Is the Jalandhar-Vrinda love story unconvincing?

My answer to the rhetorical question in the title would be a clear and unequivocal No. But this might not convince some of the young members in the forum, who like a love story to be upfront and overt. One very bright young lady was so disappointed at what she felt was a very confusing track that she protested strongly on the FB page of the writer:

"since WHEN" Jalandhar had feelings for Vrinda??i CLEARLY remember evry scene of him with Vrinda..NOT even FOR ONCE,aisa "ek bhi pal" NAHI tha where i had felt tht he feels something/hes attracted to her... Toh aaj usne kaise ACHANAK se bol diya - "he LOVES her"?????????"

Now, I admire such forcefulness, for even at her age, it would never have occurred to me to lodge my contrary views where it should matter. The only problem is that I do not agree with her objections to the script and screenplay in this case. Please bear with me while I explain why I feel so.

The build up: clues galore: It is not a fact that they never showed Jalandhar having any soft feelings for Vrinda. The clearest is when they show him dreaming of her, before Shukracharya comes to speak to him about the need for him to get married. He rejects the idea on various grounds, but in the end it is an order, and so he complies. That is when he decides that it would be only Vrinda for him, and he goes straight to her to propose to her.

Now one could argue that he decided to marry because his guru ordered it, but that is not really the case. He had dodged a similar situation earlier, saying that there was no one he would want to marry. He could have done the same now.

The thing is that he has not realised, till that moment, what it is that he feels, but then it all comes together, and as he tells Vrinda before he proposes to her, that he now feels what he has never felt before ' the desire both to love her and to be loved by her.

So it is not as though there is no build up. It is there right from the moment he put the lep on her bruised arm, and again when he notices that she has not removed it for a day and more. It is not merely gratitude, for he is a king, and kings do not do things like that, even out of gratitude. She touches some unfamiliar chord in him even then.

For those familiar with the Jane Austen classic, Jalandhar is, leaving , the mythological aspect aside, like Fitzwilliam Darcy of Pride and Prejudice. Like Darcy with Elizabeth,, Jalandhar falls in love with Vrinda without knowing that it is so.

The clinching scene is when he is saves her from all those arrows by shielding her with his body - he gazes at her silently for what seems like eternity, and then when he asks Tum theek tho ho, there is a note in his voice that was never there before.

When he proposes directly to her, and she refuses citing her father's prior choice, there are tears in her eyes. So he assumes that but for her sense of duty, she would have agreed to marry him, which is what he means now when he says that he made the mistake of thinking that his wish was also her wish.

So the tell tale signs are all there, but they are very subtle.

A very moving love scene: In fact I felt that yesterday's monologue by Jalandhar was one of the most beautiful portrayals of love I have seen in TV. Here is a man who is not just a king, but a very arrogant and powerful king. One who brooks no refusal, no opposition to what he wants. Yet, because he has grown to love her so much, and because the core of love is respect, he will not only not force her, and he could have done that thru her father, but he openly accepts her rejection with any resentment.

Not just that, he apologises if he has hurt her, and explains why he forced Sarpamani to bow out - not to conquer a heart by force, but to prevent a heart, his, from being defeated. There is a total absence of the male ego in all this, and in such a very macho man, there could be no greater proof of the depth of hos feelings for her.

His parting line is a tour de force - that if she listened carefully, she would recognise that what he did was due to the distress and the helplessness of the heart of a lover - and because it is from such a rough and tough, apparently emotionless individual, it is all the more remarkable, and intensely moving,.

Vrinda disappoints: If anyone disappointed me in the last 2 days, and brought down the level of these scenes, if was the actress playing Vrinda. Or perhaps it was the way she has been directed, I do not know which. Mohit Raina is a master of facial nuance, and he is always a treat to watch, even in the rigid format prescribed for Jalandhar. But she is, for whatever reason, so passive that it is impossible to make out what she is trying to convey.. There is no change of emotion at all on her face, except for the tears, and that is not her, it is the glycerine!

When Jalandhar says, very calmly, that he might die on the battlefield that day, Vrinda, who obviously loves him, should have flinched in involuntary anguish. There is nothing of the sort, neither then, nor when he makes one the most moving affirmations of love that any woman could hope to hear.

I know that it not kosher to compare actors, but it is my honest opinion that if Vrinda had been played the lady who is now Parvati, there would have been a hundred shades of emotion crossing her face in that scene. No, no, don't quarrel with me, those of you who like this Vrinda. It is just my honest and constructive criticism of her performance, and if one cannot do that, what is the point of writing in this delightful forum?

The conclusion: Mohit Rainashould thank his lucky stars that he has such a spectacular co-star as Parvati, not just so regal and gracious in her beauty, but as capable of capturing the slightest nuance of emotion as he is, so that together, they gladden the viewers' hearts. If the casting for Parvati had gone wrong, not all of his acting prowess could have saved DKDM from becoming as flat as a pancake.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

NB: I will try just once more, but I am afraid it comes out in bold every time. It is not my fault!😉

Thanks for sharing your views. I too felt as if Vrinda's expression yesterday was totally 😳.

Well expressed in words. I agree with all that you say. But it is like opening a can of worms. I am not in favor of this track but just because of Mohit's acting finesse it just about passes muster.
Don't see anything else beyond him in this Jalandhar track.

i find it unconvincing for other reasons

Dear Shruti,

I am delighted to find a fellow P&P addict here! I must have read it 20 times and each time it is even more fresh and appealing. And the 1995 BBC TV series was superb, with Colin Firth as the quintessential Darcy.

Of course they do not have so much time in DKDM, with only a limited number of episodes, and even there only a few minutes a day, but to me the key point is that Darcy moves thru the same arc from dislike to love, as Jalandhar does. He does not know when he came to love Elizabeth - remember how he tells her in the end that he was in the middle before he knew he had begun? - and it seems to be the same with Jalandhar. He too is a proud and introverted man, and he too is prejudiced against Vrinda for ideological reasons. Of course there was the endless debate as to who was pride in P&P, and who was prejudice.

I agree that one cannot push the comparison too far, and Elizabeth was put off at first sight by that arrogant remark of his at the ball, so there can be no comparison between this Vrinda and the sparkling Elizabeth. But I thought it would be interesting to toss the idea into the ring, so to speak.

I never knew of Jalandhar before, and I do not mind if the relevant purana does not have this love story. I am happy enough with it as it is!

Shyamala B.Cowsik

PS: Have you read the PD James tribute to P&P, a murder mystery called Death comes to Pemberley? It is wonderfully well done by a fellow Austen worshipper.

Originally posted by: shruti.nil

i find it unconvincing for other reasons

that is the fact that Vrinda and Jalandhar as per my knowlege and belief are NOT supposed to have a love story in the first place-the plot has many side stories that somehow makes a "love story" being inserted weird!

so thats why i am not looking for any logic here...

also Jalandhar in his first meeting with Vrinda almost insults her for her beliefs in the Devtas-calls her a hypocrite etcand within a few days he falls in love with her..?a little hard to digest

the "deep love" he expresses to Vrinda seems out of place for someone you meet over just a few days-honestly

well sometimes you can fall in love like that(in serials-hero falls on heroine-ghanti baji hero heroine fall in love)😆it depends on how you look at it actually...some people find such romance hard to belive(like me-maybe i have seen too much of it(star one shows-*cough cough*))

while some belive it-they just want the "fall in love" to happen soon

i think the girl has a point-she isnt exactly wrong.

PS-about Mr Darcy-dont get me started...i am hopelessly in love with him..since i read the book 10 years ago...

but i do not think Jalandhar is a Darcy here-yes Darcy like Jalandhar didnt like his lady love,disagreed with her views,fell in love with her unknowingly

but unlike Jalandhar the process happened with Darcy over a period of time...i can write an essay on it-lol..

but he is attracted to her at first site-positively hates her,yet cant forget,and gradually sees what Elizabeth is really about.It happens over days,over many meetings,over many situations...

to put it in a serial format-it happens in a serial episode,here it happened much faster...

@sahashyam...I hve read couple of your writings n yr Jallu's analysis n now this is really convincing, it's as if you r right inside the writers mind while he is working on the screenplay...

Jal is a character who has never been explored this way.. He is a man who lost his mom at a tender age, only his mother had the capacity 2 calm him and face him & 2 take care of him. Jal has a lonely heart tht longed fr love and care. So shukracharya & vrinda were the ones who struck cord wid him.. Vrinda's care brought forth the soft side of jal of which he was himself unaware of.. There was an indirect romance. The purana never mentions abt a love story. But Jal was being touted as the greatest nemesis of Shiva, so it bcums logical tht his character shud b analysed in a proper way so tht we get 2 see the difference between the 2. Jal being a ansh of Shiva can't b bad altogather.. His sense of respect fr vrinda has overpowered his male ego.. His conflict wid vrinda is just ideological & thus opposites were attracted

My dear Katyayani,

A very good take on the whole, and the part in bold is just perfect. It really is a case of opposites attracting each other.

I loved the term 'indirect romance'. It does not always have to be like a highly seasoned dish; there can be just a whiff of saffron, of elaichi, that that suffuses one's taste buds. This love story is just like that.

Jalandhar is a noble if arrogant character, and so he is much more than "can't b bad altogather",as I tried to bring out on the other thread, but seeing that some call him a villain, I see why you wrote that.

Taking of anyone else as a villain when the devaraj is around is meaningless; for he will trump one and all in the real villainy department, and not ever grand villainy, but of the mean and sleazy kind. I think that one of the major lacunae in the screenplay is the way he is shown, and how he is literally allowed to get away with murder.

Shyamala Di

Originally posted by: kaatayani

Jal is a character who has never been explored this way.. He is a man who lost his mom at a tender age, only his mother had the capacity 2 calm him and face him & 2 take care of him. Jal has a lonely heart tht longed fr love and care. So shukracharya & vrinda were the ones who struck cord wid him.. Vrinda's care brought forth the soft side of jal of which he was himself unaware of.. There was an indirect romance.

The purana never mentions abt a love story. But Jal was being touted as the greatest nemesis of Shiva, so it bcums logical tht his character shud b analysed in a proper way so tht we get 2 see the difference between the 2. Jal being a ansh of Shiva can't b bad altogather..

His sense of respect fr vrinda has overpowered his male ego.. His conflict wid vrinda is just ideological & thus opposites were attracted

My dear Annujam,

I do agree that Vrinda is good in all her confrontational scenes with Jalandhar, but one cannot say the same of the love scenes in the last 2 episodes.

It might have been the director's fault as well, and I had said that too, but her total lack of reaction when Jalandhar speaks of the possibility of his dying on the battlefield was very noticeable. They should correct that, and I am sure she will be much better in what lies ahead.

Shyamala Cowsik

Originally posted by: Annujam23

@sahashyam...I hve read couple of your writings n yr Jallu's analysis n now this is really convincing, it's as if you r right inside the writers mind while he is working on the screenplay...

well as for acting, I definitly agree mohit does Carry off some really awkward scenes with such finesse!!! He truly captures the nuances of a character n that's why we r glued to him!!

Parvati too has come a long way n there is serenity, grace in her portrayal n those very expressive eyes r KILLER!!!

Vrinda played by Nehais also a good actress but the format of mytho is such that it just takes time n she does speak with such conviction...although the unspoken love between them was better portrayed by Jallu than her!!!

She s still good n she still have serious emotional scenes to enact later!!!

Ya I agree there was lack of conviction by her while emoting,ESP n the recent epi!!!