Author: Kanishka Uncensored

I was born and schooled in Hyderabad. I am grateful to my school for encouraging me to question the status quo and think out-of-the-box. I graduated in mathematics from Bhavan’s Vivekananda College. I joined TV9 Telugu, a Telugu news channel, soon thereafter. I was a Reporter first and a content manager later. I quit TV9 after thirteen years and shifted to Bangalore. I first worked at the Rangoli Metro Art Centre. A year later, I found myself at the Srishti Institute of Art, Design & Technology. I also pursued a creative writing course from Symbiosis, Pune. I am now an Assistant Manager at Ample Technologies. I chose to become a journalist as I was good at English, especially writing. But TV9's demanding work environment gave me no time. So upon quitting, I created a blog. I composed movie reviews, political comments and analysed Television advertisements. My article on the evolution of Axe Deo Sprays was a hit. Anveshi, a Hyderabad based NGO, invited me to speak on the topic. My article also serves as a guide for students of an English teaching course at EFLU. While I enjoy writing, I am aware that I need to strike a balance between my passion and a steady job. I thus depend on Ample Technologies for money and write for my pleasure otherwise. I would suggest to fresh graduates to focus on settling financially first. It is never too late to do what you like doing, provided you are economically sound.

The Gillete Ad Controversy Analysed

The Gillete short film supporting the Mee Too Movement with the tagline “The Best Men Can Be” has generated a lot of interest. It condemns toxic masquilinity, urges men to step in when they see their friends/colleagues cross the line of decent behaviour and puts the onus on them to stop sexual harassment. The film also blames mascuilinity for sexual assault and urges society to show compassion towards sensitive boys and men. Many welcomed the ad, praising the razor company for taking up an important issue like sexual harassment in the backdrop of the MeeToo movement.

Critics have accused Gillete of playing to the gallery and make hard working, innocent men look like monsters. They feel the short film makes scapegoats out of men and that there is nothing wrong with mascuilinity. They stress that the majority of men, like women, are good people. Piers Morgan, on the show Good Morning Britain, said that the Gillete ad is eager to fuel the current pathetic global assault on mascuilinity and that “Let Boys Be Damn Boys, Let men Be Damn Men”.

However, many were on Gillete’s side. Queer Eye’s Karamo Brown tweeted : ‘I love everything about this Glllete ad. Great message’. Some suggested that the men who were left offended by the ad were in fact part of the problem and that far from eroding mascuilinity, the ad paints men as strong and responsible people. Gillete brand director Pankag Bhalla told the Wall Street Journal : ‘This is an important conversation happening, and as a company that encourages men to be their best, we feel compelled to both address it and take action of our own’. Some were of the opinion that the ad would boost sales and by attracting a new generation of mellenials, similar to what Nike achieved with its controversial ‘Just Do It’ ad starring Colin Kaepernick, the former NFL quarterback.

The depiction of men in the short film nudges society to rethink its value system towards women and treat them as equals. We have come a long way from the heady days of the Anti-Vietnam War protests when slogans like ‘Make Love, Not War’ were common parlance. It was only in the 80’s and 90’s that sex became taboo, owing largely to Feminism.

As far as blaming mascuilinity for sexual assault, Gillete has hit the nail on the head. Since boys are taught from a very young age to be tough, not to cry when in despair and never be girlish, they end up suppressing their feelings. And when they find other boys bullying them, they turn into bullies themselves in self-defence. As they grow up, this mascuilinity turns toxic. Men find no means to vent their suppressed feelings. With age comes loneliness, and what follows is self-destruction. The fact that boys are silent sufferers of sexual abuse could also explain the anger against the ad.

Any change, however small, is welcome, whether in the domain of the family, school or workplace. If boys are told that it is ok to cry today, they may not turn into monsters tomorrow. Schools and families must jointly tackle the menace of bullying and strive to mould students into more compassionate human beings. And society must be sensitive to the emotional needs of men. Let us not dismiss the crying boy, the confused teenager or the lonely man as a loser. Instead, let us try and and understand his source of despair.

Some people are of the opinion that Gillete has used this ad to gain more customers. It may be appealing to the Mee Too sentiment that women feel strongly about. And since women happen to be the ones shopping for groceries (that includes razors), Gillete might just have cemented its place in the market. But if business and market forces are urging people to rethink on unjust value systems, then so be it.

 

Also Read Gillette’s defence : https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/gillette-defends-controversial-short-film-the-best-men-can-be-20190116-p50rrl.html

Stree – An ode to women’s empowerment

 

Women, especialy those in rural India are the victims of a medieval mindset. Society suspects their character and hounds those daring to challenge the status quo. And when they marry against the wishes of their parents, they are killed as punishment.

As the name suggests and the movie confirms, ‘Stree’ is an ode to women’s empowerment. However, in trying to be so, it mixes up many issues resulting in a hotch-potch of ideas. It is set in the village of Chanderi, the residents of which believe in a female ghost that appears during the annual 4-day festival. This ghost, named ‘stree’ by the occupants is believed to kidnap men every night of the 4 day festival,leaving only his clothes behind. While this may sound absurd, legend has it that the ghost is actually the restless soul of a newly wed bride, killed before she could consumate her marriage with her lover. Naturally, the innocent village folk, especially the men, are terrified. The only way the village protects its men is by writing “O Stree Kal Aana” in Hindi, which means “Stree, come tomorrow”, on the walls of every home. This, the villagers claim, is bound to shoo the ghost away and protect the men folk.

Vicky (Raj Kumar Rao) is the son of a tailor in the village with modern, rational beliefs. He rubbishes any talk of the ghost ‘Stree’. However, he is forced to change his stance when he loses one of his friends to the dreadful ghost. And as the village comes to terms with the loss of some of its men to ‘Stree’, Shraddha Kapoor(Stree) mysteriously arrives on the scene, fuelling suspicion. As she gets friendly with Vicky, the latter’s friends come to believe that she might indeed be the human incarnation of the dreaded ghost. Their anti-Shraddha comments are also laced with jealousy towards Vicky.

After Vicky’s friends realise they were wrong, they, along with Shraddha Kapoor & Rajkumar Rao embark on a mission to rid Chanderi of this annual menace. Vicky is entrusted with the job of leading the hunt for Stree. Although initially reluctant, he comes around and goes all guns blazing.
Pankaj Tripathi, who plays the role of a fraud scholar must be lauded for his comic timing. The star cast, led by Raj Kumar Rao & Shraddha Kapoor also elevate the cinematic experience with their funny dialogues. They engage the audience with witty one-liners.For example, when ‘Stree’ goes about abducting men, Vicky and his friends joke that she chooses her victims based on their Aadhar cards!

The film is not just funny but also a commentary on current political issues, within the larger canvas of feminism. For instance, when Vicky is told that he was born to a prostitute, he, although shocked initially comes to accept his parentage. After all, prostitutes are human beings too and are so out of compulsion, not choice. ‘Stree’ also condemns honour killings and how inter-caste marriages cost young couples their lives, merely for defying their elders.Strangely, menare shown as weak and vulnerable, a first of sorts in Bollywood. However sloppy the movie might be, it does succeed in making a powerful statement on women’s rights. Its underlying theme is not so much the Ghost ‘Stree’ as the terrible conditions that women face in India.

Why I Liked “Andhadhun”

 

‘Andhadhun’, by Director Sriram Raghavan is a quirky story about a blind piano player Akash (Ayushman Khurana) who is training himself for a competition in London. He befriends Sofie (Radhika Apte) who runs a restaurant and becomes her resident musician. As Amit Trivedi songs fill the air, Akash and Sophie allow their feelings to expand. His melodious pieces impress Pramod Sinha (Anil Dhawan), a 70’s star of Bollywood, who invites him home to surprise his wife Simi (Tabu) on their wedding anniversary. But when Akash turns up at his home, things are not what they seem to be. It is now that the story takes a dramatic turn.

The sequence of events that unfold after Akash’s first visit to Simi’s home are well crafted and neatly presented. The background score is reminiscent of 70’s music in Bollywood. Anil Dhawan is an actor-turned real estate trader who is very fond of his wife. He is generous and naive and willing to go to great lengths to please her. He is the personification of a self-obsessed movie star, with floppy hair and an uncorrupted view of the world.

The tone of Andhadhun is freakish and mean and the pace as feverish as that of a late train trying to make up lost time. The characters are unprincipled in a businesslike way as they lay claim to money that doesn’t belong to them. Crimes for money, lust and power take you through corridors of organ extraction rackets, sleaze, and unexpected twists and turns carried out with impunity, at a breathless pace. After the interval, you feel like you are in a race with no end in sight. There is nothing smooth or effortless about the crimes. The end always seems to justify the means.

Raghavan succeeds in holding the audience’s attention with a strong plot. Good performances by Khurana and  Tabu also help. There are funny moments in the cinema too. One cannot help but feel sorry for Akash as he tries to wriggle out of tough situations that are not entirely his doing. For the most part, the movie is crisp and does not bore you.

Ayushman Khurana gets under the skin of Akash’s character and gives you little reason to doubt his ability as an actor. If playing a visually challenged artist were not tough enough, the drama also revolves around his blindness. Tabu is outstanding too. Cold, calculative and surgical, she is even willing to kill to hide her misdeeds. Radhika Apte has improved considerably from her past performances such as those in “Parched” and “Badlapur”. As in his previous films like  Ek Hasina Thi and Johnny Gaddaar, Raghavan employs minor characters to spring major surprises with ease. Chhaya Kadam as a wannabe criminal way out of her league is too funny for words. Zakir Hussain, a regular actor in Raghavan’s films, makes sure you sympathize with his character, no matter how wrongful his deeds. Ashwini Kalsekar, another Raghavan regular, is terrific as the wife of the burly police officer Manohar (Manav Vij).

Andhadhun is easily the first real Pune noir, proving that pusillanimous behavior can exist comfortably  among the city’s older houses and newer complexes. Raghavan’s talent for recasting ordinary people into criminals who know their job and his use of locations and sharply sculpted characters to advance his plot is put to great use in Andhadhun.

At a current run time of 139 minutes, Andhadhun slides into place as smoothly as one of Akash’s piano pieces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My thoughts on Mulk

Mulk, Anubhav Sinha’s directorial debut makes you think of Islamophobia post 9-11. As countries across the world grapple with the menace of terrorism, ordinary Muslims are referred to in the same breath as terrorists. India is no exception.

The movie takes a hard look at religious prejudice in the context of Islamic fundamentalism. Set in Varanasi, it studies a Muslim family that loses a son to a terrorist attack. Shahid (Prateik Babbar) is a misguided youngster who helps organize one. He is shot dead by anti-terror squad officer Danish(Rajat Kapoor). But worse things await the family.

Shahid’s father Bilal (Manoj Pahwa) is accused of aiding his son. The needle of suspicion points to him on the basis of hard evidence. Bilal’s older brother Murad (Rishi Kapoor) and Murad’s daughter-in-law Aarti (Tapsee Pannu), both lawyers, swing into action.

Varanasi is a melting pot of different religious groups. The city represents everything that modern India stands for – secularism, tolerance and democracy. However, Shahid’s death destroys this notion.

The courtroom drama is an extension of the divided neighbourhood. The public prosecutor Santosh (Ashutosh Rana) is convinced that the whole of Bilal’s family has terrorist links. His courtroom arguments betray a disdain for Muslims and their faith. He tries to establish a link between polygamy ( a common practice among Muslims) and Jehad. The screenplay has some moments of rhetorical flourishes. Many scenes, however, are very to-the point.

The movie boldly questions the stigmatization of Muslims, even if it does so without elegance. Anubhav Sinha’s heart is in the right place, although not his head. His enthusiasm for the theme seems to get the better of him. While trying to simplify a complex theme for the sake of creating a thought provoking and entertaining viewing experience, Anubhav Sinha enters tricky territory. In trying to differentiate the Good Muslim from the Bad, the Director dilutes the larger argument that prejudice, in itself, is cringe worthy. Murad falls into the trap of proving his nationalism despite emphatically stating that he does not need to.

Mulk is also on shaky ground when probing the religious roots of terrorism. The larger political context responsible for the marginalization of Muslims is condensed in a single sentence : if you want to understand the roots of religious divide, scan the calendar for the upcoming election schedule, the judge declares.

Despite its simplified understanding of a complex theme, Mulk is praiseworthy for breaking stereotypes. An average terrorism thriller would have shown bearded, gun wielding Muslim men.  However, Mulk manages to avoid that to highlight the real problem of scaremongering that is playing out beyond the screen and in far more monstrous proportions at the national stage.

                          

Full marks for relevance and the sincere performances. Apart from strong turns by Tapsee Pannu, Ashutosh Rana & Rajat Kapoor, the film has a good cameo performance by Kumud Mishra as the judge who keeps combative lawyers in check. Mulk restores the faith in the judiciary to set things right, and Mishra’s nuanced performance allows the fallacy to float.

It is obvious from Mulk that Rishi Kapoor has given his best. He succeeds in reflecting his character’s bewilderment, anger and eventual resolve. He turns in a dignified performance amidst strong ones by the remaining cast. Movie buffs will recall his slimmer self in ‘Amar, Akbar, Anthony (1977). That movie stood for communal harmony and peaceful co-existence. 41 years later, Mulk does too!