Posted:
Hi Anamikians!
Thank you for extending a warm welcome & viewing my debut post with interest.
Once again I would like to make a few points before I begin this part of the critique. While the previous criticisms were directed at the show in a general context, this part is specifically aimed at the recent turn of events in the show; which I feel have rendered it tasteless, mindless and lifeless.
A Sincere Viewer's Critique :
PART 2 of 3
Sheer Insensitivity:
This element of the critique has three distinct sections. Insensitivity towards the central plot, insensitivity towards the viewers' feelings & insensitivity towards the story's characters. Most of us would have come across the term 'brainchild'. Giving the contents-team the credit for bringing up such a fresh theme (of Anamika) into the daily soap arena, one tends to call it the 'brainchild' of the people involved in creating it. But given the plight of the show today, one has to say that the 'brainchild' has suffered a 'multiple organ failure' and now has few chances of survival. This points to the sheer insensitivity the CVs had towards their own story which they had nourished so well over the last few months. It also perhaps means that they were not as attached to the story as the viewers were. Perhaps they didn't 'live' the story the way the viewers did. This also indicates that for them the ratings were perhaps more important than a lovable tale.
This leads us to the next section of this element of the critique-insensitivity towards the viewers. The contents-team would have been well aware that killing a central character would evoke a strong and sad response from the viewers. Obviously, they wanted this reaction to fuel the TRPs. But should the CVs be responsible and answerable only for and only to the TRPs? Don't they have a responsibility to be sensitive to the viewers' emotions and feelings? It was sad and annoying that the CVs sought to increase the ratings by being completely insensitive to the feelings of the viewers. I am not arguing that a show should not chase TRPs. What I am trying to argue is that the TRPs could have been achieved by evoking other emotions such as horror, mystery, novelty, etc. This way they would have got a push in TRPs without being insensitive to the viewers and without losing a large number of loyal viewers. But perhaps because bringing new ideas required hard work on the part of the contents-team, they chose the easy way out - killing the central character.
The tale of insensitivity dose not end there. As most of you would agree, the CVs have sought to hide their complete lack of fresh ideas by projecting Annie Gill's acting skills as 'unfit'. Instead of accepting their bankruptcy of ideas, they took up the excuse of 'poor acting' to delete Annie's character from the show. So, do they want us to believe that Annie was good as long as they had plots and then all of a sudden she became incompetent? This shows their blatant insensitivity towards the central characters of the show. Even if the makers of the show don't have any responsibility towards the actors, at least they should have some sensitivity towards the characters they have created. The first ever promo of the show called Rano and Jeet ''bachpan ke saathi jo bane jeevan-saathi''. And now we have Rano irrevocably removed from the show. Gosh! Do the CVs have any sensitivity left? One can only imagine Jeet's plight by placing ourselves in his shoes. No replacement of actors or revamping of plots can bring the original joy back into Jeet's life and the viewers' minds. It's better to quit the show NOW.
Undemocratic to the core:
We would all agree that democracy should be not only a feature of the political process but should exist in all things that are mass-based. This principle applies to a television series as well. The makers would have known that at the most no more than 10-15% of the viewers would have agreed to Annie Gill's exit. A huge overwhelming majority would never have accepted (and still don't accept) it and are distraught. Despite this, the makers went ahead in the most undemocratic fashion and did what they wished. I am not arguing that they should have conducted a poll or something to decide the future track. All I am saying is that they should have taken the majority and obvious sentiment into account and acted more democratically rather than like autocrats.
These arguments lead me into the next couple of criticisms that look into how the snobbery of the makers ruined a show that had progressed beautifully so far & how their over-confidence has fooled them into believing that the viewers will continue to be loyal to their show.
(To be continued..)
Thank you for extending a warm welcome & viewing my debut post with interest.
Once again I would like to make a few points before I begin this part of the critique. While the previous criticisms were directed at the show in a general context, this part is specifically aimed at the recent turn of events in the show; which I feel have rendered it tasteless, mindless and lifeless.
A Sincere Viewer's Critique :
PART 2 of 3
Sheer Insensitivity:
This element of the critique has three distinct sections. Insensitivity towards the central plot, insensitivity towards the viewers' feelings & insensitivity towards the story's characters. Most of us would have come across the term 'brainchild'. Giving the contents-team the credit for bringing up such a fresh theme (of Anamika) into the daily soap arena, one tends to call it the 'brainchild' of the people involved in creating it. But given the plight of the show today, one has to say that the 'brainchild' has suffered a 'multiple organ failure' and now has few chances of survival. This points to the sheer insensitivity the CVs had towards their own story which they had nourished so well over the last few months. It also perhaps means that they were not as attached to the story as the viewers were. Perhaps they didn't 'live' the story the way the viewers did. This also indicates that for them the ratings were perhaps more important than a lovable tale.
This leads us to the next section of this element of the critique-insensitivity towards the viewers. The contents-team would have been well aware that killing a central character would evoke a strong and sad response from the viewers. Obviously, they wanted this reaction to fuel the TRPs. But should the CVs be responsible and answerable only for and only to the TRPs? Don't they have a responsibility to be sensitive to the viewers' emotions and feelings? It was sad and annoying that the CVs sought to increase the ratings by being completely insensitive to the feelings of the viewers. I am not arguing that a show should not chase TRPs. What I am trying to argue is that the TRPs could have been achieved by evoking other emotions such as horror, mystery, novelty, etc. This way they would have got a push in TRPs without being insensitive to the viewers and without losing a large number of loyal viewers. But perhaps because bringing new ideas required hard work on the part of the contents-team, they chose the easy way out - killing the central character.
The tale of insensitivity dose not end there. As most of you would agree, the CVs have sought to hide their complete lack of fresh ideas by projecting Annie Gill's acting skills as 'unfit'. Instead of accepting their bankruptcy of ideas, they took up the excuse of 'poor acting' to delete Annie's character from the show. So, do they want us to believe that Annie was good as long as they had plots and then all of a sudden she became incompetent? This shows their blatant insensitivity towards the central characters of the show. Even if the makers of the show don't have any responsibility towards the actors, at least they should have some sensitivity towards the characters they have created. The first ever promo of the show called Rano and Jeet ''bachpan ke saathi jo bane jeevan-saathi''. And now we have Rano irrevocably removed from the show. Gosh! Do the CVs have any sensitivity left? One can only imagine Jeet's plight by placing ourselves in his shoes. No replacement of actors or revamping of plots can bring the original joy back into Jeet's life and the viewers' minds. It's better to quit the show NOW.
Undemocratic to the core:
We would all agree that democracy should be not only a feature of the political process but should exist in all things that are mass-based. This principle applies to a television series as well. The makers would have known that at the most no more than 10-15% of the viewers would have agreed to Annie Gill's exit. A huge overwhelming majority would never have accepted (and still don't accept) it and are distraught. Despite this, the makers went ahead in the most undemocratic fashion and did what they wished. I am not arguing that they should have conducted a poll or something to decide the future track. All I am saying is that they should have taken the majority and obvious sentiment into account and acted more democratically rather than like autocrats.
These arguments lead me into the next couple of criticisms that look into how the snobbery of the makers ruined a show that had progressed beautifully so far & how their over-confidence has fooled them into believing that the viewers will continue to be loyal to their show.
(To be continued..)
(The 3rd and the last part of this critique has been posted on 17th May.)
(The 1st part was posted on the 10th of May.)
Cricket
