Posted:
Hi Anamikians!
I would first like to place on record my heartfelt gratitude for all members (even non-members) of the forum who viewed my debut posts with interest and even liked it. As a 'newbie' in the forum, I must say the response has overwhelmed me. Today I seek to post the 3rd and the last part of the critique and thereby complete my somewhat comprehensive criticism of the show - which I must confess was prompted by the recent turn of events in the show. This last part and its two elements of criticism are specifically directed towards what I feel can be serious problems for the future of the show.
A Sincere Viewer's Critique :
PART 3 of 3
The Game of Blame-Shifting:
We all would agree that generally blame should be placed on those who are in charge, have the power to decide things & who have taken up responsibility of the task at hand. In the famous Bollywood classic 'Chupke Chupke', Dharmendra says "actor kya hai?...director ke hath ki kathputli!" (The actors are nothing but puppets in the hands of the director). Recent reports in newspapers and their websites have said that the makers of the show were unhappy with Annie's performance and hence she was shown the way out. But, this is nothing other than clever and cunning shifting of the blame from the CVs to an actor.
Firstly, the CVs demarcated too small an arena for Rano's character. Technically, as the lead female protagonist, Rano deserved a stronger and a more varied script. The CVs should have kept Rano and Jeet's relationship in the limelight for the same proportion of time as much as they kept Anamika and Jeet's interactions. Also, each time, the plot began with Anamika's strategy and then the only thing Rano's character was expected to do was to react and express fear. How much of one's acting skills can an actor exhibit in this extremely limited scope? Anamika's character had a new strategy- "chaal" - every episode, but Rano was asked by the CVs to react in the same old way each and every time! Had the CVs spent even 25% of the total mental energy they spent on moulding Anamika's character, on Rano's character, it would have been a lot better.
Having creatively ignored Rano's character for a long period of time, the CVs sought to make Annie the scapegoat of their own creative and intellectual failures. The easiest way was to blame Rano for almost everything- low TRPs, lesser sponsors, dragging story, etc. Thus, the game of shifting the blame from their own failures onto an innocent actor's alleged incompetence. Can we blame someone who was never in charge of the shaping of her character? Why shouldn't we rather blame those who were at the helm of affairs? Clearly, the blame falls on those who have a say in the creative affairs of the show.
Foolish Over-Confidence:
There are various degrees and shades of over-confidence. Certain shades make people take things for granted, others make people believe false assumptions. The greater the degree of overconfidence, the bigger the possibility of committing blunders.
The makers and CVs of the show seem to have lapsed into this kind of overconfidence. Firstly, they have erroneously convinced themselves that a certain chemistry between Jeet and Anamika can carry the show all by itself- without any requirement of any other ingredient whatsoever. Perhaps, they need to realise that story lines and chemistries need to go together and one cannot compensate for the other. Agreed that this chemistry has a good fan following, but how long can it be appealing without the backing of a strong script?
Secondly, the CVs would have believed, in their foolish overconfidence, that once a viewer has been hooked to the show, it would be extremely difficult and painful for him/her to abandon it midway. But, the CVs failed to realise that the viewers cannot be taken for granted every time. The viewers can overlook or even forgive a few mistakes here and there, but the CVs have stretched it too far. This is quite evident from the number of members announcing their quitting the show on this forum.
Thirdly, the CVs' overconfidence led them to believe that the viewer would consume anything that is served to him/her because he/she is already loyal to the show and its characters. This is quite a serious blunder. Perhaps the CVs forgot that they had earned the viewer's loyalty not by unintelligent plots but by creative and fresh storytelling.
It's too late to remind them now.
(Concluded.)
(Part 1 and 2 of this critique were posted on 10th and 11th May respectively.)
I would first like to place on record my heartfelt gratitude for all members (even non-members) of the forum who viewed my debut posts with interest and even liked it. As a 'newbie' in the forum, I must say the response has overwhelmed me. Today I seek to post the 3rd and the last part of the critique and thereby complete my somewhat comprehensive criticism of the show - which I must confess was prompted by the recent turn of events in the show. This last part and its two elements of criticism are specifically directed towards what I feel can be serious problems for the future of the show.
A Sincere Viewer's Critique :
PART 3 of 3
The Game of Blame-Shifting:
We all would agree that generally blame should be placed on those who are in charge, have the power to decide things & who have taken up responsibility of the task at hand. In the famous Bollywood classic 'Chupke Chupke', Dharmendra says "actor kya hai?...director ke hath ki kathputli!" (The actors are nothing but puppets in the hands of the director). Recent reports in newspapers and their websites have said that the makers of the show were unhappy with Annie's performance and hence she was shown the way out. But, this is nothing other than clever and cunning shifting of the blame from the CVs to an actor.
Firstly, the CVs demarcated too small an arena for Rano's character. Technically, as the lead female protagonist, Rano deserved a stronger and a more varied script. The CVs should have kept Rano and Jeet's relationship in the limelight for the same proportion of time as much as they kept Anamika and Jeet's interactions. Also, each time, the plot began with Anamika's strategy and then the only thing Rano's character was expected to do was to react and express fear. How much of one's acting skills can an actor exhibit in this extremely limited scope? Anamika's character had a new strategy- "chaal" - every episode, but Rano was asked by the CVs to react in the same old way each and every time! Had the CVs spent even 25% of the total mental energy they spent on moulding Anamika's character, on Rano's character, it would have been a lot better.
Having creatively ignored Rano's character for a long period of time, the CVs sought to make Annie the scapegoat of their own creative and intellectual failures. The easiest way was to blame Rano for almost everything- low TRPs, lesser sponsors, dragging story, etc. Thus, the game of shifting the blame from their own failures onto an innocent actor's alleged incompetence. Can we blame someone who was never in charge of the shaping of her character? Why shouldn't we rather blame those who were at the helm of affairs? Clearly, the blame falls on those who have a say in the creative affairs of the show.
Foolish Over-Confidence:
There are various degrees and shades of over-confidence. Certain shades make people take things for granted, others make people believe false assumptions. The greater the degree of overconfidence, the bigger the possibility of committing blunders.
The makers and CVs of the show seem to have lapsed into this kind of overconfidence. Firstly, they have erroneously convinced themselves that a certain chemistry between Jeet and Anamika can carry the show all by itself- without any requirement of any other ingredient whatsoever. Perhaps, they need to realise that story lines and chemistries need to go together and one cannot compensate for the other. Agreed that this chemistry has a good fan following, but how long can it be appealing without the backing of a strong script?
Secondly, the CVs would have believed, in their foolish overconfidence, that once a viewer has been hooked to the show, it would be extremely difficult and painful for him/her to abandon it midway. But, the CVs failed to realise that the viewers cannot be taken for granted every time. The viewers can overlook or even forgive a few mistakes here and there, but the CVs have stretched it too far. This is quite evident from the number of members announcing their quitting the show on this forum.
Thirdly, the CVs' overconfidence led them to believe that the viewer would consume anything that is served to him/her because he/she is already loyal to the show and its characters. This is quite a serious blunder. Perhaps the CVs forgot that they had earned the viewer's loyalty not by unintelligent plots but by creative and fresh storytelling.
It's too late to remind them now.
(Concluded.)
(Part 1 and 2 of this critique were posted on 10th and 11th May respectively.)
Avatar and Signatures Shop
