Posted:
I am a reluctant critic, primarily because I can't begin to understand the massive effort and sweat that goes into the making of a show. Yet, I can't shake the feeling that many times, the voice and tone of TV producers, actors, writers echoes a self-congratulatory note, as long as the shows they make appease the baser instincts of human existence. All is well in a capitalistic, profiteering market. but with that comes death of art.
I aver that RR creative team is missing a woman's touch. This has been proven time and again by the severe deficiency of Paro's characterization, and monotonic characterization of vamps such as Laila, and KakiCumMasi.
The forced physical intimacy of the leads appears contrived. It can only evoke sexual tension in a pre-pubescent boy, who has discovered his first remotely sexual awakening.The scenes miss a grown woman's perspective. No woman likes her personal space encroached by a man, especially one she does not trust or love and even if she does, she prefers the person follow her body language and cues before forcing any touches on her.
If she is scared, you don't push her to the wall and expect her to fall head over heels in love with you. If she is aroused, you don't call her shameless and expect her to excuse you. A woman who confesses her love in public and gets equally publicly rejected, especially one who is raised in a protective and shielded world, cannot be expected to be nonchalant and persistent. Yet, we watch those scenes, and believe that in some way, its romantic and exactly what a woman would do in that situation. Then we are given justifications such as Rudra's ardent protectionism or Paro's unshaken belief in Shiv-Parvati story somehow qualify Paro, the woman, to accept her station in life and continue to convince the man of her true love, even after he accuses her of being a wanton woman.
The show never convincingly portrayed a woman's helplessness. Paro's angst and orphan status in a strange house have been more eloquently discussed in the forum. Incisive posts (by napster,NB, AyeReKhushi, FLS, tvbug, swetz, eveline to name a few) have done a fantastic job of explaining Paro, where the CVs left off. In the show, one never got to feel Paro's emotional depth and If ever her emotions were considered, they were equated with free flowing tears or naivete.
I am not saying that men are incapable of writing a woman's pov. However, a writer's nuance comes through from rich and varied experiences in life. If you've never had your heartbroken and never sensed the helplessness of a lonely woman cornered in a dark street of an unsafe neighborhood, how do you expect to capture her pain and fear? As a writer, if you have not experienced any of it, then you have to ask those who have and then hope that you can do a close approximation, if not full justice to that person's experience in your narrative.
One does not need to go far to see that stories told from a woman's perspective can be highly successful and effective. take Queen or Blue Jasmine for instance. The stories did complete justice to the listlessness of two broken women, albeit dealing with vastly different crises. Narrating Rudra's story should not compromise Paro's story, because one cannot be told with out the other. We get that Rudra has a disastrous past, but Paro herself has not been spared the pain of losing her parents. His misogyny has to affect Paro's distilled views in life otherwise, it simply shows Paro as a superhuman, or utterly insensitive. She is neither of that.
Debate is whether RR completely misses the target on a woman's perspective?
Please refrain from personal comments, attacks on any CVs, showmakers or posts, simply keep the comments directed at RR and its creative effect.
ok - off to listen to some mindless Yo Yo Honey Singh-eh!! 😉
Sports
Kumkum Bhagya
