Does Bhansali misrepresent lives of prostitutes? - Page 2

I think the use of word 'queens' in Heeramandi promo irked me. And seemed like he was erasing hardships these women faced.

I do not know what film is like but this word was inappropriate according to me.

Though I agree he does use Gangubai, Chandramukhi etc to comment on hypocrisy of society and male chauvinism. Madhuri and Alia had really strong lines in his films.

But I still feel he sort of goes overboard with glamour when he shows courtesans and kotha in period films and hardly focused on abuse or trafficking part. Not all women willingly became tawaif back then.

Wow this is news to me. I never knew about it at all nor read about it anywhere earlier.

Thanks for this info.

Originally posted by: atominis

I think the use of word 'queens' in Heeramandi promo irked me. And seemed like he was erasing hardships these women faced.

I do not know what film is like but this word was inappropriate according to me.

Though I agree he does use Gangubai, Chandramukhi etc to comment on hypocrisy of society and male chauvinism. Madhuri and Alia had really strong lines in his films.

But I still feel he sort of goes overboard with glamour when he shows courtesans and kotha in period films and hardly focused on abuse or trafficking part. Not all women willingly became tawaif back then.

He doesn’t say they were “willing” to be courtesans. He shows the circumstances as to how they became courtesans. But there is agency in their character even then! Which is what I love about Bhansali’s movies. The women aren’t hapless & weak, even though life has dealt with them most unfairly; they’re spirited & strong- That’s what’s exciting about their characters.

He shows opulence b/c there WAS grandeur & opulence!! Like I said in my previous post, these courtesans were wealthy & lived a life of big luxury. so ofc he’ll depict that. 😆 How else do you think rulers & Emperors visited them. You think they would visit dirty/cheap/downtrodden places. Come on. 😆😆

But Bhansali types or any film hardly cover that.

Do you mean to say women at big kothas were never abused or forced or trafficked and became tawaif of own free will?

What I meant to say that Bhansali focuses more on glamour and opulence and less on hardship part.

Like for eg, we know nothing about Chandramukhi's past in Devdas. Her dialogues give a hint though about even betis of thakurs born at brothels and thakurs seeing their dances.

Originally posted by: atominis

But Bhansali types or any film hardly cover that.

Do you mean to say women at big kothas were never abused or forced or trafficked and became tawaif of own free will?

Bhansali overall focuses more on grandeur sets and look of the movie then raw emotions. so can be the case with depiction of prostitutes as well

SLB's movies tend to be larger than life and focus on grandeur and opulence. There is some embellishment. However, I don't think there is any intentional misrepresentation or glossing over their genuine hardships.

I agree with MEB that SLB portrays a somewhat feminist take on prostitution. There is a level of humanization and compassion that he bestows upon them. He doesn't resort to the male gaze but gives them the dignity of sharing their lives through their perspectives.

I also think SLB pays more attention to the deeper history of tawaifs or courtesans and not the modern erasure that sees them only as fallen or downtrodden women.

As MEB said, courtesans weren't prostitutes. They were entertainers. They were well-versed in traditional dance, music, theatre, and literature. They were often members of the royal court and considered well-versed in etiquette. Not just sons but daughters were also sent to courtesans to learn etiquette. Courtesans trained noblewomen in the arts and graces so their fathers could present them as suitable brides.

Some courtesans did indulge in prostitution. Many were concubines to kinds and nobles. But many merely entertained. The kothas had wealthy patrons, and the women did live luxurious lifestyles. Many were privy to drunken nobles secrets and used them to manipulate nobles and wield soft power.

SLB doesn't shy from the juxtaposition that despite enviable wealth and soft political power, they never had respect or equity in society. Chandramukhi enjoys considerable wealth and popularity. But even Devdas despises her. Her patrons are unafraid to put her in her place if she crosses the line. Chunni is the only one who treats her as an equal and a friend.

And it must be noted that colonization changed courtesans in India. It was during the British colonization that social perceptions started shifting. They went from being teachers of graces and etiquette to the seedy underbelly of society. They started losing royal patronage and support and were now forced into prostitution to sustain themselves.

If anything, SLB shows an ugly truth to society. Prostitutes exist because those among us in polite society desire them. They live in luxury because those among us in polite society want to indulge in their carnal pleasures in luxury. Yet somehow the prostitute is the one we're wary of and look down on.

He depicts them with passion and sincerity..i feel the best in business to do so..it also comes from a very personal space in his case since his mother was also a prostitute and he was fascinated by it right from his childhood..

Bhansali has a tendency to glamorize tawaifs. But then he always put women on a pedestal as goddesses. But he's not the only one. In Kalank Madhuri's kotha looks as grand and glamorous as her ex-lover Sanjay Dutt's mansion. And we're supposed to believe that he's more wealthy and powerful than her. So much so that she lies to save their son from his wrath. But where's the power parity

Saba Dewan's book Tawaifnama gives a more realistic idea of life in Kothas. The author narrates the story of a real-life tawaif and her ancestors from the time Rebellion of 1857. Their lives are glamourous. But they have to support a huge family and male family members took a huge part of their earnings since the British Law supports a patriarchal system. They were tricksters. But at the same time at the mercy of capricious lovers who would discard them and their children as they pleased. One was murdered by a sadistic Prince, one little girl was sent by the family to a perverted old man because the family was starving and they couldn't wait for her to grow up and they couldn't afford her the traditional training. There is plenty of light stuff too. Like how they tricked a staunch opposer to becoming an ally by promising to reform according to Gandhian ideals.