Kools Commentary : Sep 27 PR - Page 11

@ Kools

Well explained are the stands to a perhaps 'undeserving irregular one-with temerity to display'. The point is, if your views are visibly affecting the creative process then with the existence of such a potential, ought they not help cleanse an ugly anomaly from a probably good set-up? I mean, is this continued presence of shravani's illogical, baseless hindrance not marring the whole set-up? And while producers might have their own reasons to perpetuate it, is not one being manipulated in accepting or avowing this grotesqueness in the name of realistic 'humaneness'? While avidly supporting the ridicule of their laughably 'otherworldly' sacrificial Greatness on part of the lead, is it not even more artificial and 'forced' created- the humaneness on the part of a villain in disguise- with all the 'feathers' of a 'victimized', pragmatic and 'realistic' peahen? I mean, Archana- Manav's absurdly lofty characterization deserves a censor and ridicule; but, at least here, they have some plausibility in the name of a creatives's license to magnify the 'heroics' of a hero ( hastily- not that I approve), but, what about this even more artificial, synthetic 'grayness' on part of a jumbled character? This is leaving everything in limbo, and dissatisfying to the core- not a happy customer. For if even for a count of single TRP they have made me like this serial with original beautiful premise based on beautiful characterization of the leads, where a sensitive Archana has deftly saved a street urchin with quick wits or spontaneously breaking the crowd into the laughter and applause to help someone on the train or the hero's 'chance' witness to all these and a 'realistic' account of their coming together by an almost 'unrealistic' Providence, then I have a right to see them together. What they are doing now is something like cheating me out of my original buying with a 'forced' disposal of my purchase.

Elaborating further on the previous night's 'instantaneous reactional' response and building on it with a 'brazen temerity' of an irregular trifle-emboldened by the 'protection' of an 'indulging' condescension of a friend who is not expecting flattery-

1. I had neither wish nor any right to 'attack' or receive any 'hoarse defense' of the views which are personal or individual in nature. But my attempt was to point out an obvious bias ( I repeat bias) by an almost public columnist who is definitely helping voice the general grouse of the viewers and deserving fleecing of insane buffoonery of the script with such a competent hand.

2. When you say your satire is based on day-to- day script, your position is correct, but many times in your subsequent discussion or even in the column proper, you ARE drawing 'deeply' ( and not 'as episode develops...') both in dressing down (again no issue here) of the leads and/or very 'biased' ( the nagging 'issue') defense of 'humane/realistic/artistic' characters which does render lopsidedness in favour of those who are not the objects of our primary interest in the serial and who are thrashed upon us with some ulterior motives. And real dissatisfaction is about the deliberate or very selective 'favours'. Ironically, this is ending up espousing the chief 'mediocrity' of the serial in the name of 'realistic ordinariness'. (And may help them to continue with this 'grey' mediocrity, emboldened with a perverse interpretation of a support from public opinion, as you have already pointed this column's considerable impact.)

3. If this is the type of 'practical character' introduced, then heaven spares us from this practice. Labour laws and strikes are very much a current theme. And having seen the real anxieties of the elders to exit from even an outdated SS unit in Gujarat employing mere 50 workers ( after supporting them for 35 years) and forced to support them- subsidized from other recourses, I do tend to see the reasons in 'professionalism'. But, defending the capriciousness of Dharmesh behind the facade of professionalism or continuous justification of his actions in name of unemployment of 'thousands' (this ample amplification of numbers-'thousands'-both by CVs and defenders, itself is giving out the hollowness of the premise) is simply not convincing. As SF has beautifully put above, it is only 'project diamond butt' and as such, points only to a very flawed character with most inconsistent burst of selective professionalism.

I do not propose any debates hereby and will endeavour in not expecting our view to be voiced in a perceived ( by me) public column. As an individual I respect your 'prerogative' to your views and 'perspective' just as I to mine- each to their own.