Doesn’t ‘Love, Sex aur Dhoka’ Degrade Women?
The fourth week of March, 2010.
Let it be remembered that this was the week I saw Love Sex Aur Dhoka. It had good reviews, so why not?
(Warning: Spoiler Alert!)
Of course, this is a personal rant. While this movie is different from your typical song-and-dance-Bollywood-movie (it still had a song-and-dance sequence), in many ways it’s just not deviating enough. You have a collection of three short stories (“love”, “sex” aur “dhoka”, though I must admit it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that!). Similarly, you have a collection of three heroes, three heroines, three villains, and three instances of a ‘supporting cast’. Oh and three different sets of cameras.
Instead, it Degrades Women.
All three women (yes three women), were stereotyped to the point of absurdity.
Case 1: Shruti
Shruti, the first heroine, is this totally random woman who “falls in love” with some guy. She cries when hes leaving, and instead elopes and gets married. REALLY? You have a dad with a gold chain, and you’re scared chicken to take his phone call! This is, of course, a very common male fantasy (No: MF-35710):
You see this rich sweet cute funny girl, and you’re in love. You have no hope. But being who you are, she falls in love with you. You elope. You win.
Case 2: Rashmi
Dark skinned girls are not beautiful, apparently. The fairer ones are the first choice for our idiot hero Adarsh. Poor Rashmi, dark skinned, pimply, quiet, isn’t she waiting for some attention? But our man is such a nice boy, still goes ahead and dates her. Wow! Really, what a man! For all his effort, he must be awarded back by Rashmi no?
Save me from all this torture. This is another male fantasy (MF-44221):
Man who goes out with dark skinned girl is a great human being. A true man. He has sacrificed so much, and expects not much in return.
Case 3: Naina
A small town girl, ruined by her dreams to become big in Mumbai. Naina’s had to “compromise” after all, and as a result forever banished to wear skimpy shiny gaudy dresses. But don’t worry, everyone has to do it. And discuss it over veg momos and water (Oh! How cute!!). But if shes “compromised” before, why not compromise again, especially to bring down her arch enemy? Fantastic script, says the director. Add to that Mr. Loki Local, bhangra hip-hop star (and a jab at Mika Singh). He must always be surrounded by women, preferably blond. Wonderful! Two male fantasies in one story, dear readers!
First (No: MF-50246):
A woman who compromises is a witch and deserves to die. But it’s nice to have her phone number on your cell. You know, for your “khujli”.
And second (No: MF-91023):
Any “star” in the music industry is a promiscuous hodge-podge, and must be revered by all men. The ultimate profession.
But You Shouldn’t Shoot The Messenger
Its obvious I’m against this movie. But a friend put things in perspective. His tweet, in reply to LSD being degrading to women:
The movie isn’t but society is. The movie portrays what has become of the society today. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Why should we always expect a Karan Johar-type happy movie? Directors and producers have every right to release films that deal with explosive topics. (Previously I had written that we shouldn’t expect them to always be moralistic).
But is this society today? Are we being shown those images as a reminder of whats wrong with our society, if wrong at all?
Is this movie even a correct portrayal of today’s society? What if its just male fantasies? Fantasies have become bolder, murkier, and more obnoxious?