Somewhat overwhelmingly relieved that the Ria track is closing (even though with as negative taint and depression as every recent track has started and closed), since it was - like the ban and the miscarriage - a convenient gambit to ensure heroine-continuance in a negative frame showcasing only one lead in glory, rather than avoiding negativity and showcasing the stardom of both husband and wife.
This track being wrapped up despite getting proportionately better TRP for episodes inclined towards it than towards the domestic scenes seems to be indicative of its not having been received by mass-audience in the way the CVs had intended. Not that it was not accepted, but that it apparently did not evoke the reactions they would need for their intended aftermath of separation - majority-audience supporting and sympathizing with the wife to get the CVs track-budgeting for separation and heroine-continuance.
Every ploy and stratagem from the producers ban onwards has been specifically and transparently aimed at seeking to ensure competitive-split stardom for Madhu, separated from and outshining RK.
RK becoming linked to Ria was not about a triangle track, but rather about giving Madhu majority-audience support for separation and heroine-continuance.
The miscarriage and her husband having wanted abortion, then changing his mind for nonpaternal reasons, and then blaming her for the miscarriage - all of it didn't get them enough backing for even a brief separation that could then be extended further with Madhu being coincidentally encouraged by others to get back into the heroine career.
It was essential that the track of RK associating with the other woman evoke disapproval for their scenes in majority-audience, and Madhu be mass-sympathized as the victim and sufferer of her husband's completely unreasonable and unappreciative behaviour.
It was a sympathy-gambit guaranteed to fail at the very outset, just like any and all gambits they have tried and may try.
They ensured it step by step with confoundingly backfiringly blinkered process throughout the 'filming' and its aftermath so that RK would get majority-audience's sympathy and support for not only an affair but even a multitude of other wrongs.
Backfiring error 1 - Madhu naively proactively backfiringly ensured a film detrimental to her husband's career and guaranteed to benefit only the heroine's and director's career, that too with her husband's fortune staked on it.
If she was to unexpectedly shine in the film, it was prudent that she not be at all involved in the decisions leading to that outcome.
Her benefitting - expectedly or unexpectedly - would not get the needed mass-support if it was consequent to her own proactive decisions.
Backfiring error 2 - If she was to be shown doing more than one film without majority-audience lack of support causing track-termination, then it was crucial that she not be shown as more popular or more in demand or more noticed by fans - for any reason or excuse - than her husband.
She could be shown as equally popular, but even that would have been dicey.
But even one instance of more appreciated by filmworld associates or public would be enough to get her husband condoning for any appalling actions/reactions for his having been made to feel less than his wife.
It was something guaranteed to be not at all inexplicable for most of the majority-audience, and an excuse for far more extreme behaviour on his part.
Instead, rather than keep her success subtle so that it could be continued, they went overboard with overtly showcasing her as more professionally appreciated by the crew and then more popular and in demand after the film. If they were trying to double-check just how averse conservative majority-audience could be to wife overshadowing husband in appreciation in the same sphere, they could not have opted for a more backfiring approach.
Backfiring error 3 - She was repeatedly (and extremely uncharacteristically) shown reacting either not strongly enough or even actually cordially to her husband being spoken of with disrespect either behind his back or to his face.
Majority-audience has no problems with a female lead humiliated and suffering even physical torture for months at the hands of each and every character in a series. They do have a problem with even intermittent disrespect shown to the male lead, especially if the female lead is shown bizarrely not even comprehending that her husband is being disrespected.
Any track where the female lead is the only one humiliated, while the male lead is treated with regard, there is no dip or rejection from majority-audience.
Any track where the male lead is the one disrespected with neither he nor his wife striving to stop it immediately, majority-audience does not get that track to even remotely commensurate with the series financial value.
A female lead can be shown increasingly and varyingly illtreated without any break in between. A male lead being illtreated - even justifiably - is like a walk on eggshells for the CVs, hoping the wife won't have to be shown suffering worse to compensate in the near future. Unfair, heck yes.
Backfiring error 4 - While wife wounded or injured or (usually temporarily) disabled makes for some tender-care moments from the loving husband, the tracks considered sureshot major TRP-success are where the husband is gravely wounded or injured or (usually temporarily) disabled.
The key to the success of 'husband wounded/disabled' tracks is the devoted wife tending to him and prioritizing him.
Here, they confoundingly backfiringly stupidly used the husband's paralysis as yet another stepping-stone to make the wife even more important and the husband even less important.
For Madhu to get mass-appreciation in this track, RK's falling on the set should have been followed by Madhu's either (best option to get her huge mass-support:) strongly encouraging him and getting his role changed to accommodate the handicap and their costarring and completing the film together, or (secondary option to get her mass-support:) her deciding to shelve the film and sacrifice the house as loan-collateral.
Instead, the CVs inserted a nightmare-point when they had Madhu lovingly and supportively tell her paralyzed husband that he should step aside and the film-story should be changed completely to focus on her role.
The very fact that he agreed to such a massive change raised the spectre of why not even one person - not even the wife who had considered making the film an urgent matter since it was a matter of preserving her husband's acting stardom - instead suggested the far less drastic change of changing the film-story to accommodate the handicap.
Not even a vamp in a Hindi series is ever shown telling her recently handicapped husband to move aside and let her take the burden of being in centrestage and the mainstay - not unless the marriage is intended to be finished soon.
The CVs should especially never have shown Madhu with that dialogue, considering her decision to risk her virtue for her husband's life - rather than the better mass-appreciable options of her either killing her imprurient tormentor in defence of her wifely fidelity, or her killing herself with or without her husband - in the previous 'husband jailed and wife terrorized' track had also been appalling by majority-audience tastes.
And as icing on that cake of 'wife and handicapped husband', she was then shown slapping him with the rationale of outraged maternal protectiveness - and that shield was set aside the next day when she insistently risked her unborn child's life for other consideration.
And in the end, it is that last point - 'wifely caring devotion to disabled husband' being a guaranteed success track - that is the dealbreaker. The one blunder that no serial has ever been stupid enough to show to majority-audience, this series did.
The mass-audience which reacted so contrarily against track-requirement month after month and ensured closing of successive tracks, may unfortunately be counted on to be unlikely to forget the first time ever that a female lead was shown reacting in a way that makes the very success-crux of 'husband disabled' tracks nonexistent.
The reason why that sort of track is considered worth good budgeting is because of the majority-audience's appreciatively increasing viewership for the devoted wife unwaveringly supporting and caring for the (temporarily) disabled husband.
Not the devoted wife backfiringly uncomprehending of ramifications to her husband's prestige, and insistently convincing him to let her save the house and money by taking over his position as mainstay.
They have ensured that a track which is a stellar sureshot for TRP-increase (with gradual recuperation of the husband after weeks of milking the mass-sympathy TRP-benefit of the track) had to instead be speeded to a close in a fortnight, and the husband recovering from the paralysis and then promptly treated as if he had never suffered such a catastrophe, so that they could then start right away on his adverse reactions to get mass-audience to sympathize with the wife and support separation and heroine-continuance.
His paralysis did not get his wife mass-support for taking over as mainstay. But far more unfortunately for the CVs, his paralysis and subsequent humiliation and her reactions and decisions were memorable enough that he will be supported and condoned by majority-audience for any and every appalling action they try to get mass-sympathy for Madhu - miscarriage-accusation, slaps, an affair or several times worse.
It was a disaster that was laid out in a way so needlessly appalling to conservative majority-audience expectations that it could be counted on to outstrip every other gambit they could try too frigging late. They should have avoided the paralysis-humiliation-on-set and the unbelievably clunky newspaper-coverage of the incident, and had Madhu directly convince him to step aside in her favour. It would not have got her more mass-sympathy, but it would have gained her far less mass-disapprobation translating as sympathy for her husband to an extreme extent for his every future action/reaction.
So now, it remains to be seen how much and how hard the CVs try to inspire sympathy and support for a specific beneficiary in each track only to have it backfire each time. If they wanted to be able to safely bet all they had against their every sympathy-gambit from that point on, then kudos to them.
They have repeatedly for months tried unsuccessfully to forcefeed tracks to mass-audience, despite that viewership having consistently made its tastes and preferences clear enough to ensure closing of successive tracks that go against their tastes. Channel and CVs have no adequately compensating option that can substitute for the lack of enough crores of majority-audience viewership to watch their serial's every episode of each week to get the viewership commensurate with the serial's financial value. What middle road is possible is packaging what they want to show in a way appealing to majority-viewership. Wonder if they will try that at least after this latest 'frame-up' fiasco and give a couple united against external odds and both truly understanding of each other rather than their characterization-butchering streak of grand proclamations and big talk disproven shortly and disappointing mass-audience and thereby getting disappointing viewership-results ensuring visibly tightened budget, reduced number of sets, supporting cast only if needed, and minimal extras.
Edited by leelaa9 - 11 years ago
Itti Si Khushi Sab TV
Bade Achhe Lagte Hain
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
