Chandra Nandini 21-22: Plot on a gallop! - Page 14

Originally posted by: shailusri1983

We have been having this same discussion since a long while. Is thinking about yourself and your self-respect such a bad thing for a woman? Why should narcissism be seen as such an evil in a woman? Is a self-sacrificing tyag ki Devi who marries the person who actually tried to rape her for the sake of her family such an appealing and inspiring image of the "good" woman? While a person who tried to avenge the person who dishonored her and her love, and tattered her self-respect by paying him back in his own coin an image of a "bad" woman? I feel sorry for such a depraved mindset that still seems to exist among many people.

Similarly not all foreign things, traits, and people are not bad, just as all things, traits, or people "Indian" in name need be good. Any day I would prefer a "foreign"Mother Teresa to a local "Indian" Padmanand dupe. I dislike blanket generalizations of goodness and badness. I would any day prefer a Helena who confronts her wrongdoer and tries to punish him than a goody two shoes Nandini who will marry her own attempted rapist for the sake of family honor. What does she actually think she is doing? A person like Malay who tried raping her before marriage will do puja and arti of a Mahaan Devi like her? I fail to understand her logic. She sees wrongdoings, tyranny and atrocities all around her, but she does not react or at least ignores it after a mild reprieve. She becomes a "good" woman? Terribly absurd!

Originally posted by: sashashyam

It is not just that she consoles him. That is the less important part. What is vital is that she manages to cut thru the fog of depression enveloping him and to get thru to the real Chandra.

This is a special ability that Helena seems to possess, at times even more than Chanakya does, which is strange, but true. As I wrote in the opening post here:

More even than the crucial help she offers Chandra... what is striking about Helena in this sequence is her ability to infuse self-confidence and a fresh determination in her Sandrocottos.

Originally posted by: Sandhya.A

Chanakya is Chandra's mentor, his teacher, his sculptor. Who teaches him, moulds him, polishes him and guides him. More like a parent. Though Chanakya persuades him to come out of his despondency, it is more of a counsel and wisdom. It is more targetted at the buddhi. But Helena is of Chandra's age. And she is someone whom he knows has seen pain and failure. Who belongs to his age has remained strong through them. So whatever she says will appeal to his feelings. So at times when his feelings get the better of his thinking, whatever she says will appeal more to him.

Moreover Chandra knows that Chanakya has dedicated so much of his skills and his life to help Chandra attain greatness and in the process fulfill his vow. And he feels that he has let hls Guru down. So if Chanakya brushes aside the loss and urges Chandra to move ahead, he will see it as his Guru's magnanimity and feel more guilty. But with Helena, he shares no such obligations. It is more of a relationship between equals. So her pep talks will wipe out his gloom faster.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

Yes, my dear, this is a very lucid and plausible explanation, especially the parts that I have highlighted.

But this does not explain all of it. Not every one of his age, not everyone who he knows has faced failure and pain, not everyone towards whom he feels no obligations, would necessarily have the ability to pull Chandra out of the depression into which he is sinking. But Helena, whom he barely knows, does have that ability.

The power of one human being to connect so deeply with another is always a mystery. It cannot be dissected and explained, not always, and never fully. Like love, it just exists, that is all.

👏

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: sashashyam

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">I could not agree with you more, my dear Shailaja.</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">But Indian women are changing, surely if slowly, and standing up for themselves more and more, even without the support of their families.</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">As for Mother Teresa, I understand that you were just citing her as an example, but all the same, we do not see her as a foreigner. We gave her a State funeral, which no other country would have done in a similar case.</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Shyamala Aunty</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">
</font>

Dearest Shyamala aunty,

Sorry to have gone missing without a trace. As usual, lots of reasons out of my control - Crazy work load, and not getting to watch the episodes because of work and my location are the main ones. I have been reading your posts on my mobile (usually on the bus!) and that does not allow logging in or hitting 'like'! Hence the en masse 'likes' from me this (very early) morning!

This time, I cannot say that I liked your posts better than the episodes - not because of the improved quality of the episodes (as we know, that only spurs you to Shakespearian heights!) but simply because I am yet to watch the episodes after the war! Rather than waiting to catch up, I have jumped in here. I hope you do not mind.

So just a few observations, not in any particular order -

I agree that the episodes are in a full gallop - in service of the love story' as you point out. Many things are brushed upon only cursorily and EK's casting talent seems to have gone awry as far as the women in Chandra's life go. Nand seems to be luckier! 😛

RT is a chameleon indeed. No trace of any other role. The voice, the body language and the look - all distinctly different. Needless to comment on the last two, especially the lastest 😉, but the first seems to have become a point of discussion (solely from what I have read on this particular thread!). On this point, I agree with you and Sandhya is right.

My two pence -

RT becomes the character he plays and he changes his body language to convey the age range of the character. He wields his voice the same way. One only needs to go back and hear the young Jalal and then, say, the drunk Akbar on the night of Salim's wedding!

I think, here too, RT has put on age appropriate' voice and diction. This is a young guy in his twenties (historically even younger?). He cannot sound gambhir' and adult. It is a freshly broken' voice. It cannot be a baritone. Guys this age often talk quite fast. Also, he might be of a royal birth but he is not brought up as a royal. The cadences of his voice are bound to be different from those of , say, a prince. (And Chandra masquerading as Malayketu speaks differently in Nand's court) If the CVs and other actors could convey this nuance, Nand would speak differently than Avantika - regularly in the initial episodes and infrequently in the latter ones where he has been a king for years. We also have to remember that Chandra is a great warrior but not yet the emperor not even a veteran general used to addressing armies in the battlefields.

The best part of what I have watched till now - The CC scenes and the best of the best - the war, RT, and his sword fighting (aunty, loved your description of it in the Baptism by blood'!) If only I had Anjali's skills, I would edit out the royal audience' and watch it uninterrupted! (Anjali, are you listening? 😉😛)

Now off to an encore of the War scene! (need to refresh my memory before I watch the subsequent episodes 😃)

Hoping to be back soon with something on the remaining episodes.

Warmest regards

🤗

Ashwinee

Originally posted by: shailusri1983

I gave these two theories on Nandini a couple of weeks ago. Aunty you told me to stick to Theory 2. After seeing Nandini nowadays, I am really not sure if Theory 2 will fully explain her. Can't we reconsider Theory 1 in the light of the recent happenings on the show:

"Regarding Nandini, I have two theories. One, she might not be so good, innocent and virtuous at all. Seeing the kind of genes with which she is tagged with, on the one side Avantika and on the other side, Nand, it would actually be the eighth wonder in the world if she turned alright or an apostle of peace. It takes a great deal to shake off such a birth and upbringing in such an atmosphere. The only reason I can see why she did not turn out real bad or negative and remained essentially flawed must be due to the fact the Nand kept her out of most of his shady dealings.

But at the same time, we cannot say that she must be ignorant of her father's true character or been mistaken in her assessment of what kind of a king her father was.

She might have considered all this her divine right and privilege. She perhaps never had any issues with anything her father did, right or wrong, because a king is above law, and he is law himself. He can make or break any number of rules, and he is above any law or punishment and accountable to none kind of mentality.

This could be her growing up story, a Buildungs Roman! So love might actually force her to see what she never intends to see. It could make her give up her delusions and false pretensions and teach her to respect the intrinsic merit of individuals.

It could make her see that everyone is accountable for who he or she is at the moral and ethical level, and nobody can shrink from or run away from their duties and responsibilities. It could be her tale of shaking off her nature and nurture through the harsh experiences life teaches her.

She could be the kind of person Austen's Emma Woodhouse was, in some respects even worse and unfeeling. I have always seen the reformation of bad boys by supposedly good girls on Indian TV. For a change I would love to see a bad and flawed girl being reformed and transformed by a good boy. I want to see how Chandra and her love for him will actually help her rise up in love.

The second option, much simpler, she is a blinkered horse. She has a normal vision but sees only what her father shows her. To whatever aspects he does not show her, she stays practically blind."