Originally posted by: -Gaganjot-
While it is great to see Antara finally standing up against DM, I am not able to connect with the following situations and nor am I too pleased with the idea of Satya becoming postitive. Hi G, Is Satya becoming positive?!š²...has it been shown outright? I would have expected hints of positivity(outward sign of Antu's influence) before he swings one way permanently...
I understand the pain of a daughter and why she has taken such a drastic step to take avange her father's death.. the following things only make it less effective for me as a viewer.
1. Why is Satya dictating this CONTRACT MARRIAGE (yes I am going to call it a contract - this is no freakin real marriage) when he was the one persuading her for the marriage? If I remember correctly, Satya was hell bent on making Antara agree for this marriage so that they can take revenge from Raghu be it for Dr. Kaul's death or keeping DM away from Satya. So why is it that he is imposing certain conditions in this contractual marriage and for the matter even Antara? Am I missing the point here or am I really losing my mind? This whole business of you dont touch Raghu and I wont touch you is idiotic. Why is Antara shown subserviant to Satya in this scenario is BEYOND my understanding.. yet they flip her character in other situations.. How do I connect with her? Her character is going from one extreme to the other with no consistency. Satya's nature is one of a predator. Predator's pounce on the weaker, no question. They cannot help it, it is in their very genetic makeup. So here off course it goes without saying that Satya will dictate. He offered to help Antu get her revenge, which immediately put her at a disadvantage anyway because SHE TOOK HELP. If she hadn't took his help and then he started dictating then yeah like you I would be annoyed as well. The thing is, Antu fell in a trap without realising the full ramification of her devilish partnership with Satya. She never did know him as well as Raghu and so missed this point - that no matter how their partnership start, sooner or later Satya will dictate. He is in the stronger position - he married her, brought her to his home so she could have revenge, The condition of no touching is not stupid, in fact makes sense - from her POV. From Satya's POV he knew she would fell in that trap, the loophole for him would be that sooner or later he would touch her because SHE CANNOT HELP touching Raghu (or him) when her anger subsides. Satya actually is shown to be a shrewd character who reads people well. When has Antu ever been dominant? please show me this (genuinely mean that). She has always been a easy going person, in fact dependent on the man in her life (first her father). Then she started taking charge but not very well, even then she had to depend on her Mama (to get them away from Kashmir) and then Raghu (for basic things like water when he switched it off). My definition of a dominant woman would be one she packs her bags and does things her way including getting a job - the amount of time she stood quiet when Raghu shouted at her, I would have left that job right then and there. Even that job came from Raghu. Yes, she was assertive, to a point. in her RELATIONSHIP with Raghu because of they were in love. When you are in love you do become bold but still he led the way...
As for connecting, a writer never ever expects readers or viewers to fully connect with a character but as long as you feel something for them - annoyance, love, sympathy, sadness, hatred...well let's say our job is done. Writers know people cannot be pleased wholly 100%. Personally, I would not connect with Antu because I am not her, nor did I go through what she did and therefore I will never ever do things her way. However, she has my sympathy trying to make the best of a rough a situation and for that I would continue watching until I feel nothing for the characters or the show ends! š
2. Secondly, so what exactly is Antara huffing and puffing about really? Ok ya DM told your mother about your marriage with Satya...Ok boo hoo.. but Did you not think while marrying Satya - what answer you would have to give to your own mother?Yes I agree, in fact though I laughed at yesterday's episode my heart went out to GK at being made such a fool of! DM only told your mother what happened..but you actually did it! If not today she would have found out from someone else. Now giving her the benefit of doubt.. she was not in the situation to think properly when she married Satya - well then her whole yelling at DM makes no sense as you are equally responsible. Take some responsibility for your mistakes as well. Off course, everyone should take responsibility for their action and I absolutely agree that Antu needs to realise the consequence of her action, that it has a wider ripple than just Raghu. I mean for heaven's sake, her sasural and maayke are next door neighours! But this more than anything tells you that she did not think through her actions beyond making Raghu pay and putting a band aid on her broken heart. From now on, I would like to see her being sensible and logical, hell I would even cheer her on if she admits in her own mind that marrying Satya was the wrong thing to do when she could have done something else (I originally wanted her to marry Raghu and then leave him standing - being cruel to him knowing he wanted a wife and family but he would never have that as she would never be with him!š). However, the yelling makes sense from the perspective of a daughter being protective of a sick mother. I am also guessing Antu too feels some responsibility which is also fueling her ire. Don't forget she took over her mother's care the moment her father died and she is still caring for her mother so feels she needs to thrash it out with DM. I am ok with that actually, I too would want to know why DM went and spilled the beans knowing her mother's mental condition. It could be Antu was taking the softer approach, just waiting for the right time. Regardless, in this track GK has my full sympathy and Antu not so much.
3. Antara's dialogues make no sense - As she speaks to GOD - You took away my father.. you took away my love.. ok again is there something wrong with this picture? No, not really. Think of it, someone who believes in fate and God and all that would think ultimately this path/destiny was laid out before even birth...so this question naturally fits in it. If she wasn't religious then yes, it would not make sense. I certainly think so.. honey NO ONE TOOK your love away from you .. you pretty much LOST him. She did not lost him. She forsakes him for the love and memory of her father. There is a big difference. The first means it was beyond her control and the second means giving him up was her own choice. I don't understand why she is being given such dialogues where I cant connect with her AT ALL. They think this would make us sympathize with Antara as she still misses her love.. uhh NO this does not work.. all it does is makes her character sound foolish. I would love to see dialogues that would help connect me with Antara.. we know she made some decisions, but how will she cope up with those would be something to look at. How would you like to connect with Antu? seriously I would love to hear because obviously the writers have lost one viewer in you and as another writer I too would love to know at what point you stopped connecting with Antu?
I am guessing the reason she is saying these is really at the end of the day Antu is also a casualty of Aman's revelation. We all were furious and angry with her but perhaps a lot of us forgot that she too is suffering. THAT SHE IS A VICTIM LIKE RAGHU. In that instant, she had to make the most God-awful choice. Father or Lover. She had been dreaming of her marriage, she was in fact wearing her wedding clothes, a heartbeat away from taking vows that would bind her with Raghu for seven births...and within moments that dream turned into ashes. So yes, I would say she had something to complain about to god, that why did this happen to her. As far as we had seen, she had been a sweet and uncomplicated girl already grief stricken and Raghu was the one to put back colours and joy back in her life. In this moment, when she thinks she is losing her mother, all her old fears and new griefs would come to the forefront. So for me, it does make sense...just like real life, a good etched character is 3 dimensional and Antu here is definitely more than a match stick figure.šš
4. Lastly and the most importantly - the idea of Satya becoming positive. Yes, I am not too pleased right now! I always had this in the back of my mind that they would show Satya turning postitive..because we as audience never really saw Satya knowing about his mother's evil intentions.. nor does he realize that his mother actually favors him over Raghu. Though he thinks he is the unfortunate child.. the fact remains Raghu is the most unfortunate child...not only did he lose his mother at a young age, but the one who he considers his god is betraying him as well. Now that I have said this... even in the earlier storyline that was revealed it was said that Satya would commit suicide or something.. anyway the point is I dont want to pity such a monster! I dont like the fact he would turn positive...I dont want any sympathy for this character. I would love to see him remain black.. But why? how many villains does a story need? if DM could regain the magnetism that her character promises, I personally think she would be the only one needed which means Satya would become redundant. However, just because Satya helped GK to the hospital makes him positive? Nah. Even the worst of a human being has some positive trait but you need to look at the whole to say whether that person will be positive or negative. I had been one of those who wondered what will happen if Satya turns positive and I can honestly say not much beyond any of the others who support Rantara, Except for one crucuial difference. Satya if positive would be a wall around Rantara that DM cannot hope to scale or penetrate without hurting her own Son. He represents the power that Raghu lacks at the moment - in terms of wealth and influence. If he becomes positive it would be only because that is needed. I am more inclined to think that Satya may be one more casualty in DM's personal grinding of axe against Raghu. If he does help Rantara again I have no problem because just like real life, enemies do become friends. There is also another side. In life we often come across some people who just inspire others, often love is associated with them. Antu as the crux of the story is the inspiration and motivation of two men - Raghu and Satya. So in some ways, it makes sense that she would have some positive influence over Satya...even if it is just a tiny bit.š
Seriously they need to stop turning DDEJ into another Saraswatichandra.. just the way they are trying to redeem Pramad's character .. this is exactly where I feel the writers are going with this show.. I am tired of this same kind of BS circulating on TV.. honestly if the marriage with Satya was not enough.. at least be original with carrying this character forward..I hope he remains evil and Raghu actually does his Sarvanash. I know writers give two hoots about what we think. However I still cant help, but post my dissatisfaction. I have always praised the CVs and today I have the equal write to criticize.
I agree that Indian writers need to be more bold and creative and to take the plunge now and again without copying the current 'popular' trend. Personally, just once I would love to see some brilliant-never-seen-before twist in Indian shows. But the message of redemption, betrayal,forgiveness and love is very powerful which is why these themes repeatedly crop up. The skill is in which way it is taken. Indian shows cannot show a girl like Antara, after finding out about Raghu's part in her father's death, then going and getting drunk and sleeping around with men as a way of dealing with her sense of betrayal and pain by creating immediate separation. So what do they show? she distances herself by either marrying someone else or some other typical nonsense. I would rather see an atavistic reaction that we as human can understand if not empathise with..
GJ, the words in capital is for emphasis, not shouting.š
Debate Mansion
