Does Bhansali misrepresent lives of prostitutes?

I think only Gangubai was probably a realistic depiction of what prostitutes go through.

Otherwise Bhansali seems to gloss over realities of lives of courtesans, tawaif, prostitutes and presents it as if they were queens, dressed like queens, lived like queens.

Promo of Heeramandi also calls them queens.

No wonder many little girls also copy those songs or dances or style of adaab etc., thinking it must be fun.

Why do Hindi films erase realities of life at kotha and lives of women there and pretend they had hunky dory lives, lived great, lavish, queen style life and erases possibilities of human trafficking, sexual abuse, disrespect and other things women had to go through? Or shows a prostitute more outspoken, having more agency and power eventually? Almost as if it was ticket to power?

I think showing harsh realities of lives of these women was more important than showing it as full glamour or fun.

No matter how much he ‘glosses’ it over, I doubt there is any single soul who aspires to be a prostitute. So I don’t even understand what one means when they say he ‘glossed’ it over.

in old times the kings used to send their sons to kothas to learn tehzeeb from coutersans (not body sellers)

kotha (to listen naach gaana only) and chakla (for mere sex and body selling) were two different things in olden times..

so maybe his depiction is based on these buried realities of history

Didn’t they don’t that kind of ? In Devdas when Aishwarya tried to bring Madhuri to her family function the family was less than accepting.

I have never heard of sons being sent to kotha to learn tehzeeb. This is first time I am hearing this.

What i have read in umrao Jan Ada is (the story on whom umravjan Ada was filmed) kotha means that prostitution only. In old days they had to dance and sing to lure them. They were called in mehfils to dance and sing. Other time rich people used to come there to enjoy the dancings and singing. They were paid certain amount by one person and for certain amount and till then she used to serve him like his lover but once the said duration is over they'd move to next person. She was kidnapped by some rival of her father. Many time people were sold. They were even bought for permanent in certain amount. When she started living independently she only sang and dance (at that time she was separated from her group since she got married to a goon, that goon was caught by police etc etc, so she was free to do so).

Usually the nawabs and son of nawabs were looted by them in form of huge gifts. Some salims went reckless in gifting that they were bankrupted.

Even if SLB shows Prostitution all shining and glossy, the one who are in it in real-life knows the hardship and hell of it. No one is going to take that route willingly unless they are in very bad financial condition.

Those who join willingly also doesn't have it all easy. Neither they stay in the business permanently. They all want the way out but due to their majboori they can't.

Our celebs too doesn't have it easy but everyone knows about it so kya bole.

No I don’t believe he glosses over courtesans stories b/c many courtesans were wealthy & powerful even during the British Raj! No-one ever aspires to be a prostitute & he depicts them so gracefully & correctly, even then, none of us would ever want to live their lives even for a hour!!! So there I disagree. Gangubai seems like an accurate depiction b/c it was during the modern times aka today. So we relate to it & understand it most b/c we know that’s how their lives are. Courtesans weren’t technically prostitutes, they were learned entertainment women (its a different matter that all were logically, prostitutes!) but they had utmost refinement, grace & elegance to them, they were learned & rather educated, wealthy thanks to the wealthy patrons that visited them. In the olden times, the Kings & Emperors & Sultans sent their sons/male relatives to these courtesans to learn the pleasures of the bed & the art of seducing women.

I believe he depicts them accurately but more importantly, with compassion. There is a certain obvious feminism in his depiction of these so-called downtrodden women. And I believe that is why, a lot of women like his cinema.

Originally posted by: atominis

I have never heard of sons being sent to kotha to learn tehzeeb. This is first time I am hearing this.

Surprising.. right? I know

But this is a fact known to many.. you can even Google it if available or can ask the ones who have knowledge of Mughal era' history

The kings indeed used to send little shahzaadas to kothas to learn manners, courtesy and other forms of tehzeeb

The chakla girls used to be called rand1/baiswaa (in hindi vaishyaa) and were abused just like you have mentioned

The nautch girls from kothas were different and most of them never used to sell their body but just their art in form of naach gaana just like today's women from the entertainment world on screen

Originally posted by: atominis

I have never heard of sons being sent to kotha to learn tehzeeb. This is first time I am hearing this.

Yea they were. Many many Nawabs, Sultans, Kings etc were sent to learn how to pleasure women by these courtesans. The courtesans extracted very heavy price too, they were wealthy thanks to these rulers. The Mughals IIRC, used to do this quite regularly. But in their case, they had such courtesans with them 24/7, so there was no need to pay visits to their havelis etc.