Naukrani in Mohobbatein - Page 2

Created

Last reply

Replies

28

Views

5k

Users

16

Likes

41

Frequent Posters

Bolly*_Crazed thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 9 years ago
#11

Originally posted by: TheBoss


She didn't know her husband. On her first day he just took off and disappeared. She is not some domestic cattle. It wasnt a love story. Her in laws was controlling her breathing. Where was her individuality as a person? Did she really signed up to be their slave and take their shit for someone she didnt even know? She didnt had any kids, she was able, and educated. It isnt about being narrow minded it is about not taken for granted. She may be a bahu or whatever but beyond that she is still a human with her own individuality.


"What was her character in this movie was she a domestic help? I couldn't figure out her deal."

Oh wow, clearly you figured out her "deal" and much much more 😆 More than they even showed in the movie - I don't recall a scene where it was shown that she was being "controlled" or "taken for granted." If anything she looked happy. It is literally not that deep. If you are really concerned by the suppression of women in films I'm sure there are better movies to discuss, that aside, I'm sure there are better approaches to take rather than posting a gif of a character and asking a ridiculous question. It's confusing. The line between trolling and idiocy isn't that thin my friend.
TheBoss thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Stunner Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 9 years ago
#12
She wasn't happy. She was slowly suffocating. What did she owe to these people to sign up to do that? She married someone who she didn't know and never spent time with them. They were definitely choking the life out of her and she was roaming around scared shitless. Doing stuff for your husband is one thing. Doing it under duress with some hard ass ex army vet as your father in law who is dictating how you dress up and how you live this is slow death. She didn't owe anything to them.
TotalBetty thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 9 years ago
#13
It was the year 2000, although new millennium had begun( not technically though) the old and barbaric habits of last millennium still lingered on Indian screens and homes... The concept of 'Women with individually' was not that popular in BW

A woman fighting against dowry, diabolical husband was allowed though and avenging rapists, killers of husband, parents etc.



TotalBetty thumbnail
11th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 9 years ago
#14
Did anybody else find that movie silly and unintentionally funny?

Most commonly used word in this forum - Valima 😆 I am not complaining, learned a new term.
SriRani thumbnail
12th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 9 years ago
#15
I agree boss I will never ake such kind of stuff from anyone. We take our mothers and sisters for so granted and think they are happy doing such stuff but they care for us and only if we show little care and relieve them from that servant mode. But being in a servant mode at in laws place is more horrible as they think that's our duty and responsibility.
rajdoot thumbnail
Explorer Thumbnail
Posted: 9 years ago
#16

Originally posted by: TheBoss

She wasn't happy. She was slowly suffocating. What did she owe to these people to sign up to do that? She married someone who she didn't know and never spent time with them. They were definitely choking the life out of her and she was roaming around scared shitless. Doing stuff for your husband is one thing. Doing it under duress with some hard ass ex army vet as your father in law who is dictating how you dress up and how you live this is slow death. She didn't owe anything to them.


I don't think you have seen the movie, her husband was an army official who was called on by his nation to defend the border when the enemy attacked so he left his wife and went to defend his country. During the battle her husband went MIA (Missing in Action). All of the townspeople and her family members (except father-in-law) believed that he had died since he hadn't returned for a long time, but her father-in-law refused to believe that his son is dead. The father-in-law was of belief that until his sons dead body is shown to him, he is MIA and not dead so he expected his daughter-in-law to follow all the traditions that a married woman should follow.

How do you determine that she wasn't happy? Suffocating how?
"She married someone who she didn't know and never spent time with them." This is called arranged marriage, in the past many men and women were married in this manner (where they didn't meet or talk to one another), its not like today where the man and woman meet and are able to determine if they would like to married or not.
She wasn't scared shitless, she was respecting her father-in-law by being courteous as he was the elder of the household. She was joking around with her sister-in-law and playing with nephew.
What was she doing under duress? She was dressing as a married woman rather than a widow to respect her father-in-law. Nobody threatened her or forced her to do anything against her will. Her father-in-law never told her how to dress, all he told her to do was live like a married woman. Well they did provide a roof, clothes, food, cared for her, should they have thrown her out of the house because her husband was MIA and/or dead? They didn't have to let her live with them, what did they owe her?
Edited by rajdoot - 9 years ago
bokul thumbnail
12th Anniversary Thumbnail Master Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 9 years ago
#17
her father in law sort of was a disciplinarian but he let her go at last...she was not a naukrani she and her sister in law used to do all the work together
noorsand thumbnail
18th Anniversary Thumbnail Visit Streak 30 Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 9 years ago
#18

Originally posted by: GERUA

her father in law sort of was a disciplinarian but he let her go at last...she was not a naukrani she and her sister in law used to do all the work together

But why did she need his permission to go? She was a widow so there were no marriage constraints on her. For as progressive they tried to be, patriarchy was a common theme in yash raj movies. Even in DDLJ, Bauji at last allows Simran to be with Raj --it wasn't a blessing, it was more like I'm freeing you.
Kyahikahoon thumbnail
17th Anniversary Thumbnail IPL 2024 Match Winner Thumbnail + 4
Posted: 9 years ago
#19

Originally posted by: ---Betty---

It was the year 2000, although new millennium had begun( not technically though) the old and barbaric habits of last millennium still lingered on Indian screens and homes... The concept of 'Women with individually' was not that popular in BW

A woman fighting against dowry, diabolical husband was allowed though and avenging rapists, killers of husband, parents etc.




Come-on..pls don't make it sound like medieval era..it was just last millennium..even less than 20 yrs ago..and were much more progressive times brimming with hope..
We r much more pessimistic, negative and regressive today..
Talking about movies..sharmila, rakhee, saira , rekha, jaya movies were more progressive
Edited by niyati13 - 9 years ago
bokul thumbnail
12th Anniversary Thumbnail Master Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 9 years ago
#20

Originally posted by: noorsand

But why did she need his permission to go? She was a widow so there were no marriage constraints on her. For as progressive they tried to be, patriarchy was a common theme in yash raj movies. Even in DDLJ, Bauji at last allows Simran to be with Raj --it wasn't a blessing, it was more like I'm freeing you.


she was his responsibility to some extent as she was his daughter in law
so before leaving she needed his consent

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".