The episode was tolerable for the most part. Neither likely to be particularly interesting nor particularly distasteful in terms of mass-viewership. Which would have been fine - if the other channels 8.30pm programmes were even remotely disinteresting and/or distasteful to the mass-audience. That is not the case. So such a lackadaisical approach is like being in a ditch and not even trying to climb out.
Would have enjoyed the last scene in terms of potential story-development if the tracks for over a year had shown awareness for what sort of developments can have the mass-audience switching channels and crashing viewership, despite their viewing tastes and preferences having been unvaryingly consistent year after year in ensuring continuance or closure of tracks, serials and sometimes channels.
While every track has been backfiring in its intent being sure to be contravened by garnering absolutely opposite reaction from mass-audience, today's last scene horrified on several points in mass-viewership terms rather than the performance etc.
I may dance a mini-jig if they show JM having good flashbacks and therefore saving Raja.
But not actually expecting the CVs to have prudence awareness of mass-perception and show it such.
What I *am* expecting is blunder-central.
JM having bad flashbacks, holding back from saving Raja long enough that he and the mass-audience can notice clearly and incontrovertibly that she held back, and then saving him.
(If they want to take the blunder to prizewinning levels, then they could show him saved by himself or by someone else other than her.)
Presumably they may have the lovely idea that JM having bad flashbacks would remind the mass-audience of her great travails and inspire the mass-sympathy that was absent in the track immediately after the deed - despite mass-audience having repeatedly condoned that deed itself, and other atrocious behaviour alongside by the male lead husband, with even greater ease.
If they are planning to show her having those bad flashbacks and yet saving him, which they may presume would show her mahaanta and impress mass-audience, then they have miscalculated as terribly as many times in the past.
Raja believes JM deliberately let his Baiji die to have revenge against him.
He has now seen her standing back and watching him in agony.
Whether or not she helps him after this, he should believe absolutely that the incident was her doing, and that she may have had cold feet at the the thought she would be the only suspect in the house if anything happened to him.
If he does not believe that, but actually believes her innocent of what he has just endured, then mass-audience can be counted on to extol him for being a most loving husband who has faith in his contrary wife even when the evidence is against her.
If he also goes against logic and believes her about Bhanu, then he may stand as a paragon of husbandly excellence by mass-audience's standards.
So the CVs - by having JM hold back with bad flashbacks - haven't ensured appreciation for her greatness in then saving him.
They have ensured that Raja will have mass-empathy regardless of whether he reacts positively or negatively to her.
Kudos to them for having just taken Raja past the level of being mass-condoned to being mass-appreciated, though one presumes that has not been their intent.
As for the precap, the CVs seem set on trying to build a highrise on a starkly inadequate foundation.
Had been hoping JM would find out about Bhanu drugging Raja, realize Bhanu was playing her, Raja and Dauji all as pawns, and then plot to secretly expose Bhanu to either Raja or both Raja and Dauji.
Instead, the precap promises a scene where if Dauji and his daughters believe the accusation in this unfortunately ill-crafted context, they will be fools of a commendable level.
Nor is mass-audience likely to have any sympathy for JM if she is not believed in the situation.
The CVs have a situation in which the developments can be counted on to stumble either way, so it's just a scene to tune in for the end of to see if the family or JM were fool in the situation. Not something to look forward to in and of itself, except to see what happens either way at the end of the scene, and the possibility of next scene being less confounding.
The scene of Bhanu first telling JM about Baiji was not just referred to in a scene, it was actually enacted and televised as a scene in itself.
Bhanu did mention that the matter was very serious, and JM's attitude before and after his threats was identically unobliging - which is understandable in the situation.
JM also told Radha - after hearing from Bhanu of Baiji's death - that when Bhanu had told her of Baiji being in a bad health situation, she felt he was exaggerating to get Raja out of jail.
So with mass-audience having an inconvenient habit of remembering and forgetting to suit their own convenience rather than that of the channel/CVs, with those two scenes done, why is JM repeatedly shown and mentioned as not having withdrawn the case because Bhanu didn't tell her about Raja being needed for a crucial blood-donation for Baiji?
If she believed Bhanu was exaggerating about Baiji's health, then would she not have believed even more that he was exaggerating if he had claimed that Raja was their only hope of getting the required blood and that they couldn't just go spend a bit more time looking around for other sources for the blood?
And in even more recent episodes, JM was shown valuing her self-respect more than Bittuji while he was in jail and then in hospital.
That's her foster-uncle who she's very fond of.
She capitulated only because Leelawati didn't just keep quiet and let Radha and JM leave Bittuji to bounce back to the jail.
How likely was she then to have withdrawn the far more important case against Raja to save Baiji with whom she had strong mutual antipathy?
Sympathy-gambits and engineered-dialogues have *never* worked in any series because they are merely additional proof that the mass-audience has not found that character or situation sympathizable as per their sensibilities.
JM is the girl who told the family she had come into the house to make their lives difficult, and the next morning first expected sympathy from them and then sought to legally prosecute her husband for a deed that neither his family nor the law consider an offence.
So if, as per the precap, that girl who already tried to have her husband jailed and then tried to divorce him now accuses the family's son-in-law of having ensured his mother-in-law's demise, Dauji and his daughters - and Raja - would all have to be witless to believe the accusation (though it's absolutely true) for even a moment.
Not including Faguni, because have confidence in her being shown as witless as needed to ensure sympathy-gambits. If there was any scope for that supporting character, it was finished with the female lead being shown in the two previous tracks as spiritedly fighting for her own rights.
The female lead gets mass-support for enduring for herself and fighting for others rights. Fighting for one's own rights, promptly or belatedly, is the female supporting character's point, and the female lead goes against her own life-values and supports her. It ensures that serials female lead and female supporting character get mass-support for sticking to the mass-appreciated pattern.
But here, the female lead's fight for herself has ensured the absence of mass-support for any story-development of her fighting for herself, or fighting for someone else. The latter option works only if she didn't fight for herself, making her a paragon and her support thus mass-empathized with.
So, for the sake of the serial's last legs, hope they don't try to play up Faguni's role as sympathy-gambit. They can just be assured of yet more viewership-lack.
No idea how much longer the series will go on for, and poor viewership is fortunately not awkward since it's in the same viewership-amounts as the channel's total range of fictional serials. But still, hope tracks that have staggering formatting of lack of success won't be obdurately attempted with consequent foreseeable viewership-lack at least at this juncture.
The mahaan female lead dealing with problems unilaterally works only if she has smilingly and respectfully endured extreme humiliations for months. This series is not even a pale fraction of that required extreme level, ensuring the female lead as unilateral savior being assuredly mass-unappreciable in its every variation in this series. 2 + 2 = 4. If '2 + 3 =' has been written in indelible ink, there is no scope for changing the equation while keeping it simple for the neededly huge proportions of mass-consumption, nor for changing the simple answer to one which is not led to by the simple equation.
Mass-audience does not watch for progressive ideas or being reformed by a daily half-hour of entertainment. They watch programmes which correspond to their viewing-preferences, and they switch channels when a scene or track is disinteresting and/or distasteful to their sensibilities. Crores of people individually watch without switching the channel, or they switch the channel. It tells the sponsors whether the track the channel permitted was getting enough massive millions of viewership. If not, the channel erred in its perception of viewership-potential of what it permitted for a serial's CVs, and the track closes with the lack of crucially needed massive viewership, with the next developments to be hopefully more pleasing to mass-audience and garner enough millions of viewership.
There are two ways to ensure mass-audience switching the channel via the female lead's traditionally-unappealing characterization - (1) her disrespect while speaking to and/or about her husband/sasuraal (regardless of their conduct), and (2) making everyone else (especially the husband) look stupid to showcase her cleverness.
*Both* ways are a humiliation, and mass-audience unfortunately may be counted on to *not* be stupid enough not to understand that with clarity and react very unappreciatively by continuing their viewership-wrecking inclination of switching the channel.
In a serial's lead couple, neither the husband nor wife can be shown with lack of shrewd sense in holding the household together in a mass-acceptable way, if there be intent by the channel/CVs to not get crashing viewership at length for the track.
Hopefully the channel/CVs don't repeat past blunders by trying to showcase the female lead's cleverness in a way that the mostly unprogressive mass-audience would skip watching and leave the viewership floundering for each day's screentime by any such foreseeably poor track-planning.
Let *both* leads show sense and shrewdness and efficacy, and let them reconcile fast - with mutual understanding, regard and care rather than one-sided harping on progressive ideas (that can be unreassuringly sure of not getting enough millions of viewership).
Let the couple then *unitedly* work against the antagonist (rather than the channel/CVs sterling twofold floprecord for this series of either the antagonist winning until the last few minutes of a track, or the mass-unappreciable inadequately-traditional heroine as the solo rescuer and saviour. Every track on both these variations has crashed with remarkably foreseeable lack of viewership).
Let the couple fight *together* against the antagonist, effectively and successful at every increasing step, culminating in their combined triumph as a couple.
Edited by leelaa9 - 11 years ago
Cricket
CID
