Posted:
Kashish my dear,
Now this is a post after my own heart! It says a lot of what I would have wanted to say myself but did not, mostly because I was running against the clock. So I do not have much to add, but what there is by way of supplementary comments is in blue.
Shyamala Aunty
QUOTE=Couch_Potato]
Now this is a post after my own heart! It says a lot of what I would have wanted to say myself but did not, mostly because I was running against the clock. So I do not have much to add, but what there is by way of supplementary comments is in blue.
Shyamala Aunty
QUOTE=Couch_Potato]
Hello Aunty,
After missing from the last two posts (I think!), it was high time I came out of my shell to comment on this one. And boy do I have some issues, most of which you already raised, with the fifth episode. I shall follow the same format as yours. Also, I have yet to read and comment on the other analysis so that needs to happen too! TV watching has suddenly become quite a bit of work.
First and foremost, I love the theme you have chosen to look at the episode. I couldn't agree with it more. One week of Chandra Nandani is over and I have some massive issues with the way Chandra's character has been shown. That's right - shown not shaped. Which was very apparent in this last episode.
I am glad you liked it, my dear, but the fact was that Shailaja was so comprehensive in her post that she left very little for me to say, and so I had to take a different track!đ
I am glad you liked it, my dear, but the fact was that Shailaja was so comprehensive in her post that she left very little for me to say, and so I had to take a different track!đ
For one, I do not understand at all the over the top jumping and flying and falling that Chandra is somehow capable of achieving. I want to believe this is a non-supernatural, fictional account of REAL people, not shape shifters, super humans with unnatural abilities or highly skilled death and gravity defying individuals. I understand that it builds his character, shows insights into his dormant skills etc, but can it not be done in a more believable realistic way where I'm not left gaping at my TV screen?
It was like something out of Kkrish. Ludicrous and unnecessary.
It was like something out of Kkrish. Ludicrous and unnecessary.
Then we had the whole Chandra-Nand confrontation. I completely agree with you. To me it seems ludicrous almost that a chit of a boy could come in challenge the king in his court in front of a huge gathering of visiting ministers and all (considering it was Nandani's birthday jashn), defeat him and be just allowed to walk away. It goes against everything that both Nand and Chandra had both been shown as so far. I mean here's a man who slits a man's throat for refusing to pay tax, who is getting people lashed for not paying up in crowded bazaars and yet lets a boy who insults his authority just go away scot-free? Granted he couldn't have done anything at that point in time to keep face but later? Could he not have sent his guards after him and punished him for his digressions? As you rightly said:
Originally posted by: sashashyam
On any other day, Nand would have either imprisoned Chandra or had him executed on the spot.
So my question is why didn't he? Because it's Nandani's birthday? That seems irrational to me. Let him go in front of the court for that reason but Nand's not exactly known for keeping his word, why didnt he then avenge losing his face in his own court?
I agree with all this in toto.
I agree with all this in toto.
As for Chandra, you have already covered is so well. I was just bewildered by the whole exchange. Yes, it drives home some important points - points like what makes a true ruler/king, about strength of character, justice, honour, courage and how there are some things you are born with perhaps, the royal blood and the attributes that come with it and again I am forced to refer back to the point I had made in a post I'd written a while back, about nature and nurture. It just appears as you rightly said that his instincts, his nature overrode his intellect, his cool calculated demeanour. That a combination of things forced him to act out of character. Mura's lashing, the Nandani chariot, the forced taxes, the apparent fear and cruelty - a lethal combination that broke through his calm and collected rational thoughts and approach. However, rationalise as I may his outburst, it still appears very odd and jarring.
Even after allowing for all these provocations, it was not at all in character, as I have discussed in the post, for a young boy to talk like that to a king. And what did he hope to achieve?
Even after allowing for all these provocations, it was not at all in character, as I have discussed in the post, for a young boy to talk like that to a king. And what did he hope to achieve?
On to Chanakya then. I have a pressing question, actually two. First one is, if Chanakya did see something in Chandra right from the start, why did he not stop him right then and there? Was he going to just let someone he saw as a probable answer to his quest and problem walk away? If he had to stay to discuss his plans, why not send one of his pupils after him then. Why just let him go?!? This question has plagued me since watching the episode. It makes no sense to me.
And then that boar. Oh god! What a bad, bad job at VFX. And also again with the superhuman strength and athleticism. Also what was Chandra doing in the middle of the woods exactly and why? Why wasn't he in the city where he wanted to earn enough to go back and rescue his mother? And to now show Chanakya wanting to take Chandra under his wings after he saved his life has a profoundly different implication than if he had chosen to do so after seeing his in Nand's court. I don't know why it truly bothered me so much, but it did. Because it just seemed unnecessary to me. A showcase of all those qualities that Chanakya was seeking, he had already seen them in Chandra - so what purpose did that whole badly executed boar incident serve?
Here, I feel that Shailaja's explanation, the one she has given you, is the correct one. Chanakya would never have thought of Chandra if the Padmanand option had worked out.
Here, I feel that Shailaja's explanation, the one she has given you, is the correct one. Chanakya would never have thought of Chandra if the Padmanand option had worked out.
Now on to some self indulgence. The Sri Chandra Tulabhaaram I think served no purpose but to show those not-so-subtle signs that Chandra-Nandani have a deeply etched connection and shall grow up to have an enviable love. It was one of those meant-to-be-together-forever type of Ekta Kapoor show hints. And sad as it seems, I do enjoy those. It did make me feel oddly happy.
If you are happy about it, my dear, then that is OK. And I suppose this amar prem explanation is the correct one after all.
If you are happy about it, my dear, then that is OK. And I suppose this amar prem explanation is the correct one after all.
Now as for Rajat's entry, I know I will be perhaps the only one on this forum saying this but I wouldn't mind if he doesn't appear until after two-three episodes. Just for the sake of storytelling and because I honestly want to see Chandra and Chanakya interact and his grooming begin. I won't mind the wait as long as the storytelling isn't compromised.
I would not have minded it either, but they short circuited the training part and landed us right in the middle of those rope and lance stunts.
I would not have minded it either, but they short circuited the training part and landed us right in the middle of those rope and lance stunts.
Please take care of yourself and don't stop the takes, late as they be, they are always a delight to read. I will do my best, my dear. And thank you!
