Mannat Har Khushi Paane Ki: Episode Discussion Thread - 39 - Page 88

I saw the episode - Vikrant really disgusts me!

But I am here to talk about Mannat and DCP!

Yes DCP was fabulous!! If the writers and makers are giving me opportunity why wouldn’t I! 2 mins of his scene he is rocking as a true supporter of Mannat. Mannat was so broken after seeing Vikrants deeds…. Hope he pays a hefty price! I was so glad DCP stood next to her he understands Mannat and is very protective about her - I am only praising what is shown! His shock but a subtle nod from Mannat when he congratulated and was trying to say that he also thought they were married. One nod from Mannat he stopped.

it was hard to say who is the ML and Manit is doing a fabulous job of not overpowering Adnan but at the same time standing with Mannat! This trio is awesome to watch!

If Vikrant comes out his dirty mind he would see how lucky he is that his whole family has been protected by his elder brother. His elder brother should be his role model on how to respect women. Vik is not only playing with Mannat but he is also using Yashika. How he used Malla. After 7 years he is back to his repetitive behavior. there was time when I used to praise Vik for respecting Mannat as a women, this post leap Vikrant is truly a nightmare.

Had tears in my eyes when Mannat was remembering the pheras … this man had pheras and big big promises not one time but two…. He has the audacity to blame Mannat for not being wafadaar.

Credit where it belongs…. All three actors are fab! Manit Ayesha and Adnan!!! What an amazing performance! Today even Sharain was fabulous in her performance!

Originally posted by: Mona_HappyLife

Unable to agree with the fact that Mannat as FL gets sympathy due to audience having higher female ratio.

If that was actually the case then there wouldn't have been any uproar when Vikrant got sexually assaulted so many times. This get talked about till date. We ourselves have dissed the makers so many times for not giving Vikrant any justice. Till date we all find Malla's character nauseating because of the very reason.

Also If female ratio had to be the major thing then Adnan as Vikrant’s character wouldn't have got so much love till now. Even today he is at no. 1. Its not only about him essaying the role so well but also the way his character has been written so far. Quite flawed but relatable.

2 examples which u stated -

1) We crucified Vikrant for forgiving Malla and trusting her, fair enough, when Mannat forgave ARS for murder,...

--> Yes Mannat did the mistake and when she got to know she owned it, rectified it. She didn’t wait for anyone to help her out. She herself went all out against ARS but Vikrant even after knowing how Malla is after what all she did he still went on to say pre-leap that whatever she did was out of love for him. Lol. Even today she is enjoying all the benefits.

2) when Vikrant lied about fake engagement we crucified Vikrant though he fell for Malla's true friend promises & that...

--> During fake marriage also Vikrant still had viewers sympathy. Makers executed his part quite well. He did fake rituals with Malla & got bashed here in the forum & on X but that ONS changed everything's for him. All the audiences including us were on his side and we sympathized him. He was not even that much crucified the way Mannat gets every now & then and that entire plot got balanced. But incase of RoTu & Aman truth, Mannat got crucified the most.

I just gave examples of audience reaction to 2 similar scenarios. I didn't get into aftermath since that's again writers and how they would like to take the characters forward. That's unrelated to audience reaction isn't it ?

Again the post intention was not Mannat or Vikrant or Mannat vs Vikrant, it's highlight audience reaction to similar scenes.

Lets take for example, last sentence in the above post, are we sure Mannat got crucified the most , if so wouldn't Mannat have to take all the blame for what happened since this triggered the dominion effect (I am intentionally leaving other characters out and sticking to ManVik) ?

Again, I am not saying Mannat has to take the blame or not take the blame since that's not the intention of my post just posing a question and if we are sure this is what is happening and audience reacts to scenes without gender bias. Vikrant got sympathy from audience about ONS, not for lying and hurting Mannat during fake engagement.

I don't understand polls, TRP so no clue how these work 😬

Originally posted by: Rdigest

Some philosophy and a long post which I didn't want to write. Irrational maybe rational for the person whose brain is fogged by deception, lies, abandonment, betrayal and the trauma they are living through for years.

We are able to make judgements because we have additional information from story perspective which Mannat and Vikrant do not have.

Were Vikrant's dialogues about money and asking Mannat to stay in SM out of line absolutely yes. Does Mannat have an option to walk out, absolutely Yes. Mannat already made a decision and threatened Neetu to never meet Vikrant which degraded her health further. Still Mannat didn't change her decision about Neetu meeting Vikrant which was her last wish. We didn't call Mannat ruthless did we, because this was for Dua. So, why not walk out now?

Do we think when Mannat finds out Malla fooled her while she was waiting for Vikrant with divorce papers, she wouldn't see where Vikrant's anger was coming from, do we think when Vikrant realizes why Mannat was so hurt at the funeral, Vikrant won't understand Mannat's anger ? Would we only want Vikrant to understand what Mannat went through but not Mannat understanding what Vikrant went through?

At the moment all I see is writers are actually giving parallels between Mannat and Vikrant and how both were/are wrong. However, Mannat being the fl and a mother audience end up justifying everything Mannat does and automatically sympathize with her because of the audience ratio between females: males. It's like Vikrant being ml and a gender who cannot conceive also works against him.

I will give 2 more examples why I brought up female audience being the majority and how we always react in favor of fl. 1) We crucified Vikrant for forgiving Malla and trusting her, fair enough, when Mannat forgave ARS for murder, attempted murder, promising not to reveal assault attempt on herself, did the audience react? Infact we felt bad for Mannat, because ARS was fooling her. 2) when Vikrant lied about fake engagement we crucified Vikrant though he fell for Malla's true friend promises & that she was Mannat's friend & never sympathized with him vs when Mannat planned to lie, keep Vikrant in dark about his identity, the crimes RoTu did we defended Mannat saying it's for Vikrant's benefit.

Trust , We hear Mannat's dialogue Vikrant never trusted her and hail Mannat, but we ignore the fact Vikrant trusted Mannat up until Mannat herself confirmed she lied after the video played and was planning to keep lying to him his whole life.

I/we make fun of writers for lack of creativity , but have to say writers keep the balance between Mannat and Vikrant in what they do, how they react. We react to scenes differently between Mannat and Vikrant. We can call them names and anything else but hoping the writers have plan to clear this whole mess out eventually 🤞🙈 . I am going to enjoy the episodes finally with ManVik, AdSha after 2.5 months of torture & hits and misses.

Will add something which stuck me and made me write this post by @Betty 🤩

"He knows his woman. How could she move on. As an audience their love may not make sense to us and we may judge it but those two understood their love perfectly"

Is it really a gender bias against ML as you say or is it actually gender based perceptions and expectations that dont match the characterization of a typical ITV viewer????

The way I see it.. Mannat and Vikrants characterization is 'subversion of archetype' ... a trick of defying audience expectations by reversing or altering typical traits associated with that character.

The female lead Mannat is one who kidnaps, hunts and fights goons, has a crazy streak to her that doesnt mind hitting people. Everybody goes crazy for Gundi Mannat, Everyone cherishes Gundi Mannat... Everyone loves Gundi Mannat... Everyone loves the same trait in Aishwarya even though she is a villain. Mona makes it even easier to love her.

Mannat is unapologetic, ruthless and even cruel when the situation demands it. She takes matters in her hands and is capable enough to work independently.

All the qualities which are typical masculine traits.

In contrast, Vikrant is a Princess. Has been pampered all his life, by Everyone including Mannat. Lives in his imaginary and actual castle waiting for someone to show him the right path, always being reactive rather than proactive.

Needs help in making sense of things. Too pure to see through people's wrong motives. Being a perpetual damsel in distress.

All qualities traditionally associated with feminine characters...

So going by your logic of having a majority female audience vs a male audience... is it really wrong if the audience expects the ML to behave in a standard template???? Or even a little bit on that side???

The majority female audience loves masculine traits in the FL and expects the same in ML ... an actual male... why is it wrong?

Why are Vikrants faults given a justification as writers messing it up for him but for every other character including Mannat and DK its the audience perception which is questioned???

Why 2 set of rules?????

How many times have we let Vikrant off the hook because either Malla manipulated him or ARS or Neetu or Vishkha ….. where is his stand?

Why is he always the bichara? Why can’t he standup and for once try to understand Mannat. Every time we cannot give excuses that the ML is being manipulated by vampires.

who manipulated him today to accept the proposal? When he is not in love with Y. Where is his respect for woman now? He knows Neetu needs surgery he gave his petty tears and held Neetus hands saying useh koi farak nahi padta sab kya sochte hai he wants to help as Aman Kumar so be it… now at the wee hour when Mannat came to SM on his direction he is keeping another deal. The audacity of him to blame Mannat on letting Neetu die. Wah!

Everything he did today was not under anyone else’s influence. There was no Vish or Malla or ARS or Y…. This is all Vikrant alone in his anger. He has always had anger issues and there is zero growth.

Asking a married woman to stay and the way he said bahut paise milenge bahut…. That was all Vikrant. Where is his love for Neetu? Why is he getting upset when Mannat said meri neetu ma!

Mannat not allowing Neetu to see Vikrant - well did Vikrant come to see her when he was in Indore? Not once! Why would Mannat agree to Neetu when she had the right hide the birth truth of Vikrant. Mannat equally has the right now to tell whatever she wants to Dua. We as audience know what the truth is but Mannat doesn’t. So why would a mother go tell her daughter that your father is a person who CA me and said you were my and Dhairyas?

True! Except for Manit's voice which puts me off sometimes, his expressions are good.

I didnt understand the dialogue properly there, did Vik ask only mannat and dua to stay in SM or included DK too? When BTS was aired, I was thinking he put that condition to make sure Neetu will be in SM and whoever stays along with her. If he was not shown thinkng in that way, the writers failed him again. Everything is in their hands...they just have to sit and think how a "good" man behaves. They are doing it with DK not with their ML, that too for a mother character who can they use left right and center to make him mahaan. But no. Seriously?!!

Originally posted by: sadiltl

True! Except for Manit's voice which puts me off sometimes, his expressions are good.

I didnt understand the dialogue properly there, did Vik ask only mannat and dua to stay in SM or included DK too? When BTS was aired, I was thinking he put that condition to make sure Neetu will be in SM and whoever stays along with her. If he was not shown thinkng in that way, the writers failed him again. Everything is in their hands...they just have to sit and think how a "good" man behaves. They are doing it with DK not with their ML, that too for a mother character who can they use left right and center to make him mahaan. But no. Seriously?!!

Vikrant only and only asked Mannat to stay in SM that too he specifically said puri zindagi nahi… jab tak meri aur Yashika ke shaadi nahi ho jati…

There was no mention of Dua or Neetu or DK or Ronnie…… he specifically asked Mannat to stay.

After he said bahut paise milenge…. Where DCP and Mannat were disgusted…. He said for catering his shaadi.

So no he didn’t mean anyone else explicitly to come to SM.

Originally posted by: Moor278

Is it really a gender bias against ML as you say or is it actually gender based perceptions and expectations that dont match the characterization of a typical ITV viewer????

The way I see it.. Mannat and Vikrants characterization is 'subversion of archetype' ... a trick of defying audience expectations by reversing or altering typical traits associated with that character.

The female lead Mannat is one who kidnaps, hunts and fights goons, has a crazy streak to her that doesnt mind hitting people. Everybody goes crazy for Gundi Mannat, Everyone cherishes Gundi Mannat... Everyone loves Gundi Mannat... Everyone loves the same trait in Aishwarya even though she is a villain. Mona makes it even easier to love her.

Mannat is unapologetic, ruthless and even cruel when the situation demands it. She takes matters in her hands and is capable enough to work independently.

All the qualities which are typical masculine traits.

In contrast, Vikrant is a Princess. Has been pampered all his life, by Everyone including Mannat. Lives in his imaginary and actual castle waiting for someone to show him the right path, always being reactive rather than proactive.

Needs help in making sense of things. Too pure to see through people's wrong motives. Being a perpetual damsel in distress.

All qualities traditionally associated with feminine characters...

So going by your logic of having a majority female audience vs a male audience... is it really wrong if the audience expects the ML to behave in a standard template???? Or even a little bit on that side???

Why are Vikrants faults given a justification as writers messing it up for him but for every other character including Mannat and DK its the audience perception which is questioned???

Why 2 set of rules?????

I am only going to stick to ManVik since we discussed in depth about why we like/dislike some side characters and I won't bring them into this post .

Did my post justify any of Vikrant's actions or Mannat's actions? Infact, I praised the writers for a change for bringing out equal actions and reactions from both characters and was focusing on how audience reacts differently to similar situations when played out on ML and FL.

And I still have issues with ML characterization and how he is kept in the dark until the final showdown, but that's not the intention of my post and to diss the writers like I always do.

Reaction of the audience I highlighted is irrespective of writing, characterization and how similar scenes get different reactions from audience.

Given the patriarchal setup in which the story belongs to, Vik has higher moral responsibility and he has only behaved selfish when the crisis came. The wedding day, he thought only about his betrayal. We can give him BoD because he is human and he felt betrayed and it is not easy to digest an indentity crisis. But what he has done after that puts him in a low moral standpoint. Seven years is a long time for introspection and to understand why Mannat hid the truth....they could have shown him trying to search mannat and his parents for once!! With wealth, power and status, he naturally assumes more moral responsibility than Mannat. Add his gender to it, then he has to be more responsible. Thats the minimum expectation.

Unfortunately, society is not yet there to see him and Mannat with same lens. Even if we see them with equal lens, what Vik has done to his foster parents is not morally right. IMHO. They should have shown him searching for them atleast once. Or when he found them out, immediately reach out to them...independent of what he feels for Mannat. Lets say if Mannat died, then what? would he leave his parents on the road? Or never searched for them? If one is this heartless (according to dumb writers how they are projecting him) to his own foster parents, enjoying their wealth, how in the first place will he raise someone else's child? I dont think people connected to Yuvi and him at all. Again writers fault for such poor execution. They just dont care. Insert one passionate hug and pray everything works out. Do not put effort in making him worthy of such hugs.

Originally posted by: sadiltl

Given the patriarchal setup in which the story belongs to, Vik has higher moral responsibility and he has only behaved selfish when the crisis came. The wedding day, he thought only about his betrayal. We can give him BoD because he is human and he felt betrayed and it is not easy to digest an indentity crisis. But what he has done after that puts him in a low moral standpoint. Seven years is a long time for introspection and to understand why Mannat hid the truth....they could have shown him trying to search mannat and his parents for once!! With wealth, power and status, he naturally assumes more moral responsibility than Mannat. Add his gender to it, then he has to be more responsible. Thats the minimum expectation.

Unfortunately, society is not yet there to see him and Mannat with same lens. Even if we see them with equal lens, what Vik has done to his foster parents is not morally right. IMHO. They should have shown him searching for them atleast once. Or when he found them out, immediately reach out to them...independent of what he feels for Mannat. Lets say if Mannat died, then what? would he leave his parents on the road? Or never searched for them? If one is this heartless (according to dumb writers how they are projecting him) to his own foster parents, enjoying their wealth, how in the first place will he raise someone else's child? I dont think people connected to Yuvi and him at all. Again writers fault for such poor execution. They just dont care. Insert one passionate hug and pray everything works out. Do not put effort in making him worthy of such hugs.

For writers that's missing piece, not showing what happened after he prayed for Mannat before leap , he even tells Ronnie I looked for you but and stops mid way. Hopefully they have something planned.

The passionate hug was so out of place more like giving pacifier to the audience for Valentine's day. I didn't care for the scene in itself but hats off to Ayesha and Adnan. Instead they could have focused on something more concrete story perspective.

Originally posted by: Rdigest

Some philosophy and a long post which I didn't want to write. Irrational maybe rational for the person whose brain is fogged by deception, lies, abandonment, betrayal and the trauma they are living through for years.

We are able to make judgements because we have additional information from story perspective which Mannat and Vikrant do not have.

Were Vikrant's dialogues about money and asking Mannat to stay in SM out of line absolutely yes. Does Mannat have an option to walk out, absolutely Yes. Mannat already made a decision and threatened Neetu to never meet Vikrant which degraded her health further. Still Mannat didn't change her decision about Neetu meeting Vikrant which was her last wish. We didn't call Mannat ruthless did we, because this was for Dua. So, why not walk out now?

Do we think when Mannat finds out Malla fooled her while she was waiting for Vikrant with divorce papers, she wouldn't see where Vikrant's anger was coming from, do we think when Vikrant realizes why Mannat was so hurt at the funeral, Vikrant won't understand Mannat's anger ? Would we only want Vikrant to understand what Mannat went through but not Mannat understanding what Vikrant went through?

At the moment all I see is writers are actually giving parallels between Mannat and Vikrant and how both were/are wrong. However, Mannat being the fl and a mother audience end up justifying everything Mannat does and automatically sympathize with her because of the audience ratio between females: males. It's like Vikrant being ml and a gender who cannot conceive also works against him.

I will give 2 more examples why I brought up female audience being the majority and how we always react in favor of fl. 1) We crucified Vikrant for forgiving Malla and trusting her, fair enough, when Mannat forgave ARS for murder, attempted murder, promising not to reveal assault attempt on herself, did the audience react? Infact we felt bad for Mannat, because ARS was fooling her. 2) when Vikrant lied about fake engagement we crucified Vikrant though he fell for Malla's true friend promises & that she was Mannat's friend & never sympathized with him vs when Mannat planned to lie, keep Vikrant in dark about his identity, the crimes RoTu did we defended Mannat saying it's for Vikrant's benefit.

Trust , We hear Mannat's dialogue Vikrant never trusted her and hail Mannat, but we ignore the fact Vikrant trusted Mannat up until Mannat herself confirmed she lied after the video played and was planning to keep lying to him his whole life.

I/we make fun of writers for lack of creativity , but have to say writers keep the balance between Mannat and Vikrant in what they do, how they react. We react to scenes differently between Mannat and Vikrant. We can call them names and anything else but hoping the writers have plan to clear this whole mess out eventually 🤞🙈 . I am going to enjoy the episodes finally with ManVik, AdSha after 2.5 months of torture & hits and misses.

Will add something which stuck me and made me write this post by @Betty 🤩

"He knows his woman. How could she move on. As an audience their love may not make sense to us and we may judge it but those two understood their love perfectly"

👏👏👏👏👏

❤️🤗