Do you think female characters are too sanitised in Bollywood? - Page 3

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

I don't think Veeri di Wedding or Four More Shots were panned because of the characters' sex lives.

Tell that to everyone whose grandmother was scandalized because Swara Bhaskar's character uses a vibrator.

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

I haven't seen either of these. I'm not a fan of chick-lit or women's fiction. But the former is from the House of Sonam and her productions aren't generally known for characters of depth. Her movies rarely get into the skin of the character other than being superficially 'different'.

Differences of taste are fine. Not everyone likes chick flicks, just how everyone doesn't like action. But what is wrong with superficial content for entertainment purposes? Why can't we have a bunch of women and their shenanigans on-screen without diving too deep into their characters?

Veere Di Wedding is by no means a great or even good movie. It never promised anything cerebral or revolutionary. It never said it was going to be deep or meaningful. It was an effing comedy about urban women. IMHO, I think it got more flak than it deserved because people couldn't digest the characters at all.

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

I didn't like the item song which treated men as things to be groped. I know that there are gazillion more out there doing the same to women. But both are equally offensive.

Completely valid and fair point. If objectification of women is offensive, then objectification of men is offensive.

Tbh, I don't have a problem with objectification per se. I love myself some item songs that have nothing to do with the plot of the movie. I see them as pure entertainment and wish fulfillment. They cause no harm as long as you understand that.

My beef has always been with romanticizing things like stalking and abusive behavior. I think the treatment of actual female characters as flowerpots to be used for the whim and fancy of men much more offensive.

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

Plus it is the nature of people to judge. You can't insist on going about flouting the rules of society (in this case casual sex) and still crave for approval from the same society. You can either be a rebel or a conformist, not both.

Absolutely nothing wrong with challenging the rules for society. Sorting people into rebels or conformists is a false dichotomy for me. We're all people who deserve the freedom to do what we please as long as we don't cause harm to anyone.

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

As for Four More Shots, Zoya's movies generally tend to be criticized for being obsessed with the problems of the rich. Which is unfair but the rest of India don't seem to care that much. The 90s super rich and their unrealistic set-like mansions were equally unreal and out of a fairytale. But they didn't ask to be sympathized and considered as humans. On the other hand the 90s rich were almost universally portrayed as arrogant and cruel.

Legitimate. Totally fine to dismiss content that caters to elite members of society. Totally fine with not being sympathetic towards rich people either. But not consider them humans? Isn't that taking things too far.

And while I am sure there is plenty of valid criticism of 4MSP. It is a trashy soapy show. But most of the criticism leveled against the show seems to be against the characters themselves and not that they are rich.

One reason I believe that VDW and 4 MSP focus on more affluent women is that its affluent women who do tend to have the most social and sexual freedom. Not that it doesn't exist in the middle class - I grew up in Bombay and besides the wealth factor - everything else about the characters is a lot more relatable. But women in middle-class societies tend to enjoy their freedom on the DL compared to affluent women. If women in other strata of society are shown to break the norms - it always has to be a social drama - it can't be just for the fun of it.

Btw, I am still fuzzy on what you mean by women's literature. Do you mean like Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters?

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

I have made it clear in my earlier post that films objectifying women outnumber their counterparts by a large number. But that does not mean treating men as "things" to be groped about is anything to be proud about. Which was what Rhea Kapoor was doing in interviews.Both are equally wrong. Appreciate but don't objectify is what I said.

"Women's fiction" is a category of fiction which is mainly about contemporary (usually affluent) older women as opposed "Women's writing" which is about books written by women. Consider the category as a sort of elder sister to chick-lit.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Tell that to everyone whose grandmother was scandalized because Swara Bhaskar's character uses a vibrator.

Differences of taste are fine. Not everyone likes chick flicks, just how everyone doesn't like action. But what is wrong with superficial content for entertainment purposes? Why can't we have a bunch of women and their shenanigans on-screen without diving too deep into their characters?

Veere Di Wedding is by no means a great or even good movie. It never promised anything cerebral or revolutionary. It never said it was going to be deep or meaningful. It was an effing comedy about urban women. IMHO, I think it got more flak than it deserved because people couldn't digest the characters at all.

Completely valid and fair point. If objectification of women is offensive, then objectification of men is offensive.

Tbh, I don't have a problem with objectification per se. I love myself some item songs that have nothing to do with the plot of the movie. I see them as pure entertainment and wish fulfillment. They cause no harm as long as you understand that.

My beef has always been with romanticizing things like stalking and abusive behavior. I think the treatment of actual female characters as flowerpots to be used for the whim and fancy of men much more offensive.

Absolutely nothing wrong with challenging the rules for society. Sorting people into rebels or conformists is a false dichotomy for me. We're all people who deserve the freedom to do what we please as long as we don't cause harm to anyone.

Legitimate. Totally fine to dismiss content that caters to elite members of society. Totally fine with not being sympathetic towards rich people either. But not consider them humans? Isn't that taking things too far.

And while I am sure there is plenty of valid criticism of 4MSP. It is a trashy soapy show. But most of the criticism leveled against the show seems to be against the characters themselves and not that they are rich.

One reason I believe that VDW and 4 MSP focus on more affluent women is that its affluent women who do tend to have the most social and sexual freedom. Not that it doesn't exist in the middle class - I grew up in Bombay and besides the wealth factor - everything else about the characters is a lot more relatable. But women in middle-class societies tend to enjoy their freedom on the DL compared to affluent women. If women in other strata of society are shown to break the norms - it always has to be a social drama - it can't be just for the fun of it.

Btw, I am still fuzzy on what you mean by women's literature. Do you mean like Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters?

Objectification causes serious harm to women in reality where they are treated like an object rather than a human being, they are completely harmful

Originally posted by: floatyy

Objectification causes serious harm to women in reality where they are treated like an object rather than a human being, they are completely harmful

I should clarify.

All people deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. In the real world, mutual trust and consent are critical. No ifs and buts about it.

However, we all have fantasies. Most humans enjoy being titillated and will sexualize other humans. In my opinion, item songs and cinematic objectification can serve this sort of wish fulfillment.

But it works only when people have a clear understanding of the lines between fantasy and reality. The problem arises when the lines between fantasy and reality is blurred. My problem with Bollywood is not catering to fantasy, but its inability to draw the line between reality and fantasy.

Narrative elements like stalking for love, pursuing till she changes her mind, not treating her respectfully in the main story are far more problematic in my opinion. If movies and society did a good job of separating fantasy and reality, it would be better.

Even songs like WAP where Cardi B is sexualizing herself are a fantasy. No matter how wet a woman is, even in real life you can't just go and be like "I'm going to park my Big Mac Truck in your garage." In real life, you have to do more till you have the consent to say something like that.

TL/DR - fantasy is not the problem. Blurring fantasy and reality is the problem.

PS: When you comment on one specific part of a long post, you should try to quote only what you're referring to. Makes scrolling and understanding context easier.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

I should clarify.

All people deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. In the real world, mutual trust and consent are critical. No ifs and buts about it.

However, we all have fantasies. Most humans enjoy being titillated and will sexualize other humans. In my opinion, item songs and cinematic objectification can serve this sort of wish fulfillment.

But it works only when people have a clear understanding of the lines between fantasy and reality. The problem arises when the lines between fantasy and reality is blurred. My problem with Bollywood is not catering to fantasy, but its inability to draw the line between reality and fantasy.

Narrative elements like stalking for love, pursuing till she changes her mind, not treating her respectfully in the main story are far more problematic in my opinion. If movies and society did a good job of separating fantasy and reality, it would be better.

Even songs like WAP where Cardi B is sexualizing herself are a fantasy. No matter how wet a woman is, even in real life you can't just go and be like "I'm going to park my Big Mac Truck in your garage." In real life, you have to do more till you have the consent to say something like that.

TL/DR - fantasy is not the problem. Blurring fantasy and reality is the problem.

PS: When you comment on one specific part of a long post, you should try to quote only what you're referring to. Makes scrolling and understanding context easier.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Tell that to everyone whose grandmother was scandalized because Swara Bhaskar's character uses a vibrator.

I meant that the scandal factor alone could not be the reason the movie was unsuccessful. Yes it is a factor. But the films which has Sonam as a central character usually fail to connect with the audience. They usually have a revolutionary idea but somehow fail to live up to it. eg: Dolly ki Doli, Ek ladki,Zoya factor etc. Neerja being the exception. Another probable reason could be that the movie was promoted as a "women's emancipation" movie. Rhea was crowing about having delivered justice to women of India with the item song objectifying men and whatnot. So she could have alienated some audience and at the same time disappointed others who were expecting something more substantial. Nothing wrong with superficial and fun content so long as everyone is clear on the product.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

We're all people who deserve the freedom to do what we please as long as we don't cause harm to anyone.

I absolutely agree. But that's not going to stop the society from judging. If they don't find something objectionable, they'll totally make up something new just so that they can judge you. Can't stop them. But shrugging it off or pretending to go along with the rules while leading a secret-life are the only options. To be fair, fear of losing society's approval is the only thing stopping some terrible people from committing heinous crimes. So I find society's approval occasionally useful.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Totally fine to dismiss content that caters to elite members of society. Totally fine with not being sympathetic towards rich people either. But not consider them humans? Isn't that taking things too far.

Yes it is. The 90s movies had a uni-dimensional way of looking at the rich. Which is why I like Zoya's films. Rather than dismissing them all as shallow,cruel and obsessed about status, her films show also their vulnerable side. Who can forget Shefali Shah cramming her mouth with a pastry in Dil Dhadakne Do even as she goes about ruining her kids' lives.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Btw, I am still fuzzy on what you mean by women's literature. Do you mean like Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters?

I meant Women's Fiction, the elder sister to chick-lit. I've got nothing against Women's Writing. Jane Austen et al. Though Austen could be slow. A Murder(or two) at the Manor House or a kidnapping, a spy among the aristocracy or even a duel between Darcy and Bingley could make things so lively. Been reading too much Patricia Veryan of late.