instagram posts with her doing these intense exercises obviously adds to her commercial image of an exercise instructor— it’s almost like a behind-the-scenes look into the training that makes her an instructor who barely looks like she’s having a hard time with her routines.

It’s no wonder, then, that this effortlessness makes it seem like a little bit of practice will make sure you can be upside down and steadily controlling how and where your legs move — so steadily, that Daisy Shah’s caption just has to be: “Sometimes being upside down makes everything appear the right side up.” It’s only in these few visuals, surrounded by training equipment, that the full scale of these women’s fitness routines becomes evident.

These photos and videos are more exciting for us mortals to emulate than other fitness routines simply because they blissfully make us forget about the core strength, and arm strength, and the various other muscles you didn’t know you even had, that you have to use to achieve this. So perhaps the best way to end all this talk of super-fit movie stars is with this perfect post by Amala Paul. It’s really the best use of Boomerang we’ve ever seen, and it quite neatly sums up our reaction to all this happy upside-down star madness.

 

Co-published with Firstpost.

The post The Upside-Down, Super-Fit Movie Star is Apparently a Thing. Just Ask Sonakshi, Bipasha and Diana appeared first on The Ladies Finger.


Kaabil: You Won’t Believe What Yami Gautam Has to Do to Soothe Hrithik Roshan’s Feelings

$
0
0

By Maya Palit

Kaabil 1

*We are all about the spoilers, so beware*

I thought I’d heard enough cringe-making wordplays about blindness when, through a term of teaching Oedipus, a teacher made obnoxious quips about how Oedipus really saw the light only after he was physically blind. But these awful puns are now popping up everywhere thanks to a new film called Kaabil (‘capable’) in which Hrithik Roshan and Yami Gautam play the visually impaired protagonists — who meet on a ‘blind date’.

“We are blind to our own potential, but the blind can actually make us open our eyes to our potential. It’s incredibl[y] inspiring when you learn of blind photographers, blind make-up artist, painters, lawyers, singers. They are doing everything, I mean to which world we were in thinking how this could be possible,” goes the warped logic recently delivered by Hrithik Roshan, while talking about the film. (Incidentally, it’s the same interview where he says matter-of-factly that prior to shooting the film, he had no idea that blind people are, in fact, more than capable of dancing and singing.)

Capability is certainly the biggest theme of the film. It poses as being entirely preoccupied with challenging misconceptions that visually impaired people are incapable of anything and do not need pity. (Nothing novel about this: Sparsh, made in 1980 when Roshan was six years old, had the same fundamental concept.) The difference is that in Kaabil, people really means men. And it follows Hrithik’s off-screen self-aggrandising logic all the way, because the only way it explores a person successfully navigating the tribulations life throws at him is by hyper-glorifying Rohan, Hrithik’s character.

kaabil-occupancy-L

Tired exhibitions of machismo place him at the centre of glass-smashing, high-jumping action, while the female protagonist Supriya (Yami Gautam), whose brutal rape he is avenging, is a tragic victim already sidelined before the intermission. She kills herself after the second rape attempt about 40 minutes or so into the film, wracked by the thought that if she is raped repeatedly, it would be harrowing for him.

Let’s unpack that. Supriya kills herself, the film insinuates, not so much because she is traumatised herself but because her repeated rapes would traumatise her husband Rohan. And then she becomes a convenient catalyst for the two hours of flamboyant Hrithik action that follow.

Right from the beginning of the film, you’re witness to an uneasy power equation, with Rohan shepherding Supriya around, instructing her on what shoes to buy, and promising to protect her. The film also rehashes very familiar tropes with its portrayal of how the rape and its aftermath affect men and women differently — the rupturing of ‘domestic bliss’ that leaves you with an angry young man and a traumatised woman in Ghar (1978), or the way the moral outrage proceeding rape is used as a tool to drive the rest of the film’s action, as in Bandit Queen (1994). But the saddest part is that the film replicates, and arguably deepens, the same skewed dynamics that are visible in so many Bollywood depictions of blindness, where women are rendered utterly helpless, while male hero figures are celebrated. Men are often cast in the older, more experienced ‘teacher’ figure: Black (2005), for instance, has Amitabh Bachhan ordering his blind pupil played by Rani Mukherjee, to come into the light, and decides for her that unless she’s articulate she can never be rid of ‘darkness’. (He douses her with a water fountain to help her with this Herculean task.)

kaabil2

Much of this skewed power dynamic has to do with the perception that men have superior physical abilities: So in Dushman (1998), Kajol’s character is bloodthirsty for revenge on the person who raped her sister, but wouldn’t manage without the brawn of Sanjay Dutt, the muscle man who trains her for violence and beats up everyone for her, his blindness notwithstanding. That’s certainly the thought at work in Kaabilexcept if it’s possible, it manages to have a more self-congratulating male lead than any of these precursors. It’s ridiculous to go hunting for small mercies, but at least in Dushman, you watch a woman protagonist with grit. You hear Kajol, pointing a gun, saying Tu ne kya samjha, ki tu yehaan pe aayega, aur tujhe ek kamzor aur dari hui ladki manmani karne ke liye tayyar milegi? (What did you think, that you’d get here and see a weak and scared girl ready to do anything you want?). Whereas in Kaabil all you get is Hrithik telling his wife how her rape punctured his ego: “Pehli baar meine khud ko kamzor feel kiya (This is the first time I’ve felt weak) so I forgot to wipe your tears.

It’s apparent that men rule the roost in Kaabil. Apart from the dead wife (who surfaces by Hrithik’s side as a supportive ghostlike presence, feebly attempting to soften his revolve to murder those involved in her rape), there are only two other women in the film. One is the actress Urvashi Rautela who appears fleetingly in an item number in a nightclub. The other, a family friend of the rapist, is pictured for all of two minutes: Her father assumes she’s being harassed by the rapist and attempts to defend her honour by attacking him with a knife. So women are nowhere to be seen, while capability is defined as a masculine strength show and the capacity of a man to avenge his wife’s rape.

Being behind the camera, while your subject cannot see the footage you’re capturing, makes the power equation so fraught from the very beginning — a subject that is explored at length in the film Ship of Theseus (2013), where a female blind photographer regains her sight and afterwards questions the ways in which it impacts her work. Going to contrived lengths to prove ‘capability’ couldn’t have been further from the approach the film deployed. I’m not for a moment suggesting that the way this film did things is the only way. Just that what Kaabil did, by turning its caricature of a blind person into an endless bravado production intended to nurse the male ego, is not the way to go.

Co-published with Firstpost.

The post Kaabil: You Won’t Believe What Yami Gautam Has to Do to Soothe Hrithik Roshan’s Feelings appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

Emraan Hashmi Interview: ‘Society Conditions Us to be Afraid, But Kids Don’t Have that Problem’

$
0
0

By Sharanya Gopinathan

emraansex

Photo Courtesy: Emraan Hashmi Facebook page.

 

alogoWhatever it is you expect from a book called Kiss of Life by Emraan Hashmi, this probably isn’t it.

The autobiographical book, in which Hashmi talks about his experience dealing with his three-year-old son Ayaan’s cancer diagnosis and treatment, was released last April. In it, he talks about the moment he learnt of his son’s diagnosis, and about how he had to pretend to be Batman to coax his son to go through with doctor’s visits in order to become the superhero, Ayaan-man. He intersperses his account of the ordeal, which took place in 2014, with anecdotes about his experiences working in film, and about his family. In one part, he talks about how his father travelled to Karachi to hunt down his own father, from whom he’d been estranged since he was seven. He also addresses his reputation as a “serial kisser” (one that his son if fully aware of) and writes that if he does a movie without a kissing scene, he gets messages asking him if he’s ill.

Hashmi, and his co-author Bilal Siddiqi, will be speaking about the book in a session titled ‘The Kiss of Life’ with Milee Aishwarya, editor-in-chief of Penguin Random House India at 6 pm today at the Phoenix MarketCity Courtyard as part of the Times Bangalore LitFest 2017. The third edition of the Times Bengaluru Litfest, presented by ACT Fibernet, is going to be held this month at Jayamahal Palace in the city.

We interviewed him about his experience writing the book, his style of parenting, and what he would want other parents to know after reading his book.

Emraan Hashmi

Emraan Hashmi at the Times Bengaluru Litfest. Image courtesy @emraanhashmi Twitter page

Was writing a book something you had planned for yourself?

No, it wasn’t something that I had ever planned. What happened with my son was a completely life-changing experience, and I wanted other people, especially other parents who, God forbid, have to go through the same experience, to learn from our story and to relate to it.

Can you tell me about the idea of pretending to be Batman, and how you decided on it?

So, the superhero connection was definitely something I wanted to bring out in the book. This is something we’ve been doing since he was around two years old actually. He’s always loved superheroes, so every time we wanted to get him to do something he didn’t want to do, like eat his food, we’d get Batman to tell him to do it. I would go into the other room and call on his mother’s phone, and it would say “Batman calling”. I’d speak to him as Batman so that he would do whatever it was. During his treatment, he started to get wary of all the doctors and injections, so we used Batman to tell him that he needed to go through with it. He still hasn’t figured it all out yet. The Batman ploy is a lot like Santa Claus, when he’s around eight, he’ll probably figure out that Batman isn’t real and superheroes are just made up, and we’ll have some explaining to do then.

In the book, you’ve said how surprised you were that producers were so considerate and willing to rework schedules for you at the time. Was it tough for you, handling work at the time of Ayaan’s treatment? 

It was amazing to see how everyone, actors, producers, supported me during that time, I got so many calls and messages. Even producers, who had a lot of money on the line were willing to put things on hold and delay shoots indefinitely, so it was great how supportive everyone was. I made the choice to honour my acting commitments at the time for various reasons, and did a lot of shoots around Canada, which is where Ayaan was being treated. In a way, acting was like a break, a relief from all the crazy things happening around me. In the three minutes before the shoot and for a minute after the camera stops rolling, it’s like you’re entering a different world, a respite from everything that’s happening. But then you get back to it.

If there was something you would want people, especially parents, to know or to remember after reading about your experience in the book, what would it be?

Just to know about the concept of cancer and what it really is. That with children and cancer, the prospects are actually quite good. Of course, for every parent when you hear the word cancer, the only thing that comes to mind is that it’s a terminal disease, but actually for children, especially if you diagnose it and treat it early, the chances of being cured are above 80 to 85 percent. There are also a lot of holistic treatments, cures and preventive measures that you can take. Also above it all, just the concept of hope, and that it stays with you even through times like this.

How did this experience change you?

It changed all of our outlooks on life — mine, my wife’s, everybody in the family. It also really showed me how resilient kids are. Kids before the age of around seven, or at least in the case of my son, Ayaan, have absolutely no fear. Society conditions adults and teaches us to be afraid and to have so many different kinds of fears, but kids don’t have that, and I think that fearlessness and resilience he showed taught us all something important, and helped us deal with the experience and fight the cancer better.

kissoflife

Was it difficult to write this book and to put down in words what you and your family went through?

I think writing it was both therapeutic and difficult. When writing some parts of it, I had to relive the most painful moments over again, and that part was very tough.

Would you let Ayaan read it?

Yes, actually I’d like him to, when he’s older. He’s still very young and is just starting to read books now, picture books, but when he’s older, maybe around 12 or 13 and understands things better, I think we’d let him read it.

What kind of parent would you describe yourself as? Between you and your wife, who’s got a reputation for being the “tough parent”?

When it comes to the little things he does, I’m definitely more lenient, his mother is stricter and enforces more of the rules. Between the two of us, I’m the good cop.

The post Emraan Hashmi Interview: ‘Society Conditions Us to be Afraid, But Kids Don’t Have that Problem’ appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

Star Plus and Aamir Khan’s New Advertisement is Anything but ‘Nayi Soch’

$
0
0

By Sharanya Gopinathan

aamirstarplus

Still from Star Plus ad

Dangal has been super successful at the box office, so now Aamir Khan is apparently the leading authority on all things that have to do with women and their progress.

So is Star Plus, which is seriously working on its own version of progress, especially when it isn’t exactly the first channel you’d think of when you say the words “progressive thought”. But over the last few years, Star Plus has been trying to revamp their image (or earn brownie points for acting like they care about women, I dunno, you decide). They frequently put out we’re-progressive-now type adverts  (rishta vahein, soch nayein) in addition to giving several of their running serials what they imagine to be “modern” makeovers through dress, thoughts and plots.

Their latest offering is a #SochNayi advertisement featuring Aamir Khan, whom we think needs to learn to pass the damn mic now. The ad shows Aamir Khan as Gurdeep Singh, a slow-talking sweet shop owner, speaking to a customer who thinks that the shop’s newfound success (sweets are apparently selling ‘shooo te shaa’ — is that a common phrase?) is because of Singh’s sons’ business acumen. Aamir Khan points out that they are his daughters, not his sons, and the board outside reads Gurdeep Singh & Daughters. Waaaow, so deep.

The two smiling sisters appear for about a total of seven seconds in the entire advertisement. The rest is monopolised by Aamir Khan and customer uncle, which is kind of the problem with stunts like this. Not only are we kindly being shown the way forward by a man who works in an industry that has sexism oozing out of its ears, but the issue being discussed also gets monopolised by that person’s star power. People aren’t talking about Gurdeep Singh’s two (nameless) daughters, or even about women in general, they’re excited about the new Aamir Khan advert on Star Plus. Which is fine I guess, but it certainly isn’t #SochNayi.

The post Star Plus and Aamir Khan’s New Advertisement is Anything but ‘Nayi Soch’ appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

What on Earth is Alia Bhatt Doing in a Movie Like Badrinath Ki Dulhania?

$
0
0

By Ila Ananya

aliabhattfeat

Alia Bhatt. Photo courtesy Alia Bhatt Queen Facebook page.

Badrinath Ki Dulhania has the unintended side-effect of making you trawl through Alia Bhatt’s movies in the hope of finding out why she agreed to act in it.

There is a scene towards the end of the movie where Vaidehi (Alia Bhatt) is sitting with Badrinath (Varun Dhawan) on the terrace of a really tall building in Singapore after a night of clubbing. By this scene, Vaidehi has quickly forgiven Badrinath for all his unbelievably abusive behaviour, because apparently kidnapping and throwing her into his car trunk, stalking, and turning up at her house drunk out of his mind are not that big a deal. After all, she was the one who ran away from their wedding. And because they are having drunk heart-to-heart conversations on top of the building, Vaidehi turns to Badrinath and tells him she has always wished that she was born a boy.

This is when Badrinath delivers the punch-line of this scene (he is always delivering these punch lines, even at the end of the movie). “I used to think anyone who marries me will have their life set. But actually anyone who marries you will have their life set,” he says. Then he assures her that she has accomplished a lot as a woman. What is beyond me is why Vaidehi had to say that she wished she was born a boy—especially after she had run from her wedding, travelled to Mumbai, passed an interview to become a flight attendant, and had moved to Singapore for job training, all on her own. And why did the man who abused her get to assure her otherwise?

badrinath ki dulhania alia bhatt varun dhawan

Varun Dhawan, Alia Bhatt. Still from Badrinath ki Dulhania trailer via Youtube.

We know Bhatt is a good actor, and her position in the industry does mean that she can get good solid roles in a decent script. But instead of the Bhatt we remember from her most recent Dear Zindagi, in Shashank Khaitan’s Badrinath Ki Dulhania, we are given a Bhatt who doesn’t do quite as much as we have come to expect her to do.

When I think of Alia Bhatt, I usually try not to remember her in Shaandaar because the terrible movie made me feel like director Vikas Bahl thought I was an idiot and that he could sell just anything. I can barely remember Student of the Year either, so instead, I usually think of Bhatt in Highway, or Dear Zindagi. Of course, there’s also Udta Punjab, but in almost every other movie, Bhatt has always played the role of a woman with a difficult childhood. In Kapoor and Sons she grew up without parents; in Shaandaar she was adopted, and so she was expected to be sad; in Highway she was sexually abused by her uncle as a child; in Dear Zindagi we heard Shah Rukh Khan tell her she didn’t have to forgive her parents or confront them for abandoning her.

Badrinath Ki Dulhania is different, in that it has Bhatt playing the role of a girl who has as difficult a childhood as any girl who has grown up in a lower middle class family in Uttar Pradesh. There is a constant pressure on Vaidehi and her sister to get married, but what she really wants is to become a flight attendant.

The biggest difficulty Vaidehi is shown to be dealing with is betrayal — a man she loved had run away with all the money she had planned to invest in a business she wanted to start. It’s also what makes her feel like she has betrayed Badrinath when she runs away from her marriage. And it’s why she keeps forgiving him despite his abuse. 

alia bhatt

Alia Bhatt in Dear Zindagi

If in Dear Zindagi Kaira (Bhatt) steadily eats a green chilli when she hears that her lover has got engaged to someone else before she goes back to her studio to work, in Badrinath Ki Dulhania, Vaidehi needs to wait for Badrinath to encourage her to talk to her sister after she runs away from home. She says she is too scared to do it herself.

There is also an extremely unsettling scene where Badrinath tells Vaidehi to run when they get attacked by a gang of masked men in Singapore. We see the gang molesting Badrinath (it’s supposed to be funny), but when Vaidehi comes back with her friends to scare the men away, they all burst out laughing when they see his shirt is torn. Vaidehi removes her dupatta and covers Badrinath’s chest with it as she laughs. Perhaps it is asking for too much, but I find it hard to believe that any of Bhatt’s other characters would ever have done this. Or laughed.

Vaidehi is perfectly capable of asserting herself time and again—she just isn’t given the space to, except when she is yelling at her father that 50 lakhs is too much dowry money. (That’s one more thing about the movie — everyone is talking about reducing the dowry amount, but it’s never explicitly called bad). But Vaidehi is never fully her independent self, because Khaitan seemed desperate to make the movie about Badrinath. Incidentally, Badrinath reminds me of the meme a friend recently showed me, “A male feminist walks into a bar, because it was set so low”.

Do you remember Bhatt at the end of Highway? As Veera, she is standing in front of the uncle who sexually abused her as a child and yells at him, and as her mother tries to pull her back, she screams. She keeps screaming, again and again, because she is tired of keeping quiet. It is as though the whole movie—with Veera’s own surprise at beginning to like the freedom that being kidnapped has given her—has built up to cement itself at this point, when she can finally leave her family. And she does. But in Badrinath Ki Dulhania, Bhatt, who for once hasn’t had a complicated childhood in the way that she usually does, isn’t given the chance to be the loud, demanding character Vaidehi is. 

Co-published with Firstpost. 

The post What on Earth is Alia Bhatt Doing in a Movie Like Badrinath Ki Dulhania? appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

#GaanaRewrite Takes the Misogyny Out of Bollywood Songs

$
0
0

By Sharanya Gopinathan

gaanarewrite

Why write sexist lyrics when you can just…not? Still from Youtube

Haven’t you had it up to here with sexist lyrics in Bollywood songs? I feel like a lot of us have reached some collective breaking point, not that Bollywood cares much. I remember early last year Buzzfeed‘s awesome Imaan Sheikh did this hilarious bunch of memes that re-imagined Bollywood songs with feminist lyrics. Last month, we also noticed this feminist remake of the song Urvasi Urvasi, which was released by Breakthrough India to inspire women to question patriarchy.

Recently, the Akshara Centre launched a nation-wide competition, asking people to send in non-sexist versions of Bollywood songs. Their website describes the competition quite nicely, calling it an opportunity for you to “use your creativity without offending anyone”, which, considering their love for lyrics that objectify women, bodies and fair skin, Bollywood could do well to start using as some sort of guiding principle.

Here’s a compilation of five different songs re-worked by the Akshara Centre.

The post #GaanaRewrite Takes the Misogyny Out of Bollywood Songs appeared first on The Ladies Finger.

Viewing all 56 articles
Browse latest View live