Originally posted by: EstrellaNijam
That's what I am saying, people only sees her as 14 year old acting against a 33 years old man. People never try to see that being a 14 years old, she is doing a 18 years role (she is doing her job fantastically). People are only pointing to her acting, because she is wife !!! Then they also have to see that she is wife (18 years) to a husband of 24 years old.
Some people are ok with that, and some people are bothered by it. I'm in the latter group because I don't support child actors being portrayed as adults in this light. I see her on TV and she sounds and looks like a 14 year old to me, legally a child. She has a good friendship chemistry with Manish but that is all I can tolerate. It's sad for the entertainment industry because there are ACTUAL 18 year olds who could have portrayed this w/out causing a controversy and raising TRP's for the show.
It is surprising (for me) that you would not have any problem, if she had done something like pratigya and Sanchi. So, we are judging her on a point, where she has no control of herself. She is acting, and being Roli is only part of her acting. The idea is a "ad-hominem fallacy" that "I don't like her acting, because she is playing Roli" and "would have liked her acting, if she played pratigya and Sanchi." Is that fair? If we really want to be fair, we should criticize her acting.. If you have told me that "she does not do a good job portraying a 18 year because, because she is a child" .. that I would have accepted because that was the criticism of the acting ability, but what does that matter that what role she is playing, when all she is doing is nothing other than acting?
My problem is not with Avika, but the people in charge of casting. She's an actress and I can understand that actors cannot be picky in choosing roles, especially when they are not as established as the veterans.
I don't like going into details about other shows on forums that have nothing to do with those shows, but I'll do it here in order to illustrate my point:
There are sooo many shows with the post "Kyun ki Saas Bhi..." ideal bahu images. Colors was doing a decent job at not having these until the SSK track screwed up and Simar went from a woman with dreams to just another housewife and Roli went from a normal teen to just another housewife. We need more shows where young women are strong and are involved in things other than the stereotypical image of marriage.
Saanchi and Pratigya are strong women that go beyond the "All I do is housework and take care of my family while looking pretty 24/7" housewive stereotype. Saanchi is fighting for her family's rights and dedicating her time to studies while fighting sexual harassment. Pratigya is a housewife, yet her character is simple and she does other things besides getting involved in petty kitchen dramas. The same can be said for Priyal Gor's character as well from Dekha Ek Khwab. She was a hard working individual the entire time. You can bring up the love track with her former beau Akash, but most of the fans actually disliked that track altogether and ironically complained because...he was too old.
The writers for SSK on the other hand, embraced the ideal housewife stereotype for Roli (she doesn't even go to school anymore). She went from being a happy go lucky teenager to just another bahu.
In Shakespearian time, females were not allowed to act in a play. Men would make-up like women and played the part of female in a play. Even in "Rome and Juliet," Juliet was portrayed by a male and he actually kissed a male (Romeo) in the play. If the audience would think that way, they would never come to see the act (remember that was 15th century, the idea of gay was unimaginable/unaccepted then). They never said, the men who portrayed Juliet was a gay, because whatever they portray if their acting was good, everybody would praise them. Because acting was their job.
To the bold: That's actually false. There's speculation that Shakespeare may have been gay/bisexual himself. Homosexuality was seen as normal during Ancient Greece times and even during Da Vinci's times. I have a degree in English but this can also be found on the internet as well
Do we hate any actor just because they are romancing younger female in their movie? Do people hate shahrukh khan because he played a negative role in "Dar"? Do people hate Aamir Khan because he was portrayed as a terrorist in "Fanaa"?
Estrella, I'm going to be honest. It's disappointing to see you think that I hate a particular actor/actress. I said it before and I'm saying it again for the millionth time that I have nothing against Avika or any other actor. My issues are with the higher ups, the people who are in charge of casting.
Fanaa is an example. I don't hate Aamir for playing the role of a terrorist. However, I hate the entertainment industry for constantly portraying Muslims as terrorists. Nearly any movie that has been released in the past decade and has had a Muslim character as a main character has been about terrorism (New York, Fanaa, Kurbaan).
All of the answer is "no." We would at most blame the production house, that they are showing older actor and younger actresses together without knowing the reason. The last two questions are more pertaining to Roli's character. Only because Shahruukh khan and Aamir portrayed a negative role..does not mean that they have lost their acting ability, or they are bad because they have chosen that kind of role. Same is for Roli, we cannot say that all she has done are wrong just because she is acting as "Roli." If we can say that, please tell me why???
Again, this goes back to the people in charge of the show and behind the cameras...not the ones who are in front of the cameras. They are ok with older actors pairing with younger actresses because people want to see young females and young women and the industry wants to show them that as well. I will refuse to think the industry has evolved until an older female character is paired with a younger male character. Then I can see some equality.
Going back to pratigya (because I have not seen Ruckh jaana nahi)' ha ha. Pratigya is a rebellious character, but... Pratigya submitted to the force of society and married Krishna (when she knew that Krishna was the one who kidnapped her). Do you know how self-insulting the idea might be (at least for me) to accept the same man as a husband who has kidnapped me and tried to ruin my respect in society !!! If she had really been shown that rebellious/progressive character she would have never married to Krishna. That would create an example for the society that a girl is not the subject of submission only. If a girl wants, she can maintain her self-respect, even if that would mean going against the society. Unfortunately' everybody says pratigya is progressive, when she actually ruined her self-respect only because of society. !!!
Pratigya definitely has issues, I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't. Krishna basically threatened her numerous times in order to marry her. I disagree that she submitted to the force of society, it was out of legitimate fear. Was it right? Of course not. Even the fans will tell you that it was straight up messed up and wrong. Nearly every TV show has issues and logic is usually not utilized very much.
However, Pratigya later came to know that Krishna was not the person who kidnapped her, but does that change the truth that "she married him knowing he was the culprit"? In my POV, no, never. Yet, I adore her because she has done so many progressive things after her marriage. I really appreciate the character of Pratigya, but still she will always be a non "self-respectable" person for me because she had lost her "self-respect" when she married Krishna.
She did it to save her family from the torture. It's actually a pretty sad situation, and I'm surprised that you are giving her so much blame and saying she lost her self-respect. But I digress, each to his/her own.
Since pratigya has done many things, you have compared her to Roli. I am glad that you have done so, because know I can introduce you to a new Roli, that you have never met before (if you have, then you forgot). if you want to compare her to Roli, Roli is not less in any way than her. Actually she has been shown as the foil (a very strong term) to Simar. If you have seen ssk regularly after Rosid's marriage, then read the numbered examples below. But if you have not, let me tell you, unlike pratigya show, ssk has no storyline or message. Although ssk cannot even reach near pratigya, they did a good job showing Roli as a progressive character (in my opinion, more than Pratigya, because at least she has not lost her self-respect). If you want to know how and have seen ssk then read:
1. When Simar did not want the divorce to happen between Prem and Roli, because of "Khokle usuul" (as Sid says), Roli was always ready to divorce Prem (unlike stereotypical Indian woman (like simar), who would think divorce is "maha pap," no matter how many life may be ruined if that divorce do not happen)
2. Knowing that nobody would marry her, Roli actually divorced Prem. Simar did not know that, because if she had known she would never let it happen. (it was Sid's decision to marry her, otherwise, no stereotypical Indian male would not marry her)
3. After married she was shown to be the progressive character in the whole show. She always responded back to Uma Pari.
4. Roli said "It is not fair, that they (uma pari) are making us washing the dishes that are already clean." It was Simar, who said "they are elders; we should do what they says." (which is a stereotype that gives the idea that, younger should obey their elders even if the elders are terribly wrong.)
5. Roli was the one who tried to go against Uma and Pari and justice herself by telling the incident of "blocked water pipe" to everybody. But it was Simar again, who said, "we should not do that, they are part of our family." Simar actually showed the balancing of play cards, that Roli should know how to balance the peace inside a family. She forgot to mention that "when part of a family is rotten, it may rot the other part also" (when you place a good mango inside a bucket full of bad mangoes, the mangoes do not become good. But '.. when you place a rotten mango inside a bucket full of good mangoes, then all good mangoes becomes rotten as well) Roli did not try to throw those rotten mangoes (Uma pari) out of bucket (family), but she wanted to refine them, but could not do that only because of Simar.
6. when Uma pari put a bucket full of boiling water so that Simar would burn her leg, Roli changed the bucket and put the boiling water in Uma-Pari's room. She was modest enough to only warn Uma-Pari on their deeds. She was not so mean that she would let Uma burn her leg. This time she was successful showing her rebellion, because Simar was unaware of the whole incident.
7. When "barsi of dadduji" happened, Roli took the challenge to figure out who brought egg in a "Bhraman house," not simar. She found out that deed was of Uma and Pari, but Simar did not let her tell everybody. She has to accept her defeat (although she own) in the challenge because Simar forced her.
8. When Uma and Pari made it obvious that Simar was the one who brought water in the "holi" Simar did not say anything. If Roli was in her place, she would have figured out who did that "harkat" as she did in the case of "egg"
9. She was the one who said to teach a lesson to "monoranjan masi." She was the one who convinced Simar, because she wants to fight back the injustice. Like Indian typical women, Simar is the one who cannot think like Roli.
10. As simar the family thinks "a wife should know all things about a husband," (like typical Indian people thinks), Roli does not think that way, because she is a practical character. She even said "how would I know Sinddhanti's birthday, when we never talked about it? Was his birthday published in a newspaper? mujhe sapnaa ayega kaya (about his birthday)?" When on the other hand Sid says (to my surprise) "she is careless, she even does not know my birthday..," when he knows that very well, that he never had that type of conversation with her ever. That day I realized that, Roli is more open-minded and practical person than any other member of ssk family.
Roli is not a horrible character. I like her personality and Avika does a good job portraying her. I don't like what the writers have done with her.
In the beginning, she was an adorable child sister of Simar. Her marriage to Prem was taboo because 1) Prem was not hers and 2) She was not at the age for marriage. Yet, Siddhant easily takes her and puts sindoor in her maang without even verbally asking if she was ok with it. She did not even have the chance to say anything when the grandma said that her life was ruined and no one would marry her. Because that in itself is a backwards notion. I don't like how her education stopped (we never see her going to school) and she is just dealing with household chores and petty kitchen problems.
1)It is not Avika's fault that ssk is not pratigya. Even if Roli is not a character like pratigya, she always tries to fight against injustice. Roli is much more sensible and practical than others, even her husband Sid. 2)Moreover, Sid, decided to marry Roli; Roli never went to Sid and said "nobody would marry a divorced woman like me, you are my only hope, please marry me!!!"
3)And if you think Roli's (not Avika) staying close or being attracted to her own husband is showing a stereotypical woman behavior !!!, then not only in India, this stereotype is going on and is accepted from the beginning of civilization in all place, all country all the time.
1) I never said it was Avika's fault that she is not Saanchi or Pratigya or what have you. Again, I'm criticizing the ones in charge of the show.
2) Roli's marriage to Sid was an injustice in itself because you're right, no one asked her anything and she did have the opportunity to say anything. This poor girl already went through a lot yet had a bright life ahead of her but then was back in shackles again.
3) Stereotypical ideal Indian wife is what I was getting at, not stereotypical wife (because this definition varies from region to region in the world). The stereotypical ideal Indian wife is the post "Kyun Ki Saas..." wife/bahu image: Heavy clothes/jewelry, constantly wearing heavy makeup, only dealing with household stuff, and rarely interacting with anyone outside of the in-laws' house.
But you bring up an interesting point regarding wife and husband attraction. Roli and Sid's non-platonic attraction is going to be difficult to swallow. I don't think they will be able to pull off the cute hugs and romantic moments with wind coming out of nowhere the same way most onscreen couples can. Stomachs will churn, unless the people who own these stomachs left a long time ago 😆. But let's see if a 14 year old and a 32 year old will be able to do this if the writers put it in the script.
CID
